FCC net neutrality regulatory rollback didn't take effect Monday, said the commission and others, after some said it had. "None of the substantive provisions of the FCC’s internet freedom ruling and orders take effect until the transparency rule is cleared by the Office of Management and Budget and the FCC announces an effective date in the Federal Register," an agency spokesman told us. "All that takes effect today is a title change for Part 8 of the rules, from 'Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet' to 'Internet Freedom,' and the retention of statutory authority for two other sections." The FCC deregulation won't take effect for "weeks, at a bare minimum," said Mozilla fellow Gigi Sohn. Seeking support for a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, some lawmakers -- including Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana, in tweets (here and here) and Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., in an email -- said the FCC was officially repealing net neutrality regulations Monday. A Markey aide acknowledged the new changes "are essentially bureaucratic," with the net neutrality repeal awaiting further actions. Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld cited confusion from an FCC Feb. 22 FR notice that said the effective dates were April 23, except for certain amendatory instructions delayed until the agency publishes a new FR document announcing OMB approval of information collection duties, and that added: "The Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order will also be effective upon the date announced in that same document." Until these steps occur, the FCC is saying "nothing actually happens. Zip. Nadda. Zero," blogged Feld. Calling the delay "highly unusual," he said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai "is taking his own sweet time restoring that Internet freedom he claimed to be so obsessed about back in December." Sohn said, "It’s important for people to know the rules are still in effect, so Republicans can’t come back in a month and say the internet hasn’t died ... and everything will be fine without the rules." A Mozilla blog noted "procedural steps remain" and cited a February poll it and Ipsos did that it said showed "Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly want strong net neutrality protections." It quoted Sohn saying "78% of Americans, including 84% of adults under the age of 35, believe that equal access to the internet is a right.”

Intelsat, Intel and SES are pitching to the FCC details of how their proposed clearing of 100 MHz of C-band spectrum for terrestrial mobile use might work. The three said in a meeting with Wireless and International bureaus and Office of Engineering and Technology and Office of Strategic Planning representatives that 100 MHz, plus a transition band, could be cleared in 18 to 36 months after an FCC order, and that terrestrial demand for such midband spectrum could result in more being cleared in the future, said a docket 17-183 filing posted Monday. Such additional clearing would have to protect Intelsat and SES customers and businesses, they said, saying not all C-band satellites are fungible and the satellites used for video distribution are heavily used. They said after an order, the C-band consortium would start on market-based selections and negotiation of secondary market agreements, with that process taking up to eight months. Once the agreements are done, the prospective mobile licensees would file license applications, with grant conditioned on full release of agreement funds in escrow. The companies estimated time from filing to grant could take up to seven months. Grant of the mobile licenses would trigger payment of the clearing costs by the licensees to the consortium, with that consortium launching the clearing process, taking up to 20 months. After clearing, payments would be provided from the escrow to the consortium, with an FCC public notice removing the payment condition from the coordinated mobile licenses. The companies also challenged the Broadband Access Coalition push to allow terrestrial point-to-multipoint co-frequency sharing in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (see 1706210044), saying it doesn't make sense to clear the spectrum for 5G mobile use while also bringing in other fixed operations by BAC members that will impair the spectrum for mobile operations. They said moving BAC's proposal to the 6 GHz band could cause less disruption to satellite services. Among those meeting were Wireless Bureau Chief Don Stockdale, IB Chief Tom Sullivan and OET Chief Julius Knapp. BAC counsel didn't comment. An NPRM on the C-band clearing proposal is expected by some this summer (see 1804200003).

The Competitive Carriers Association and CTIA jointly proposed a compromise on the size of priority access licenses in the 3.5 GHz citizens broadband radio service band. They "reached an agreement that the Commission should license PALs using Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the top 306 Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) and use county-based geographic area licenses in the remaining 428 CMAs,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 17-258. “This compromise proposal paves the way for swift action while balancing the needs of the wide range of stakeholders that are expected to participate in the 3.5 GHz auction,” the groups said. “It promotes investment in the band and provides an opportunity for parties to acquire PAL spectrum in areas that best fit their business models and investment plans.” Wireless ISP Association President Claude Aiken objected, saying the CBRS proposal would “effectively put up a ‘large bidders only’ sign at the door and turn away innovators and small operators serving rural Americans.” The FCC should beef up competition for 3.5 GHz spectrum in the largest metropolitan statistical areas by reducing license areas in the top 10 percent of MSA markets to counties, Charter Communications said in a docket 17-258 filing Monday about the wireless proposal. It said it's investing in 3.5 GHz trials itself in markets in California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina.

Comments are due June 7, replies July 9 on an FCC reassigned-number Further NPRM in docket 17-59 seeking to curb illegal robocalls, under a proposed rule set for Federal Register publication Monday (see calendar). The commission is seeking comment on its proposal to create one or more databases to help businesses avoid calling without consent the new users of reassigned numbers, said the FNPRM adopted March 22 by commissioners (see 1803220028). Although previous users of reassigned numbers may have consented to robocalls, new users may not have, exposing them to unwanted calls and businesses to potential liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Comcast and Charter Communications formed a 50/50 operating platform partnership back-end development and design system supporting their mobile services, they said Friday. They will collaborate on developing "an efficient and scalable software platform and related backend systems" for their mobile customer sales and support platforms, device logistics and warehousing, and billing. They said the operating platform will be the systems interface for current "and any future mobile virtual network operator ... partners." Charter Chief Mobile Officer Danny Bowman said the work will result in "faster and more cost-effective mobile product and service enhancements." The cable providers said the partnership will use parts of the operating platform Comcast developed for Xfinity Mobile that Charter subsequently modified for its forthcoming mobile service. They said Charter initially will fund the joint venture in reflection of development costs Comcast bore, though the two eventually will equally fund the partnership. The companies said they individually will keep their own relationships with device manufacturers, and all customer-facing activities like market, sales and pricing will be handled individually. The deal demonstrates Comcast and Charter "are serious about mobile," New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin wrote investors. He said the platform could be an interface with future MVNOs that could point to the cable companies contemplating a deeper MVNO with a different wireless provider than Verizon.

The Supreme Court again put off deciding whether to review an FCC pole attachment case. Justices were to consider Ameren v. FCC at their Friday conference but the case was "rescheduled" for a second time in docket 17-819. The next conference is April 27 (calendar). Ameren and other electric power companies filed a cert petition seeking review of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a 2015 FCC order aimed at driving down telecom pole-attachment rates to cable rate levels (see 1707310065 and 1511240071). Petitioners said the order and 8th Circuit ruling "conflict with the FCC's own prior understanding" of Communications Act Section 224 and the 11th Circuit's "conclusion that the statute reflects Congress’ intent" for the telecom rate to be higher than cable rate. They said the 8th Circuit "erred in deferring to the FCC’s unreasonable interpretation of the statute," and alleged a "massive transfer of wealth (hundreds of millions of dollars annually) from electric ratepayers to the shareholders of communications giants like Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon." The DOJ and FCC said the 8th Circuit "correctly rejected" petitioners' argument that the commission's decision didn't deserve Chevron deference, "and its decision does not conflict with" any other high court or appellate decision. The government said the dispute "is of diminishing ongoing significance because the Restoring Internet Freedom Order [net neutrality rollback], when it takes effect, will require cable providers to pay the cable rate for attachments used to provide commingled video and broadband Internet access services, which will significantly reduce the percentage of pole attachments that are subject to the telecom rate."

A broadcast tower owned by noncommercial KOZK Springfield, Missouri, collapsed while being worked on Thursday, killing one worker, local fire and rescue officials told us. Six people were working on the 1,980-foot tower, near Fordland, when it collapsed, said a spokesman for the Logan-Rogersville Fire Protection District. The workers, identified by the spokesman as contractors, were about 105 feet off the ground when the tower collapsed, the spokesman said. Three were transported to the hospital with minor injuries, he said. The work was taking place to comply with “FCC regulations,” the spokesman said. Fire and rescue officials were unsure which agency will handle an investigation of the cause of the incident. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated a 2017 tower collapse in Miami that killed three workers and eventually proposed a $13,000 fine to the contractor (see 1803270044). KOZK, OSHA and the Webster County Sheriff’s Office didn’t comment.

The FCC released draft versions of two broadcast NPRMs slotted for its May meeting, plus a wireless item. The draft on FM translator interference proposes allowing translators to relocate freely with minor modification applications and a six-complaint minimum to bump a translator from its signal, as expected (see 1804180068). The other media NPRM concerns eliminating a rule requiring the physical display of broadcast licenses. The agency also released a draft NPRM seeking comment on allowing more flexible use in the 2.5 GHz band.

A court consolidated challenges to FCC Lifeline tribal limits and set a briefing schedule. The National Lifeline Association and resellers filed a January petition (in Pacer) seeking relief from the commission's late 2017 order, which restricted enhanced Tribal Lifeline USF support by targeting it to "facilities-based" service and newly defined "rural" areas (see 1801290020). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had established a briefing schedule for that case, but this week it granted (in Pacer) a motion to consolidate the case with Crow Creek Sioux Tribe's March petition (in Pacer). Crow Creek challenges the same decisions and alleges "the commission did not meaningfully consult with Tribal authorities about the impact of these changes on native communities as required by law." Both petitioner opening briefs are now due May 9, the government's response brief June 25 and petitioner reply briefs July 16 in National Lifeline Association v. FCC, No. 18-1026, consolidated.

Disney's proposed buy of Fox's nonbroadcast assets got a DOJ second request for information March 5, the companies said in a draft proxy vote filing to the SEC Wednesday. The companies said Disney might have to pay a termination fee of $2.5 billion if the deal isn't consummated because it doesn't receive regulatory approvals or is blocked on antitrust grounds. They said completion is conditioned on FCC consent "if required," plus regulatory approvals from the EU, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the U.K. "if required." The deal would boost the buyer's ability to do direct-to-consumer (DTC) offerings and its IP portfolio and output capability, Disney's board said. The board said the transaction would speed up its DTC strategy via Fox's content and capabilities and as a result of having a controlling stake in Hulu. Disney said Fox received an unsolicited offer from an unnamed second company after news of Disney/Fox deal broke in November, but Fox's board decided a deal with that company posed "a qualitatively higher level of regulatory risk, including the possibility of an outright prohibition, than such a transaction with Disney." Disney/Fox is seen facing an uncertain reception from DOJ but the FCC likely won't play a role (see 1712130010). Comcast bid for Sky, which 21st Century Fox owns much of, and the cable operator has been named as a possible buyer of all of Fox (see 1802270011).