U.S.-based satellite licensees and international satellite entities sparred in comments in docket 19-105 over whether the FCC should collect regulatory fees on all space stations that communicate with earth-based stations, not just U.S.-licensed ones. They responded to a Further NPRM on possible tweaks to regulatory fees (see 1908280021). “Such an assertion of FCC authority would be both unlawful and ill-advised,” said Telesat Canada. The FCC “has long recognized that its authority to assess space station regulatory fees is limited to those it has licensed under Title III of the Communications Act.” Imposing such fees on foreign licensed satellites isn’t supported by the facts and inconsistent with sound public policy, said Eutelsat. “Expanding the Commission’s regulatory fee regime to include all entities that have received U.S. market access will help to create a more equitable regulatory environment,” filed EchoStar, Hughes Network, Intelsat and SpaceX. Non-U.S. licensed space station operators “benefit from the Commission’s regulatory activities while leaving the U.S. operators to subsidize them by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees,” said SpaceX. The agency should also adjust the fees for entities overseen by the International Bureau, said the North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA) and the Submarine Cable Coalition. “In prior years and rulemakings, the Commission expressly recognized that submarine cable system regulatory fees are excessive considering the regulatory activities the IB performs on submarine cable system operators’ behalf,” said NASCA. “Efforts by submarine cable interests to shift additional costs onto satellite service providers are unsupported and must be rejected,” said the Satellite Industry Association. Calculating regulatory fees for VHF stations by calculating the population inside a station’s contours instead of designated market area should also be changed, said NAB and Maranatha Broadcasting. “This burden on VHF stations is unjustified and should be rectified in this proceeding,” said Maranatha.

Eligible telecom carriers must enhance engagement with tribal communities to address challenges deploying broadband there, Gila River Telecommunications Inc. (GRTI) told the FCC. Comments were posted through Friday in docket 10-90. GRTI said "the time for discussing whether broadband will be delivered to Indian Country must end. The next phase of engagement must focus on the development of concrete plans for each tribal community to gain broadband access." It recommends elevating the Office of Native Affairs and Policy to a separate office independent of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and having it report directly to the chairman and commissioners. GRTI wants ONAP to develop a voluntary process to engage tribal governments and ETCs with service areas including tribal lands that haven't deployed broadband to determine when it makes sense for tribal governments to take an ownership stake in the ETC. The Alaska Rural Coalition asked the FCC to answer its 2011 petition for reconsideration on "unique challenges facing Alaska carriers." It wants the FCC to allow carriers to substitute informal engagement with strategic performance benchmarks, as "formal outreach [hasn't] proven particularly effective." USTelecom has legal concerns about members' First Amendment rights and a current requirement ETCs market their services "in a culturally sensitive manner," which can interfere with effective dialogue. The Oceti Sakowin Tribal Utility Authority said the tribal engagement process "is currently form over substance." The National Tribal Telecommunications Association wants additional enforcement of the tribal engagement rule.

Three Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls proposed or restated plans Friday to guarantee universal broadband access and other tech and telecom priorities. Many of the leading Democratic candidates have proposed multibillion-dollar funding for broadband deployments, with a special focus on increasing service to rural consumers (see 1909040061). Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wants to ensure “every American household will have affordable, high-speed internet by the end of his first term” if he's elected president. “Our tax dollars built the internet and access to it should be a public good for all, not another price gouging profit machine for Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon,” he said in the plan. He would “instruct the FCC to regulate broadband internet rates” and “work with Congress to codify net neutrality protections into law to prevent a future FCC from repealing them once again” as it did in rescission of 2015 rules. Sanders committed to “appoint members of the FCC who will use [Communications Act] Title II authority to promote competition, choice, and affordability for broadband service.” He would establish “a dedicated, accelerated last-mile fund through the Department of Agriculture’s [Rural Utilities Service] to provide capital funding to connect all remote rural households and businesses and upgrade outdated technology and infrastructure, prioritizing funding for existing co-ops and small rural utilities.” Sanders also wants to pre-empt all state-level laws “that limit or bar” municipal broadband. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., “will work to codify strong net neutrality principles and make immediate progress in her first 100 days by using federal contracting requirements to encourage broadband providers to honor net neutrality principles and promote a free and open internet,” her campaign blogged. Klobuchar would also “push for” legislation similar to her Social Media Privacy and Consumer Rights Act (S-189) “to require companies to notify users within 72 hours when their data has been breached and offer meaningful remedies for people whose data has been compromised.” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., also wants to “guarantee access to broadband.” He would “close the digital divide once and for all by making unprecedented federal investment for broadband in rural areas and Indian Country, updating and increasing flexibility in existing federal programs to better serve rural needs, automatically enrolling low-income families into the FCC Lifeline program, investing in rural cooperatives, and passing his Community Broadband Act to push back on efforts by [ISPs] to restrict or prohibit municipal and cooperatively-owned broadband that could lower costs and improve access” (see 1703280022). Free Press Policy Manager Dana Floberg lauded the Sanders and Klobuchar plans.

Two dozen advocacy groups asked the House Communications Subcommittee that held an FCC oversight hearing Thursday (see [1912050043]) to ask the regulator to address their concerns about telecom network resiliency, in a letter Wednesday to Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and ranking member Bob Latta, R-Ohio. The groups said "increasing numbers of Americans lack basic, reliable voice telephone service as providers allow their legacy networks to rust and degrade. Lack of maintenance and lack of emergency preparedness have contributed to lengthy outages in periods of natural disaster." They sought a "comprehensive investigation into national network reliability." They criticized industry for its history of urging policymakers to "ignore worries over critical infrastructure by promising us a shiny future of fiber and 5G." Recent communications problems from California wildfires raised concerns failures could be worse during an earthquake (see 1911200002), the letter said. Signers included Public Knowledge, Common Cause, the Greenlining Institute, National League of Cities, The Utility Reform Network. The FCC didn't comment Thursday.

Streamlining evaluation of applications for siting communications facilities on National Forest Service lands and expanded categorical exceptions for environmental reviews were among suggestions the U.S. Forest Service got on updating its permitting practices for communications and broadband infrastructure, in comments posted this week at regulations.gov. CTIA said the agency could streamline the evaluation by incorporating a 270-day clock for communications uses applications, having a system for tracking applications for communications uses, and setting up a 30-year term for communications use authorizations with automatic renewals at recurring 10-year intervals. The Wireless Infrastructure Association also backed codifying that deadline and increasing lease terms to 30 years. WIA said expanding the exemptions to include modifications of less than 20 acres would streamline the application process while helping foster collocations on existing facilities. The Western Governors' Association backed the service's proposal to revise directives to expedite requests for collocating communications uses in or on existing communications facilities and giving the current categorical exclusion more authority for special use authorization. Crown Castle supports expanding the scope of categorical exclusions. The New Mexico Broadcasters Association said the agency needs to avoid adding new review process requirements or facility sharing rules.

FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson plans to spend 2020 fighting to uphold FCC pre-emptions of state and local governments in court, he said in Monday remarks at a TaxWatch event. “States and localities have litigated heavily against the FCC whenever it has attempted to streamline regulations,” including now in cases about wireless infrastructure at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and cable franchise changes at the 6th Circuit, he said. “We feel confident that our actions are well supported by the law.” Many states and localities have been helpful 5G partners, he said. “But too often, state and local governments adopt regulations that resemble Cerberus, the fearsome three-headed dog of Greek mythology that guarded the gates of Hell.”

After failing to convince a federal judge to disqualify Glenn Pomerantz from representing states in next week’s T-Mobile/Sprint trial (see 1911210068), DOJ Wednesday asked (in Pacer) the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York to keep confidential material that the Munger Tolles lawyer had access to when he represented the U.S. in litigation over the failed AT&T/T-Mobile. DOJ said it went to Pomerantz before asking the court, but he refused their proposals. “Amending the protective order here is necessary to protect the United States’ confidential information, and will do so with no effect on the parties’ trial preparation or resources,” DOJ said. “Allowing the confidential information of a cooperating third party in a prior investigation to be used in a later lawsuit could seriously chill third parties’ participation in future investigations.” Judge Victor Marrero ruled (in Pacer) Monday that foreign market studies and testimony about T-Mobile/Sprint won’t be allowed in trial. “The Court finds that the relevance of wireless services mergers in foreign markets is dubious at best,” Marrero wrote. “Numerous salient factors, including market structure, consumer demographics, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure may differ significantly and likely yield only an apples-to-orange comparison.” Consideration also would delay trial, he said. Marrero also excluded University of California, Berkeley professor Carl Shapiro's opinion reviewing changes in AT&T and Verizon stock prices shortly before and after big news on the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. That opinion doesn’t rely on enough factors or data, Marrero said. “The Court is skeptical of the reliability of an opinion that extrapolates the likelihood of anticompetitive effects from between five to seven discrete news articles covering a period of well over a year.” Marrero deferred until trial whether to admit testimony by Santa Clara University law professor Catherine Sandoval on FCC procedures.

The FCC wants to update its record to address RF safety challenges "presented by evolving technological advances," it said Wednesday in docket 19-226 after a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel concurred, without issuing a statement. The action includes an order and NPRM. After reviewing the extensive record submitted in response to an inquiry, "we find no appropriate basis for and thus decline to propose amendments to our existing limits at this time," the FCC said. Chairman Ajit Pai circulated an item a few months ago to keep current limits in place, while making a few updates (see 1908080061). "Despite requests from some to increase and others to decrease the existing limits, we believe they reflect the best available information concerning safe levels of RF exposure for workers and members of the general public, including inputs from our sister federal agencies charged with regulating safety and health and from well-established international standards," the commission said now. "Based on our existing limits, we revise our implementing rules to reflect modern technology and today’s uses. We streamline our criteria for determining when a licensee is exempt from our RF exposure evaluation criteria." The NPRM asks about "targeted proposals on the application of our RF emission exposure limits for future uses of wireless technologies" and proposes to "formalize an additional limit for localized RF exposure and the associated methodology for compliance for portable devices operating at high frequencies." It also proposes allowing wireless power transfer equipment under parts 15 and 18, with specific exposure limits. CTIA responded that "as the FCC states, 'no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.'”

Sprint and the FCC said they're on top of problems on Lifeline counts. The company overestimated Lifeline wireless customers it serves for longer than first thought, reported (login required) The Wall Street Journal Tuesday. Commissioner Geoffrey Starks tweeted the “allegations are serious and @FCC must hold @Sprint fully accountable.” The carrier takes Lifeline obligations seriously, and made an error "years ago in Sprint’s technical compliance with the FCC’s complex Lifeline rules,” a Sprint spokesperson emailed. “While the facts make clear that Sprint did make a mistake, it is also clear that Sprint corrected that mistake and cooperated with regulators. This error from 2013-2014 is distinct from the error that Sprint disclosed this August.” Chairman Ajit Pai “in September asked the Enforcement Bureau to investigate the full extent of Sprint’s non-usage problem,” an FCC spokesperson emailed now. “That investigation is underway.” An Oregon Public Utility Commission probe kick-started the FCC investigation (see 1909240023).

The FCC made permanent a five-year budget approach to E-rate category 2 spending for libraries and schools in an order released Tuesday afternoon and OK'd Nov. 20 in docket 13-184. The vote was 5-0, with Democratic Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks concurring, as expected (see 1912020046). The order replaces a two-in-five-year budget approach deemed problematic by commenters. Funding floors for small and rural anchor institutions will be increased to $25,000. The new rules take effect in the 2021 funding year, when all E-rate applicants will begin new fixed five-year budget cycles. It extends the five-year pilot through the 2020 funding year. The agency declined to add services to its eligible services list. Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said that while he "would have been open to a much more fundamental review of our E-rate budgetary framework" and he disfavors the use of fundamentally flawed expenditure formula, he voted yes to offer applicants "stability and predictability in seeking funds for internal connections." He added he wants to discuss including network security in a future list of eligible services, but doesn't want to open discussions to "vast new laundry lists of permissable expenditures." Rosenworcel is concerned urban libraries will see funding levels cut. "The agency takes steps to strengthen the program by cementing in place essential E.Rate 2.0 reforms" like allowing school districts or library systems as a whole to seek money, she wrote. "I am concerned that the record before us supports a greater per pupil allowance than what is adopted." Commissioner Geoffrey Starks sees "work to do. Five years ago, the Commission established a goal of 1 Mbps internet access per student. Unfortunately, 62 percent of school districts still do not meet that standard."