The Supreme Court’s narrowing of the issues in two indecency cases it agreed to consider as one is relatively rare. The high court grants petitions for a writ of certiorari that define the issues it will consider about three times a year, Scotusblog Publisher Tom Goldstein, who has argued many cases before the court, told us. The justices, with Sonia Sotomayor not participating, said they'll consider First and Fifth Amendment issues (CD June 28 p1). Briefs in the ABC and Fox case would be due Aug. 11 from the government, and from those two broadcast networks Sept. 12, said Senior Vice President Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, which has sided with networks on indecency. Those types of deadlines frequently are extended, he said.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli may also challenge the FCC’s net neutrality rules, Cuccinelli, a Republican, told The Washington Times. Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS also have made clear they will challenge the rules after they're published in the Federal Register, a development that is likely still several months away. Challenges are also expected from net neutrality proponents like Free Press who don’t think the rules go far enough. Cuccinelli called the rules, approved by the FCC in December, the “most egregious of all violations of federal law” and said he would work with attorneys general from other states on an appeal, according to the Times. “The claim that the federal government has never before been charged with overseeing the on-ramps to the Internet is patently untrue,” said Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood, in response to Cuccinelli’s threats to challenge the rules in court. “The Internet grew under, and flourished because of, rules that stopped companies like AT&T from discriminating against applications like Skype.” Media Access Project Senior Vice President Andrew Schwartzman questioned whether a state attorney general has legal standing to file a successful appeal. “This seems like grandstanding to me,” Schwartzman said Monday. “The legal standing of states to challenge the FCC’s decision is questionable, as it is hard to see how the states are harmed by the FCC’s action. And it is hard to imagine that the cable and phone companies are unable to defend themselves.” Cuccinelli’s office did not return calls seeking comment by our deadline. Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld also questioned whether the Virginia attorney general would have standing to challenge the order. “This has all the appearance of political grandstanding now that network neutrality has joined ‘Obamacare’ in the pantheon of things the conservative base loves to hate,” Feld said. “There is certainly nothing that would stop other state AGs from joining a lawsuit. It seems unlikely that it would add anything.”

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli may also challenge the FCC’s net neutrality rules, Cuccinelli, a Republican, told The Washington Times. Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS also have made clear they will challenge the rules after they're published in the Federal Register, a development that is likely still several months away. Challenges are also expected from net neutrality proponents like Free Press who don’t think the rules go far enough. “The claim that the federal government has never before been charged with overseeing the on-ramps to the Internet is patently untrue,” said Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood, in response to Cuccinelli’s threats to challenge the rules in court. “The Internet grew under, and flourished because of, rules that stopped companies like AT&T from discriminating against applications like Skype.” Media Access Project Senior Vice President Andrew Schwartzman questioned whether a state attorney general has legal standing to file a successful appeal. “This seems like grandstanding to me,” Schwartzman said Monday. “The legal standing of states to challenge the FCC’s decision is questionable, as it is hard to see how the states are harmed by the FCC’s action. And it is hard to imagine that the cable and phone companies are unable to defend themselves.” Cuccinelli’s office did not return calls seeking comment by our deadline. Cuccinelli called the rules, approved by the FCC in December, the “most egregious of all violations of federal law” and said he would work with attorneys general from other states on an appeal, according to the Times. Public Knowledge Legal Director Harold Feld also questioned whether the Virginia attorney general would have standing to challenge the order. “This has all the appearance of political grandstanding now that network neutrality has joined ‘Obamacare’ in the pantheon of things the conservative base loves to hate,” Feld said. “There is certainly nothing that would stop other state AGs from joining a lawsuit. It seems unlikely that it would add anything."

The Supreme Court likely will spend much time on a landmark broadcast indecency decision, reviewing whether the FCC has constitutional authority to find that an isolated occurrence of nudity or instance of cursing is indecent, industry lawyers and professors predicted. They said the 1978 Pacifica case, where the high court found the commission can find certain swear words indecent, is likely to get more attention than the 1969 Red Lion ruling upholding broadcast regulation because of the scarcity of spectrum. That’s because in certifying for oral argument cases involving the ABC and Fox networks, the court on Monday said it will limit consideration to issues involving the First and Fifth Amendments.

AT&T got some political cover from House Democrats last week, in the form of a letter signed by 76 of them who said the transaction will create “good paying union jobs” and expand broadband to unserved areas (WID June 23 p9). The letter doesn’t specifically endorse the deal. Foes of the transaction were quick to question the significance of the letter and whether it will resonate at the FCC or elsewhere in the administration.

AT&T got some political cover from House Democrats last week, in the form of a letter signed by 76 of them who said the transaction will create “good paying union jobs” and expand broadband to unserved areas (CD June 23 p13) . The letter doesn’t specifically endorse the deal. Foes of the transaction were quick to question the significance of the letter and whether it will resonate at the FCC or elsewhere in the administration.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sent the White House a letter asking President Barack Obama to nominate Ajit Pai for the Republican seat on the FCC vacated by Meredith Baker. Industry and government officials we spoke with Friday said Pai is likely to be nominated and should face a relatively easy time being confirmed, barring unforeseen complications. Pai’s nomination is likely to be paired with that of Jessica Rosenworcel, an aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.Rosenworcel is expected to be the nominee to replace Democrat Michael Copps on the commission. Copps must leave the FCC when the current session of Congress ends.

Bloomberg asked the FCC to require Comcast to carry its Bloomberg TV network on a channel adjacent to a “neighborhood” of news programming on its cable systems serving its 35 largest markets. The complaint filed Monday is the first program carriage complaint against Comcast since it bought control of NBCUniversal. Its outcome may reveal both how Comcast and the FCC approach conditions imposed by the FCC on that transaction, industry and public interest attorneys said. “If Comcast is dragging its feet on a condition this clear, we can only imagine how they will live up to conditions that are potentially less clear, said Greg Babyak, head of government affairs for Bloomberg. “We think this is very much a test of how serious Comcast is about obeying the terms of the order,” he said in an interview.

A federal appeals court largely affirmed an FCC order asserting its program access rules over vertically-integrated and terrestrially delivered programming. But it vacated a part of the rule closing some of the “terrestrial loophole” that labeled some acts of withholding such programming as categorically unfair. That step was arbitrary and capricious, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found in Cablevision v. FCC. The decision led both proponents and critics of the rule to claim victory. “As we've said all along, and as this court reinforced, given the local and regional nature of terrestrial programming, such exclusives can be highly pro-competitive,” Cablevision said. Verizon, AT&T, USTelecom and Consumers Union praised the decision for affirming the FCC’s authority over terrestrially-delivered programming.

The Media Access Project became the first entity to support tougher program carriage rules since a proposed FCC order on them (CD June 3 p2) circulated May 3, an ex parte filing posted this week in docket 07-42 said. Also this week, a filing from Cablevision said the cable operator continues opposing new rules. “Much stronger rules are needed to protect the interests of independent programmers” in general, MAP Senior Vice President Andrew Schwartzman reported telling an aide to Commissioner Michael Copps. Schwartzman said he “also expressed skepticism at the notion that stronger rules would raise cognizable First Amendment questions in light of the fact that the rules are viewpoint neutral and have been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” Cablevision said it believes changing program carriage rules is “unnecessary in light of predominance of non-vertically integrated video programmers in the marketplace today and that there is no evidence MVPDs are engaging in harmful discrimination against independent programmers” by favoring channels an operator owns over indies. Company representatives met with aides to Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Robert McDowell.