The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Tuesday the formal mandate on its Oct. 1 judgment in Mozilla v. FCC, case 18-1051 (in Pacer), that upheld most of the FCC's net neutrality order (see 1910010018). Earlier this month the court denied a petition for rehearing (see 2002070002). Andrew Schwartzman, counsel for petitioner Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, said since the case is fully closed the FCC can address the three issues the court remanded to it, on pole attachments, public safety and Lifeline, but there's no deadline for the FCC to fix them. "What is more immediately affected is the litigation challenging the California and Vermont net neutrality statutes," he emailed. "Those cases were held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Mozilla case. They will now come back into life. Notably, the DC Circuit decision puts the states in a much stronger position, since it will be much harder for the carriers to argue that the statutes are preempted by the FCC's decision."

Odds appear slim for a settlement with all the states challenging the T-Mobile/Sprint/Dish Network deal. New York and California, the states leading the federal lawsuit, are considered least likely to settle. At a financial conference last month, T-Mobile President Mike Sievert said a settlement after closing arguments appears possible (see 1912100029).

Odds appear slim for a settlement with all the states challenging the T-Mobile/Sprint/Dish Network deal. New York and California, the states leading the federal lawsuit, are considered least likely to settle. At a financial conference last month, T-Mobile President Mike Sievert said a settlement after closing arguments appears possible (see 1912100029).

Odds appear slim for a settlement with all the states challenging the T-Mobile/Sprint/Dish Network deal. New York and California, the states leading the federal lawsuit, are considered least likely to settle. At a financial conference last month, T-Mobile President Mike Sievert said a settlement after closing arguments appears possible (see 1912100029).

Refocus FCC efforts on shoring up Lifeline affordability and reaching out to all eligible consumers instead of setting up new barriers, stakeholders recommended in interviews this week and last. The FCC last week 3-2 denied a pause on a $2 monthly decrease in support for voice-only, while raising by 50 percent a monthly minimum for broadband to 3 GB (see 1911200015). The previous week, the agency issued a 3-2 order that would curb fraud and abuse, and a Further NPRM asks whether to ban free handsets with new signups (see 1911140064).

Refocus FCC efforts on shoring up Lifeline affordability and reaching out to all eligible consumers instead of setting up new barriers, stakeholders recommended in interviews this week and last. The FCC last week 3-2 denied a pause on a $2 monthly decrease in support for voice-only, while raising by 50 percent a monthly minimum for broadband to 3 GB (see 1911200015). The previous week, the agency issued a 3-2 order that would curb fraud and abuse, and a Further NPRM asks whether to ban free handsets with new signups (see 1911140064).

A full panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FCC’s en banc appeal of the Prometheus IV ruling, which vacated and remanded many broadcast ownership regulations, said an order (in Pacer) released Wednesday (see 1911070067). “No judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petitions for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc are denied,” said Judge Thomas Ambro in the order. Ambro presided over the three-judge panel that ruled against the FCC and wrote the majority opinion. Attorneys and officials speculated the agency might seek U.S. Supreme Court review if the en banc appeal were rejected. “The rapid dismissal of the FCC and industry rehearing petitions is hardly surprising in light of the weakness of their positions,” said Benton Institute for Broadband and Society Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman, who represented public interest entities against the FCC in the case: “Chairman [Ajit] Pai should stop posturing and do what the court has told the FCC to do, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times.” The FCC didn’t comment.

The FCC isn’t expected to issue a 2018 quadrennial ownership review order this year, and many broadcasters aren’t betting on quick movement on that issue, licensees and broadcast attorneys told us. Broadcasters “weren’t ever holding their breath” waiting for the radio ownership deregulation and possible changes to top-four ownership restrictions that might have been expected in a 2018 QR order, said Fletcher Heald broadcast attorney Anne Crump. The FCC didn’t comment.

The FCC and NAB petitioned Thursday for a full panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision against the FCC in the Prometheus IV ownership case, as expected (see 1910250006). For 15 years, “the same divided panel of this Court has frustrated the Commission’s repeated attempts to modernize its media ownership rules,” the FCC said. Prometheus is “irreconcilable” with “the proper role of courts in reviewing agency action,” NAB wrote.

FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly appears to have the support of several top Republicans to remain for another term, a factor officials told us makes him strongly favored for renomination. One stumbling block appears to be the timeline for President Donald Trump to re-up him amid a souring confirmations atmosphere on Capitol Hill caused by the House impeachment inquiry and 2020 presidential campaign. O'Rielly's term expired June 30 (see 1412170031). He can remain until this Congress ends at the beginning of 2021.