Alamo Broadband appealing Monday the FCC net neutrality order in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and USTelecom in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1503230066) were examples of circuit shopping for a favorable court to hear the cases, said public interest lawyers in interviews. It's "about circuit shopping,” said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. “The D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit are generally considered to be extremely conservative, anti-regulation, and generally hostile to the FCC.” Litigators won't "forgo any possible advantage, including looking for the forum they think will be most favorable to their appeal,” said Feld.

Alamo Broadband appealing Monday the FCC net neutrality order in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and USTelecom in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1503230066) were examples of circuit shopping for a favorable court to hear the cases, said public interest lawyers in interviews. It's "about circuit shopping,” said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. “The D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit are generally considered to be extremely conservative, anti-regulation, and generally hostile to the FCC.” Litigators won't "forgo any possible advantage, including looking for the forum they think will be most favorable to their appeal,” said Feld.

Alamo Broadband, a wireless ISP in San Antonio, and USTelecom filed what appear to be the first formal appeals in federal court of the FCC Feb. 26 net neutrality order. The challenges were made Monday based on the legal theory that the declaratory ruling portion of the decision became final March 12, so appeals were due Monday. While it's not clear who will lead the industry charge against the order, other challenges are still expected to be filed within 10 days of publication of the order in the Federal Register.

Alamo Broadband, a wireless ISP in San Antonio, and USTelecom filed what appear to be the first formal appeals in federal court of the FCC Feb. 26 net neutrality order. The challenges were made Monday based on the legal theory that the declaratory ruling portion of the decision became final March 12, so appeals were due Monday. While it's not clear who will lead the industry charge against the order, other challenges are still expected to be filed within 10 days of publication of the order in the Federal Register.

A win for the FCC in its Court of Appeals battle with content companies over releasing confidential programming and retransmission consent contracts could push back a decision in the Comcast/Time Warner Cable and AT&T/DirecTV transactions, said communications attorneys on both sides of the dispute. Oral argument in CBS et al v. FCC was Feb. 20 (see 1502200051). “They would have to give parties a chance to review the information,” said American Cable Association Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Ross Lieberman. ACA supported the FCC in filings with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Lieberman was blocked from access to the Video Programming Confidential Information (VPCI) at the request of the content company petitioners, which include CBS, Disney, Time Warner and Univision.

A win for the FCC in its Court of Appeals battle with content companies over releasing confidential programming and retransmission consent contracts could push back a decision in the Comcast/Time Warner Cable and AT&T/DirecTV transactions, said communications attorneys on both sides of the dispute. Oral argument in CBS et al v. FCC was Feb. 20 (see 1502200051). “They would have to give parties a chance to review the information,” said American Cable Association Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Ross Lieberman. ACA supported the FCC in filings with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Lieberman was blocked from access to the Video Programming Confidential Information (VPCI) at the request of the content company petitioners, which include CBS, Disney, Time Warner and Univision.

The FCC paused 180-day shot clocks for the AT&T/DirecTV and Comcast/Time Warner Cable transactions while it waits for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue an opinion on a petition for review brought against the agency by a group of content companies over the release of contract information. It’s “prudent” to pause the transaction clocks because the FCC “would be advantaged” by knowing the court’s decision before the clocks run out, “which both are slated to do by the end of March,” the FCC said in a public notice Friday. The Comcast clock is stopped at Day 165 while the AT&T clock is stopped at Day 170, said the FCC transaction webpages. Though the public notice points to the court case as the rationale for stopping the clock, Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman said it’s likely the FCC also has other reasons. At least on Comcast/TWC, the transaction review team sent out information requests that have been fulfilled only recently, and they may not have been in a position to meet the deadline even without the court delay. The FCC had no comment. Comcast said it's fine with the pause. "We understand the FCC's decision to pause the informal review clock while the court continues to review a procedural matter related to the transaction,” Comcast said. “A decision is expected shortly.” The FCC “appears to be making significant progress in the review of our transaction in order to bring it to a conclusion,” Comcast said. The commission was more measured. “The clock carries with it no procedural or substantive rights or obligations but merely represents an informal benchmark,” the PN said. Oral argument was heard in the case Feb. 20 (see 1502200051), and it’s not clear when a decision in the matter could be issued, Schwartzman told us. Though the court usually tries to keep within a 120-day time limit, expedited cases such as the FCC’s are on a faster track, and could arrive much sooner, he said. The D.C. Circuit could also issue an order in one side’s favor or another and then follow it with a written opinion much later, Schwartzman said. Representatives for the content company petitioners, which include CBS, Disney and Viacom, declined to comment. AT&T expects "issues surrounding the litigation between the FCC and the programmers to be resolved quickly so the FCC can complete its review of our transaction," a company spokesman emailed. "We continue to look forward to closing our deal in the first half of the year."

The FCC paused 180-day shot clocks for the AT&T/DirecTV and Comcast/Time Warner Cable transactions while it waits for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue an opinion on a petition for review brought against the agency by a group of content companies over the release of contract information. It’s “prudent” to pause the transaction clocks because the FCC “would be advantaged” by knowing the court’s decision before the clocks run out, “which both are slated to do by the end of March,” the FCC said in a public notice Friday. The Comcast clock is stopped at Day 165 while the AT&T clock is stopped at Day 170, said the FCC transaction webpages. Though the public notice points to the court case as the rationale for stopping the clock, Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman said it’s likely the FCC also has other reasons. At least on Comcast/TWC, the transaction review team sent out information requests that have been fulfilled only recently, and they may not have been in a position to meet the deadline even without the court delay. The FCC had no comment. Comcast said it's fine with the pause. "We understand the FCC's decision to pause the informal review clock while the court continues to review a procedural matter related to the transaction,” Comcast said. “A decision is expected shortly.” The FCC “appears to be making significant progress in the review of our transaction in order to bring it to a conclusion,” Comcast said. The commission was more measured. “The clock carries with it no procedural or substantive rights or obligations but merely represents an informal benchmark,” the PN said. Oral argument was heard in the case Feb. 20 (see 1502200051), and it’s not clear when a decision in the matter could be issued, Schwartzman told us. Though the court usually tries to keep within a 120-day time limit, expedited cases such as the FCC’s are on a faster track, and could arrive much sooner, he said. The D.C. Circuit could also issue an order in one side’s favor or another and then follow it with a written opinion much later, Schwartzman said. Representatives for the content company petitioners, which include CBS, Disney and Viacom, declined to comment. AT&T expects "issues surrounding the litigation between the FCC and the programmers to be resolved quickly so the FCC can complete its review of our transaction," a company spokesman emailed. "We continue to look forward to closing our deal in the first half of the year."

A central point the FCC makes to justify reclassifying broadband in the net neutrality order is the idea that times have changed in the decade since the agency classified cable as a telecom service. No longer do consumers think of Internet access as a combination of getting to the Web and services like Web browsing, but a way to get “access to everything on the Internet,” a senior agency official told reporters after the order’s release Thursday (see 1503120053). The official spoke on condition of not being identified.

A central point the FCC makes to justify reclassifying broadband in the net neutrality order is the idea that times have changed in the decade since the agency classified cable as a telecom service. No longer do consumers think of Internet access as a combination of getting to the Web and services like Web browsing, but a way to get “access to everything on the Internet,” a senior agency official told reporters after the order’s release Thursday (see 1503120053). The official spoke on condition of not being identified.