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.

The Supreme Court won’t hear Minnesota’s appeal of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that VoIP is an information service exempt from state regulation (see 1910090048). The high court denied the Public Utilities Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari Monday. Agreeing cert should be denied, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should, “in an appropriate case ... consider whether a federal agency’s policy can pre-empt state law.” Thomas doubts "a federal policy -- let alone a policy of nonregulation -- is ‘Law’ for purposes of the Supremacy Clause,” he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Giving pre-emptive effect to a federal agency policy of nonregulation thus expands the power of both the Executive and the Judiciary.” The view of two justices has “no precedential value” but “is nonetheless an indicator of the difficulties of the FCC’s position on preemption of state net neutrality provisions based on its asserted policies of non-regulation,” emailed Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andy Schwartzman. The PUC didn't comment Monday. Charter Communications, which brought the original suit against the agency, declined comment. The telecom industry endorses a draft declaratory ruling, which the FCC will consider at commissioners' meeting Friday, on regulatory parity for 911 fees between VoIP and traditional phone services (see 1910210055).

The Supreme Court won’t hear Minnesota’s appeal of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that VoIP is an information service exempt from state regulation (see 1910090048). The high court denied the Public Utilities Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari Monday. Agreeing cert should be denied, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should, “in an appropriate case ... consider whether a federal agency’s policy can pre-empt state law.” Thomas doubts "a federal policy -- let alone a policy of nonregulation -- is ‘Law’ for purposes of the Supremacy Clause,” he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Giving pre-emptive effect to a federal agency policy of nonregulation thus expands the power of both the Executive and the Judiciary.” The view of two justices has “no precedential value” but “is nonetheless an indicator of the difficulties of the FCC’s position on preemption of state net neutrality provisions based on its asserted policies of non-regulation,” emailed Benton Institute Senior Counselor Andy Schwartzman. The PUC didn't comment Monday. Charter Communications, which brought the original suit against the agency, declined comment. The telecom industry endorses a draft declaratory ruling, which the FCC will consider at commissioners' meeting Friday, on regulatory parity for 911 fees between VoIP and traditional phone services (see 1910210055).

Broadcasters aren't expected to have to make sweeping changes to how they maintain political files after an FCC order made clearer what information needs to be in them. The clarification could make it easier to get compliance from advertising agencies that sometimes provide incomplete information. That order and a related one were ostensibly released Wednesday afternoon but not available online that night. The agency said at a little past noon Thursday that the links were working.