FCC inaction on violations of the online political file rules led broadcasters to conclude they face “no consequences” for filing incomplete or inaccurate information on buyers of political ads, said a joint letter Monday to Chairman Tom Wheeler from the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Sunlight Foundation and the Benton Foundation. It referenced 11 violations filed by the entities in May 2014 (see 1405130044) and 16 new complaints against Scripps' WCPO-TV Cincinnati. At the time of the 2014 complaints, Wheeler promised to address the problem expeditiously, but that hasn’t happened, said Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation Senior Counselor Andrew Schwartzman, who represents the groups. “The FCC, in its failure to enforce laws that protect voters’ right to know, has clearly led broadcasters to freely ignore existing regulations with impunity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, in a news release.
Charter Communications is opposing the part of FCC's set-top box proposal that would require cable modems be broken out on customers' bills and their cost unsubsidized. Saying it would be "more than happy" to note on customers’ bills that its modems are free, Charter in a blog post Wednesday said it "doesn’t stand to reason that customers will benefit from forcing companies to start charging for modems they currently give away." Compared with much of the set-top proceeding, cable modems are "a sleeper issue, but it offers a road map to undermining the retail market [for set-tops] and kill[ing] off the set-top box retail market before it ever gets off the ground," Andrew Schwartzman, outside counsel for Zoom Telephonics, told us Wednesday. Zoom repeatedly pushed the FCC for cable modem conditions on Charter's buys of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks (see 1511270051, 1511240028 and 1511040045) and has backed the FCC on the cable modem portion of the set-top proposal.
Charter Communications is opposing the part of FCC's set-top box proposal that would require cable modems be broken out on customers' bills and their cost unsubsidized. Saying it would be "more than happy" to note on customers’ bills that its modems are free, Charter in a blog post Wednesday said it "doesn’t stand to reason that customers will benefit from forcing companies to start charging for modems they currently give away." Compared with much of the set-top proceeding, cable modems are "a sleeper issue, but it offers a road map to undermining the retail market [for set-tops] and kill[ing] off the set-top box retail market before it ever gets off the ground," Andrew Schwartzman, outside counsel for Zoom Telephonics, told us Wednesday. Zoom repeatedly pushed the FCC for cable modem conditions on Charter's buys of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks (see 1511270051, 1511240028 and 1511040045) and has backed the FCC on the cable modem portion of the set-top proposal.
The apps-based set-top box plan outlined in an FCC draft order circulated Thursday (see 1609080085) is different enough from the plan proposed in the preceding rulemaking notice filed in docket 16-42 that it could be vulnerable to an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, some attorneys and industry officials told us Friday. By circulating an order instead of a further NPRM, the FCC is preventing anyone but large programmers, companies and trade associations with the means to lobby the agency from weighing in, said cable consultant Steve Effros, who has been backing a different set-top solution. “This totally lacks integrity, and it makes a mockery of the Administrative Procedure Act,” Effros said. “What about the rest of us?”
The apps-based set-top box plan outlined in an FCC draft order circulated Thursday (see 1609080085) is different enough from the plan proposed in the preceding rulemaking notice filed in docket 16-42 that it could be vulnerable to an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, some attorneys and industry officials told us Friday. By circulating an order instead of a further NPRM, the FCC is preventing anyone but large programmers, companies and trade associations with the means to lobby the agency from weighing in, said cable consultant Steve Effros, who has been backing a different set-top solution. “This totally lacks integrity, and it makes a mockery of the Administrative Procedure Act,” Effros said. “What about the rest of us?”
If Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, her likely choice for FCC chairman is almost as hard to predict as who Republican Donald Trump would pick (see 1603070038), former FCC officials and industry analysts and lawyers said. Trump doesn’t have experience in Washington, but Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, know a lot of people in the industry, which also makes an eventual chairman selection hard to handicap, industry officials said.
If Hillary Clinton is elected president in November, her likely choice for FCC chairman is almost as hard to predict as who Republican Donald Trump would pick (see 1603070038), former FCC officials and industry analysts and lawyers said. Trump doesn’t have experience in Washington, but Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, know a lot of people in the industry, which also makes an eventual chairman selection hard to handicap, industry officials said.
The FCC released its media ownership order Thursday. As expected, the order approved Aug. 10 on a party line 3-2 vote (see 1608110058) resolves the 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews, leaves most existing ownership rules in place and restores joint sales agreement rules that were knocked down by the 3rd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. “The record in this proceeding leads us to conclude that retaining the existing rules is the best way to promote our policy goals in local markets at this time,” the FCC said. A court challenge is likely by all sides, both allies of media deregulation and its foes said in interviews.
A federal court rejected an FCC request to hold up inmate calling service litigation after the commission Aug. 4 approved an order to increase ICS rate caps currently under judicial review (see 1608110020 and 1608040037). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also revised the remaining briefing schedule in an order Friday by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Cornelia Pillard, a motion panel in the case (Global Tel*Link v. FCC, No. 15-1461). ICS provider, state and sheriff petitioners challenging the commission's previous ICS orders filed their opening briefs earlier this summer (see 1606070030). Response briefs are now due from the FCC and DOJ Sept. 12, and from Network Communications International and other intervenors supporting the FCC Sept. 29. Reply briefs from petitioners and supporting intervenors are due Oct. 31. The parties were directed to file motions governing further proceedings within seven days of the deadline for challenging the FCC's Aug. 4 order. "I expect new petitions for review, new stay motions and new briefs. I imagine the new cases will catch up to the old ones," emailed Andrew Schwartzman, Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation senior counselor, who represents intervenors supporting the FCC. GlobalTel*Link already said it intends to challenge the Aug. 4 order. “GTL applauds the action of the court, which offers all parties the shortest timeline to resolve the central issues of this proceeding -- rates below costs and whether the FCC has jurisdiction to control security policy in state, county and municipal corrections facilities,” emailed a GTL spokesman. “After years of discussion and debate, GTL looks forward to the definitive resolution of these questions and the end of uncertainty in the market.” The FCC didn't comment.
A federal court asked the FCC, DOJ and allies to respond by Sept. 12 to appeals of a panel decision that upheld net neutrality and broadband reclassification. The agencies have a 30-page limit for their response and supporting intervenors 15 pages, said the order (in Pacer) Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063 and consolidated cases). Absent further order, the D.C. Circuit said it won't accept replies. Alamo Broadband, AT&T, CTIA, NCTA, the American Cable Association, USTelecom, CenturyLink and Tech Freedom and other intervenors filed petitions for the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case (see 1607290052).