The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told the FCC and several parties challenging ownership rules that they should study in advance of Tuesday's oral argument in Philadelphia the case Public Citizen v. Chao, in which the 3rd Circuit previously ruled against a federal agency for delaying a rulemaking that had been ordered by the court. Prometheus Radio v. FCC (formerly Howard Stirk v. FCC) includes arguments that the FCC ignored the orders of the 3rd Circuit by failing to complete the 2010 quadrennial review or do studies on minority ownership (see 1511240060). The 3rd Circuit's raising of the Public Citizen case shortly before oral argument is seen as a bad omen for the FCC, numerous attorneys familiar with the case told us. The FCC has twice lost similar cases 2-1 against some of the same plaintiffs in front of the same panel of judges they will see Tuesday.
An executive branch filing in support of the FCC set-top box proceeding (see 1604150003) is largely laudatory of the commission's proposal but also questions aspects of the agency's plans on privacy and copyright, which have also been a focus of the proposal's opponents. “The Commission should take steps to ensure that expansion of competition in navigation devices does not diminish existing privacy protections,” NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said in the filing. Privacy and copyright concerns were the focus of a joint NCTA/MPAA news briefing denouncing the FCC plan last week (see 1604130052), which itself followed experts saying that access to consumer data may be the ultimate tech prize in the NPRM approved by a politically split FCC (see 1603080037).
An executive branch filing in support of the FCC set-top box proceeding (see 1604150003) is largely laudatory of the commission's proposal but also questions aspects of the agency's plans on privacy and copyright, which have also been a focus of the proposal's opponents. “The Commission should take steps to ensure that expansion of competition in navigation devices does not diminish existing privacy protections,” NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said in the filing. Privacy and copyright concerns were the focus of a joint NCTA/MPAA news briefing denouncing the FCC plan last week (see 1604130052), which itself followed experts saying that access to consumer data may be the ultimate tech prize in the NPRM approved by a politically split FCC (see 1603080037).
An executive branch filing in support of the FCC set-top box proceeding (see 1604150003) is largely laudatory of the commission's proposal but also questions aspects of the agency's plans on privacy and copyright, which have also been a focus of the proposal's opponents. “The Commission should take steps to ensure that expansion of competition in navigation devices does not diminish existing privacy protections,” NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling said in the filing. Privacy and copyright concerns were the focus of a joint NCTA/MPAA news briefing denouncing the FCC plan last week (see 1604130052), which itself followed experts saying that access to consumer data may be the ultimate tech prize in the NPRM approved by a politically split FCC (see 1603080037).
Nexstar’s proposed deal to buy Media General would create an overly large broadcaster with too much power in retransmission consent negotiations and disregards FCC rules for joint sales agreements, said petitions against the transaction filed in docket 16-57 by several public interest groups, the American Cable Association, Dish Network, ITTA and Cox Communications. The public interest groups’ petition is framed as a petition to deny the proposed sale. ACA, Dish and ITTA is styled as a petition “to deny or impose conditions” and the Cox filing is a “petition for conditions.”
Securus Technologies challenged in court the FCC’s interpretation of a stay order from the court on inmate calling service rates released Wednesday. The FCC released a public notice that found that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit didn’t stay the definition of inmate calling from the 2015 ICS order, which included interstate and intrastate calling, so 2013 rates will apply to both (see 1603160068). Securus sought a modification of its initial stay.
Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, is highly respected by communications attorneys we talked to Wednesday after the White House announced his nomination. Garland has been a judge since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which decides many FCC cases, and he is now chief judge. "People get jaded about hearing judicial nominees described as 'brilliant' and 'unbiased' and having a 'perfect judicial temperament.' But it's all true here. No one can oppose this choice on the merits,'" said Harris Wiltshire attorney Chris Wright, a former FCC general counsel, who has argued several cases before Garland and read many of his opinions. "He's a great judge," said another telecom attorney. "He's straight down the line, a good judge, a very solid appointment," said a media attorney. "He's certainly qualified, but it sounds like he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed. It would take a miracle." Republican senators have vowed not to act on Garland's nomination. Despite Garland's long tenure, some attorneys said it's hard to pigeonhole his communications views. Andrew Schwartzman, Georgetown University Institute for Public Representation senior counselor, said Garland doesn't have a clear-cut "communications track record," because most of his FCC decisions weren't in big cases. "I'd have to go back and look," he said. Another veteran attorney, who called Garland a moderate Democrat and "smart guy," had a similar impression: "I don't believe he's been a key player in many major FCC decisions." One significant case Garland did help decide was a Verizon challenge to FCC wireless data-roaming rules, where he joined two other judges in upholding the agency's order in December 2012 (Cellco Partnership v. FCC). Judge David Tatel wrote that opinion.
Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, is highly respected by communications attorneys we talked to Wednesday after the White House announced his nomination. Garland has been a judge since 1997 on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which decides many FCC cases, and he is now chief judge. "People get jaded about hearing judicial nominees described as 'brilliant' and 'unbiased' and having a 'perfect judicial temperament.' But it's all true here. No one can oppose this choice on the merits,'" said Harris Wiltshire attorney Chris Wright, a former FCC general counsel, who has argued several cases before Garland and read many of his opinions. "He's a great judge," said another telecom attorney. "He's straight down the line, a good judge, a very solid appointment," said a media attorney. "He's certainly qualified, but it sounds like he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed. It would take a miracle." Republican senators have vowed not to act on Garland's nomination. Despite Garland's long tenure, some attorneys said it's hard to pigeonhole his communications views. Andrew Schwartzman, Georgetown University Institute for Public Representation senior counselor, said Garland doesn't have a clear-cut "communications track record," because most of his FCC decisions weren't in big cases. "I'd have to go back and look," he said. Another veteran attorney, who called Garland a moderate Democrat and "smart guy," had a similar impression: "I don't believe he's been a key player in many major FCC decisions." One significant case Garland did help decide was a Verizon challenge to FCC wireless data-roaming rules, where he joined two other judges in upholding the agency's order in December 2012 (Cellco Partnership v. FCC). Judge David Tatel wrote that opinion.
A federal court reviewing an FCC order pre-empting North Carolina and Tennessee laws restricting municipal broadband efforts signaled interest in related legislation pending in both states. With oral argument scheduled for Thursday in Cincinnati, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote litigants in the North Carolina and Tennessee challenges to the FCC pre-emption order (Tennessee v. FCC, No. 15-3291, North Carolina v. FCC, No. 15-3555). “The panel directs counsel for the parties in this case that, in addition to addressing the arguments in the briefs, they should be prepared to answer questions about the significance, if any, of the pending legislation in both states that would amend the statutes to remove the barriers preempted by the FCC (Tenn. -- HB2133/SB2200 and NC HB349),” the clerk of the court wrote in a brief letter Friday. The only reason for the court to ask about the pending bills is if it suspects they might be enacted in the near future and moot aspects of the case, said Brad Ramsay, general counsel for NARUC, which intervened in support of the two states. But the odds of both bills being enacted are “very slim,” he told us Monday. “The legislation hasn’t passed, so you have a live case and controversy.” The court’s query is a bit “odd,” said Andrew Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, who filed an amicus brief supporting the FCC order on behalf of the Benton Foundation and other public-interest groups. “It is not unusual for some courts to notify the parties to be prepared to address particular questions, and that’s really helpful,” he told us. “But the questions here would be best done by letter because they’re completely speculative.” Nobody knows whether the bills will pass and in what form, he said. The FCC and North Carolina and Tennessee litigants had no comment.
A federal court reviewing an FCC order pre-empting North Carolina and Tennessee laws restricting municipal broadband efforts signaled interest in related legislation pending in both states. With oral argument scheduled for Thursday in Cincinnati, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote litigants in the North Carolina and Tennessee challenges to the FCC pre-emption order (Tennessee v. FCC, No. 15-3291, North Carolina v. FCC, No. 15-3555). “The panel directs counsel for the parties in this case that, in addition to addressing the arguments in the briefs, they should be prepared to answer questions about the significance, if any, of the pending legislation in both states that would amend the statutes to remove the barriers preempted by the FCC (Tenn. -- HB2133/SB2200 and NC HB349),” the clerk of the court wrote in a brief letter Friday. The only reason for the court to ask about the pending bills is if it suspects they might be enacted in the near future and moot aspects of the case, said Brad Ramsay, general counsel for NARUC, which intervened in support of the two states. But the odds of both bills being enacted are “very slim,” he told us Monday. “The legislation hasn’t passed, so you have a live case and controversy.” The court’s query is a bit “odd,” said Andrew Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, who filed an amicus brief supporting the FCC order on behalf of the Benton Foundation and other public-interest groups. “It is not unusual for some courts to notify the parties to be prepared to address particular questions, and that’s really helpful,” he told us. “But the questions here would be best done by letter because they’re completely speculative.” Nobody knows whether the bills will pass and in what form, he said. The FCC and North Carolina and Tennessee litigants had no comment.