Broadcasters and the FCC’s Republican commissioners say the agency’s order -- approved 3-2 Thursday -- requiring that broadcasters publicly share annual workforce demographic data is unconstitutional and the courts will knock it down, as it has similar regulations. Still, the agency and public interest advocates argue this version is different.
In-person meetings at the FCC are increasing, but the majority are virtual, as they have been since the COVID-19 pandemic began nearly four years ago. The number of in-person ex parte meetings appear roughly the same as a year ago, based on a review of filings and industry interviews. Beginning last March, more staff began working in the office on more days of the week (see 2303030047). One tendency, industry officials say, is that more meetings with commissioner advisers are now at FCC headquarters. But meetings with the offices and bureaus are mostly virtual because staffers have differing in-office schedules. Virtual meetings seem the best way of ensuring everyone who needs to attend a meeting can.
Following last week’s oral argument in two Chevron cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2401170074), the future of the doctrine appears in doubt.
Following last week’s oral argument in two Chevron cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (see 2401170074), the future of the doctrine appears in doubt.
Industry lawyers and analysts expect a busy start for the FCC in 2024, with the 3-2 Democratic majority able to approve items without the FCC’s two Republicans, and Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel eager to address priorities before the usual freeze in the months before and after a presidential election.
Broadcast attorneys expect likely legal challenges against the FCC’s 2018 quadrennial review order will focus on two questions: Does the Communications Act allow the FCC to tighten regulations during the QR process? And do restrictions on shifting top-four network programming to low-power stations and multicast streams violate the Constitution?
The FCC didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine when it used the Universal Service Administrative Co. to calculate quarterly USF contribution factors and administer USF programs, a federal court ruled Thursday. In denying Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC contribution factor (see 2306220062), the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals noted "all USAC action is subordinate to the FCC, and the FCC retains ultimate decision-making power."
The FCC didn't violate the nondelegation doctrine when it used the Universal Service Administrative Co. to calculate quarterly USF contribution factors and administer USF programs, a federal court ruled Thursday. In denying Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC contribution factor (see 2306220062), the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals noted "all USAC action is subordinate to the FCC, and the FCC retains ultimate decision-making power."
The U.S. Supreme Court might opt to avoid likely fights over the FCC's digital discrimination rules or proposed Title II net neutrality rules, Andrew Schwartzman, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society's senior counselor, told Communications Daily this month. In an extensive sit-down interview, Schwartzman spoke about his long career as a public interest advocate within telecommunications, evolution of that domain, and how the FCC's net neutrality regulatory push is not merely a repeat of the past. The following transcript of our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
FCC commissioners voted 3-2 Wednesday to adopt rules aimed at curbing digital discrimination (see 2310250070). The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act-mandated order takes steps to facilitate equal access to broadband and investigate instances of discrimination. The commission also adopted a Further NPRM seeking comment on additional measures the FCC can take to advance equal access.