Officials from trade association America’s Credit Unions (ACU) met with FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel about proposals for clamping down on robocalls. “The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how the Commission can best achieve a balance that protects consumers from unlawful calls and scams while also ensuring that credit unions are able to communicate with their members without undue litigation risk or the risk of having their lawful calls inadvertently blocked or mislabeled,” according to a filing posted Thursday in docket 02-278. The group opposed a National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) proposal seeking an automated “opt-out mechanism” on every call containing an artificial or prerecorded voice message. The NCLC proposal is “unnecessary” in light of commission rules, which provide “ample mechanisms for consumers to revoke consent,” ACU said.
California Assembly members supported a proposed ban on digital discrimination the same day that state senators backed a proposal that would remove a free internet requirement in the state’s public housing broadband grant program. Bills on universal opt-out and social media also cleared their originating chambers Wednesday. The Assembly voted 43-10 to pass AB-2239, which would codify in California law the FCC’s definition of digital discrimination and allow state and local enforcers to seek injunctive relief (see 2404230039). On the privacy front, Assembly members voted 53-7 to pass AB-3048, which would require web browsers to include an option to opt out of selling and sharing data on all websites. The California Privacy Protection Agency supports that bill (see 2403130048). Also, the Assembly voted 46-0 for AB-2481, which would create a mechanism for people who report threatening content on social media platforms. In the other chamber, senators voted 37-0 for SB-1383 to remove restrictions included in the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) public housing account that require ISPs to provide free internet before receiving grants. The cable industry supports the bill because it claims that the current restriction deters grant applications (see 2404020049).
The House Innovation Subcommittee voted to forward the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act (HR-8449) (see 2404300067) to the full committee without additional amendments. At Thursday's markup hearing, the subcommittee also discussed the American Privacy Rights Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (see 2405230056). Representatives from both parties praised the AM radio bill, which drew no criticisms at the markup. “From the very beginning this has been totally bipartisan on the committee,” said House Commerce Committee ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J. “I have heard from almost every member of the committee about why they want to do this.” Removing AM radio from vehicles is “inappropriate and premature,” said House Innovation Chairman Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation -- in consultation with the FCC and Federal Emergency Management Agency -- to issue a rule requiring automakers to maintain AM radio in cars and provide disclosures for existing cars that don’t have AM receivers. The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office to study AM and possible improvements to the emergency communications system.
House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval opposing new FCC net neutrality rules. The introduction was expected (see 2404250005). “It’s incredulous we’re having the debate again about the FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ order when its repeal in 2017 led to lower prices, faster Internet speeds, and increased investment in broadband networks," Latta said Thursday. "Once again, the Biden administration is prioritizing heavy-handed government control, made evident in the FCC’s latest push to control the Internet.”
The FCC’s updated data breach notification rule, adopted Dec. 13, released Dec. 21 and published in the Federal Register Feb. 12, is a “brazen effort to claim regulatory authority” that Congress declined to confer under the Communications Act, but also “specifically rejected” under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), said the consolidated opening brief Wednesday in the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court of five petitioners that seek to invalidate the rule (see 2402210026).
Mission Broadcasting’s withdrawal from its proposed $75 million purchase of WADL Mount Clemens, Michigan, from Adell Broadcasting likely means the matter won’t end up in a hearing before the FCC’s administrative law judge, broadcast attorneys told us. Mission submitted notice to the agency on Wednesday that the deal would not be consummated (see 2405220074).
FCC commissioners approved 5-0 an NPRM Thursday that proposes barring test labs from entities on the agency’s “covered list” of unsecure companies from participating in the equipment authorization process. In addition, the FCC clamped down on political robocall violations. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, working with Commissioner Brendan Carr, proposed the lab rules (see 2405020071).
Petitioners iFixit, Public Resource and Make Community “seek to dramatically rewrite federal law and agency rules by destroying the copyright” to the standards development organizations’ standards, said 17 SDOs in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 23-1311) in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. The brief is in support of the FCC. Petitioners allege that the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it amended rules incorporating four new equipment testing standards, and did so without the proper notice and comment protocol (see 2403280002). Using a procedure called “incorporation by reference,” they allege the commission informed the public that copies of the rules were available at its headquarters but didn't say that the rules could be read but not copied. The NPRM also said that copies of the proposed rules were available from the private SDOs that originally published them, the petitioners say. But they allege that these too couldn’t be copied and that they were available only after making a “substantial payment” to the sponsoring SDO. The petitioners ask that the D.C. Circuit compel agencies such as the FCC to post a copy of the SDO’s standard on the agency’s website, “where the electronic copy may be copied, downloaded, and further distributed without limitation,” the amicus brief said. According to the petitioners, this is necessary whenever an agency proposes to incorporate by reference such a standard in a final rule or regulation. But the result would be to make the SDOs’ works, “which indisputably are protected by copyright, available for mass infringement,” said the amicus brief. This would undermine the SDOs’ ability “to fund the creation of these works that yield enormous public benefits,” it said. Joining in the amicus brief were the American National Standards Institute, CTA, IEEE and the Telecommunications Industry Association. Consistent with their public-service missions and nonprofit status, SDOs make standards “easily accessible to the public for free, read-only viewing online,” said the amicus brief. Under the petitioners’ demands, the standards would be posted to an agency’s website “without regard to the SDO’s consent and without any remuneration to the SDO,” the amicus brief alleges. That argument is “contrary to federal law,” it said. The petitioners’ argument, if accepted, also “would undermine the infrastructure of U.S. innovation and the incentive system that are essential to our market-driven economy,” it said.
Samsung Electronics America urged the FCC to act on the company’s request for a waiver for a 5G base station radio that works across citizens broadband radio service and C-band spectrum (see 2309130041). Samsung summarized the record so far in the proceeding, in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 23-93. “Over the past 21 months, Samsung and others have provided information to the FCC numerous times explaining the benefits of this waiver, its compliance with the FCC’s rules (apart from the narrow waiver), its lack of any material impact on the noise environment in the CBRS band, and the fact that it would set no precedent for any future waivers for other, hypothetical equipment that (unlike the Samsung device) potentially would affect the CBRS noise environment,” Samsung said.
T-Mobile responded to questions from the FCC Wireless Bureau on drive test data submitted in the carrier’s third annual progress report following its acquisition of Sprint. T-Mobile filed the report at the agency in January. All the data was redacted from the filing, posted Wednesday in docket 22-211. T-Mobile said it followed the “procedures and methodologies” agreed to by the FCC in performing the drive tests.