Cable programmers could end the lawsuit against their Venu sports streaming partnership if they allowed multichannel video programming distributors to offer more customized programming bundles, LightShed Partners blogged Friday. The source of the Venu suit is that third-party distributors aren't offered "Venu-like bundles," LightShed said. The big bundle's future "is grim at best," and now might be a good time to allow MVPDs to offer smaller bundles and reduce or end minimum penetration requirements, it added. That could slow the demise of linear TV, though it also would hasten the end of non-core non-sports networks like MTV, TLC and USA, LightShed said. DOJ and various states are backing fuboTV in its litigation against Venu and its defense of a preliminary injunction against Venu (see 2408160040). Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery -- the Venu partnership -- is challenging the injunction. In a docket 24-2210 amicus brief last week filed with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of fuboTV, 16 states and the District of Columbia said the "no duty to deal" doctrine -- under which businesses aren't liable for unlawful monopolization by refusing to do business with competitors -- doesn't shield those businesses from antitrust scrutiny of anticompetitive joint conduct. Signing the amicus brief were New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. DOJ, in an amicus brief, dismissed the programmers' argument that it's not anticompetitive to stop rivals from getting unbundled sports channels because there's no antitrust duty to deal with distributors. "That argument is a red herring," and the appeal is about creation of Venu as a violation of the Clayton Act, DOJ said. Asked whether the change in administrations and the Donald Trump DOJ might have a different stance, a fubo spokesperson emailed that "we believe our issue is bipartisan."
It would be a mistake for the Trump administration to undo President Joe Biden’s efforts at establishing a rights-based regulatory framework for AI technology, Democrats told us in interviews before the break.
Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, could shift the direction Congress’ USF revamp takes when he becomes the panel’s chairman in January, lawmakers and lobbyists told us. Observers believe his impact on what Congress decides will partially depend on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules when it reviews the FCC appeal of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Consumers' Research's challenge of the USF contribution methodology (see 2411220050). A high court ruling upholding the 5th Circuit could shift momentum in favor of Cruz’s proposal that Congress make USF funding part of the appropriations process, officials said.
Communications Daily is tracking the lawsuits below involving appeals of FCC actions.
Several public interest groups urged greater scrutiny of Frontier's proposed sale to Verizon in comments to the California Public Utilities Commission (see 2410210012). In joint comments in docket 24-10-006 posted Friday, the Utility Reform Network, Center for Accessible Technology and Access Humboldt said, "The application does not contain sufficient information to determine even whether a review of the proposed transaction is justified." In addition, the CPUC Public Advocates Office warned that the proposed deal could "diminish service quality and reliability" and "impede the deployment and adoption of broadband services." The office encouraged that the commission study the impact of the deal on fiber deployment in the state, noting that it's unclear in the joint application whether Verizon will "continue Frontier's trajectory of building fiber in California." The California Emerging Technology Fund didn't oppose the deal, although it encouraged that the CPUC "consider impacts in the short term and long term of the transaction on broadband access service." The group also noted the application "lacks specificity" on Verizon's commitment to infrastructure investments in the near term and suggested a public benefit framework with buildout commitments.
The federal government defended the FCC’s decision denying petitions for declaratory ruling on the agency’s over-the-air reception device (OTARD) rules in response to Indian Peak Properties' challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2405060035). The FCC declined to step in following a dispute between the company and Rancho Palos Verdes, California (see 2410290011). “The Commission correctly construed the Rule to require a regular human presence at an antenna’s location,” the government said. “This requirement is evident from the Rule’s text and the Commission’s historic treatment of the Rule, and is consistent with Congress’s original purpose of protecting viewers’ access to video programming.” The pleading discussed the dispute's long history. After a city inspection revealed at least 11 antennas on the property in question, “plus other equipment on the roof, the City ordered Indian Peak to remove all but five antennas, and the parties began several years of discussions,” the pleading said, noting that in 2020, after suing the city, Indian Peak sought FCC review. The pleading said the commission’s determination “that Indian Peak failed to adequately allege that its antenna use fell within the Rule’s scope was supported by substantial evidence: Indian Peak repeatedly told the Commission that no one lived at the Property, emphasized the importance of remote access, and offered vague and inconsistent descriptions of how the Property was used.” From its origins protecting viewers’ access to satellite video at their homes, the OTARD rule “has always contemplated that a protected antenna serve a human end user at the antenna’s location,” the government said. “Indeed, if the Rule did not contain a human-presence requirement, it would necessarily extend to antennas on unoccupied buildings -- a result which nothing in the Rule’s history supports.”
Industry and public interest groups disagreed last week about whether the California Public Utilities Commission should temporarily freeze the state LifeLine specific support amount (SSA) for wireline and wireless providers. The CPUC is considering freezing the SSA at $19 beginning Jan. 1 until a new methodology is calculated (see 2406040032).
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr and California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) took shots at each other on X Wednesday, trading jabs about net neutrality and Carr's selection as President-elect Donald Trump's FCC chair. Carr "opposes net neutrality, which ensures that you, not telecom companies, get to decide where you go on the internet," Wiener wrote. "Fortunately [California] has a strong net neutrality law, which I authored after Trump's FCC repealed net neutrality in 2017," he said, adding that "we'll defend an open internet" (see 2309280056). Carr responded with an image of search results for "What has Scott Wiener done?," appearing to imply that Wiener has done little worth noting.
Communications Daily is tracking the lawsuits below involving appeals of FCC actions.
Sirius XM filed a complaint at the FCC against China’s Shenzhen Tongwei Electronics' wideband signal boosters and California’s MiCOM Labs, which certified the devices. The boosters can operate in the 2300 MHz band, licensed for the terrestrial wireless communications service, in violation of FCC rules, the complaint said. “Testing has shown that these devices produce out-of-band emissions … that cause harmful interference” to satellite digital audio radio service and aeronautical mobile telemetry, the complaint said. The booster models are sold on Amazon under the trade names Beyle, Tonve or Becky, the complaint said. SiriusXM said AT&T, which uses the WCS band, supports the complaint.