The District of Columbia’s 911 office staff can expect more D.C. Council scrutiny this fall, Judiciary and Public Safety Chair Brooke Pinto (D) said Monday. Pinto, in a news release, said she has “deep concern around continued errors and challenges” at Office of Unified Communications. Accordingly, Pinto promised monthly oversight hearings about the OUC and will make biweekly surprise visits to the 911 center. Also, Pinto plans to introduce a bill that would require public release of after-action reports within 45 days of incidents where errors may have led to serious injury or death. Also, the measure would require release of computer-aided dispatch (CAD) reports and 911 call recordings and transcripts. Dave Statter, a former journalist who regularly blogs and tweets about OUC, gave a mixed review of Pinto’s plan in a blog post Monday. Requiring OUC to disclose 911 calls and CAD reports is good because the office has refused to release that information, he said. “Unfortunately, the legislation … still allows DC911 to self-investigate critical incidents.” OUC has received much scrutiny over incidents where incorrect addresses and miscommunication prompted dispatching delays (see 2402080059).

By not issuing a written reason, Elkhart, Indiana, improperly denied Verizon Wireless’ application to build a 135-foot monopole, the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana ruled Friday. The court granted summary judgment for Verizon but remanded the matter to Elkhart’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to provide the missing explanation by Oct. 21. Verizon argued that the BZA’s unanimous decision violated Section 332 of the 1996 Telecom Act, but the city claimed that substantial evidence supported its denial. In a Friday opinion, Judge Damon Leichty said the BZA violated the Telecom Act (TCA) because it gave “no written reasons for its denial that would facilitate a meaningful appeal or enable judicial review.” As a result, “Verizon cannot meaningfully articulate a challenge to any one reason, if in fact any reason existed,” Leichty wrote. However, the court decided it will give BZA a chance to explain. “There is no question the BZA violated the TCA in never providing a written explanation, but no one seriously contends that it otherwise acted with anything but reasonable promptness in its decision,” said the judge. “Accordingly, the court will remand this matter to the BZA for a prompt TCA-compliant decision. The court will be receptive to expedited briefing and review of this matter should the BZA decline to issue the variance without such a compliant decision or without substantial evidence, upon any necessary appeal and assignment here.”

The Maine Public Utilities Commission is seeking information on E-911 costs for public safety answering points and dispatch centers, it said Thursday in a notice of inquiry (docket 2024-00249). A 2024 state law requires such reports annually. Comments are due Sept. 27.

New York has until Oct. 15 to answer ISP groups’ application seeking a U.S. Supreme Court stay of the state’s Affordable Broadband Act, Justice Sonia Sotomayor ordered Thursday in case 24A138. The state asked for the 30-day extension earlier last week (see 2409040022). Sotomayor didn’t appear to address New York’s other request for extending the Sept. 13 deadline to respond to the ISP groups’ petition for certiorari.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) wants the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a district court ruling that partially blocked a state law requiring age-verification to prevent kids from seeing harmful content online. Paxton filed a notice of appeal Thursday at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (docket 1:24-cv-00849). The district court ruled last week that the law likely violates the First Amendment (see 2409030039). The Computer & Communications Industry Association, the plaintiff in the case, looks "forward to demonstrating to the appellate court why the First Amendment prohibits such state legislation," said CCIA Chief of Staff Stephanie Joyce.

New York should ban children from using cellphones during the school day, Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., said Wednesday. New York is one of several states considering legislation and policies either restricting or banning children from using cellphones in school (see 2406070065). Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) signed an executive order in July that would implement restrictions by January. Legislators in Utah are considering a cellphone ban proposal, and California is advancing legislation (see 2408280033). Hochul during a Semafor livestream was asked if she thinks New York should implement a ban. “I personally do,” she said, noting she will be meeting with school union officials who support the proposal in the coming weeks. Hochul said she recognizes some parents are “anxious” about the prospect, especially if it could affect communication during a school shooting or crisis. If there’s a mass shooter, students should be following instructions from teachers and staff, not texting or recording the incident, said Hochul: Their attention should be on the adults who can bring them to safety. The purpose of school is to raise adults who can interact with each other and “make eye contact,” said Hochul. This generation isn’t communicating on a “human level” because of its dependency on cellphones throughout the day, she said: Students are supposed to be “paying attention and learning in school.” FTC Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine said Hochul is correct that social media companies intentionally try to addict children. The agency welcomes states, both Democratic- and Republican-led, responding to this “real mental health crisis” for kids and teens, he said.

North Carolina launched a challenge process Tuesday for the broadband equity, access and deployment program. In a news release, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) urged local and tribal governments, broadband providers and nonprofits to submit challenges before 11:59 p.m. Oct. 3. “I encourage everyone to share feedback to help us achieve internet for all,” he said.

New York sought 30-day extensions to two U.S. Supreme Court deadlines related to ISP groups’ challenge of the state’s Affordable Broadband Act. Last month, ISP groups asked the high court to review a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling that federal statute doesn't preempt the 2021 state law requiring $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households (see 2408130021). Currently, New York must respond to the petition for certiorari by Sept. 13 and industry groups’ stay application by Sept. 16 in case 24A138. However, in a Wednesday letter to SCOTUS, New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood said “upcoming oral arguments and briefing deadlines in other matters will make it very difficult for me and for the other attorneys on this matter to meet the current deadlines.” A 30-day extension “would provide respondent with an opportunity to respond as appropriate to the amicus briefs that we have been told will be filed in support of the petition,” she added. Underwood said she was told petitioners “consent to this extension request.”

GCI Communications "successfully restored basic mobile voice and text services using alternative technologies" following a subset fiber break last week in Sitka, Alaska, a spokesperson told us this week. Customers are still unable to use mobile data, internet and Yukon TV services, the spokesperson said, but a "fiber repair ship is en route and is expected to be at the site of the break by the end of the week." Repairs could take up to six days "depending on the complexity of the situation and other challenges that may arise," he said: "We understand this is frustrating and appreciate our customers’ patience as we work to fully restore services as quickly as possible."

Agreeing with X’s First Amendment arguments, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supported blocking a California law requiring social media companies to provide the state with semiannual disclosures of their content-moderation policies. In a Wednesday opinion, the appeals court reversed a U.S. District Court for Eastern California decision to deny X’s request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of AB-587. The 9th Circuit remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the reporting requirement and to determine if other challenged provisions should also be enjoined. X is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the reporting requirement facially violates the First Amendment, found a 9th Circuit panel including Judges Milan Smith, Mark Bennett and Anthony Johnstone. The disclosure requirements “likely compel non-commercial speech and are subject to strict scrutiny, under which they do not survive,” Smith wrote (case 24-271). Because the court is reversing based on free-speech grounds, it needn’t address X's arguments that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts the law, the judge said. X and California AG Rob Bonta (D) didn’t comment by our deadline.