Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Withdrawal of both holds on Senate confirmation of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to a full five-year term ends the main hurdle to approval of him and Democratic FCC nominee Geoffrey Starks. But dynamics in the Senate continue to cloud their chances for confirmation this year. Senate leaders have been working since June to advance the nominees as a pair (see 1806270065). Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, lifted his hold on Carr (see 1812200033) in concert with the formal end of a separate hold by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. President Donald Trump would need to renominate Carr and Starks for the Senate to reconsider them in 2019.

Widespread doubts about the likelihood of Senate confirmation this year of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to a full five-year term and Democratic FCC nominee Geoffrey Starks remained Wednesday, despite the likely impending end of one of two holds on Carr. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he's close to lifting his hold. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said he was still maintaining his hold. Senate leaders intend to move Carr and Starks as a pair.

Telco, cable and electric company interests cited their efforts to restore services in the Florida Panhandle hammered by Hurricane Michael in October. Recovery was slowed by the magnitude of the devastation and coordination difficulties, and service remains out in some areas, they commented, posted through Tuesday responding to an FCC Public Safety Bureau public notice in docket 18-339 (see 1811160050).

Cities sought court stay of the FCC September wireless infrastructure order, and the commission and wireless carriers opposed San Jose’s motion to transfer appeal of the order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Action is urgently required on this Motion, as the Order will be effective in part on January 14, 2019,” San Jose and other cities said Monday (in Pacer). “The Order dramatically changes the status quo that the Commission concedes works well in many places,” violates the Communications Act and “raises significant constitutional issues,” cities said. “A stay will allow deployment to proceed while avoiding significant delays and irreversible harms that would result from nationwide regulatory whiplash as the Order takes effect in stages and potentially changes after judicial review.” A judicial lottery selected the 10th Circuit for industry and local-government challenges, but San Jose sought transfer to the 9th (see 1811300034). “San Jose misreads federal law as requiring transfer to the Ninth Circuit after the Judicial Panel randomly assigned all six qualifying petitions, filed in four different circuits, to this Circuit,” the FCC said in opposition posted Tuesday. The agency disagreed with cities’ argument courts should treat an August infrastructure order -- under appeal in the 9th -- as the first part of the same order. They "are separate standalone orders that were adopted by separate votes on separate documents at separate times based on differing records (with over 700 additional record submissions for the September Order), and the two orders each address separate and discrete subjects,” the FCC said. They are different, CTIA agreed (in Pacer). Cities’ “suggestion that this Court is somehow ill-suited to resolve the relevant legal issues or is not as well situated to consider this case as the Ninth Circuit, is legally unsupported and a transparent attempt at forum shopping. Moreover, because serious jurisdictional questions cloud the petition pending in the Ninth Circuit for review of the August Order, transfer of this case to that court would be particularly inappropriate.” Transfer got support (in Pacer) of Seattle and other municipalities that challenged the FCC order separately from the San Jose group.

The FCC could soon address intercarrier compensation "arbitrage," said two FCBA panelists Tuesday. The commission is taking the issues seriously in a proceeding "ripe" for action, said Matthew Nodine, AT&T assistant vice president-federal regulatory. He's hopeful the commission acts in a "very quick time frame" to curb arbitrage "schemes" that generate carrier payments. Moderator Philip Macres of Klein Law suggested the agency could look to act in Q1. The FCC didn't comment.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh likely will participate if the Supreme Court is asked to review the FCC net neutrality rollback, said court watchers, noting justices have wide leeway on recusals. They recused themselves without explanation from a November decision not to consider the prior commission's 2015 Communications Act Title II net neutrality order (see 1811050008). Their apparent reasons -- possible conflicts over Roberts' shares and Kavanaugh's lower court participation -- aren't expected to be repeated if the current Republican-run FCC's Title I order comes before them.

Supreme Court review of a federal appeals court ruling that interconnected VoIP is an information service is no sure thing. But petitioning the highest court may be the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s only remaining option if the agency wants to continue arguing the state may regulate Charter Communications cable VoIP, said experts in interviews last week. The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals earlier this month denied the PUC’s petition for en banc rehearing (see 1812040045) of a panel’s September ruling (see 1809070030). If it stands, the decision would affect a Vermont VoIP proceeding and any other state that sees traditional and VoIP services as functionally equivalent, experts said.

The FCC Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council approved a recommendation Thursday that new rules aimed at protecting the national security of networks be narrowly tailored to prevent disruptions. Commissioners approved an NPRM in April that would bar use of money in any USF program to buy equipment or services from companies that “pose a national security threat” to U.S. communications networks or the communications supply chain (see 1804170038). Chairman Ajit Pai said Wednesday those security concerns remain a commission focus (see 1812120043).

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel accused FCC colleagues of regulatory “doublespeak,” in a decision clarifying text messages are a lightly regulated Communications Act Title I service. Members approved the declaratory ruling 3-1 over her dissent, as expected (see 1812050019). Commission staff couldn't identify any instances where lightly regulating wireless texting would have better prevented spam, and groups that generally back regulation cried foul. Members separately approved a reassigned number database order targeting some unwanted robocalls, with safe harbor from liability (see 1812120026).

Critics of a satellite repurposing and secondary-market airwaves sale plan used replies on opening the C band to buttress the case for the FCC taking a different approach. The earliest replies last week in docket 18-122 featured big satellite companies pushing for their market plan to clear up to 200 MHz for other use (see 1812070041) while attacking T-Mobile asking the commission to hold an auction and possibly sell even more. Now, more recent but still early replies posted this week through Tuesday afternoon suggest sharing satellite's spectrum with broadband services, possibly across the entire band's 500 MHz swath.