FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's support of SpaceX raises doubts about whether the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America can expect the commission to treat its petition fairly, the UCCA said Thursday. The group asked the agency to yank SpaceX's licenses in light of allegations that the company allows Russia to use its Starlink satellite network to fight in Ukraine (see 2404240019). Carr last month called the UCCA filing "full of sweeping and unmoored allegations" and meritless. It was "part of a clear and repeating pattern of regulatory harassment that accelerated the moment Elon Musk stood up for free speech," he added. Pointing to Ukrainians in Russia-occupied areas enduring censorship and media control, UCCA said in its new filing that Carr was "culturally insensitive" and there was no proof the group was "some shadowy conspiracy seeking to punish Musk for his stand on free speech." Moreover, UCCA called Carr's statement "highly prejudicial" and asked for an apology. Carr's office didn't comment.

The FCC’s digital discrimination broadband order “is illegal on at least three grounds,” the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Washington Legal Foundation said in an 8th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amicus brief Tuesday (docket 24-1179). The brief supports the 20 industry petitioners that seek to vacate the order as unlawful (see 2404230032). When Congress grants lawmaking authority to a federal agency, it must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the agency can conform, according to the brief. Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directs the FCC to adopt rules that facilitate equal access to broadband, including by preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion or national origin, it said. The industry petitioners “persuasively explain” that Section 60506's language doesn’t permit the FCC to implement disparate impact liability, it said. But if it did, then that language violates the nondelegation doctrine by failing to provide an intelligible principle governing such liability, it said. “Virtually any action that a regulated entity can take will have a disparate impact along one or more dimensions of income level, race, ethnicity, color, or religion,” said the brief. That’s especially true because of the inclusion of income level, “which means that any decision by a covered entity lowering or raising prices will have a disparate impact based on income and thus come within the FCC’s enforcement authority,” it said. The authority to promulgate disparate impact rules “is a major question to which Congress is required to speak clearly,” it said. Because Congress didn’t speak “clearly to this particular question” in the statute, the FCC’s order is “invalid,” it said. The order also requires covered entities to “treat people differently based on race, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” it said.

The FCC's ongoing, contested L-band regulatory proceeding is the proper place for addressing Ligado's concerns regarding its use of the spectrum, especially as the FCC could provide Ligado with adequate relief, DOJ told the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Monday. In a docket in support of the defendant U.S. government's motion to dismiss, Justice said FCC licenses aren't property for purposes of the takings clause, and Ligado hasn't pleaded an authorized taking of its license anyway. DOJ said Ligado's "grab-bag of takings theories" is rife with deficiencies. Ligado is alleging its L-band rights, worth tens of billions, were rendered valueless by U.S. taking of Ligado's property (see 2310130003). The U.S. is seeking dismissal (see 2401260003). DOJ on Monday said that Ligado is ignoring that the FCC's 2020 Ligado order faces eight reconsideration petitions that are pending. It said Ligado is asking the federal court to usurp FCC decision-making and the judicial review process "by depriving the FCC of the opportunity to adjudicate any takings claims and by awarding Ligado billions in compensation for the alleged taking of supposed property -- the modified license -- that the FCC or court of appeals may later abrogate."

The expiration of FCC auction authority was a problem that could have been avoided, House Communications ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said during CTIA’s 5G Summit Monday (see 2405060051). Congress should strike a deal now that restores auction authority, she said. “With a hamstrung FCC, we're going to be limited in what we can achieve,” Matsui said. “I don't think we can afford to wait any longer.” The U.S. is at a “crossroads,” Matsui said: “Networks are converging, consumer demand is skyrocketing, and global competition is heating up. In short, the stakes couldn't be higher.” The lapse of auction authority more than a year ago was “an avoidable failure,” she said. Matsui called for “a more nimble and predictable spectrum governance regime” and for flexibility from government and industry. “Vital federal missions cannot be jeopardized -- we all agree on that -- but uncompromising rigidity in defining the tools needed for those missions can result in federal paralysis,” she said. The government’s study of the lower 3 GHz band, the national spectrum strategy's requirement, must be “driven by engineering and science” and the Commerce Committee will make sure that happens, Matsui said. In addition, she stressed the importance of Congress funding an extension of the affordability connectivity program (see 2405020072). Despite all the money spent on deploying broadband, without "affordability we can't have the connectivity we need,” she said. For House Communications Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta, R-Ohio, the challenge of crafting legislation on 5G issues and the future of communications is avoiding anything that slows progress. “A lot of times when I talk to the industry, they're way past us,” Latta said. “The last thing we want to do is pass legislation where [we’re] looking in the rearview mirror,” he said. Latta said he keeps an open door and wants industry input. “You got ideas, suggestions, you've got problems, let us know what they are,” he said. Latta remains concerned about the broadband equity, access and deployment program and other spending initiatives. “The federal government should not be out there picking winners and losers,” he said. In addition, Latta is concerned about overbuilding current networks. He said fellow lawmakers find it difficult "to believe and understand that we have over 130 different broadband programs spread across 15 departments and agencies … administering billions of dollars.”

The FCC released the final text of an order restoring net neutrality and reclassifying broadband internet access service as a Communications Act Title II telecom service Tuesday. Commissioners approved the item during their April open meeting in a 3-2 vote. An initial comparison between the final text and the draft shows several changes, including "no rate regulation, no tariffing, no unbundling of last-mile facilities, and no cost accounting rules" as part of the Title II reclassification (see 2404250004). The order also clarified that "we have not determined that regulation of zero-rating and interconnection is detrimental, leaving room for states to experiment and explore their own approaches within the bounds of our overarching federal framework." The FCC added to the state preemption section that “the mere existence of a state affordability program is not rate regulation.” The commission won’t “address any particular program here,” it said. “Nevertheless, we find that states have a critical role to play in promoting broadband affordability and ensuring connectivity for low-income consumers.” The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York state’s affordable broadband law one day after the FCC adopted the Title II decision (see 2404260051).

Indian Peak Properties seeks to vacate the FCC’s March 7 order denying its petitions for declaratory ruling, said its petition for review Monday (docket 24-1108) in U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. Indian Peak's petitions had sought a federal preemption under the commission’s over-the-air reception devices (OTARDs) rule of a decision by Rancho Palos Verdes, California, to revoke, under local ordinances, the company’s conditional use permit for the deployment of rooftop antennas on a local property. The FCC’s order denying Indian Peaks that relief was premised on a new “human presence” rule for OTARDs, the petition said. That means FCC staff found that Indian Peak failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a regular human presence at the property where the antennas were deployed. But such a “substantive rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act requires a notice-and-comment rulemaking to be legal and effective, said Indian Peak's petition. But “no notice was given, and the public was afforded no opportunity to comment on the new rule,” it said. Instead, the order announced this rule when it denied Indian Peak’s application for review before the commission, it said. The order also upholds FCC staff’s refusal to declare a proceeding, and hold in abeyance state court litigation, it said, The order thus “upholds staff’s violations of FCC rules of procedure,” it said. With its appeal, Indian Peak seeks reversal of these “arbitrary and capricious agency actions that are contrary to law,” and remand to the FCC “for treatment not inconsistent” with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it said. On remand and with the FCC’s grant of Indian Peak’s petitions, the local zoning ordinance would be preempted, and the company would be able to replace the disputed antennas on the rooftop of the property, it said.

Worldwide spending on telecom and pay-TV services reached $1.5 trillion in 2023, up 2.1% over 2022, but slower growth is expected this year, according to the IDC Worldwide Semiannual Telecom Services Tracker. IDC projected an increase of 1.4% in 2024. “The progress of the global market slowed during the latter half of 2023,” IDC said: “This deceleration primarily resulted from slower-than-anticipated progress in the Americas, where a combination of sluggish economic growth, relatively high inflation, and saturated markets created an unfavorable environment for market development.” Growth was stronger in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, where operators “were allowed by the regulators to increase their tariffs in line with inflation using a Consumer Price Index model,” the report said.

A written presentation by SETI Institute filed a day before the FCC's March meeting will be associated with but not part of the record in the supplemental coverage from space framework proceeding approved at that meeting (see 2403140050), the FCC Office of General Counsel said in docket 23-65 Friday. The March 14 filing came during the sunshine agenda window prior to the meeting, when presentations to commissioners are prohibited. SETI is a nonprofit organization that focuses on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

The FCC is seeking information from nine other federal agencies about test labs with Chinese government ties as the agency considers a proposed rulemaking barring these labs from the FCC equipment authorization process (see 2405020071). Requests went to the Bureau of Industry Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, DOD, DOJ, the Federal Acquisition Security Council, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and NSA, per a notice in Friday’s Daily Digest. The FCC asked for responses by May 16.

The FCC’s April 24 opposition to Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net's petition challenging the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the companies provided to schools confirms that the petition should be granted, the petitioners’ reply said. It was filed Wednesday (docket 24-1027) at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Discounts on IT and broadband services come under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). The FCC calls the mandamus relief that the petitioners seek to force the reimbursements a drastic remedy that should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. In cases such as this, involving claims of unreasonable agency delay, mandamus is warranted only when delays are egregious, the agency said. But under “the first mandamus factor,” for a remedy in this case to be adequate, “it must enable the numerous schools in this case to complete their IT projects before the next school year,” said the petitioners’ reply. If the FCC doesn’t render a decision and provide funding before the summer, “many schools will be unable to move forward with vital IT projects and hundreds of students will be deprived next school year of the IT infrastructure necessary for a modern education,” it said. Compensatory relief after years of litigation, as the FCC suggested, doesn’t provide an adequate remedy that would prevent this harm to the public, “which after next year would become irreversible in the absence of immediate mandamus relief,” it said. The agency contends that in light of evidence showing that the petitioners may have had an improper relationship with the schools they were servicing, USAC investigated that possible misconduct, but expects those probes will be finished by the end of May. But that expectation “provides little solace when USAC lacks any authority to address the legal issues in this case and there is no time limit for an FCC decision,” said the petitioners’ reply. The agency’s opposition doesn’t indicate when the FCC will render a decision or whether the schools will receive funds before next school year, it said. Under the second mandamus factor, there’s a clear and indisputable right under Section 254 to the particular relief sought, it said. The Fifth Amendment also establishes a clear and indisputable right to due process, which required a “timely deprivation hearing” either before or after Essential and MetComm were deprived of their “statutory entitlement to reimbursement,” it said. The FCC has a “clear duty” to report its deprivation decision in writing, it said.