Correction: The proposed FCC wireless mics report and order addresses only licensed mics, but a Part 15 report and order addresses unlicensed devices, including unlicensed mics (see 1507160054).

The FCC has no place in regulating online video distributors, Commissioner Ajit Pai said Friday. "Even though online video has thrived precisely because of the government's hands-off approach," some in government "view the Internet as too important not to regulate," Pai said in a Churchill Club address that later was posted online. The FCC is considering reinterpreting the definition of multichannel video programing distributors to include over-the-top (OTT) providers of multiple streams of prescheduled, linear video programming -- a move that faces pushback from numerous media companies as well (see 1507140011). While backers of the move say such regulation would assist online video distributors (OVDs), "the benefits promised are illusory," in large part because the Copyright Office does not consider OTT providers as cable systems and thus have no legal right to a compulsory copyright license to show broadcast programming, Pai said. "The FCC's regulations would likely compel retransmission consent negotiations that lead to the carriage of little to no programming." While nothing stops broadcast programmers and OVDs from negotiating their own carriage and licensing agreements, he said, the FCC has no legal ability to force such negotiations "because copyright law stands in their way." Instead, Pai said, "It's all about increasing the FCC's authority -- about putting the FCC at the head of the digital table and bringing another industry within our reach." If the agency does in fact begin regulating only a certain segment of OTT operators, that almost surely will lead to the agency seeking to regulate other segments, Pai said. "I can even predict one of the arguments that will be made: How is it fair to regulate one type of online video provider but not another?"

FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly will give the keynote address at a Free State Foundation seminar, "Implementing Real Regulatory Reform at the FCC," to be held July 28, noon to 2 p.m. O'Rielly is scheduled to talk about regulatory reform proposals he has put forward at the agency, with a panel discussion to follow. The event will be at the National Press Club. For more information, contact the Free State Foundation at info@freestatefoundation.org.

President Barack Obama praised the commitments of other stakeholders involved in the ConnectHome initiative he launched this week (see 1507150053), devoted to putting affordable or free broadband in low-income households in 28 communities. “Now, I want to give credit where credit is due,” Obama said Wednesday evening during a speech in Durant, Oklahoma, where one initiative beneficiary -- the Choctaw tribal nation -- is based. “This is not something government does by itself. I’m proud to say that folks around the country are stepping up to do their part. So businesses like Cox are providing low-cost Internet and devices. Best Buy is committing [to] free computer education and technical support so that folks learn how to make the most of the Internet.” A higher percentage of the people in South Korea have access to high-speed broadband than they do in the U.S., Obama said. He framed ConnectHome as a part of a broader administration goal: “So that’s why my administration has made it a priority to connect more Americans to the Internet, and close that digital divide that people have been talking about for 20 years now,” he said. “We’ve invested so far in more than 100,000 miles of network infrastructure; that’s enough to circle the globe four times. We’ve laid a lot of line. We’ve supported community broadband. We’ve championed net neutrality rules to make sure that the Internet providers treat all web traffic equally. And then we launched something called ConnectEd, and this was targeted at making sure that every school was connected and classrooms were connected. And we’re now well on our way to connecting 99 percent of students to high-speed broadband in their classrooms by 2018, and that includes here in Durant.” House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., issued a statement Thursday praising ConnectHome as “an important step.”

Charter Communications “made net neutrality history” when it committed to “open and free interconnection” across the Charter/Time Warner Cable network “if their pending merger is approved” (see 1507150038) Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and Chief Financial Officer David Wells said Wednesday in a quarterly letter to shareholders. “This move ensures that all online video providers can aggressively compete for consumers' favor, without selective and increasing fees paid to ISPs.” Charter's policy “is the right way to scale the Internet” because it means consumers “will receive the fast connection speeds they expect,” they said. “The Charter/TWC transaction, with this condition, would deliver significant public interest benefits to broadband consumers, and we urge its timely approval.” Netflix in Q2 exceeded 65 million subscribers, including 42 million in the U.S. and 23 million overseas, the letter said. “We are at the forefront of a wave of global Internet TV adoption and intend to make our service available throughout the world by the end of 2016.” To support its global expansion, Netflix is “focused on adding more languages, optimizing our personalization algorithms for a global library in local markets, and expanding support for a range of device, operator and payment partnerships,” the letter said. “We are also placing a greater emphasis on optimizing for mobile, which is the main means for Internet access in many emerging markets where we will be expanding in the future.”

More parties are seeking to file amicus briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality order, motions filed Tuesday revealed in USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (available via Pacer). Petitioners challenging the order's net neutrality rules and broadband reclassification as a telecom service under Title II of the Communications Act are Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Daniel Berninger, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. The Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to file an amicus brief that would argue the FCC regulation "will reduce broadband investment and stifle innovation." The Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy seeks to address the "underlying economic issues" and show the commission "incorrectly assessed both the costs and benefits of a Title II regulatory regime" and "explain and quantify how the FCC's actions will negatively impact investment in the Internet." University of Pennsylvania Law professor Christopher Yoo seeks to show the order "contradicts the technical principles that determined" the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling upholding the commission's previous Title I cable broadband classification in NCTA v. Brand X. Richard Bennett, who says he is a co-inventor of Wi-Fi and modern ethernet architecture, seeks to explain how the Title II broadband reclassification "effectively bans Quality of Service modes of communications unique and essential to the functioning of the Internet, and are vital for real-time communication, High-Definition voice, video conferencing, and the Internet of things." He also plans to show the agency ruling "displays a lack of expertise on the subject matter" and made other errors, including by ignoring that broadband Internet access service is "part of an integrated whole that includes a larger and more important information processing component." The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council seeks to support AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, NCTA and USTelecom by arguing that the commission "failed to adequately consider evidence that Title II regulation will: 1) impose a regulatory paradigm that will adversely affect broadband access, deployment and adoption in historically disadvantaged communities where mass market broadband services are not ubiquitous; and 2) endanger the progress made under the FCC's previous regulatory paradigm toward narrowing the digital divide for vulnerable populations and creating workforce development in these communities." Three other parties made filings on Monday announcing their intent to submit amicus briefs supporting petitioners (see 1507140035).

The FCC process reform to-do list is narrowing as it's made numerous changes over the past year in how it operates, Chairman Tom Wheeler's special counsel Diane Cornell said a blog post Monday. Those changes cover the gamut from a revamped consumer help center and accelerated processing of applications for review to every bureau having developed and implementing backlog reduction plans and expedited processing of cellular license applications. Improvements in the works include an updated electronic comment filing system to roll out this summer and ongoing improvements to FCC.gov's searchability and navigability, Cornell said. "This is good progress, but there’s much more to be done -- internal process reform initiatives will continue over the months to come," she said . "We plan to deploy new IT tracking and collaboration tool capability, more electronic filing and automated processes, and adopt many more proposals that would eliminate or streamline outdated rules." The process reform work follows a report and recommendations put out by the agency in early 2014 on improving internal operations.

FCC broadband reclassification "will likely have significant adverse effects" on Internet investment, according to a study by Kevin Hassett, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Robert Shapiro, a senior policy fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, which circulated the paper Tuesday. The authors acknowledged research support from Washington think tank NDN but said the views were their own. The data show broadband service spread more rapidly than computers or dial-up service "and with virtually no regulatory intervention," the study said, but applying Title II of the Communications Act to broadband Internet access service will "likely increase costs and regulatory hurdles for providers" and could lead to "substantial price increases and consumer costs," with a negative impact on investment. The authors cited a 2015 Progressive Policy Institute policy memo by Hal Singer that suggested Title II regulation reduced telecom company investment by 5.5 percent per year in past years compared with what it otherwise would have been. Hassett and Shapiro also cited their own 2014 AT&T-backed study that suggested Title II regulation could reduce future telecom investment by 12.8 to 20.8 percent. The authors noted the FCC net neutrality order questioned the assumptions of that study, but they rejected commission criticisms and called some of them irrelevant. The authors also cited a University of Pennsylvania paper by Christopher Yoo that compared certain broadband metrics of the U.S., when broadband was more lightly regulated, with those of Europe, which was more heavily regulated, and found that America had higher access and investment levels, and lower consumer costs at speed tiers below 12 Mbps (with higher U.S. costs for higher speed levels justified by higher bandwidth use). "This suggests that it is reasonable to expect large negative effects on investment from Title II regulation," Hassett and Shapiro said. "Substantial" uncertainties arising from Title II litigation and FCC forbearance decisions would likely further depress investment, the authors said. "We should expect that ISPs will reduce some of their planned capital investments, at least until the FCC establishes how, to what extent and toward whom the new regulations will be applied, and the legal challenges to those decisions have been resolved." FCC enforcement of specific complaints -- including over IP interconnection, a vast new area of jurisdiction -- and the 2016 election and likely FCC leadership changes will prolong the uncertainties, they added. "Sorting this out could take years or even decades, not unlike the more than 70 years it has taken to give effect to Title II," they said. "These multiple sources of uncertainty extend beyond the enduring and compounding negative effects of the regulation, such as the increased costs, prohibited practices, and delayed innovation." FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has disputed that the net neutrality and the Title II broadband order is discouraging investment (see 1506260024 and 1505200033).

Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Mobile Future and the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) plan to file amicus briefs in support of petitioners challenging the FCC net neutrality order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). Furchtgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner, and WLF intend to file a brief Aug. 6 in support of petitioners Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, Daniel Berninger, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Provider Association, their notice filed Monday said. It said all the parties, including the FCC and Justice Department, consented to the filing of the brief. Mobile Future intends to file an amicus brief in support of CTIA and AT&T, its motion filed Monday said. Mobile Future said it plans to address points "unique to mobile broadband providers" that may not be fully discussed by the main group of petitioners, which includes both mobile and fixed providers, some of which oppose mobile broadband arguments to be made by CTIA. Mobile Future said it was "impractical" for it to join with other parties in an amicus brief.

The Telecommunications Industry Association plans to support challenges to the FCC net neutrality order, the group said in an emailed news release Monday. TIA filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to file an amicus brief on Aug. 6 in support of various petitioners in the case, including USTelecom (USTelecom v. FCC, No. 15-1063). TIA said it would argue that the FCC decisions to reclassify broadband Internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act and craft an Internet conduct rule were "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law."