The Broadband Opportunity Council got only a handful of questions Wednesday during a webinar designed to answer broad queries as it seeks public input on barriers hampering broadband deployment. The council was established March 23 by President Barack Obama and is led by the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, through the Rural Utilities Service and NTIA. “The plan is to make sure that we develop a national broadband expansion plan,” said Keith Adams, assistant administrator at RUS, who spoke during the webinar. “We must use the unique opportunity to collectively join in with the president’s broadband mission and deliver unprecedented impact.” The council already is taking a close look at all federal programs that support broadband “or have the potential to promote broadband services via any type of modifications to rules or regulations,” he said. The council is seeking recommendations from agencies for executive actions and will prepare a final report to the president in August, he said. “We want to make sure that we’re getting all kinds of information from industry, from state, local governments, from anybody who has a stake in understanding how we can provide broadband,” Adams said. The council wants “firsthand feedback on the current issues,” said Douglas Kinkoph, acting associate administrator over the NTIA Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. “We want to solicit new, bold ideas,” he said. “We’re open to all ideas and issues that you are experiencing.” Comments should cover adoption and deployment issues, Kinkoph said. “It’s important to be specific in regards to the programs, rules, agencies, obstacles and opportunities.” Commenters should avoid addressing issues already before the FCC, such as net neutrality or intercarrier compensation, he said. The council said in a May 6 notice it's seeking comment on: “(i) Ways the federal government can promote best practices, modernize outdated regulations, promote coordination, and offer more services online; (ii) identification of regulatory barriers to broadband deployment, competition, and adoption; (iii) ways to promote public and private investment in broadband; (iv) ways to promote broadband adoption; (v) issues related to state, local, and tribal governments; (vi) issues related to vulnerable communities and communities with limited or no broadband; (vii) issues specific to rural areas; and (viii) ways to measure broadband availability, adoption, and speed.” Comments are due June 10.

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel struck Daniel Berninger's motion to stay the FCC net neutrality order that reclassified broadband Internet access as a Communications Act Title II service. The panel's order Tuesday said the court's clear intent in previous orders was for Berninger's case to be consolidated with others in a single joint motion for a stay, but Berninger, founder of Voice Communication Exchange Committee, filed his motion separate from a previous stay request of telco and cable groups. The latter motion targets only the Title II broadband reclassification and an Internet conduct standard, not the net neutrality rules against Internet blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (see 1505190033). The D.C. Circuit denied a motion by intervenors, including Public Knowledge, backing the FCC order that had sought to exceed previous page limits in a separate opposition to the stay motion. The panel did allow intervenors to file a single joint response of up to 20 pages by noon Friday, when the FCC response is due. The panel gave telco/stay petitioners until noon May 29 to file a reply of up to 28 pages. In another development, judges for the 3rd Circuit ordered that a challenge to the net neutrality order by Full Service Network, Sage Telecommunications, Telescape Communications and TruConnect Mobile be transferred to the D.C. Circuit. The FCC had requested that change.

Alex Nogales, president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, said Tuesday he's resigning from the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) because he was unhappy the group had posted an article by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which he said alleged that labor leader Cesar Chavez would not have supported NHMC’s work on net neutrality. MMTC removed the article from its website after it appeared there only briefly. Nogales announced his resignation in a blog post on the Huffington Post. MMTC had no immediate comment.

Voice Communication Exchange Committee founder Daniel Berninger asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday to stay the FCC net neutrality order that reclassified broadband Internet access as a Title II telecom service. Berninger said the entire order should be stayed because it "threatens his livelihood," which is "predicated on the ability to design, develop, and deploy services that are not subject to regulation by the FCC under Title II -- an ability that will be forever lost if the order takes effect." Berninger asked the court to act before June 12, the order's effective date, or as soon thereafter as practical. Major telco and cable groups asked the D.C. Circuit last week to stay the order's broadband reclassification and its Internet conduct standard but not its net neutrality rules barring Internet blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (see 1505130049). A D.C. Circuit panel asked the FCC to respond to that petition by noon Friday and for the telco/cable petitioners to reply by May 28. Those petitioners Tuesday opposed a motion by intervenors, including the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and Public Knowledge, to supplement the FCC response to the stay with their own opposition as "unfair to petitioners" due to page limits.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson urged the FCC to approve AT&T's proposed buy of DirecTV "promptly and discussed peering and interconnection issues raised in the proceeding," in a conference call with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Thursday, said an ex parte letter posted Monday to docket 14-90. It provided no more details. At a recent meeting with FCC staffers, Cogent, Dish Network, Free Press, Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute asked the FCC to impose certain conditions -- including on stand-alone broadband, interconnection, data caps and net neutrality -- to address various alleged harms if it decides to approve the deal, said an ex parte filing (see 1505130042). Comptel recently backed Cox Communications' proposal to restrict AT&T/DirecTV from entering into video programming contracts that include unreasonable volume discounts, and the American Cable Association's proposal to prevent the combined company from interfering with rates, terms and conditions that video programmers offer competitors. Comptel also proposed, among other things, that AT&T/DirecTV be (1) required to file quarterly reports on its programming contracts, (2) prohibited from charging terminating access fees or using broadband data caps in a way that could harm online video distributors, and (3) required to comply with Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act both during and after its wireline transition to IP. In addition, New Networks Institute and Teletruth petitioned the FCC to delay acting on AT&T/DirecTV and investigate whether AT&T committed perjury in its representations to the agency regarding its broadband deployment. Monday, the FCC informal 180-day shot clock was still halted on Day 170 after the agency decided on March 13 to await a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit regarding video programming confidential information. The court May 8 vacated an FCC order that would have let participants in the commission's AT&T/DirecTV transaction proceeding review confidential programming and retransmission consent contract data, after finding it was “substantively and procedurally flawed,” in CBS et al. v. FCC (see 1505080053).

The Supreme Court granted Campbell-Ewald's cert petition seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), said the court's May 18 order list. The case is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Jose Gomez, docket 14-857. The case involves a class action brought under the TCPA against Campbell-Ewald, a national marketing firm, over a text message that Campbell-Ewald sent on behalf of the U.S. Navy to recruit sailors, according to the Campbell-Ewald cert petition. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation for unauthorized messages, the petition said. "But the Act has become an extortionist weapon in the hands of class action attorneys seeking to extract lucrative attorneys’ fees for class-wide settlements. In response, many defendants, including Campbell-Ewald here, have offered plaintiffs complete relief on their individual claims at the outset -- before any class is certified -- agreeing to make plaintiffs whole for any TCPA violations, while sparing all the costs of protracted litigation. In its decision, the Ninth Circuit held that an offer of complete relief fails to moot either the plaintiff’s individual claim or his class claim," said the petition, which said the 9th Circuit ruling contravenes basic Article III principles and conflicts with the decisions of other circuits. The petition presented the following questions: "1. Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim. 2. Whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified. 3. Whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects." Campbell-Ewald didn't immediately comment.

The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) and 35 other groups sent a letter to the FCC calling for “immediate and comprehensive reform” of the Lifeline program to also pay for Internet access, MMTC said Friday in a news release. “A bi-partisan effort is required to modernize this program so that millions of Americans can realize the full potential of the digital broadband age, and obtain this benefit in an efficient and effective program,” the letter said. “Successfully upgrading the 30-year-old Lifeline program will require policymakers to embrace a new approach,” said President Debra Berlyn of Consumer Policy Solutions, one of the groups that signed the letter. “Today, too many people have to choose between broadband and other services, and it’s the time to make access more affordable and accessible,” said Rainbow PUSH Public Policy Institute Executive Director Steven Smith. Industry and FCC officials have predicted that Lifeline changes could headline the FCC’s June 18 open meeting (see 1505010051). FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn has been a major advocate of expanding the Lifeline program and has called for launch of a rulemaking before the start of the summer (see 1503130058).

AT&T officials urged the FCC to consider carefully the privacy implications of requiring Lifeline providers to retain records from program participants. The proposal “may make sense on its face because it would enable auditors to confirm that providers gave discounts only to eligible consumers,” AT&T said in a meeting with FCC staff, according to a filing in docket 11-42. But the change also carries risks, it said. “The documents that hundreds of service providers would be required to collect and store for at least a decade or more could include income tax returns, qualification for public benefits, proof of alimony payments, and other highly private information unrelated to the provision of telecommunications service,” AT&T said.

Clarification: As part of its acquisition process as it builds a network, FirstNet will be looking for any potential offerers, not just carriers, to buy excess capacity on the network as part of a solution that can meet its statement of objectives for the network (see 1505130055).

Attorneys and law firms can represent more than one TV licensee in the incentive auction and know their client’s bidding strategies, as long as those lawyers don’t reveal that information to anyone else, said the FCBA Mass Media Practice Committee in a letter to the FCC posted Thursday in docket 12-268. The auction’s anti-collusion rules severely limit broadcast licensees' and their attorneys’ ability to share information about bidding strategies (see 1411280041). If those rules are interpreted to mean each attorney or law firm can represent only one licensee, there won’t be enough attorneys to go around, FCBA said. “BIA/Kelsey estimates that there are 630 separate owners of full-power and Class A television stations in the United States and Puerto Rico,” the letter said. “The potential consequences of a violation of the anti-collusion rule on our clients could be severe.” If the FCC believes the FCBA’s interpretation of the rules is incorrect, it should advise FCBA “promptly,” the letter said.