The hybrid net neutrality approach FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is said to be considering is “highly questionable and could fundamentally threaten the open Internet,” said more than 70 organizations, including Common Cause, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press and Fight for the Future, in a letter to Wheeler on Friday. “This is not what the public wants or what President Obama promised the American public. Even the original authors of some of these approaches have said that full Title II reclassification is the better way forward, and ISPs like Verizon have already threatened lawsuits” (see 1411050042), the letter said. “While a sender‐side approach may seem novel, we believe the FCC is in danger of failing its duty to protect the public if it’s contemplating an experimental legal theory that's unlikely to survive litigation.” Sarah Morris, senior policy counsel for the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, which signed the letter, said in a news release that “basing network neutrality rules off a new, untested relationship between content senders and distant Internet service providers could have serious, far-reaching collateral effects on the Internet ecosystem beyond network neutrality. The FCC’s surest, clearest path forward for strong network neutrality protections remains, as it has been, to reclassify the last-mile retail broadband Internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.” The strategy also drew fire from Title II opponents. “This proposal is unworkable," said Danielle Coffey, Telecommunications Industry Association vice president-government affairs, in a blog post Friday. "Title II in any way, shape, or form is bad for consumers, bad for industry, and bad for the U.S. economy.” An FCC spokesman declined comment.

Clarification: The one-year period Derek Khanna, a fellow at New America Foundation’s X-Lab, described as Congress having to pass a copyright bill is because he thinks it's unlikely it would pass in 2016 during the next election season (see 1411050048). Khanna was speaking on his own behalf.

The FTC said its members unanimously agreed to a settlement with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments that will prohibit the PAE and the Farney Daniels law firm from sending out deceptive patent demand letters to small businesses or other entities the PAE claims have violated its patents. The FTC said Thursday the settlement is its first action against a PAE using its consumer protection authority. MPHJ’s patent portfolio includes multiple patents on scanning documents for attachment to emails. The FTC said it had been investigating whether MPHJ’s sending of more than 9,000 demand letters between September 2012 and June 2013 to small businesses constituted “deceptive sales claims and phony legal threats.” That investigation determined that “the senders had no intention -- and did not make preparations -- to initiate lawsuits against the small businesses that did not respond to their letters. No such lawsuits were ever filed.” MPHJ counter-sued the FTC in January (see 1401160076), but that suit was dismissed. MPHJ, Farney Daniels and MPHJ owner Jay Mac Rust agreed not to make deceptive representations when asserting MPHJ’s patent rights and not to misrepresent the likelihood and timeline of possible patent infringement lawsuits in demand letters. Violation of the settlement will result in a $16,000 fine per letter, the FTC said in a consent order adopting the settlement. MPHJ and Farney Daniels said in a joint statement that they “strongly maintain their position that the enforcement letters that were sent were accurate, required by law, and protected by the First Amendment.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the FTC in a statement, but said “this action alone with not stop abuse of the patent system.” The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) included a demand letter provision that “would have empowered the FTC to seek meaningful monetary penalties from bad actors, which is an important deterrent for misconduct,” Leahy said in his statement. Leahy scuttled the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of S-1720 in May (see 1405230056), which CEA President Gary Shapiro (see 1411050022) and others have blamed on direct pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Shapiro in a statement Thursday hailed the FTC "for focusing on the deception and harm caused by patent trolls," describing them as "extortionists that bleed $80 billion a year from the U.S. economy and who engage in fraudulent conduct." Slapping patent abusers with stiff financial penalties and having them make whole the businesses they deceived "is a step in the right direction," he said. "More important will be the swift passage of patent litigation reform in the next Congress, which will help drive trolls back under the bridge and ensure that our patent system is used to promote -- not suppress -- innovation to create jobs and grow our economy.”

New dates were set for the pleading cycle for reconsideration petitions against the incentive auction order, the FCC said in a public notice Wednesday. The previously announced dates were incorrect due to an error in the Federal Register, the PN said. Oppositions are now due Nov. 12, replies Nov. 24, in docket 12-268.

An anti-Communications Act Title II policy group's arguments that the FCC can't easily forbear to create a “Title II Light” in dealing with net neutrality are “word games designed to confuse the issues,” Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood emailed us. Because the FCC has denied forbearance in cases involving monopolies, and has found that ISPs are “terminating monopolies,” it can't easily use forbearance to mitigate reclassification, said the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies in a study released Monday (see 1411030046). The study’s authors “either don’t get or willfully obscure the difference between a ‘terminating access monopoly’ and a monopoly or duopoly when it comes to retail consumers," Wood said. "So the Phoenix Center continues its crusade to erase the difference between the terms ‘terminating access monopoly’ and ‘dominant carrier,’ and ignores the fact that the Commission has forborne early and often from Title II requirements for wireless voice carriers, CLECs, enterprise broadband providers, and other communications providers with terminating access monopolies."

Public Knowledge said it will release a study on responses by consumers “to the threat of losing their existing copper lines and on the importance of not leaving anyone behind in the phone network transition,” in a news release Monday. The study, to be released Thursday, comes after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced Friday he’s circulating a draft NPRM that would among other things ask whether an alternative should be available before copper can be retired (see 1410310047). “This new report reminds us that a significant portion of the population still uses the existing phone network, and relies on the existing network for specific benefits like reliability, quality, and price,” said Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney Jodie Griffin. “As we move forward in the phone network transition, policymakers must ensure the transition is a step forward for everyone, including those still relying on traditional service.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an unopposed NAB motion to consolidate its challenge of the FCC incentive auction order with a separate challenge against a Sept. 30 FCC declaratory ruling “clarifying” that order, according to court filings. The petition for review of the declaratory ruling was filed by NAB Wednesday. The declaratory ruling, approved at the FCC September meeting, said the commission intended to "preserve the `coverage area' as well as the `population served' of eligible broadcasters." Since the ruling says the FCC won't protect broadcaster coverage areas that are subject to interference, it violates the Spectrum Act, NAB said. The ruling was also not adopted with proper notice and comment periods, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, NAB said. In its motion to consolidate, NAB argued the case should be combined with the petition against the auction order to allow it to use the same expedited schedule.

The MPAA and National Association of Theatre Owners updated their joint policy on preventing film theft in theaters to "fully integrate" wearables, the groups said in a statement Wednesday. The groups "have a long history of welcoming technological advances and recognize the strong consumer interest in smart phones and wearable ‘intelligent’ devices," their statement said. "As part of our continued efforts to ensure movies are not recorded in theaters, however, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward using any recording device while movies are being shown. As has been our long-standing policy, all phones must be silenced and other recording devices, including wearable devices, must be turned off and put away at show time." Those who don’t comply "may be asked to leave," they said. If theater managers suspect illegal recording activity is taking place, they will call the police "when appropriate," they said. MPAA representatives didn’t comment about the perceived threat of wearables in the campaign to prevent theatrical film theft, as smart watches generally lack the AV recording capabilities found on smartphones or tablets.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said the way ahead for Internet use should have a significant focus on inclusion of Americans with disabilities. She urged the FCC to continue the work that drove its efforts to implement the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, by continuing the discussion on accessibility in new technologies by design. Instead of playing an endless game of catch-up, “we can have accessibility and innovation walk together hand in hand,” she said Wednesday in remarks at the World Wide Web Consortium in California, posted by the FCC Thursday. Introducing technology, like wearable devices, on a global scale can result in “endless” possibilities for accessibility for people with disabilities worldwide, she said.

A Communications Act Title II net neutrality approach would “not solve the paid-priority issue, but does create the risk of enormous collateral damage to both infrastructure and edge providers,” wrote Anna-Maria Kovacs, visiting senior policy scholar at Georgetown University’s Center for Business and Public Policy, in a paper the center plans to release Thursday. Reclassification would “cause repeated shocks in an industry that greatly needs continued investment to keep up with exploding demand for mobile broadband services,” Kovacs wrote. Discouraging investment “would be particularly harmful at this time, given the need for increased capital investments and spectrum purchases,” the paper said. Reclassification would also “choke the Internet ecosystem,” which has been an engine for economic growth in the U.S., Kovacs wrote, and it would encourage other governments to follow suit, “endangering the success of American digital service- and application-providers abroad.”