The FCC asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss Consumers' Research's challenge of the agency's USF contributions methodology. Consumers' Research "made the same arguments before the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits," the agency said in a petition filed Monday (docket 22-60008), adding the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decisions (see 2406110008). "Those decisions are thus final and not subject to further review," the FCC said, and "petitioners are precluded from raising the same claims here." Also, Consumers' Research filed a motion for the D.C. Circuit for a voluntary dismissal regarding one of its challenges to the USF contribution factor.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Jan. 5 cert petition of Consumers’ Research challenging the FCC's method for determining the USF quarterly contribution factor (see 2401100044), a docket entry Monday said (docket 23-743). The petition asked SCOTUS to review a Dec. 14 decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Q4 2022 contribution factor (see 2312140058).
A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Consumers' Research defended its position Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress and the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine through the Universal Service Fund contributions mechanism (see 2405070042).
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Universal Service Administrative Co. owes Data Research Corp. (DRC) $9.9 million, plus interest, for broadband services it provided more than 20 years ago to the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDOE) under the federal E-rate program, DRC's complaint Wednesday alleges (docket 3:24-cv-01211) in U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico in San Juan.
The Universal Service Administrative Co's. (USAC) role in administering the FCC's Universal Service Fund programs "is purely administrative," the FCC told the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Consumers' Research's challenge of how the commission determines quarterly contribution factors (see 2401100044). USAC "must comply with detailed regulations issued by the FCC" and "helps the FCC compute the amount of each quarterly payment" carriers must contribute, the agency said in an opposition brief filed in docket 23-456.
The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.
The net neutrality draft order on the FCC's April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030043) will face much the same legal arguments as the 2015 net neutrality order did, with many of the same parties involved, we're told by legal experts and net neutrality watchers.