FCC

California bill lets renters escape exclusive deals between ISPs and landlords

cable lobby, FCC, fcc bulk billing, Policy / DJ Henderson / September 13, 2025

Opt-out from bulk billing

Bill author says law “gives this industry an opportunity to treat people fairly.”

Credit: Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino

California’s legislature this week approved a bill to let renters opt out of bulk-billing arrangements that force them to pay for Internet service from a specific provider.

The bill says that by January 1, a landlord must “allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy.” If a landlord fails to do so, the tenant “may deduct the cost of the subscription to the third-party Internet service provider from the rent,” and the landlord would be prohibited from retaliating.

The bill passed the state Senate in a 30–7 vote on Wednesday but needs Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature to become law. It was approved by the state Assembly in a 75–0 vote in April.

Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democratic lawmaker who authored the bill, told Ars today that lobby groups for Internet providers and real estate companies have been “working really hard” to defeat it. But she expects Newsom will approve.

“I strongly believe that the governor is going to look at what this bill provides as far as protections for tenants and sign it into law,” Ransom said in a phone interview.

“Just treat people fairly”

Ransom disputed claims from lobby groups that bulk billing reduces Internet prices for tenants.

“This is kind of like a first step in trying to give this industry an opportunity to just treat people fairly. It’s not super restrictive. We are not banning bulk billing. We’re not even limiting how much money the people can make. What we’re saying here with this bill is that if a tenant wants to opt out of the arrangement, they should be allowed to opt out,” she said.

A stricter bill could have told landlords that “you can’t charge the customer more than you’re paying. We could have put a cap on the amount that you’re able to charge,” she said. “There’s so many other things that we could have done that would’ve been a lot less business-friendly. But the goal was not to harm business, the goal was to help people.”

In theory, bulk billing could reduce prices for tenants if discounts negotiated between landlords and Internet providers were passed on to renters. But, Ransom said, “where there would be an opportunity for these huge discounts to be passed on to tenants, it’s not happening. We know of thousands of tenants across the state who are in landlord-tenant agreements where the landlord is actually adding an additional bonus for themselves, pocketing change, and not passing the discount on to the tenants… once we started working on this bill, we started to hear more and more about places where people were stuck in these agreements and their landlords were not letting them out.”

Ransom said not all landlords do this and that it is generally “the large corporate landlords” who own hundreds or thousands of properties that “were the ones who were reluctant to let their tenants out.”

State bill similar to abandoned FCC plan

California’s action comes about eight months after the Federal Communications Commission abandoned a proposal to give tenants the right to opt out of bulk billing for Internet service. The potential federal action was proposed in March 2024 by then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, but nixed in January 2025 by Chairman Brendan Carr.

Bulk billing contracts are only banned by the FCC when they give a provider the exclusive right to access and serve a building. Despite that restriction, a bulk billing deal between an ISP and landlord can make it less financially feasible for other providers to serve a multi-unit building. Letting people opt out of bulk billing arrangements makes serving a building at least slightly more viable for a competing provider.

Ransom said the FCC action “was very unfortunate” and “give[s] a disadvantage to people who are already at the mercy of landlords.”

Cable lobby calls it an “anti-affordability bill”

The California bill was not welcomed by lobby groups for Internet providers and landlords. The California Broadband & Video Association, which represents cable companies, paid for a sponsored commentary in several news publications to express its opposition.

“AB 1414 is an anti-affordability bill masked as consumer protection, and it will only serve to widen the digital divide in California,” wrote the lobby group’s CEO, Janus Norman.

Norman complained that property owners would have “to provide a refund to tenants who decline the Internet service provided through the building’s contract with a specific Internet service provider.” He argued that without bulk billing, “low-income families and tenants risk losing access altogether.”

Letting tenants opt out of bulk deals “undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out,” Norman wrote. This “will result in higher bills for everyone, including those already struggling,” he claimed.

“The truth, very simply, is this: bulk billing is good for consumers,” the cable industry commentary said. “Taking away bulk discounts raises total housing costs when Californians can least afford it.”

The bill also drew opposition from the Real Estate Technology & Transformation Center (RETTC). The group’s sponsors include real estate companies and Internet providers AT&T, Comcast, and Cox. Another notable sponsor of RETTC is RealPage, which has faced claims from the US government and state attorneys general that its software distorts competition in rental housing by helping landlords collectively set prices.

“AB 1414 introduces an opt-out requirement that would fundamentally undermine the economics of bulk billing,” the RETTC said. “By fragmenting service, it could destabilize networks and reduce the benefits residents and operators rely on today.” The group claimed the bill could lead to “higher broadband costs for renters, reduced ISP investment in multifamily housing, disruption of property-wide smart technology, [and] widening of the digital divide in California.”

The RETTC said it joined with the National Apartment Association and the California Rental Housing Association to detail the groups’ concerns directly to the bill sponsors.

Wireless providers could get a boost

The California Broadband & Video Association seems to be worried about wireless providers serving buildings wired up with cable. The group’s commentary claimed that “the bill’s lack of technology neutrality also creates winners and losers, granting certain types of providers an unfair advantage over their competitors.”

Ransom said her bill may be especially helpful for wireless or satellite providers because they wouldn’t need to install wires in each building.

“This does help with market competition, and in fact some of our support came from some of the smaller Internet service providers… and because this bill is technology-neutral, it helps with not only the current technology, but any new technology that comes out,” she said.

While Ransom’s bill could help make broadband more affordable for renters, California lawmakers recently abandoned a more aggressive effort to require affordable broadband plans. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner proposed a state law that would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes but tabled the bill after the Trump administration threatened to block funding for expanding broadband networks.

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

California bill lets renters escape exclusive deals between ISPs and landlords Read More »

FCC chair teams up with Ted Cruz to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolkids

brendan carr, FCC, Policy, ted cruz, wi-fi / Mike M. / September 4, 2025

“Chairman Carr’s moves today are very unfortunate as they further signal that the Commission is no longer prioritizing closing the digital divide,” Schwartzman said. “In the 21st Century, education doesn’t stop when a student leaves school and today’s actions could lead to many students having a tougher time completing homework assignments because their families lack Internet access.”

Biden FCC expanded school and library program

Under then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC expanded its E-Rate program in 2024 to let schools and libraries use Universal Service funding to lend out Wi-Fi hotspots and services that could be used off-premises. The FCC previously distributed Wi-Fi hotspots and other Internet access technology under pandemic-related spending authorized by Congress in 2021, but that program ended. The new hotspot lending program was supposed to begin this year.

Carr argues that when the Congressionally approved program ended, the FCC lost its authority to fund Wi-Fi hotspots for use outside of schools and libraries. “I dissented from both decisions at the time, and I am now pleased to circulate these two items, which will end the FCC’s illegal funding [of] unsupervised screen time for young kids,” he said.

Under Rosenworcel, the FCC said the Communications Act gives it “broad and flexible authority to establish rules governing the equipment and services that will be supported for eligible schools and libraries, as well as to design the specific mechanisms of support.”

The E-Rate program can continue providing telecom services to schools and libraries despite the hotspot component being axed. E-Rate disbursed about $1.75 billion in 2024, but could spend more based on demand because it has a funding cap of about $5 billion per year. E-Rate and other Universal Service programs are paid for through fees imposed on phone companies, which typically pass the cost on to consumers.

FCC chair teams up with Ted Cruz to block Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolkids Read More »

Delete, Delete, Delete: How FCC Republicans are killing rules faster than ever

brendan carr, direct final rule, FCC, fcc delete delete delete, Features, Policy / Shannon Garcia / September 2, 2025

FCC speeds up rule-cutting, giving public as little as 10 days to file objections.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on May 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | John McDonnell

The Federal Communications Commission’s Republican chairman is eliminating regulations at breakneck speed by using a process that cuts dozens of rules at a time while giving the public only 10 or 20 days to review each proposal and submit objections.

Chairman Brendan Carr started his “Delete, Delete, Delete” rule-cutting initiative in March and later announced he’d be using the Direct Final Rule (DFR) mechanism to eliminate regulations without a full public-comment period. Direct Final Rule is just one of several mechanisms the FCC is using in the Delete, Delete, Delete initiative. But despite the seeming obscurity of regulations deleted under Direct Final Rule so far, many observers are concerned that the process could easily be abused to eliminate more significant rules that protect consumers.

On July 24, the FCC removed what it called “11 outdated and useless rule provisions” related to telegraphs, rabbit-ear broadcast receivers, and phone booths. The FCC said the 11 provisions consist of “39 regulatory burdens, 7,194 words, and 16 pages.”

The FCC eliminated these rules without the “prior notice and comment” period typically used to comply with the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with the FCC finding that it had “good cause” to skip that step. The FCC said it would allow comment for 10 days and that rule eliminations would take effect automatically after the 10-day period unless the FCC concluded that it received “significant adverse comments.”

On August 7, the FCC again used Direct Final Rule to eliminate 98 rules and requirements imposed on broadcasters. This time, the FCC allowed 20 days for comment. But it maintained its stance that the rules would be deleted automatically at the end of the period if no “significant” comments were received.

By contrast, FCC rulemakings usually allow 30 days for initial comments and another 15 days for reply comments. The FCC then considers the comments, responds to the major issues raised, and drafts a final proposal that is put up for a commission vote. This process, which takes months and gives both the public and commissioners more opportunity to consider the changes, can apply both to the creation of new rules and the elimination of existing ones.

FCC’s lone Democrat warns of “Trojan horse”

Telecom companies want the FCC to eliminate rules quickly. As we’ve previously written, AT&T submitted comments to the Delete, Delete, Delete docket urging the agency to eliminate rules that can result in financial penalties “without the delay imposed by notice-and-comment proceeding.”

Carr’s use of Direct Final Rule has drawn criticism from advocacy groups, local governments that could be affected by rule changes, and the FCC’s only Democratic commissioner. Anna Gomez, the lone FCC Democrat, told Ars in a phone interview that the rapid rule-cutting method “could be a Trojan horse because what we did, or what the commission did, is it adopted a process without public comment to eliminate any rule it finds to be outdated and, crucially, unwarranted. We don’t define what either of those terms mean, which therefore could lead to a situation that’s ripe for abuse.”

Gomez said she’d “be concerned if we eliminated rules that are meant to protect or inform consumers, or to promote competition, such as the broadband labels. This commission seems to have entirely lost its focus on consumers.”

Gomez told us that she doesn’t think a 10-day comment period is ever appropriate and that Carr seems to be trying “to meet some kind of arbitrary rule reduction quota.” If the rules being eliminated are truly obsolete, “then what’s the rush?” she asked. “If we don’t give sufficient time for public comment, then what happens when we make a mistake? What happens when we eliminate rules and it turns out, in fact, that these rules were important to keep? That’s why we give the public due process to comment on when we adopt rules and when we eliminate rules.”

Gomez hasn’t objected to the specific rules deleted under this process so far, but she spoke out against the method used by Carr both times Direct Final Rule method was used. “I told the chairman that I could support initiating a proceeding to look at how a Direct Final Rule process could be used going forward and including a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to eliminate the rules the draft order purports to eliminate today. That offer was declined,” she said in her dissenting statement in the July vote.

Gomez said that rules originally adopted under a notice-and-comment process should not be eliminated “without seeking public comment on appropriate processes and guardrails.” She added that the “order does not limit the Direct Final Rule process to elimination of rules that are objectively obsolete with a clear definition of how that will be applied, asserting instead authority to remove rules that are ‘outdated or unwarranted.'”

Local governments object

Carr argued that the Administrative Procedure Act “gives the commission the authority to fast-track the elimination of rules that inarguably fail to serve the public interest. Using this authority, the Commission can forgo the usual prior notice and public comment period before repealing the rules for these bygone regulations.”

Carr justified the deletions by saying that “outdated and unnecessary regulations from Washington often derail efforts to build high-speed networks and infrastructure across the country.” It’s not clear why the specific rule deletions were needed to accelerate broadband deployment, though. As Carr said, the FCC’s first use of Direct Finale Rule targeted regulations for “telegraph services, rabbit-ear broadcast receivers, and telephone booths—technologies that were considered outdated decades ago.”

Carr’s interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act is wrong, said an August 6 filing submitted by local governments in Maryland, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Virginia, California, New York, and Texas. Direct Final Rule “is intended for extremely simple, non-substantive decisions,” and the FCC process “is insufficient to ensure that future Commission decisions will fall within the good cause exception of the Administrative Procedure Act,” the filing said.

Local governments argued that “the new procedure is itself a substantive decision” and should be subject to a full notice-and-comment rulemaking. “The procedure adopted by the Commission makes it almost inevitable that the Commission will adopt rule changes outside of any APA exceptions,” the filing said.

The FCC could face court challenges. Gerard Lavery Lederer, a lawyer for the local government coalition, told Ars, “we fully anticipate that Chairman Carr and the FCC’s general counsel will take our concerns seriously.” But he also said local governments are worried about the FCC adopting industry proposals that “violate local government rights as preserved by Congress in the [Communications] Act” or that have “5th Amendment takings implications and/or 10th Amendment overreach issues.”

Is that tech really “obsolete”?

At least some rules targeted for deletion, like regulations on equipment used by radio and TV broadcast stations, may seem too arcane to care about. But a coalition of 22 public interest, civil rights, labor, and digital rights groups argued in a July 17 letter to Carr that some of the rule deletions could harm vulnerable populations and that the shortened comment period wasn’t long enough to determine the impact.

“For example, the Commission has targeted rules relating to calling cards and telephone booths in the draft Order as ‘obsolete,'” the letter said. “However, calling cards and pay phones remain important technologies for rural areas, immigrant communities, the unhoused, and others without reliable access to modern communications services. The impact on these communities is not clear and will not likely be clear in the short time provided for comment.”

The letter also said the FCC’s new procedure “would effectively eliminate any hope for timely judicial review of elimination of a rule on delegated authority.” Actions taken via delegated authority are handled by FCC bureaus without a vote of the commission.

So far, Carr has held commission votes for his Direct Final Rule actions rather than letting FCC bureau issue orders themselves. But in the July order, the FCC said its bureaus and offices have previously adopted or repealed rules without notice and comment and “reaffirm[ed] that all Bureaus and Offices may continue to take such actions in situations that are exempt from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements.”

“This is about pushing boundaries”

The advocacy groups’ letter said that delegating authority to bureaus “makes judicial review virtually impossible, even though the order goes into effect immediately.” Parties impacted by actions made on delegated authority can’t go straight to the courts and must instead “file an application for review with the Commission as a prerequisite to any petition for judicial review,” the letter said. The groups argued that “a Chairman that does not wish to permit judicial review of elimination of a rule through DFR may order a bureau to remove the rule, then simply refuse to take action on the application for review.”

The letter was signed by Public Knowledge; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC; the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society; the Center for Digital Democracy; Common Sense Media; the Communications Workers of America; the Electronic Privacy Information Center; HTTP; LGBT Tech; the Media Access Project; MediaJustice; the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council; the National Action Network; NBJC; the National Council of Negro Women; the National Digital Inclusion Alliance; the National Hispanic Media Coalition; the National Urban League; New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI); The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; the United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry; and UnidosUS.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars that the FCC “has a long record of thinking that things are obsolete and then discovering when they run an actual proceeding that there are people still using these things.” Feld is worried that the Direct Final Rule process could be used to eliminate consumer protections that apply to old phone networks when they are replaced by either fiber or wireless service.

“I certainly think that this is about pushing boundaries,” Feld said. When there’s a full notice-and-comment period, the FCC has to “actually address every argument made” before eliminating a rule. When the FCC provides less explanation of a decision, that “makes it much harder to challenge on appeal,” he said.

“Once you have this tool that lets you just get rid of rules without the need to do a proceeding, without the need to address the comments that are raised in that proceeding… it’s easy to see how this ramps up and how hard it is for people to stay constantly alert to look for an announcement where they will then only have 10 days to respond once it gets published,” he said.

What is a “significant” comment?

The FCC says its use of Direct Final Rule is guided by December 2024 recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a government agency. But the FCC didn’t implement Direct Final Rule in the exact way recommended by the ACUS.

The ACUS said its guidance “encourages agencies to use direct final rulemaking, interim final rulemaking, and alternative methods of public engagement to ensure robust public participation even when they rely properly on the good cause exemption.” But the ACUS recommended taking public comment for at least 30 days, while the FCC has used 10- and 20-day periods.

The ACUS also said that agencies should only move ahead with rule deletions “if no significant adverse comments are received.” If such comments are received, the agency “can either withdraw the rule or publish a regular proposed rule that is open for public comment,” the recommendation said.

The FCC said that if it receives comments, “we will evaluate whether they are significant adverse comments that warrant further procedures before changing the rules.” The letter from 22 advocacy groups said it is worried about the leeway the FCC is giving itself in defining whether a comment is adverse and significant:

Although ACUS recommends that the agency revert to standard notice-and-comment rulemaking in the event of a single adverse comment, the draft Order requires multiple adverse comments—at which point the bureau/Commission will consider whether to shift to notice-and-comment rulemaking. If the bureau/Commission decides that adverse comments are not ‘substantive,’ it will explain its determination in a public notice that will not be filed in the Federal Register. The Commission states that it will be guided, but not bound, by the definition of ‘adverse comment’ recommended by ACUS.

Criticism from many corners

TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning think tank, said it supports Carr’s goals in the “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative but objected to the Direct Final Rule process. TechFreedom wrote in July comments that “deleting outdated regulations via a Direct Final Rule is unprecedented at the FCC.”

“No such process exists under current FCC rules,” the group said, urging the agency to seek public comment on the process. “If the Commission wishes to establish a new method by which it can eliminate existing regulations without undertaking a full rulemaking proceeding, it should open a docket specific to that subject and seek public comment,” the filing said.

TechFreedom said it is especially important for the FCC to “seek comment as to when the direct final rule procedures should be invoked… What is ‘routine,’ ‘insignificant,’ or ‘inconsequential’ and who is to decide—the Commissioners or the Bureau chiefs?”

The American Library Association and other groups wrote on August 14 that either 10 or 20 days is not long enough for public comment. Moreover, the groups said the two Direct Final Rule actions so far “offer minimal explanation for why the rules are being removed. There is only one sentence describing elimination of many rules and each rule removal is described in a footnote with a parenthetical about the change. It is not enough.”

The Utility Reform Network offered similar objections about the process and said that the FCC declaring technologies to be “obsolete” and markets “outdated” without a detailed explanation “suggests the Commission’s view that these rules are not minor or technical changes but support a larger deregulatory effort that should itself be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The National Consumer Law Center and other groups said that “rushing regulatory changes as proposed is likely illegal in many instances, counterproductive, and bad policy,” and that “changes to regulations should be effectuated only through careful, thoughtful, and considered processes.”

We contacted Chairman Carr’s office and did not receive a response.

FCC delegated key decisions to bureaus

Gomez told Ars that Direct Final Rule could serve a purpose “with the right procedures and guardrails in place.” For example, she said the quick rule deletions can be justified for eliminating rules that have become obsolete because of a court reversal or Congressional actions.

“I would argue that we cannot, under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution, simply eliminate rules because we’ve made a judgment call that they are unwarranted,” she said. “That does not meet the good cause exemption to notice-and-comment requirements.”

Gomez also opposes FCC bureaus making significant decisions without a commission vote, which effectively gives Carr more power over the agency’s operations. For example, T-Mobile’s purchase of US Cellular’s wireless operations and Verizon’s purchase of Frontier were approved by the FCC at the Bureau level.

In another instance cited by Gomez, the FCC Media Bureau waived a requirement for broadcast licensees to file their biennial ownership reports for 18 months. “The waiver order, which was done at the bureau level on delegated authority, simply said ‘we find good cause to waive these rules.’ There was no analysis whatsoever,” Gomez said.

Gomez also pointed out that the Carr FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau delayed implementation of certain price caps on prison phone services. The various bureau-level decisions are a “stretching of the guardrails that we have internally for when things should be done on delegated authority, and when they should be voted by the commission,” Gomez said. “I’m concerned that [Direct Final Rule] is just the next iteration of the same issue.”

Delete, Delete, Delete: How FCC Republicans are killing rules faster than ever Read More »

FCC Democrat: Trump admin is declaring “Mission Accomplished” on broadband

broadband, FCC, Policy / Mike M. / August 8, 2025

The Federal Communications Commission is hamstringing its upcoming review of broadband availability by ignoring the prices consumers must pay for Internet service, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said in a statement yesterday.

“Some point to existing law to argue that availability is the only metric Congress allows to measure broadband deployment success. But the law does not require this agency to view broadband availability with one eye closed and the other one half-open,” said Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority commission.

The FCC said on Tuesday that it voted to kick off the next annual review with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that “reorients the Commission’s approach to the Section 706 Report by adhering more closely to the plain language of the statute and takes a fresh look at this question of whether broadband ‘is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.'” That would remove affordability as a factor in the review.

In other federal broadband news this week, the Trump administration told states they will be shut out of the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program if they set the rates that Internet service providers receiving subsidies are allowed to charge people with low incomes.

ISPs participating in BEAD are required by law to offer a “low-cost” plan, but the Trump administration is making sure that ISPs get to choose the price of the low-cost plan themselves. The Trump administration also made it easier for satellite providers like Starlink to get BEAD funds, which will reduce the number of homes that get fiber Internet service through the program.

“As the Commerce Department seeks to redefine the goals of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, one must wonder if this is a coordinated effort to roll out the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner as millions remain without access to a fast, reliable, and affordable way to participate in the main aspects of modern life,” Gomez said, referring to both the BEAD changes and the FCC broadband analysis.

FCC Democrat: Trump admin is declaring “Mission Accomplished” on broadband Read More »

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS

brendan carr, CBS, dei, Donald Trump, FCC, First Amendment, freedom of the press, paramount, Policy, sky dance / Shannon Garcia / July 25, 2025

Warning that the “Paramount payout” and “reckless” acquisition approval together mark a “dark chapter” for US press freedom, Gomez suggested the FCC’s approval will embolden “those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage.”

FCC terms also govern Skydance hiring decisions

Gomez further criticized the FCC for overstepping its authority in “intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues” by requiring Skydance commitments to not establish any DEI programs, which Carr derided as “invidious.” But Gomez countered that “this agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity” by meddling in private companies’ employment decisions.

Ultimately, commissioner Olivia Trusty joined Carr in voting to stamp the agency’s approval, celebrating the deal as “lawful” and a “win” for American “jobs” and “storytelling.” Carr suggested the approval would bolster Paramount’s programming by injecting $1.5 billion into operations, which Trusty said would help Paramount “compete with dominant tech platforms.”

Gomez conceded that she was pleased that at least—unlike the Verizon/T-Mobile merger—Carr granted her request to hold a vote, rather than burying “the outcome of backroom negotiations” and “granting approval behind closed doors, under the cover of bureaucratic process.”

“The public has a right to know how Paramount’s capitulation evidences an erosion of our First Amendment protections,” Gomez said.

Outvoted 2–1, Gomez urged “companies, journalists, and citizens” to take up the fight and push back on the Trump administration, emphasizing that “unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.”

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS Read More »

FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices

broadband, FCC, Policy / DJ Henderson / July 22, 2025

“As part of our return to following the plain language of section 706, we propose to abolish without replacement the long-term goal of 1,000/500Mbps established in the 2024 Report,” Carr’s plan said. “Not only is a long-term goal not mentioned in section 706, but maintaining such a goal risks skewing the market by unnecessarily potentially picking technological winners and losers.”

Fiber networks can already meet a 1,000/500Mbps standard, and the Biden administration generally prioritized fiber when it came to distributing grants to Internet providers. The Trump administration changed grant-giving procedures to distribute more funds to non-fiber providers such as Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.

Carr’s proposal alleged that the 1,000/500Mbps long-term goal would “appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner,” as it “may be unreasonably prejudicial to technologies such as satellite and fixed wireless that presently do not support such speeds.”

100/20Mbps standard appears to survive

When the 100/20Mbps standard was adopted last year, Carr alleged that “the 100/20Mbps requirement appears to be part and parcel of the Commission’s broader attempt to circumvent the statutory requirement of technological neutrality.” It appears the Carr FCC will nonetheless stick with 100/20Mbps for measuring availability of fixed broadband. But his plan would seek comment on that approach, suggesting a possibility that it could be changed.

“We propose to again focus our service availability discussion on fixed broadband at speeds of 100/20Mbps and seek comment on this proposal,” the plan said.

If any regulatory changes are spurred by Carr’s deployment inquiry, they would likely be to eliminate regulations instead of adding them. Carr has been pushing a “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative to eliminate rules that he considers unnecessary, and his proposal asks for comment on broadband regulations that could be removed.

“Are there currently any regulatory barriers impeding broadband deployment, investment, expansion, competition, and technological innovation that the Commission should consider eliminating?” the call for comment asks.

FCC to eliminate gigabit speed goal and scrap analysis of broadband prices Read More »

FCC Republican resigns, leaving agency with just two commissioners

brendan carr, FCC, geoffrey starks, nathan simington, Policy / Beth Washington / June 5, 2025

Two commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission are resigning at the end of this week. For at least a little while, the FCC will have just two members: Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican chosen by Trump to lead the agency, and Anna Gomez, a Democratic commissioner.

Democrat Geoffrey Starks announced in March that he would leave in the near future, and today he said that Friday will be his final day. Starks’ departure could have given Carr a 2-1 Republican majority, but it turns out Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington will leave at the same time as Starks.

“I will be concluding my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission at the end of this week,” Simington announced today. “It has been the greatest honor of my professional life to serve the American people as a Commissioner. I am deeply honored to have been entrusted with this responsibility by President Donald J. Trump during his first term.”

Bloomberg reported in March that Simington “has also wanted to depart to take on different work,” but he didn’t announce his resignation until today. While the Carr FCC is going from a 2-2 partisan split to a 1-1 split, Carr isn’t likely to have to wait as long for a majority as his predecessor did.

FCC Republican resigns, leaving agency with just two commissioners Read More »

FCC urges courts to ignore 5th Circuit ruling that agency can’t issue fines

5th circuit, FCC, Policy / Kelly Newman / April 30, 2025

FCC fights the 5th Circuit

One court said FCC violated right to trial, but other courts haven’t ruled yet.

Credit: Getty Images | AaronP/Bauer-Griffin

The Federal Communications Commission is urging two federal appeals courts to disregard a 5th Circuit ruling that guts the agency’s ability to issue financial penalties.

On April 17, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted an AT&T request to wipe out a $57 million fine for selling customer location data without consent. The conservative 5th Circuit court said the FCC “acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge,” violating AT&T’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The ruling wasn’t a major surprise. The 5th Circuit said it was guided by the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.” After the Supreme Court’s Jarkesy ruling, FCC Republican Nathan Simington vowed to vote against any fine imposed by the commission until its legal powers are clear.

Before becoming the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr voted against the fine issued to AT&T and fines for similar privacy violations simultaneously levied against T-Mobile and Verizon. Carr repeatedly opposed Biden-era efforts to regulate telecom providers and is aiming to eliminate many of the FCC’s rules now that he is in charge. But Carr has also been aggressive in regulation of media, and he doesn’t want the FCC’s ability to issue penalties completely wiped out. The Carr FCC stated its position in new briefs submitted in separate lawsuits filed by T-Mobile and Verizon.

Verizon sued the FCC in the 2nd Circuit in an attempt to overturn its privacy fine, while T-Mobile and subsidiary Sprint sued in the District of Columbia Circuit. Verizon and T-Mobile reacted to the 5th Circuit ruling by urging the other courts to rule the same way, prompting responses from the FCC last week.

“The Fifth Circuit concluded that the FCC’s enforcement proceeding leading to a monetary forfeiture order violated AT&T’s Seventh Amendment rights. This Court shouldn’t follow that decision,” the FCC told the 2nd Circuit last week.

FCC loss has wide implications

Carr’s FCC argued that the agency’s “monetary forfeiture order proceedings pose no Seventh Amendment problem because Section 504(a) [of the Communications Act] affords carriers the opportunity to demand a de novo jury trial in federal district court before the government can recover any penalty. Verizon elected to forgo that opportunity and instead sought direct appellate review.” The FCC put forth the same argument in the T-Mobile case with a filing in the District of Columbia Circuit.

There would be a circuit split if either the 2nd Circuit or DC Circuit appeals court rules in the FCC’s favor, increasing the chances that the Supreme Court will take up the case and rule directly on the FCC’s enforcement authority.

Beyond punishing telecom carriers for privacy violations, an FCC loss could prevent the commission from fining robocallers. When Carr’s FCC proposed a $4.5 million fine for an allegedly illegal robocall scheme in February, Simington repeated his objection to the FCC issuing fines of any type.

“While the conduct described in this NAL [Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture] is particularly egregious and certainly worth enforcement action, I continue to believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jarkesy prevents me from voting, at this time, to approve this or any item purporting to impose a fine,” Simington said at the time.

5th Circuit reasoning

The 5th Circuit ruling against the FCC was issued by a panel of three judges appointed by Republican presidents. “Our analysis is governed by SEC v. Jarkesy. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment prohibited the SEC from requiring respondents to defend themselves before an agency, rather than a jury, against civil penalties for alleged securities fraud,” the appeals court said.

The penalty issued by the FCC is not “remedial,” the court said. The fine was punitive and not simply “meant to compensate victims whose location data was compromised. So, like the penalties in Jarkesy, the civil penalties here are ‘a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law.'”

The FCC argued that its enforcement proceeding fell under the “public rights” exception, unlike the private rights that must be adjudicated in court. “The Commission argues its enforcement action falls within the public rights exception because it involves common carriers,” the 5th Circuit panel said. “Given that common carriers like AT&T are ‘affected with a public interest,’ the Commission contends Congress could assign adjudication of civil penalties against them to agencies instead of courts.”

The panel disagreed, saying that “the Commission’s proposal would blow a hole in what is meant to be a narrow exception to Article III” and “empower Congress to bypass Article III adjudication in countless matters.” The panel acknowledged that “federal agencies like the Commission have long had regulatory authority over common carriers, such as when setting rates or granting licenses,” but said this doesn’t mean that “any regulatory action concerning common carriers implicates the public rights exception.”

FCC hopes lie with other courts

The 5th Circuit panel also rejected the FCC’s contention that carriers are afforded the right to a trial after the FCC enforcement proceeding. The 5th Circuit said this applies only when a carrier fails to pay a penalty and is sued by the Department of Justice. “To begin with, by the time DOJ sues (if it does), the Commission would have already adjudged a carrier guilty of violating section 222 and levied fines… in this process, which was completely in-house, the Commission acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge,” the panel said.

An entity penalized by the FCC can also ask a court of appeals to overturn the fine, as AT&T did here. But in choosing this path, the company “forgoes a jury trial,” the 5th Circuit panel said.

While Verizon and T-Mobile hope the other appeals courts will rule the same way, the FCC maintains that the 5th Circuit got it wrong. In its filing to the 2nd Circuit, the FCC challenged the 5th Circuit’s view on whether a trial after the FCC issues a fine satisfies the right to a jury trial. Pointing to an 1899 Supreme Court ruling, the FCC said that “an initial tribunal can lawfully enter judgment without a full jury trial if the law permits a subsequent ‘trial [anew] by jury, at the request of either party, in the appellate court.'”

The FCC further said the 5th Circuit relied on a precedent that doesn’t exist in either the 2nd Circuit or District of Columbia Circuit.

“The Fifth Circuit also relied on circuit precedent holding that ‘[i]n a section 504 trial, a defendant cannot challenge a forfeiture order’s legal conclusions,'” the FCC also said. “This Court, however, has never adopted such a limitation, and the Fifth Circuit’s premise is in doubt. Regardless, the proper approach would be to challenge any such limitation in the trial court and seek to strike the limitation—not to vacate the forfeiture order.”

FCC urges courts to ignore 5th Circuit ruling that agency can’t issue fines Read More »

FCC Democrat slams chairman for aiding Trump’s “campaign of censorship”

FCC, fcc news distortion, First Amendment, Policy / 9u50fv / April 24, 2025

The first event is scheduled for Thursday and will be hosted by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The events will be open to the public and livestreamed when possible, and feature various speakers on free speech, media, and telecommunications issues.

With Democrat Geoffrey Starks planning to leave the commission soon, Republicans will gain a 2–1 majority, and Gomez is set to be the only Democrat on the FCC for at least a while. Carr is meanwhile pursuing news distortion investigations into CBS and ABC, and he has threatened Comcast with a similar probe into its subsidiary NBC.

Gomez’s press release criticized Carr for these and other actions. “From investigating broadcasters for editorial decisions in their newsrooms, to harassing private companies for their fair hiring practices, to threatening tech companies that respond to consumer demand for fact-checking tools, the FCC’s actions have focused on weaponizing the agency’s authority to silence critics,” Gomez’s office said.

Gomez previously criticized Carr for reviving news distortion complaints that were dismissed shortly before Trump’s inauguration. “We cannot allow our licensing authority to be weaponized to curtail freedom of the press,” she said at the time.

FCC Democrat slams chairman for aiding Trump’s “campaign of censorship” Read More »

ISPs and robocallers love the FCC plan to “delete” as many rules as possible

brendan carr, FCC, Policy / Beth Washington / April 15, 2025

FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket is filled with requests to eliminate rules.

Credit: Getty Images | simonkr

Industry groups have submitted deregulatory wishlists for the Federal Communications Commission’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative that aims to eliminate as many regulations as possible.

Broadband providers that want fewer telecom regulations and debt collectors opposed to robocall rules were among those submitting comments to the FCC in response to Chairman Brendan Carr’s request for public input. The Carr-led FCC last month issued a public notice asking for help with “identifying FCC rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”

The FCC said it opened the official proceeding—which is titled “Delete, Delete, Delete”—because “President Trump has called on administrative agencies to unleash prosperity through deregulation and ensure that they are efficiently delivering great results for the American people.” Initial comments were due on Friday, and there is an April 28 deadline for reply comments.

The docket has comments submitted by AT&T, Verizon, and the top lobbying groups for the cable, telecom, and mobile broadband industries. Starlink-owner SpaceX and Amazon’s Kuiper submitted wishlists for satellite deregulation. The FCC also received deregulatory requests from prison phone company Securus, TV broadcasters, and multiple groups that want less strict robocall rules.

Carr has long been an advocate for removing broadband and telecom regulations, so rule-cutting requests submitted by Internet providers and their lobby groups probably have a good chance of being implemented. But Carr isn’t against regulations of all types: he has controversially sought to increase enforcement of content policies against news stations accused of bias against conservatives and Trump and has supported many actions against robocallers.

Carr has already started making it easier for telcos to turn off old copper phone and DSL networks, as we reported last month. AT&T and Verizon want additional rule-cutting when it comes to maintaining old networks, and it appears that Delete, Delete, Delete could achieve that and a lot more.

The urgency to delete regulations may have increased since Carr opened the proceeding because Trump last week issued an executive order directing agency heads to quickly identify regulations for removal.

Longshot bid to end news-distortion policy

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) submitted a longshot request for the FCC to eliminate its news-distortion policy. As we explained in a feature article, Carr is invoking this rarely enforced policy to probe broadcast news decisions, such as how CBS edited an interview with Kamala Harris. Carr’s aggressive use of the news-distortion policy has drawn condemnations from both liberal and conservative advocacy groups.

The NAB said that “the news distortion policy does not pass legal and constitutional muster… the policy is not based on any explicit statutory mandate, and therefore it is questionable whether the FCC has authority to enforce it.” The NAB further said the policy “is contrary to the public interest and the First Amendment… impermissibly chills speech and discourages coverage of important public issues, … places the Commission into the intrusive and constitutionally suspect role of scrutinizing program content and the editorial choices of broadcasters.”

Carr’s elimination of the policy would be an abrupt change of course. That doesn’t mean the NAB will get nothing out of Delete, Delete, Delete, as the group also asked for various other changes. For example, the NAB said the FCC should eliminate rules limiting ownership of broadcast television stations and other rules related to broadcast licensing. The conservative broadcast company Sinclair submitted a filing with similar requests to eliminate or relax ownership and licensing rules.

AT&T: Stop punishing us

AT&T’s comments ask the FCC to halt enforcement proceedings that could result in financial penalties, saying that a Supreme Court ruling “calls into serious question the constitutionality” of the FCC’s enforcement regime. AT&T was referring to the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

“Under the Court’s clear reasoning in Jarkesy, the Commission’s practice of imposing monetary ‘forfeitures’ without affording targets the right to a jury trial violates the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. The Commission should eliminate rules that impose such unlawful financial penalties,” AT&T said.

As we reported in November, AT&T and Verizon used this same argument in court to claim that the FCC cannot issue fines against the carriers for selling user location data.

AT&T’s new filing asks the FCC to “close long-pending investigations and other open proceedings that exceed the Commission’s authority.” AT&T also asked the FCC to eliminate several roaming obligations that apply to wireless carriers.

Relaxing robocall consent

ACA International, a trade group for the debt collection industry, asked the FCC to revoke the “revoke all” rule that makes it easier for consumers to opt out of unwanted communications. ACA International said that under the revoke all rule, “a request to revoke consent by whatever channel requires cessation of all contact by any other communication channel that requires prior consent.”

“Per the revoke all rule, callers must stop all future contacts for which consent is required in response to a single revocation request. Thus, if a consumer replies to a text message requesting that the caller stop future texts, the caller must also stop future calls if consent is required,” the group said. Additionally, a “request to stop a telemarketing call stops all informational robocalls or robotexts.”

ACA International claimed the rule harms customers who have overdue payments on several accounts. The “revoke all” rule “puts consumers in jeopardy because they may be deprived of the opportunity to resolve outstanding debts, leaving them exposed to litigation or worsening of the consumer’s credit rating,” the group said.

ACA International also asked the FCC to allow robocalls when there is an “established business relationship” between the customer and business. In 2012, the FCC decided to require telemarketers to obtain prior consent from users even when there is an established business relationship. ACA International complained that its members must follow “a dizzying array of restrictions that require callers to expend enormous resources to ensure compliance” and said the FCC should “eliminate the 2012 rule barring use of the [established business relationship] for calls and texts and restore the exemption.”

Another robocall request came from the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. The group said that under current rules, a consumer opting out from appointment reminders “would also revoke the business’s consent to send marketing messages and other informational messages related to prescriptions or other health alerts, potentially harming consumers, even though the consumer signed up for each program separately.”

“Rather than treating a consumer’s revocation message as a universal opt-out to all types of nonexempt messages, we urge the FCC to adopt a presumption that a revocation message is limited to the specific message program to which the consumer replies,” the group said.

Verizon wants to lock phones for longer

Verizon asked the FCC to eliminate a rule that requires it to unlock mobile phones so that they can be used on other networks. “The rule applies only to a minority of wireless providers (mainly Verizon), creating an unlevel playing field in a critical US industry,” Verizon said.

Verizon was referring to open access requirements in C Block 700 MHz wireless spectrum. Verizon agreed to follow the spectrum-specific rules when it purchased licenses to use the C Block in 2008.

The rule “requires Verizon (and not other major wireless providers) to unlock mobile devices within 60 days,” Verizon said. “This short period contrasts with an industry standard for prepaid service of at least six months and for postpaid service a requirement that the device is first paid in full. This has made Verizon a prime target of international criminal rings who obtain heavily subsidized devices in the US through illicit means and then sell them at a significant profit in other parts of the world.”

The FCC in 2019 granted Verizon a partial waiver allowing the 60-day locking period to fight fraud, but Verizon says the exemption isn’t enough. “For example, even with a 60-day locking period, Verizon estimates that it lost 784,703 devices to fraud in 2023 alone, which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars lost, and this occurs annually,” Verizon said.

Under the Biden administration, the FCC proposed a 60-day unlocking requirement that would apply to all wireless providers. That would help put Verizon on equal regulatory footing with the other major carriers, but the proposal is still pending. AT&T’s comments asked the FCC to close this handset unlocking proceeding without adopting new rules.

Verizon also asked the FCC to ditch some rules related to submitting broadband mapping data. For example, Verizon wants the FCC to end a requirement to create in-vehicle coverage maps. “Requiring both stationary and in-vehicle maps doubles the number of maps wireless providers must create,” Verizon said, arguing that rules of this type “impose costs that far exceed the marginal benefits of the data they provide.”

Many more telecom requests

A filing from cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association discussed last year’s Supreme Court decision that eliminated the Chevron precedent under which agencies were given broad leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. “In the old Chevron world, rules were adopted that extended statutory provisions beyond their scope,” the NCTA said. “Many of these Commission interpretations were then upheld on review based on the now-repudiated premise that courts were required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.”

The NCTA acknowledged that the Supreme Court did not overturn prior cases that relied on Chevron deference but said the court “did not foreclose the ability of an agency to revisit its own prior orders and to eliminate or modify existing rules that exceed its statutory authority.”

In the NCTA’s view, one such rule that should be eliminated requires cable and satellite TV providers to specify the “all-in” price of services in ads and promotional materials. The rule was adopted last year to stop the TV-provider practice of using hidden fees, like Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network charges, to conceal the full cost of video service.

“Adoption of the rule is a prime example of the Commission exceeding the bounds of the authority delegated to it by Congress,” the NCTA argued. The FCC rule goes beyond what Congress required in a 2019 law that said video providers must disclose the all-in price at the point of sale and in writing within 24 hours of a customer obtaining service, the NCTA said.

Carr is likely to listen closely to this argument—he dissented from last year’s rulemaking, saying the order “strays markedly from our statutory authority” and that “Congress considered and ultimately rejected extending the law to advertisements.”

The FCC received other rule-elimination requests from USTelecom and the wireless industry group CTIA. The FCC also heard from a group called the 21st Century Privacy Coalition—which was created by telecom industry members to lobby against strict privacy rules. The group has said its members include AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, Cox, CTIA, NCTA, T-Mobile, USTelecom, and Verizon.

The 21st Century Privacy Coalition told the FCC that a number of its rules on Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) “exceed the Commission’s statutory authority, are substantially outdated, and impose unnecessary and burdensome costs on telecommunications carriers without providing consumers with corresponding benefits.”

SpaceX asked the FCC to relax space station and earth station licensing procedures to make it easier to deploy low-Earth satellite networks like Starlink. SpaceX also said the FCC should “modernize outdated protections for legacy GSO [geostationary orbit] systems.” Amazon’s Kuiper Systems said that numerous regulations are “ripe for deleting or streamlining” in order to “reduce regulatory burdens on the satellite industry.”

Prison phone company Securus, meanwhile, wants a do-over of a 2024 order that lowered the prices of prison phone calls. The company said the FCC should reassess a prohibition “on the use of regulated revenue to fund critical safety and security measures, including recording, storage, and live monitoring, which is creating havoc for many law enforcement agencies.”

Securus also wants the FCC to lift a ban on “ancillary” charges that drive up the prices paid by prisoners and their families. Carr generally supported that 2024 order but expressed some concerns about the rate structure chosen by the FCC.

Scalpel or chainsaw?

Decisions to eliminate rules can be challenged in court. TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning think tank, supported the goals of “Delete, Delete, Delete” but cautioned the FCC to move deliberately so that its actions don’t get overturned by judges.

“The FCC should be wary of overreach, as it may not survive appellate scrutiny under the Major Questions Doctrine,” the group said.

AT&T wants the FCC to move as fast as possible, as it urged the agency to overhaul its enforcement regime “without the delay imposed by notice-and-comment proceeding.” AT&T pointed to a Trump memorandum that said “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or the portion of any regulation, that clearly exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful.”

But TechFreedom said that US law “generally requires notice and comment rulemakings for changes to substantive rules.” There is a “good cause” exemption, but courts have only recognized this exemption “in limited circumstances, such as emergencies or where prior notice would subvert the statutory scheme.”

“When in doubt, the agency should seek public comments to ensure that it accounts for potential reliance interests upon the existing rule,” TechFreedom said.

Anna Gomez, a Democratic commissioner at the FCC, has urged a measured approach. “We want to take a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to the rules of protecting consumers and promoting competition,” she said at a conference last week, according to Light Reading.

Carr seems eager to push ahead with rule deletions. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the Administration is unleashing a new wave of economic opportunity by ending the regulatory onslaught from Washington,” Carr said when he announced the plan. “For too long, administrative agencies have added new regulatory requirements in excess of their authority or kept lawful regulations in place long after their shelf life had expired… The FCC is committed to ending all of the rules and regulations that are no longer necessary.”

ISPs and robocallers love the FCC plan to “delete” as many rules as possible Read More »

FCC head Brendan Carr tells Europe to get on board with Starlink

brendan carr, EU, FCC, Policy, satellite broadband, starlink, syndication, Trump / DJ Henderson / April 15, 2025

He also accused the European Commission of “protectionism” and an “anti-American” attitude.

“If Europe has its own satellite constellation then great, I think the more the better. But more broadly, I think Europe is caught a little bit between the US and China. And it’s sort of time for choosing,” he said.

The European Commission said it had “always enforced and would continue to enforce laws fairly and without discrimination to all companies operating in the EU, in full compliance with global rules.”

Shares in European satellite providers such as Eutelsat and SES soared in recent weeks despite the companies’ heavy debts, in response to the commission saying that Brussels “should fund Ukrainian [military] access to services that can be provided by EU-based commercial providers.”

Industry experts warned that despite the positivity, no single European network could yet compete with Starlink’s offering.

Carr said that European telecoms companies Nokia and Ericsson should move more of their manufacturing to the US as both face being hit with Trump’s import tariffs.

The two companies are the largest vendors of mobile network infrastructure equipment in the US. Carr said there had been a historic “mistake” in US industrial policy, which meant there was no significant American company competing in the telecom vendor market.

“I don’t love that current situation we’re in,” he said.

Carr added that he would “look at” granting the companies faster regulatory clearances on new technology if they moved to the US.

Last month, Ericsson chief executive Börje Ekholm told the FT the company would consider expanding manufacturing in the US depending on how potential tariffs affected it. The Swedish telecoms equipment maker first opened an American factory in Lewisville, Texas, in 2020.

“We’ve been ramping up [production in the US] already. Do we need bigger changes? We will have to see,” Ekholm added.

Nokia said that the US was the company’s “second home.”

“Around 90 percent of all US communications utilizes Nokia equipment at some point. We have five manufacturing sites and five R&D hubs in the US including Nokia Bell Labs,” they added.

Ericsson declined to comment.

FCC head Brendan Carr tells Europe to get on board with Starlink Read More »

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr starts granting telecom lobby’s wish list

brendan carr, FCC, Policy / Beth Washington / March 21, 2025

In July 2024, AT&T became the first carrier to apply for a technology transition discontinuance “under the Adequate Replacement Test relying on the applicant’s own replacement service,” the order said. “AT&T indicated in this application that it was relying on a totality of the circumstances showing to establish the adequacy of its replacement service, but also committed to the performance testing methodology and parameters established in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order Technical Appendix.” This “delay[ed] the filing of its discontinuance application for several months,” the FCC said.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the FCC clarification that carriers don’t need to perform testing, “combined with elimination of most of the remaining notice requirements, means that you don’t have to worry about actually proving anything. Just say ‘totality of the circumstances’ and by the time anyone who cares finds out, the application will be granted.”

“The one positive thing is that some states (such as California) still have carrier of last resort rules to protect consumers,” Feld told Ars. “In some states, at least, consumers will not suddenly find themselves cut off from 911 or other important services.”

Telco lobby loves FCC moves

The bureau separately approved a petition for a waiver filed last month by USTelecom, a lobby group that represents telcos such as AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink (aka Lumen). The group sought a waiver of a requirement that replacement voice services be offered on a stand-alone basis instead of only in a bundle with broadband.

While bundles cost more than single services for consumers who only want phone access, USTelecom said that “inefficiencies of offering stand-alone voice can raise costs for consumers and reduce capital available for investment and innovation.”

The FCC said granting the waiver will allow providers “to retire copper networks, not only in cases where replacement voice services are available on a stand-alone basis, but in cases where those services are available on a bundled basis.” The waiver is approved for two years and can be extended.

USTelecom President and CEO Jonathan Spalter praised the FCC actions in a statement. “Broadband providers appreciate Chairman Carr’s laser focus on cutting through red tape and outdated mindsets to accelerate the work of connecting all Americans,” Spalter said.

Just like Carr’s statement, Spalter did not use the word “fiber” when discussing replacements for copper service. He said vaguely that “today’s decision marks a significant step forward in transitioning outdated copper telephone lines to next-generation networks that better meet the needs of American consumers,” and “will help turbocharge investment in advanced broadband infrastructure, sustain and grow a skilled broadband workforce, bring countless new choices and services to more families and communities, and fuel our innovation economy.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr starts granting telecom lobby’s wish list Read More »