FCC – Page 2

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.”

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.

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 »

Furious at the FCC, Arkansas jail cancels inmate phone calls rather than lower rates

FCC, jail, phone calls, Policy / Kelly Newman / March 19, 2025

If “the Federal Communications Commission reverses their adverse regulations,” Montgomery said, “the Baxter County Sheriff’s Office will revisit the feasibility of reimplementing the inmate phone system.”

One might expect this view to generate some sympathy in the MAGA-fied halls of FCC HQ. But the Commission’s two Republicans actually voted in favor of the rate control order last year. Current FCC Chair Brendan Carr even agreed that inmate phone calls in American prisons were often “excessive” and that the private operators behind these systems represented a “market failure.” He then voted for straight-up, old-school price caps.

In fact, Carr went on to offer a robust defense of inmate calling, saying: “[I often] heard from families who experienced firsthand the difficulties of maintaining contact with their incarcerated loved ones. I also heard from formerly incarcerated individuals who underscored the decline in mental and emotional health that can result from a lack of external communications. Beyond that, studies have repeatedly shown that increased communication between incarcerated people and their families, friends, and other outside resources helps reduce recidivism rates.”

So Montgomery may not get this decision reversed easily. (On the other hand, Carr did just launch a “Delete! Delete! Delete!” initiative focused on cutting regulations, so who knows.)

Baxter County claims that the FCC decision means that phone services are no longer “feasible.” In 2018, however, when Baxter County wanted to expand its jail and didn’t have the cash, officials found a way to make it feasible by asking voters to approve a 1-cent sales tax collected between April and September of that year. (You can even watch a time-lapse video of the jail expansion being built.) Feasibility, it turns out, is often in the eye of the beholder.

Montgomery did say that he would add some additional in-person visiting hours at the jail to compensate for the lack of phone calls, and last week his office posted the new schedule. But as positive as in-person contact can be, in a busy world it is still nice to have the option of a reasonably priced phone call—you know, the kind that’s “feasible” to offer at most other jails in the US.

Furious at the FCC, Arkansas jail cancels inmate phone calls rather than lower rates Read More »

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints

ads, FCC, Policy, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / March 1, 2025

Streaming ads could get muzzled, too

As you may have noticed—either through the text of this article or your own ears—The Calm Act doesn’t apply to streaming services. And because The Calm Act doesn’t affect commercials viewed on the Internet, online services providing access to broadcast channels, like YouTube TV and Sling, don’t have to follow the rules. This is despite such services distributing the same content as linear TV providers.

For years, this made sense. The majority of TV viewing occurred through broadcast, cable, or satellite access. Further, services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video used to be considered safe havens from constant advertisements. But today, streaming services are more popular than ever and have grown to love ads, which have become critical to most platforms’ business models. Further, many streaming services are airing more live events. These events, like sports games, show commercials to all subscribers, even those with a so-called “ad-free” subscription.

Separate from the Calm Act violation complaints, the FCC noted this month that other recent complaints it has seen illustrate “growing concern with the loudness of commercials on streaming services and other online platforms.” If the FCC decides to apply Calm Act rules to the web, it would need to create new methods for ensuring compliance, it said.

TV viewing trends by platform bar graph by Nielsen. — Nielsen’s most recent data on how people watch TV. Credit: Nielsen

The FCC didn’t specify what’s behind the spike in consumers’ commercial complaints. Perhaps with declining audiences, traditional TV providers thought it would be less likely for anyone to notice and formally complain about Ozempic ads shouting at them. Twelve years have passed since the rules took effect, so it’s also possible that organizations are getting lackadaisical about ensuring compliance or have dwindling resources.

With Americans spending similar amounts of time—if not longer—watching TV online versus via broadcast, cable, and satellite, The Calm Act would have to take on the web in order to maximize effectiveness. The streaming industry is young, though, and operates differently than linear TV distribution, presenting new regulation challenges.

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints Read More »

DeepSeek is “TikTok on steroids,” senator warns amid push for government-wide ban

AI, app ban, CCP, china, china mobile, Chinese Communist Party, DeepSeek, FCC, government ban, Policy / Mike M. / February 7, 2025

But while the national security concerns require a solution, Curtis said his priority is maintaining “a really productive relationship with China.” He pushed Lutnick to address how he plans to hold DeepSeek—and the CCP in general—accountable for national security concerns amid ongoing tensions with China.

Lutnick suggested that if he is confirmed (which appears likely), he will pursue a policy of “reciprocity,” where China can “expect to be treated by” the US exactly how China treats the US. Currently, China is treating the US “horribly,” Lutnick said, and his “first step” as Commerce Secretary will be to “repeat endlessly” that more “reciprocity” is expected from China.

But while Lutnick answered Curtis’ questions about DeepSeek somewhat head-on, he did not have time to respond to Curtis’ inquiry about Lutnick’s intentions for the US AI Safety Institute (AISI)—which Lutnick’s department would oversee and which could be essential to the US staying ahead of China in AI development.

Viewing AISI as key to US global leadership in AI, Curtis offered “tools” to help Lutnick give the AISI “new legs” or a “new life” to ensure that the US remains responsibly ahead of China in the AI race. But Curtis ran out of time to press Lutnick for a response.

It remains unclear how AISI’s work might change under Trump, who revoked Joe Biden’s AI safety rules establishing the AISI.

What is clear is that lawmakers are being pressed to preserve and even evolve the AISI.

Yesterday, the chief economist for a nonprofit called the Foundation for the American Innovation, Samuel Hammond, provided written testimony to the US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, recommending that AISI be “retooled to perform voluntary audits of AI models—both open and closed—to certify their security and reliability” and to keep America at the forefront of AI development.

“With so little separating China and America’s frontier AI capabilities on a technical level, America’s lead in AI is only as strong as our lead in computing infrastructure,” Hammond said. And “as the founding member of a consortium of 280 similar AI institutes internationally, the AISI seal of approval would thus support the export and diffusion of American AI models worldwide.”

DeepSeek is “TikTok on steroids,” senator warns amid push for government-wide ban Read More »

Robocallers posing as FCC staff blocked after robocalling real FCC staff

FCC, Policy, robocalls / DJ Henderson / February 6, 2025

A not-very-successful robocall scheme

You can ignore robocalls from FCC “Fraud Prevention Team,” which doesn’t exist.

Credit: Getty Images | PhonlamaiPhoto

Robocallers posing as employees of the Federal Communications Commission made the mistake of trying to scam real employees of the FCC, the FCC announced yesterday. “On the night of February 6, 2024, and continuing into the morning of February 7, 2024, over a dozen FCC staff and some of their family members reported receiving calls on their personal and work telephone numbers,” the FCC said.

The calls used an artificial voice that said, “Hello [first name of recipient] you are receiving an automated call from the Federal Communications Commission notifying you the Fraud Prevention Team would like to speak with you. If you are available to speak now please press one. If you prefer to schedule a call back please press two.”

You may not be surprised to learn that the FCC does not have any “Fraud Prevention Team” like the one mentioned in the robocalls, and especially not one that demands Google gift cards in lieu of jail time.

“The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau believes the purpose of the calls was to threaten, intimidate, and defraud,” the agency said. “One recipient of an imposter call reported that they were ultimately connected to someone who ‘demand[ed] that [they] pay the FCC $1,000 in Google gift cards to avoid jail time for [their] crimes against the state.'”

The FCC said it does not “publish or otherwise share staff personal phone numbers” and that it “remains unclear how these individuals were targeted.” Obviously, robocallers posing as FCC employees probably wouldn’t intentionally place scam calls to real FCC employees. But FCC employees are just as likely to get robocalls as anyone else. This set of schemers apparently only made about 1,800 calls before their calling accounts were terminated.

The FCC described the scheme yesterday when it announced a proposed fine of $4,492,500 against Telnyx, the voice service provider accused of carrying the robocalls. The FCC alleges that Telnyx violated “Know Your Customer (KYC)” rules by providing access to calling services without verifying the customers’ identities. When contacted by Ars today, Telnyx denied the FCC’s allegations and said it will contest the proposed fine.

The “MarioCop” accounts

The robocalling scheme lasted two days. On February 6, 2024, Telnyx accepted two new customers calling themselves Christian Mitchell and Henry Walker, who provided street addresses in Toronto and email addresses with the domain name “mariocop123.com.” The robocallers apparently used fake identities and paid for Telnyx service in Bitcoin.

The Telnyx customers who placed the robocalls are referred to as “MarioCop accounts” in the FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) issued against Telnyx. Telnyx flagged one of the accounts in the course of its “routine examination of new users” and terminated the account on February 7 after determining the calls violated its terms and conditions and acceptable use policy. Telnyx also reported the account to the FCC.

Telnyx is based in Chicago. It offers a service that lets callers “build a custom AI voice bot” and a voice API that “makes it simple to make, receive and control voice calls with code.” Telnyx is also a VoIP provider that says it “holds carrier status in 30+ countries around the world” and offers “local calling in over 80 countries and PSTN [Public Switched Telephone Network] replacement in 45+ markets.”

The FCC subpoenaed Telnyx for information about the calls, and the resulting records showed that one MarioCop account placed 1,029 calls between February 6 and February 7. The other account placed 768 calls on February 6.

The FCC also subpoenaed Telnyx for information that might identify the callers and “determined that the very limited identifying information Telnyx collected from its customers was false.” They used physical addresses in Canada, including one that turned out to be a Sheraton hotel, and IP addresses from Scotland and England.

“The @mariocop123.com domain is not associated with any known business; a website using the same domain was created in February 2024 and remains undeveloped,” the FCC said. The FCC notes that both MarioCop accounts may have been operated by the same person.

FCC: Telcos must know their customers

Telnyx “accepted the names and physical addresses at face value, without any further requests for corroboration or independent verification,” the FCC forfeiture order said. Neither applicant provided a telephone number.

The FCC alleged that Telnyx didn’t do enough “to discern whether the limited amount of identifying information its customer provided was legitimate and it overlooked obvious discrepancies in the information it collected… Becoming Telynyx’s customer and gaining access to outbound calling services that allowed origination of hundreds of calls (more than 1,000 calls from the First MarioCop Account) was as simple as making up a fake name and address and acquiring a non-free email address.”

The FCC notice continued:

Our rules require Telnyx to know its customers. Yet it did not know who the MarioCop Account holders were. We therefore conclude that Telnyx apparently violated section 64.1200(n)(4) of our rules by allowing the First MarioCop Account and the Second MarioCop Account access to outbound calling services without actually knowing the true identities of the account holders. By extension, we believe we could likely find that Telnyx apparently violated our rules with regards to every customer it onboarded using the same process as it did for the MarioCop Accounts. We decline to do so here absent further investigation.

Telnyx will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations and argue that it shouldn’t be fined. In some cases, the FCC and the telecom reach a settlement for a lower amount.

Telnyx CEO David Casem told Ars today that “Telnyx is surprised by the FCC’s mistaken decision to issue a Notice of Apparent Liability stating an intent to impose monetary penalties. The Notice of Apparent Liability is factually mistaken, and Telnyx denies its allegations. Telnyx has done everything and more than the FCC has required for Know-Your-Customer (‘KYC’) and customer due diligence procedures.”

We also sent a message to the email addresses used by the MarioCop accounts and will update this article in the unlikely event that we receive a response.

Telnyx defends response, citing quick shutdown

Casem said the FCC hasn’t previously demanded “perfection” in stopping illegal traffic. “Since bad actors continuously find ways to avoid detection, the FCC has historically expected providers to take reasonable steps to detect and block them,” he told Ars. “Yet the FCC now seeks to impose substantial monetary penalties on Telnyx for limited unlawful calling activity that Telnyx not only did not originate but swiftly blocked within a matter of hours.”

Casem said that “there has been no allegation of subsequent recurring activity” and urged the FCC to “reconsider what can only be viewed as an improper effort to impose an unprecedented zero-tolerance requirement on providers through enforcement action, in the absence of any defined rules informing providers what is expected of them.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in yesterday’s announcement that he is pleased with the “bipartisan vote in favor of this nearly $4.5 million proposed fine” and that it “continues the FCC’s longstanding work to stop bad actors.”

Anna Gomez, a Democratic member of the FCC, said that Carr’s office accepted her request for a change designed to encourage telecoms to report potential violations to the FCC. “It is important that service providers work quickly and closely with the FCC to identify and stop illegal traffic before it makes its way to consumers. I value self-reporting from industry actors on potential violations of our rules, and I am grateful the Office of Chairman Carr accepted our edits to this NAL to encourage self-reporting,” Gomez said.

There was a dissenting vote from Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington, but not because of the facts specific to this case. Because of a recent Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of federal agencies, Simington has vowed to vote against any fine imposed by the commission until its legal powers are clear.

“While the conduct described in this NAL 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.

Robocallers posing as FCC staff blocked after robocalling real FCC staff Read More »

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, jessica rosenworcel, Policy / Kelly Newman / January 16, 2025

FCC not the president’s speech police (yet)

Chair: Complaints “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC.”

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel testifies during a House hearing on Thursday, May 16, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams

Taking action in the final days of the Biden administration, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed three complaints and a petition filed against broadcast television stations. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the action is important because “the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.”

“Today, I have directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment,” she said. “We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the president’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s chosen replacement for Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr, wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. Backing Trump’s various complaints about news stations, Carr has threatened to revoke licenses by wielding the FCC’s authority to ensure that broadcasters using public airwaves operate in the public interest.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she is dismissing “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” After Trump criticized CBS in October, Rosenworcel said the agency “does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Chair: Complaints aim to “weaponize” FCC authority

The Center for American Rights filed complaints supporting Trump’s claims of bias regarding ABC’s fact-checking during a presidential debate, the editing of a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and NBC putting Harris on a Saturday Night Live episode. Separately, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox, alleging that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rejecting all four, Rosenworcel said “the facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”

Dismissing complaints isn’t likely to end the cases, said Jeffrey Westling, a lawyer at the conservative American Action Forum who has urged Congress to “limit or revoke the FCC’s authority to impose content-based restrictions on broadcast television.”

Westling said he agrees “substantively” with Rosenworcel, but added that “the DC Circuit Court has made clear that the FCC has to consider news distortion complaints (see Serafyn vs FCC) and not just dismiss them outright. If I am the complainants, I challenge these dismissals in court, win, and get more attention.”

When contacted by Ars today, the Center for American Rights provided a statement criticizing Rosenworcel’s decision as “political and self-serving.”

“We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

The group previously touted the fact that Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington urged FCC leadership to take its complaints seriously.

Fox ruling will be challenged

The Media and Democracy Project criticized Rosenworcel’s decision to dismiss its complaint against the Fox station in Philadelphia.

“We look forward to presenting on appeal the multiple court decisions that raise serious questions about the Murdochs’ and Fox’s character qualifications to remain broadcast licensees,” the Media and Democracy Project said in a statement provided to Ars. “As renowned First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated in his filing with the Commission, the First Amendment is no bar to Commission action given the facts of this case. Our petition is clearly distinct from the other politically motivated complaints.”

The group’s petition pointed to a court ruling that found Fox News aired false statements about Dominion Voting Systems. Fox later agreed to pay Dominion $788 million to settle a defamation lawsuit.

“Our Petition to Deny is based on judicial findings that Fox made repeated false statements that undermined the electoral process and resulted in property damage, injury, and death; that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch engaged in a ‘carefully crafted scheme’ in ‘bad faith’ to deprive Lachlan’s siblings of the control to which they are entitled under an irrevocable trust; and that ‘Murdoch knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law,'” the Media and Democracy Project said today.

The FCC order denying the petition also granted the station’s application for a license renewal. The order said the allegations regarding “material carried on a cable network under common control with the Licensee that a state court found to be false” aren’t grounds to deny the individual station’s license renewal. While some “non-FCC-related misconduct” can be considered by the FCC in an evaluation of a licensee’s character, the finding in the defamation suit doesn’t qualify, the order said.

Former FCC official objects

Gigi Sohn, a longtime advocate whose nomination to the FCC was rejected by the Senate, also criticized the FCC today. Sohn, who also served as counselor for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler during the Obama administration, called the dismissal of the Fox petition a “failure to lead.”

“As [Rosenworcel] herself points out, the facts of these petitions are very different,” Sohn wrote. “The [Media and Democracy Project] petition seeks a hearing on Fox Philadelphia licenses because they allege that Fox lacks the character to hold them because it lied to the American people about the 2020 election. The conservative complaints are all based on disagreements with editorial judgments of the various broadcast networks.”

“The decision to lump these filings together and overturn years of FCC precedent that broadcasters’ character is central to holding a license is contrary to the Communications Act’s mandate that licenses be granted in ‘the public interest, convenience and necessity,'” Sohn also wrote. The FCC rationale would mean that “anything and everything a broadcast licensee does or says would be a First Amendment issue that warrants automatic license renewal,” she added.

Media advocacy group Free Press agreed with the FCC’s decision. “We have an incoming administration quite literally threatening to jail journalists for doing their jobs, and an incoming FCC chairman talking about revoking broadcast licenses any time he disagrees with their political coverage,” the group said.

Free Press sided with the FCC despite noting that the Fox case involved “false information [that] had devastating consequences in the January 6 attack on the peaceful transition of power four years ago.”

“Lies knowingly aired by Fox News Channel and some Murdoch-owned Fox affiliates present a significantly different challenge to regulators than merely fact-checking, editing or scheduling equal time for candidates in ways that displease the president-elect,” Free Press said. “Yet we agree with the urgent need to prevent the weaponization of the government against journalists and media companies on the eve of the inauguration, and in light of the dire threats the new administration poses.”

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations Read More »

Appeals court blocks FCC’s efforts to bring back net neutrality rules

brendan carr, broadband providers, Donald Trump, FCC, Joe Biden, Net Neutrality, open Internet, Policy / Mike M. / January 2, 2025

“The key here is not whether Broadband Internet Service Providers utilize telecommunications; it is instead whether they do so while offering to consumers the capability to do more,” Griffin wrote, concluding that “they do.”

“The FCC exceeded its statutory authority,” Griffin wrote, at one point accusing the FCC of arguing for a reading of the statute “that is too sweeping.”

The three-judge panel ordered a stay of the FCC’s order imposing net neutrality rules—known as the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order.

In a statement, FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggested that Congress would likely be the only path to safeguard net neutrality moving forward. In the federal register, experts noted that net neutrality is critical to boosting new applications, services, or content, warning that without clear rules, the next Amazon or YouTube could be throttled before it can get off the ground.

“Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an Internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel said. “With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open Internet principles in federal law.”

Rosenworcel will soon leave the FCC and will be replaced by Trump’s incoming FCC chair pick, Brendan Carr, who helped overturn net neutrality in 2017 and is expected to loosen broadband regulations once he’s confirmed.

Appeals court blocks FCC’s efforts to bring back net neutrality rules Read More »

Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you

data caps, FCC, Policy / Kelly Newman / November 19, 2024

Many Internet users filed comments asking the FCC to ban data caps. A coalition of consumer advocacy groups filed comments saying that “data caps are another profit-driving tool for ISPs at the expense of consumers and the public interest.”

“Data caps have a negative impact on all consumers but the effects are felt most acutely in low-income households,” stated comments filed by Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at New America, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, and the National Consumer Law Center.

Consumer groups: Caps don’t manage congestion

The consumer groups said the COVID-19 pandemic “made it more apparent how data caps are artificially imposed restrictions that negatively impact consumers, discriminate against the use of certain high-data services, and are not necessary to address network congestion, which is generally not present on home broadband networks.”

“Unlike speed tiers, data caps do not effectively manage network congestion or peak usage times, because they do not influence real-time network load,” the groups also said. “Instead, they enable further price discrimination by pushing consumers toward more expensive plans with higher or unlimited data allowances. They are price discrimination dressed up as network management.”

Jessica Rosenworcel, who has been FCC chairwoman since 2021, argued last month that consumer complaints show the FCC inquiry is necessary. “The mental toll of constantly thinking about how much you use a service that is essential for modern life is real as is the frustration of so many consumers who tell us they believe these caps are costly and unfair,” Rosenworcel said.

ISPs lifting caps during the pandemic “suggest[s] that our networks have the capacity to meet consumer demand without these restrictions,” she said, adding that “some providers do not have them at all” and “others lifted them in network merger conditions.”

Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you Read More »

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, fcc chairman, Policy / Mike M. / November 18, 2024

Trump makes FCC chair pick

Carr says he wants to punish broadcast media and dismantle “censorship cartel.”

Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr speaks during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 24, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

President-elect Donald Trump announced last night that he will make Brendan Carr the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr, who wrote a chapter about the FCC for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, is a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other regulations imposed on Internet service providers.

Although Carr wants to deregulate telecom companies that the FCC has historically regulated, he wants the FCC to start regulating Big Tech and social media firms. He has also echoed Trump’s longtime complaints about the news media and proposed punishments for broadcast networks.

Trump’s statement on Carr said that “because of his great work, I will now be designating him as permanent Chairman.”

“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy,” Trump wrote. “He will end the regulatory onslaught that has been crippling America’s Job Creators and Innovators, and ensure that the FCC delivers for rural America.”

Carr is a sitting FCC commissioner and therefore no Senate approval is needed to confirm the choice. The president can elevate any commissioner to the chair spot.

Carr wants to punish broadcasters

Carr thanked Trump in a post on his X account last night, then made several more posts describing some of the changes he plans to make at the FCC. One of Carr’s posts said the FCC will crack down on broadcast media.

“Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation,” Carr wrote.

We described Carr’s views on how the FCC should operate in an article on November 7, just after Trump’s election win. We wrote:

A Carr-led FCC could also try to punish news organizations that are perceived to be anti-Trump. Just before the election, Carr alleged that NBC putting Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule” and that the FCC should consider issuing penalties. Despite Carr’s claim, NBC did provide equal time to the Trump campaign.

Previous chairs defended free speech

Previous FCC chairs from both major parties have avoided punishing news organizations because of free speech concerns. Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, the current FCC chairwoman, last month criticized Trump’s calls for licenses to be revoked from TV news organizations whose coverage he dislikes.

“While repeated attacks against broadcast stations by the former President may now be familiar, these threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Rosenworcel said at the time. “As I’ve said before, the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Former Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, rejected the idea of revoking licenses in 2017 after similar calls from Trump. Pai said that the FCC “under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment” and that “the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

Carr believes differently. After the Saturday Night Live incident, Carr told Fox News that “all remedies should be on the table,” including “license revocations” for NBC.

We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the FCC doesn’t actually license TV networks such as CBS or NBC. But the FCC could punish affiliates. The FCC’s licensing authority is over broadcast stations, many of which are affiliated with or owned by a big network.

Carr targets “censorship cartel”

Carr wrote last night that “we must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” This seems to be referring to making social media networks change how they moderate content. On November 15, Carr wrote that “Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft & others have played central roles in the censorship cartel,” along with fact-checking groups and ad agencies that “helped enforce one-sided narratives.”

During his first presidential term, Trump formally petitioned the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that would limit social media platforms’ legal protections for hosting third-party content when the platforms take down content they consider objectionable.

Trump and Carr have claimed that such a step is necessary because of anti-conservative bias. In his Project 2025 chapter, Carr wrote that the FCC “should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”

Carr’s willingness to reinterpret Section 230 is likely a big plus in Trump’s eyes. In 2020, Trump pulled the re-nomination of FCC Republican member Michael O’Rielly after O’Rielly said that “we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. Like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.”

Carr to end FCC diversity policies

Last night, Carr also said he would end the FCC’s embrace of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. “The FCC’s most recent budget request said that promoting DEI was the agency’s second highest strategic goal. Starting next year, the FCC will end its promotion of DEI,” Carr wrote.

The FCC budget request said the agency “will pursue focused action and investments to eliminate historical, systemic, and structural barriers that perpetuate disadvantaged or underserved individuals and communities.” The Rosenworcel FCC said it aimed to create a diverse staff and to help “underserved individuals and communities” access “digital technologies, media, communication services, and next-generation networks.”

Carr dissented last year in the FCC’s 3-2 decision to impose rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, describing the rulemaking as “President Biden’s plan to give the administrative state effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the US.”

Another major goal for Carr is forcing Big Tech firms to help subsidize broadband network construction. Carr’s Project 2025 chapter said the FCC should “require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share” into “the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund.”

Media advocacy group Free Press said yesterday that “Brendan Carr has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk” and “got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk’s personal vendettas. While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact-check him during the campaign. This alone should be disqualifying.”

Lobby groups representing Internet service providers will be happy to have an FCC chair focused on eliminating broadband regulations. USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter issued a statement saying that “Brendan Carr has been a proven leader and an important partner in our shared goal to connect all Americans. With his deep experience and expertise, Commissioner Carr clearly understands the regulatory challenges and opportunities across the communications landscape.”

Pai, who teamed up with Carr and O’Rielly to eliminate net neutrality rules in 2017, wrote that Carr “was a brilliant advisor and General Counsel and has been a superb Commissioner, and I’m confident he will be a great FCC Chairman.”

Trump’s FCC chair is Brendan Carr, who wants to regulate everyone except ISPs Read More »

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data

AT&T, FCC, Location Data, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / Shannon Garcia / November 8, 2024

Supreme Court ruling could hurt FCC case

Both AT&T and Verizon cite 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.”

The Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed a 5th Circuit order, had not been issued yet when the FCC finalized its fines. The FCC disputed the 5th Circuit ruling, saying among other things that Supreme Court precedent made clear that “Congress can assign matters involving public rights to adjudication by an administrative agency ‘even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead.'”

Of course, the FCC will have a tougher time disputing the Jarkesy ruling now that the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit. Verizon pointed out that in the high court’s Jarkesy decision, “Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, recognized that Jarkesy was not limited to the SEC, identifying many agencies, including the FCC, whose practice of ‘impos[ing] civil penalties in administrative proceedings’ would be ‘upend[ed].'”

Verizon further argued: “As in Jarkesy, the fact that the FCC seeks ‘civil penalties… designed to punish’ is ‘all but dispositive’ of Verizon’s entitlement to an Article III court and a jury, rather than an agency prosecutor and adjudicator.”

Carriers: We didn’t get fair notice

Both carriers said the FCC did not provide “fair notice” that its section 222 authority over customer proprietary network information (CPNI) would apply to the data in question.

When it issued the fines, the FCC said carriers had fair notice. “CPNI is defined by statute, in relevant part, to include ‘information that relates to… the location… of a telecommunications service,'” the FCC said.

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data Read More »