Federal Communications Commission General Counsel Tom Johnson is set to rebut net neutrality advocates on Feb. 1 before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals — and he previewed the agency’s arguments during a Free State Foundation event Nov 9. He said the FCC would cite a “stamp of approval from the Supreme Court” via the 2005 Brand X decision, which asserted that broadband can be classified as an information service, as well as “a history of past commission orders reaching the same conclusion.” Although the FCC believes it can override state net neutrality laws like the one in California, it hasn’t yet settled the question of whether it can challenge efforts to make net neutrality a requirement for state government contracts, Johnson said. “The commission has not taken an explicit position,” he said, adding the FCC hasn’t sought to intervene in such procurement-related actions for that reason.

Sacramento (CA) has come to stand as an example of the complexities involved in actually getting 5G services turned on. Sacramento’s journey toward 5G started in 2016 with an agreement between the city and a company called XG Communities.  The agreement called for XG to identify and organize a database of city assets—namely, street light poles, conduit, fiber and utility circuitry—that could be made available to carriers that wanted to pay for the rights to install small cells on city property. However, a year later, Sacramento was approached by Verizon to be one of the operator’s first 5G cities, and so it inked a separate $100 million deal with Verizon that went around its agreement with XG Communities. That deal gave Verizon access to city infrastructure in return for free Wi-Fi in public parks and other amenities. As luck would have it, the same day Verizon launched its fixed 5G service in Sacramento in Oct, a Superior Court judge ruled that several key provisions of the city’s agreement with Verizon violated the city’s contract with XG. The ruling calls into question the legality of some aspects of Verizon’s network in Sacramento, and a judge has since rendered a final ruling that requires the city to make good on its contract with XG. 

The Federal Communications Commission just gave the wireless infrastructure effort a lift by streamlining the rules for deploying small cells. I found last week’s editorial by the mayor of San Jose (CA) quite odd. Mayor Sam Liccardo argued that the new FCC rules to encourage faster deployment are an industry effort to “usurp control over these coveted public assets and utilize publicly owned streetlight poles for their own profit, not the public benefit.” But the new streamlining rules do no such thing. Public rights of way will still be public. Cities and states will still have the same access as private firms, just as they had before. And who will benefit from the private investment of some $275 billion dollars in new wireless networks? That’s right — the public. Too often, cities are blocking access to these rights of way, unless firms pay up. These government games are the very obstacles to deployment that the FCC rule is meant to fix.

Sens Ed Markey (D-MA), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called on the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into new evidence of manipulative marketing practices in apps directed at children. A new study recently published in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics reveals numerous instances of children’s games using advertising techniques that appear to constitute unfair and deceptive practices under Section V of the FTC Act. In their letter, the Sens highlight evidence of children’s games disguising advertisements, as well as making advertisements integral to games themselves; games using characters to coerce children into making in-app purchases; children’s apps being marketed as free when they actually require additional spending in order to play; and children’s apps characterizing themselves as educational, when they are in fact saturated with advertising.  “The FTC has a statutory obligation to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive advertising practices. That responsibility is all the more urgent when the potential victims of such practices are children,” wrote the Sens. “As parents increasingly permit kids to engage in online games and apps for entertainment and fun, it is imperative to ensure that these playtime options are compliant with existing laws.”

The Department of Justice announced that it has reached a settlement with six broadcast television companies — Sinclair, Raycom Media, Tribune Media Company, Meredith Corporation, Griffin Communications, and Dreamcatcher Broadcasting — to resolve a DOJ lawsuit alleging that the companies engaged in unlawful agreements to share non-public competitively sensitive information with their broadcast television competitors. “The unlawful exchange of competitively sensitive information allowed these television broadcast companies to disrupt the normal competitive process of spot advertising in markets across the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Advertisers rely on competition among owners of broadcast television stations to obtain reasonable advertising rates, but this unlawful sharing of information lessened that competition and thereby harmed the local businesses and the consumers they serve.” 

The proposed settlement prohibits the direct or indirect sharing of such competitively sensitive information. The Department has determined that prohibiting this conduct would resolve the antitrust concerns raised as a result of the conduct of these defendants.  The proposed settlement further requires defendants to cooperate in the department’s ongoing investigation, and to adopt rigorous antitrust compliance and reporting measures to prevent similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.  The settlement has a seven year term, and it will continue to apply to stations currently owned by defendants, even if those stations are acquired by another company.

CNN said that it is suing President Donald Trump and other administration officials over the decision to suspend the White House press credentials of correspondent Jim Acosta after a conflict at a news conference. The lawsuit, to be filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia, escalates an ongoing battle between President Trump and the cable news outlet that he frequently accuses of disseminating “fake news” for its aggressive coverage of him and his administration. “The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s 1st Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their 5th Amendment rights to due process,” AT&T Inc.-owned CNN said. “If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”

The suit requests “immediate restoration” of Acosta’s “hard pass,” a press credential issued by the Secret Service that allows reporters access to the White House grounds, parts of the West Wing and secured areas during presidential trips. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the suit was “just more grandstanding from CNN” and the White House “will vigorously defend” against it.

President Donald Trump took part in an event celebrating Diwali Nov 13 at the White House alongside several administration officials. During the ceremony, President Trump teased Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who was in the room. "I just didn't like one decision he made but that's all right," President Trump said as he was introducing Pai, potentially referencing Pai's decision on a merger between Sinclair and Tribune Media. "Not even a little bit. He's independent," President Trump joked, as the group of administration officials behind him laughed. In July, President Trump called the Sinclair/Tribune merger decision "so sad and unfair."