The December meeting may be the first attended by recently-confirmed Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, who will replace outgoing Commissioner Michael O’Rielly after today’s confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate. In addition, Chairman Pai recently announced that he intends to leave the FCC on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021. As a result, the January 2021 FCC open meeting will be his last meeting before the change in administration.

You will find more details about the most significant items on the December meeting agenda after the break.

Securing the Communications Supply Chain – The draft Report and Order would require ETCs receiving Universal Service Fund support to remove and replace covered equipment and services posing a national security risk from their networks. It would also establish a reimbursement program to subsidize smaller carriers to remove and replace covered equipment, specifically those providers with two million or fewer customers, once Congress appropriates the estimated $1.6 billion needed to reimburse eligible providers for such costs. The draft Order would establish the procedures and criteria for publishing a list of covered communications equipment or services, and would adopt a reporting requirement for all providers of advanced communications services to annually report on covered equipment and services in their networks.

Modernizing Equipment Marketing and Importation Rules – The draft NPRM would propose updates to the Commission’s marketing and importation rules under its equipment authorization program. The proposed rules would permit, prior to equipment authorization, conditional sales of radiofrequency devices to consumers under certain circumstances. The NPRM also would propose to allow a limited number of radiofrequency devices subject to Certification to be imported into the U.S. prior to equipment authorization for certain pre-sale activities, including packaging and shipping devices, and loading devices with specific software.

TCPA Order on Reconsideration – The draft Order on Reconsideration would clarify the Commission’s previous interpretation of the TCPA that permitted government and government contractor calls without consumers’ prior express consent. The draft item would address long-standing questions regarding a 2016 Declaratory Ruling that first set guardrails on the government and government contractor exemption. The draft text of this item has not been publicly released.

Modernizing the E-Rate Program – The draft Order would amend the E-Rate invoice filing deadline rule to ensure program participants have sufficient time to complete the invoice payment process. Specifically, the Order would address situations where USAC issues a revised E-Rate funding commitment letter, in which case the FCC will allow recipients additional time to complete the work identified in the revised funding commitment. The draft text of this item has not been publicly released.

Unlike most monthly Commission meetings, none of the items on the October agenda initiate new proceedings or propose new rules. Instead, the items focus on implementation of a number of policies prioritized under Chairman Pai. FCC regulatory activity will likely slow in the aftermath of the election. As a result, the October agenda may represent the FCC’s final push for any major reforms in the near-term. However, on October 15, Chairman Pai did announce his intention to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret the meaning of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. You will find more details on the significant October meeting items after the break:

Restoring Internet Freedom Order Remand: The draft Order on Remand would respond to the remand from the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla Corp v. FCC, which upheld a majority of the FCC’s decisions on broadband Internet access service regulation and classification in the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, but remanded three issues back to the agency for further consideration. The FCC would address each issue and find that its initial conclusions in the 2017 order promote public safety communications, facilitate broadband infrastructure deployment through pole attachment rights, and allow the Commission to continue to provide Lifeline support conditioned on providing broadband internet access service. The agency would find there is no basis for departing from these original conclusions and that any negative effects on these sectors resulting from its classification of broadband Internet access service in the 2017 order would be limited or otherwise outweighed by the benefits of the “light-touch” regulatory framework for broadband.

Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America: The draft Report and Order would adopt the 5G Fund using a two-phase reverse auction targeting support for deploying 5G networks in areas without an unsubsidized provider of either 4G LTE or 5G mobile broadband. Proposed in an April 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), the draft Order would adopt a 10-year term of support and an overall budget of $9 billion for the 5G Fund. Phase I of the auction would make available up to $8 billion, with $680 million set aside for bidders offering to serve Tribal lands, and Phase II would make at least $1 billion available to target deployment facilitating adoption of precision agriculture technologies. The FCC would adopt its proposal to determine which areas would be eligible for 5G Fund support from data collected through the upcoming Digital Opportunity Data Collection, and would impose performance requirements on carriers continuing to receive legacy mobile high-cost support.

Unlicensed Wireless Opportunities in TV White Spaces: The draft Report and Order would adopt changes to the Part 15 unlicensed device rules, as proposed in the Commission’s February 2020 NPRM, to expand the ability of white spaces devices to deliver wireless broadband services in rural areas. The Order would increase the maximum permissible power for fixed white space devices operating on TV channels 2-35 in “less congested areas” and allow higher-power mobile operations within defined geographic areas. The FCC would also adopt rule changes to facilitate the development of narrowband Internet of Things devices and services in the TV bands.

Streamlining Approval of Wireless Infrastructure Modifications: The draft Report and Order would revise the Commission’s section 6409(a) rules to provide for streamlined state and local review of tower modifications that involve limited ground excavation or deployment beyond site boundaries. The rule revision would establish that, for towers not located in the public rights-of-way, a modification of an existing site needing ground excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet will not be disqualified from streamlined processing on that basis. The draft Order would also promote accelerated deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless services by facilitating the collocation of antennas and associated equipment on existing infrastructure, while preserving the ability of state and local governments to manage and protect local land-use interests.

Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements: The draft Report and Order would eliminate and modernize unbundling and resale requirements for incumbent local exchange carriers (“LECs”). The FCC would eliminate certain unbundling requirements for specific broadband-capable loops, subject to reasonable transition periods, in more densely populated areas, but preserve unbundling requirements in less densely populated areas without sufficient evidence of competition. The draft Order would also forbear from the avoided-cost resale obligation for non-price cap carrier incumbent LECs, subject to a three-year transition period.

If you have any urgent questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on other aspects of the federal and state response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as labor and employment and other issues, please visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

FCC Continues COVID-19 Telehealth Program Approvals, Closes in on $200 Million Funding Cap

On July 1, 2020, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau (“WCB”) approved 70 additional funding applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Under the latest funding round, $31.63 million will go to health care providers across 31 states and Washington D.C. This is the first set of approvals since the FCC’s June 25 announcement that it will no longer accept new applications for funding, noting that demand for funding exceeds currently-available Program funds. To date, the FCC has approved 514 funding applications in 46 states plus D.C. for a total of $189.27 million in funding, leaving just over $10 million to be allocated under the Program’s current $200 million funding cap.

FCC Announces Availability of Unused Funds for Rural Health Care

On June 30, 2020, the FCC’s WCB directed (DA 20-688) the Universal Service Administrative Company to carry over up to $197.98 million in unused funds from prior funding years to the extent necessary to satisfy funding year 2020 demand for the Rural Health Care Program. In 2018, the FCC adopted rules to adjust the Rural Health Care Program funding cap annually for inflation and allow unused funds from previous years to be carried forward into new funding years. FCC Chairman Pai highlighted this funding flexibility as critical to supporting COVID-19 telehealth measures.

FCC Announces Workshop on Libraries Amid COVID-19

On June 30, 2020, the FCC’s Digital Empowerment and Inclusion Working Group of the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment and the Media Bureau announced via Public Notice (DA 20-698) a virtual workshop to examine the role of U.S. libraries as community hubs to drive digital adoption and literacy. The workshop, which is scheduled for August 3 from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm, will address the impact of COVID-19 on advancing digital inclusion, as well as the impact of various local, state, and federal actions. The workshop will be available to the public via live feed from the FCC’s web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

In the first ruling, P2P Alliance, the Bureau ruled that an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) is not determined by whether the equipment has the capability to send a large volume of calls or texts in a short period of time. Instead, the Bureau, while recognizing that the Commission’s interpretation of the ATDS definition remains pending, ruled that “whether the calling platform or equipment is an autodialer turns on whether such equipment is capable of dialing random or sequential telephone numbers without human intervention.” The Bureau also provides an illuminating discussion of the so-called “human intervention” element of prior FCC statements regarding autodialers.

In the second ruling, Anthem, Inc., the Bureau denied a petition to exempt certain healthcare-related calls from the TCPA’s consent requirements. In this order, the Bureau breaks less new ground and instead reiterates that prior express consent must be obtained before a call (or text) is made and that the supposed value or “urgency” of the communication does not necessarily make it permissible.

Besides these two petitions, the Commission has nearly three dozen petitions pending before it on a variety of matters relating to exemptions from the TCPA’s consent requirements, the collection and revocation of consent, the “junk fax” provisions, and other questions raised by the flood of TCPA class action litigation in the last five years. If the FCC begins addressing these other pending petitions, the course of TCPA class action litigation could change significantly.

In March 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a landmark rebuke of the FCC’s interpretation of the TCPA. The case, ACA International v. FCC, reviewed a 2015 Omnibus Declaratory Ruling on a variety of matters, the most notable of which was the FCC’s expansive interpretation of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”), the use of which triggers therobo TCPA’s prior express consent requirements and private right of action provisions. In ACA International, the court found the FCC’s interpretation “impermissibly broad” and remanded the case to the FCC for further consideration.

Since that time, the FCC has taken comment twice on the ACA International remand, but FCC Chairman Pai has focused the agency’s efforts on identifying and reducing illegal robocalls rather than addressing the remand. Chairman Pai has repeatedly said that unwanted automated calls is a top consumer complaint and he has pursued a multi-faceted approach to preventing or blocking those calls before they reach consumers.

The Commission has

• authorized voice service providers to block incoming calls that “reasonable call analytics” identify as likely illegal calls,
• mandated that service providers implement a call authentication framework to prevent unlawfully spoofed calls,
• directed specific service providers to block certain calls or have their own calls blocked by other providers,
• proposed multiple fines exceeding $100 million each for illegally spoofed calls, and
• authorized a comprehensive database to identify when telephone numbers have been reassigned from a subscriber who may have given consent to a new subscriber.

The Anthem and P2P Alliance Rulings

Against this backdrop, the flood of TCPA class action cases has powered a rising tide of petitions for declaratory rulings addressing specific aspects of the TCPA’s requirements, from when consent is needed, how it may be obtained, and how it may be revoked. At Kelley Drye, we have chronicled these developments in our monthly TCPA Tracker and its accompanying FCC Petitions Tracker of the nearly three dozen pending petitions. The total number of petitions has risen slightly over time, as new petitions have modestly outnumbered decisions issued by the Commission.

P2P Alliance Petition (Two-Way Texting With Manual Intervention). In May 2018, the P2P Alliance, a group that represents providers and users of “peer to peer” text messaging services, sought a declaratory ruling that peer to peer messaging services did not involve an ATDS and thus were not subject to the restrictions on ATDS calls/texts contained in the TCPA. The petition sought a ruling with respect to text messaging services that enable two-way text communication, requiring a person to manually send each message. Although the Bureau declined to rule with respect to any specific platform – citing a lack of sufficient evidence regarding the how the platforms operate – the Bureau issued a ruling with several important clarifications.

First, the Bureau ruled that the ability of a platform or equipment to send “large volumes of messages” is not probative of whether that platform or equipment constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA. The Bureau declared that “whether the calling platform or equipment is an autodialer turns on whether such equipment is capable of dialing random or sequential telephone numbers without human intervention.”

This conclusion effectively puts to rest ambiguous statements in some prior orders that TCPA plaintiffs had argued brought any high-volume calling platform within the scope of the TCPA. Furthermore, the Bureau’s conclusion appears most consistent with decisions by several U.S. Courts of Appeal that have ruled an autodialer must employ a random or sequential number generator to meet the TCPA’s definition of an ATDS. The Bureau noted, however, that the “details” of the interpretation of an ATDS were before the Commission in ACA International so, until the Commission addressed that issue, the Bureau was relying solely on “the statutory definition of autodialer.”

The Bureau’s ruling contains an illuminating discussion of the so-called “human intervention” element of prior FCC statements regarding autodialers. Per the Bureau’s ruling, “If a calling platform is not capable of dialing such numbers without a person actively and affirmatively manually dialing each one, that platform is not an autodialer.” The Bureau explained the “actively and affirmatively” dialing standard as requiring a person to manually dial each number and send each message one at a time. Use of such technologies is not an “evasion” of the TCPA, the Bureau commented, because the TCPA “does not and was not intended to stop every type of call.”

Thus, while the full contours of the ATDS definition are still to be defined by the Commission, the Bureau’s P2P Alliance ruling helps to clarify that an “active and affirmative” manual process for sending calls or messages removes a platform or piece of equipment from the ambit of the TCPA. This ruling could buttress many district court rulings that have found sufficient human intervention in the operation of many calling or texting platforms.

Anthem Petition (Prior Express Consent for Healthcare-Related Calls). The Anthem petition addressed by the Bureau was filed in June 2015, one month before the FCC released the Omnibus Declaratory Ruling addressed in ACA International. (Anthem has a more recent petition addressing post-Omnibus order issues that remains pending.) In the June 2015 petition, Anthem asked the Commission to create an exemption for informational healthcare-related calls/texts initiated by healthcare providers and sent to existing patients, arguing that such communications were beneficial to patients and could be protected by an opt-out process it believed the Commission was then considering for ATDS calls. The Commission received limited comment in September 2015 (while the ACA International appeal was being litigated) and has received virtually no filings discussing the petition since that time.

In the ruling, the Bureau denied virtually all of Anthem’s requests, emphasizing instead the TCPA’s requirements for prior express consent for ATDS calls. Specifically, the Bureau ruled that “makers of robocalls generally must obtain a consumer’s prior express consent before making calls to the consumer’s wireless telephone number.” (emphasis in original). It rejected Anthem’s request for an exemption permitting such calls, subject to opt-out, and repeated that the “mere existence of a caller-consumer relationship” does not constitute consent. Importantly, however, the Bureau affirmed prior statements that a consumer who has knowingly released their phone number for a particular purpose has given consent to receive calls at that number.

To the extent that the Anthem petition sought an exemption based on the “urgency” of healthcare-related communications, the Bureau declined to create such an exception, emphasizing, however, that the “emergency purposes” exception could apply to the extent the calls/texts satisfied the Commission’s rules and its recent COVID-19 Declaratory Ruling.

In the end, the ruling likely will not change the status quo for calls and texts being made today. The Bureau emphasized previous rulings requiring prior express consent and endorsed previous statements about how such consent may be obtained. Further, the Bureau affirmed the “emergency purposes” exception, although declining to expand its scope. Thus, entities making calls or texts following prior FCC guidance should not need to make any changes as a result of the Anthem ruling.

Looking Ahead

These decisions are not the broad rulings that many hoped for when ACA International was remanded to the FCC in March 2018. Chairman Pai was highly critical of the 2015 Omnibus order from the FCC (from which he dissented) and welcomed the ACA International decision. He has focused the agency on reducing unwanted calls prior to addressing the legal interpretations called for by the remand. Now, however, with those actions at an advanced stage and with his expected time as Chairman of the FCC about to end, many are wondering if the Pai Commission will revisit the ATDS definition, revocation of consent, and safe harbor questions remanded to it. Even if it does not, however, the Commission has nearly three dozen other petitions still pending, which could provide needed guidance on discrete issues that have arisen in TCPA litigation.

We don’t know at this time which way the FCC is likely to go, or even if it will address more TCPA issues during Chairman Pai’s tenure, but enterprises and service providers should watch the FCC closely over the next few months.

If you have any urgent questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on other aspects of the federal and state response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as labor and employment and other issues, please visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

FCC Continues COVID-19 Telehealth Program Approvals

On June 17, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau approved 62 additional funding applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Under the latest funding round, $23.25 million will go to health care providers across 29 states. With this latest set of approvals, the FCC’s COVID-19 Telehealth Program has approved 367 applications in 45 states, plus D.C., for a total of $128.23 million in funding awarded so far. Congress appropriated $200 million for the Program and the FCC continues to evaluate applications and distribute funding on a rolling basis. As the funding awarded nears the Program’s current $200 million cap, providers should take action now to assess their interest and ability to participate in the Program, if they have not already done so.

For a complete list of applications granted in the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, with breakdowns by round number and state, check out our chart here.

FCC Plans to End Keep Americans Connected Pledge, Seeks Support for Small Providers and Consumers

The FCC plans to let the Keep Americans Connected Pledge expire as scheduled on June 30, but urged providers not to disconnect consumers and small businesses who remain behind on their bills in July. Specifically, Chairman Pai asked providers to adopt consumer-friendly steps like payment plans, waiving a portion of unpaid balances, and working with customers individually to meet their needs based on hardship post-Pledge. On June 19, FCC Chairman Pai sent a letter to Congress seeking legislation to help consumers and small businesses stay connected after the expiration of the Pledge by further streamlining deployments and increasing funding for telehealth and other communications programs. The FCC launched the Keep Americans Connected Pledge on March 13, and later extended the voluntary initiative to June 30. The Pledge required service providers to commit to not terminate service, to waive late fees for residential and small business customers who could not pay during the pandemic, and to make their Wi-Fi hotspots available to any American who needs them. Many providers plan to continue at least some of these initiatives after the Pledge’s expiration.

For those who have been following the FCC over the past three years under Chairman Pai’s leadership, the draft item builds on the agency’s multifaceted effort to pave a clear path for the private sector to deploy 5G technologies. Prior efforts include repurposing low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum for mobile wireless operations, reducing the circumstances under which wireless infrastructure deployments must undergo federal historic preservation and environmental reviews, and preempting states and localities from using review processes to slow the deployment of small cells.

The agency is set to vote on the item at its June 9, 2020, open meeting.

Declaratory Ruling Clarifying Local Review Rules

The draft Declaratory Ruling is meant to strengthen several of the rules the FCC adopted in 2014 to implement Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012. That section says that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” The Commission’s rules implementing the statute were meant to provide clarity and guidance to state and local governments and the wireless industry on how to apply the statutory directive. The WIA and CTIA petitions claim that certain conditions established by states and localities continue to impede the deployment of private 5G networks. Accordingly, the draft Declaratory Ruling addresses the following:

• Trigger for 60-Day Shot Clock – Under existing rules, state and local governments must approve or deny an eligible facilities request within 60 days or the request is deemed granted. The shot-clock begins on the day an applicant submits a request. The draft Declaratory Ruling would clarify that an applicant is deemed to have submitted a request when it “takes the first procedural step in a locality’s application process and submits written documentation showing that a proposed modification is an eligible facilities request.” This clarification is intended to preserve localities flexibility to structure their permitting procedures, but prohibit localities from treating applications as incomplete unless applicants comply with a series of time-consuming requirements.
• Other Shot Clock Clarifications – The Declaratory Ruling would also prohibit localities from delaying the triggering or starting of the shot clock by (1) “establishing a ‘first step’ that is outside of the applicant’s control or is not objectively verifiable”; (2) “defining the ‘first step’ as a combination or sequencing of steps”; (3) declining to accept documentation required under FCC rules to demonstrate the eligible facilities request conditions are satisfied or requiring the submission of other documentation; and (4) using requirements to obtain conditional use permits, variances, or other similar types of authorizations to cause delays. Additionally, it would establish the submission of a typical filing for a standard zoning or siting review as the first procedural step in jurisdictions that have not established specific procedures.
• Separation Between Existing and New Antenna ­– Under existing rules, a tower modification outside public rights-of-way would cause a substantial change if it “increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater.” The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that “separation from the nearest existing antenna” means the distance from the top of the highest existing antenna to the bottom of the proposed new antenna that would be deployed above it.
• Equipment Cabinets ­– Under existing rules, the number of new equipment cabinets affects whether a modification would cause a substantial change. The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that “equipment cabinets” does not include “small pieces of equipment such as remote radio heads/remote radio units, amplifiers, transceivers mounted behind antennas, and similar devices” if they “are not used as physical containers for smaller, distinct devices.” It declines to determine that “equipment cabinets” means only those installed on the ground.
• Concealment Elements – Existing rules state that a modification would substantially change an existing structure if it would “defeat the concealment elements” of the structure that was originally approved. The Declaratory Ruling would specify that a “concealment element” is one “that is part of a stealth-designed facility intended to make a structure look like something other than a wireless facility” and was part of a prior approval. An attribute that minimizes the visual impact of a facility or that was not considered a concealment element at the time of initial approval would not be considered a modification. The FCC proposes to clarify that a proposed modification “defeats” a concealment element if it would “cause a reasonable person to view a structure’s intended stealth design as no longer effective.”
• Limits on Other Conditions – Existing rules provide that a modification is a substantial change if it does not comply with any other original “conditions associated with the siting approval.” The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that “conditions associated with the siting approval” can include aesthetic conditions to minimize the visual impact of a wireless facility as long as the conditions do not prevent modifications explicitly allowed by rules that would permit modifications based on antenna height, antenna width, equipment cabinets, and excavations or deployments outside the current site, and “so long as there is express evidence that at the time of approval the locality required the feature and conditioned approval upon its continuing existence.”
• Effect of Environmental Impact Agreements – Under existing rules, environmental impact assessments must occur when certain defined actions during construction of a facility might significantly affect the environment, including historic properties. The Declaratory Ruling would clarify that such assessments are not required when the FCC and applicants have entered into a memorandum of agreement to mitigate effects of a proposed deployment on historic properties if the only basis for the assessment was the potential for significant effects on such properties.

The Commission opted to issue an NPRM on one additional proposal in the WIA petition, regarding when a modification requires excavations. Existing rules provide that “[a] modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if . . . [i]t entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site” of a tower or base station, and is therefore not eligible for the streamlined procedures under the statute. Industry and localities disagree on whether “current site” means the boundaries at the time the tower was first approved or at the time the applicant seeks approval for a modification. WIA also asked the Commission to change its rules so that “a modification would not cause a “substantial change” if it entails excavation or facility deployments at locations of up to 30 feet in any direction outside the boundaries of a macro tower compound,” on the basis that colocation on existing towers is difficult to achieve without increasing the size of compounds. The NPRM seeks comment on these issues.

Democrats and Republicans Clash in Congressional Letters on Item

Democrats and Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent competing letters to FCC Chairman Pai concerning the draft item. Democrats asked that he delay the vote on the item, saying that “under the guise of clarifying . . . existing rules, [it] would grant companies the right to expand existing cell sites without any regard to local processes” and without meaningful insight from local governments, who are currently burdened with responding to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Republicans urged the FCC to press forward with the vote, also evoking the coronavirus pandemic to assert that the item would reduce “unnecessary regulatory burdens,” which would further streamline deployment and facilitate connectivity that is even more critical “[d]uring these unprecedented times.”

At the FCC, the two Democratic commissioners, Rosenworcel and Starks, expressed support for delaying the vote.As of this writing, Chairman Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly have not commented on the delay request. Republican Commissioner Carr strongly supports the item and is leading the charge for its adoption. We expect the vote to proceed and the item to be approved largely unchanged.

If you have any urgent questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on other aspects of the federal and state response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as labor and employment and other issues, please visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

FCC Approves Latest Set of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Applications, Bringing Approvals to $33 million

On May 13, 2020, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau (“WCB”) approved 33 funding applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Under the latest funding round, $8.36 million will go to health care providers across 18 states for telehealth services during the pandemic. With this latest set of application, the FCC’s COVID-19 Telehealth Program has approved and funded 82 health care providers in 30 states for a total of $33.26 million in funding. Congress authorized up to $200 million in funding for the program.

Over 750 Providers Extend Keep Americans Connected Pledge

On May 14, 2020, the FCC announced that 774 broadband and telephone service providers have taken the Keep Americans Connected Pledge and extended that commitment through June 30, 2020. On April 30, 2020, Chairman Pai announced he was extending the Pledge, originally set to expire on May 12, to June 30. Since Pai’s announcement, the number of companies covered by the Pledge has increased, as more companies have signed onto the Pledge for the first time than declined to extend it. The pledge involves service providers committing to not terminate service, to waive late fees for residential and small business customers who cannot pay during the pandemic, and to make their Wi-Fi hotspots available to any American who needs them.

In the latest episode of Kelley Drye's Full Spectrum podcast, we discuss the unique issues the Keep Americans Connected Pledge creates in a bankruptcy proceeding involving an affected customer. Click here to listen.

Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau Extends Temporary Waivers for Relay Services Rules

On May 14, 2020, FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau extended temporary waivers (DA 20-517) through June 30, 2020 for Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”) providers to ensure relay services remain available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have a speech disability. These waivers extend actions previously taken to grant TRS providers flexibility.

WTB Permits More WISPs to Use 5.9 GHz Spectrum on a Temporary Basis

Last week, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) granted requests by United Wireless Communications, Inc. and Comcell, Inc. for emergency Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to operate in the 5850-5895 MHz band to provide relief during the pandemic. The grants are for a period of 60 days, provided the applicant files a complete FCC Form 601 application within 10 days. These actions are part of the FCC’s continued effort to improve communications and broadband service in rural and other hard-to-serve areas during the pandemic.

WTB Grants GE Healthcare Waiver to Expedite Medical Equipment from New Suppliers

On May 11, 2020, the WTB granted GE Healthcare’s request for a waiver (DA 20-489) to allow the importation, marketing, and operation of certain GE medical devices, including wearable patient monitors, diagnostic testing systems, and portable x-rays. The action will enable GE Healthcare to overcome disruptions in the medical device supply chain. Without the waiver, many of GE’s devices that are sourced from new suppliers or that contain new components would have required prior FCC equipment certification.

Click here to listen and subscribe.

If you have any urgent questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on other aspects of the federal and state response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as labor and employment and other issues, please visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

FCC Eases Lifeline Enrollment Financial Requirements

On April 29, 2020, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau (“WCB”) temporarily waived until June 30th the requirement that persons seeking to qualify for the Lifeline program based on financial hardship provide at least three consecutive months on income documentation. The waiver recognizes that newly-unemployed individuals may not be able to provide such documentation because their unemployment (and related decrease in income) began so recently. Under the waiver, the FCC will allow individuals to submit an “official document,” such as a notice of unemployment benefits, to demonstrate their income-based eligibility for Lifeline. The waiver directs USAC to develop and issue guidance on the types of acceptable official documentation. WCB also extended its previous waivers of the Lifeline recertification, reverification, usage, and general de-enrollment requirements until June 30th, finding the circumstances necessitating the earlier waivers during the pandemic have not changed.

FCC Approves Latest Set of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Applications

On April 29, 2020, WCB approved an additional 13 funding applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Under the latest funding round, over $4.2 million will go to health care providers in Colorado, New York, Washington, and other hard-hit states. To date, the COVID-19 Telehealth Program has funded 30 health care providers in 16 states for a total of $13.7 million. Congress appropriated $200 million for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program and the FCC continues to evaluate applications and distribute funding on a rolling basis. While a significant amount of funding remains, the size and pace of disbursements under the COVID-19 Telehealth Program continues to increase and providers should take action now to assess their interest and ability to participate in the Program.

Chairman Pai Extends 'Keep Americans Connected' Pledge Through June 30

On April 30, 2020, Chairman Pai announced the extension of his Keep Americans Connected Pledge until June 30, 2020. The pledge involves service providers committing for 60 days to not terminate service and waive late fees for residential and small business customers who cannot pay during the pandemic and make their Wi-Fi hotspots available to any American who needs them. Since launching the pledge, more than 700 broadband and telephone service providers have signed on at some point. Before the announcement, Pai held calls with major providers to relay the extension request. While the FCC encourages all providers that signed the pledge previously to extend their commitments, the announcement noted that “some providers, particularly those in small markets and rural areas, may not be able to do so as a result of financial challenges,” and asked such providers to contact the FCC directly to opt out. The Chairman’s comment recognizes the challenges providers face in continuing key services to customers while confronting their own challenges as the pandemic and associated stay-at-home orders persist.

Commissioner Suggests Making Temporary Spectrum Access Assignments Permanent

On April 28, 2020, Commissioner Brendan Carr said during a Forum Europe webinar that the FCC should consider making permanent temporary spectrum assignments it approved in reaction to COVID-19. “I’m really happy with the quick action the FCC staff took to put more spectrum out there and I’d love to see it stay out there in the commercial marketplace,” Carr said: “We need to make sure that everybody has a fair shot at potentially getting access.” The FCC has repeatedly granted special temporary authority requests and taken other actions to allow the use otherwise fallow spectrum to improve communications and broadband services during the pandemic. Most recently, the FCC granted limited waivers of agency rules to TerreStar to support wireless medical telemetry services and to MIT to sell an indoor health monitoring device. Commissioner Carr’s statement is just one example of the flexible approach the FCC is taking during the pandemic on telehealth spectrum needs.

Advisory Committee Discusses COVID-19 Plan at First Meeting

On April 28, 2020, the FCC’s Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment's working groups outlined their plans to address issues related to COVID-19. In the first meeting under its new charter, working groups discussed how the pandemic is affecting minority and disadvantaged communities. The groups focused on increasing diversity among communications companies, funding for libraries, and a possible “a connectivity stimulus” to ensure students have access to broadband, among other plans. While the working groups’ plans are just the first step towards potential FCC action, they show that COVID-19 will continue to influence agency policymaking long after the pandemic abates.

Review of applications, referred by the FCC to Team Telecom, with certain national security and law enforcement concerns has long been part of the landscape, but, because the Team Telecom review process had had no statutory or regulatory framework, the communications industry had little insight into the review process or the Executive Branch’s related activities. This is not to say that the new Committee will be transparent, and one should not expect that, but the EO better defines the process and the potential scope of the review activities.

Committee Responsibilities

The Committee is tasked to review, for national security and law enforcement concerns raised by foreign participation in the United States telecommunications services sector, those applications before the FCC “for a license or authorization, or the transfer of a license or authorization” which the agency refers to the Committee (“Referred Application”). The EO does not purport to dictate when the FCC, an independent agency, refers applications to the Committee, but the track record of referrals to Team Telecom probably provides a guide of what will be referred. And nothing prevents the Committee, or an executive agency, from asking the Commission to refer an application (which has been the case prior to the EO). Moreover, the interrelationship between the Committee’s activities and those of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”), whose authority pursuant to statute concerns review of certain covered transactions involving foreign investment in U.S. businesses in the telecom sector and beyond, remains to be seen. Historically the link between Team Telecom review and CFIUS activities has not been susceptible to clear explanation. Indeed, there is only one mention of CFIUS in the EO, in the context of information that the Committee can share with the CFIUS when it is undertaking a review of transactions.

By all appearances, the Committee will replace the functions of Team Telecom which currently conducts such national security reviews but is not governed by any established procedures. The new EO also contemplates review, on the Committee’s own motion, of existing FCC licenses and authorizations to identify “any new or additional risks” to law enforcement and national security. These reviews may result in a recommendation to the FCC to modify or revoke licenses and authorizations even where Team Telecom or the Committee has not imposed mitigation measures earlier. While the EO provides some long-sought clarity and structure to the review process, some uncertainties remain as to how this Committee will operate and use its authority to seek conditions on or denial of FCC licenses, given the White House’s initiative to establish the Committee. However, judging by an executive agency recommendation – a mere five days after the EO was issued – that the FCC revoke China Telecom’s FCC license, albeit not under the guise of the new Committee, and the Commission’s show cause orders issued to four Chinese government owned FCC licensees, the U.S. telecommunications industry should expect to see close review of new applications and potentially renewed scrutiny of previously-granted FCC licenses.

Responding to the release of the EO, FCC Chairman Pai welcomed the EO’s “formalizing Team Telecom review and establishing a process that will allow the Executive Branch to provide its expert input to the FCC in a timely manner.” FCC Commissioner O’Reilly, long an ardent proponent for revising the review process and a champion of the Commission’s rulemaking seeking changes associated with Team Telecom review, similarly lauded the EO for “establishing a formal structure . . . and including deadlines for the relevant agencies to render decisions” and noted that fixing the “incoherent and indefensibly unpredictable review process” had been his priority over the last several years. In its rulemaking proceeding in 2016 the FCC proposed definitive timeframes and a clear review process but, despite receiving industry support, that proceeding stalled.

Committee Structure and Implementation

Comprising, at its core, the same three agencies as Team Telecom, the Committee, chaired by the Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice, will include the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and to the extent the President deems appropriate, the heads of any other executive agencies or Assistants to the President. Officials of other agencies – such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of State – will have limited roles in certain circumstances.

The EO sets a ninety (90) day timeline, or until June 2, 2020, for the Committee members to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (that may or may not become public) that, among other requirements, establishes the information to be collected from applicants, defines standard mitigation measures, and identifies the plan for implementing the EO. However, the EO does not set an actual deadline by which the Committee will begin reviewing Referred Applications, but does provide that the purview includes applications “referred by the FCC before the date of [the EO] to the group of executive departments and agencies involved in the review process that was previously in place,” i.e., to Team Telecom. This should provide for something of a seamless transition from the current framework to the new Committee.

The EO Brings Some Insights into the Review Process

While the Committee’s responsibilities generally would be familiar to Team Telecom observers, at least two aspects are worth specific mention.

First, the EO establishes some semblance of definitive timeframes and processes for the Committee’s review of Referred Applications, albeit triggered by a somewhat uncertain date when applicants’ responses to the Committee’s questions and information requests are “complete.” Telecommunications providers and legal practitioners that have been through a Team Telecom review know that the process often was lengthy, with reviews not uncommonly taking nine months and even much longer. Moreover, neither the applicants nor the FCC had any insight into the mechanics of the review process or whether the review was continuing in the background during the often long stretches of time with no communication, from the Executive Branch after responses to the Team Telecom questions and information requests (commonly referred to as “triage” questions) were provided, at least until the end of the review process.

Under the EO, the Committee is to finish its initial review within 120 days of when an applicant’s responses are complete, although the Committee may conclude that a “secondary assessment” is warranted.” Any secondary review must be completed within ninety days of the start of the secondary assessment. So, reviews could take seven months after the triage questions have been completely addressed and still be within the time frames contemplated by the EO. Experience often showed, under the Team Telecom process, that completing triage could take several months itself.

The EO also provides a look “behind the curtain” of the Committee, from a procedural perspective, as it delineates the actions, such as the Director of National Intelligence’s review and written national security threat assessment, that the various Committee components will take during the review process. While knowledge that a process actually exists will be of interest to applicants, the substance of the internal communications will likely not be shared until such time as Committee recommendations are made known in terms of proposed mitigation measures or the lack of objections to a Referred Application.

Second, the EO makes clear that the Committee may take a fresh look at existing licensees for national security and law enforcement risks although the procedures surrounding such license reviews are not as fully flushed out in the EO as are those surrounding examination of Referred Applications. This authority may lead to the Committee seeking license revocation through the FCC or requiring the licensee enter into a mitigation agreement to avoid, presumably, an effort to revoke the license. While Team Telecom has sought license revocations over the past few years where mitigation agreements are already in place and there are issues of compliance, see also here and here, we are unaware of existing licensees being required to enter into new or revised mitigation agreements absent new applications, for example for assignments or transfers of control, being filed with the FCC.

Nevertheless, this explicit authority for the Committee to revisit and possibly modify or require new mitigation agreements is not entirely surprising. As we have reported previously, increased concerns regarding the security of telecommunications equipment from certain foreign-owned equipment manufacturers, such as Huawei and ZTE, recently have led the FCC to restrict and, in some cases, ban the use of such manufacturers’ equipment. The Executive Branch and other agencies similarly have identified numerous national security threats, with cybersecurity as a top concern, arising in the many years since some FCC licenses have been granted. Consequently, the Committee is unlikely to be shy about revisiting existing licensees where there now are perceived law enforcement or national security concerns that the Committee believes need to be addressed by mitigation measures. Of course, having a licensee’s existing mitigation agreement revisited, typically in the form of a generally more robust National Security Agreement (“NSA”) or a frequently “lighter touch” Letter of Assurances (“LOA”), or a licensee being required to enter into such a mitigation agreement for the first time, may have serious implications for the licensee depending on its business and operations models.

The EO explains that, while it does establish certain procedures and timeframes, it does not create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, that applicants or licensees can enforce at law or in equity against the government or any other person. Moreover, the EO does not supersede the existing rights or discretion of any Federal agency, outside the activities of the Committee, to conduct inquiries with respect to an FCC application or license or to negotiate, enter into, impose, or enforce contractual provisions” with such applicant or licensee, which would include existing mitigation arrangements with one or more executive branch agency.

The EO Also Creates Some Uncertainty

While the EO provides some transparency in, and certainty to, the Referred Application review process, many questions remain. To mention a few of those questions:

• What information will Referred Application applicants have to provide? Traditionally, applicants undergoing a Team Telecom review have faced fairly consistent sets of triage questions that vary by the type of application, with additional questions typically customized based on the applicant. The EO directs the Committee to develop the information requests that will be required from Referred Application applicants but it is unknown if those questions will be similar in scope and content to the triage questions or if the Committee will develop different and possibly more burdensome triage questionnaires given the elevated concerns within the government regarding the security of U.S. telecommunications and networks.
• What compliance obligations will be included in mitigation agreements? Under the current Team Telecom review process, applicants can expect to enter into a comprehensive NSA or an often narrower and lighter LOA. These arrangements are publicly available and provided FCC license applicants with a general sense of the scope of compliance obligations. In more recent years, we have observed a convergence toward more common terms, albeit with some ability to negotiate certain aspects of the mitigation. The EO retains the use of mitigation agreements but refers to “standard” and “non-standard” mitigation agreements. It is unclear if the “standard” vs “non-standard” mitigation dichotomy refers to the difference between LOAs and NSAs or contemplates other compliance frameworks. It is possible that LOAs and NSAs will be considered standard mitigation and non-standard mitigation measures will contain even more stringent or targeted compliance obligations. Alternatively, the Committee may revise the entire mitigation measure regime, and the degree of “negotiation” the government is willing to engage in may be adjusted materially, and not necessarily for the better.
• Exactly when will the Committee and its new measures replace the current Executive Branch review regime? The EO sets a 90 day deadline for the Committee to develop an implementation plan. It is possible that the Committee may be able to meet this deadline since the three primary member agencies already will be familiar with the review process based on their experience with the Executive Branch reviews. However, the EO does not identify a deadline for when the Committee will begin reviewing Referred Applications (or existing licenses) per the EO framework. The EO suggests that pending reviews may become subject to the EO timelines. If that’s true, will the timelines apply in full? Where the review is well under way? Will already pending reviews be placed on hold until the Committee is up and running? Similarly, will applications referred after the EO was released remain in pending status until the Committee gets things up and running?

Although not even a month has passed since the EO was released, action already is being taken to revoke the FCC license of China Telecom, and to require four other Chinese government-affiliated licensees to show cause why their FCC licenses should not be revoked. In what clearly was an already pending initiative, within five days of the EO’s release, Team Telecom recommended the FCC revoke China Telecom’s license. The recommendation, exceeding fifty pages and containing hundreds of pages of, often redacted, exhibits, details numerous concerns regarding China Telecom’s operations, which were subject to a 2007 LOA. The concerns range from the company’s failure to comply with its mitigation agreement to making inaccurate statements regarding its cybersecurity practices to providing opportunities for the Chinese government to engage in economic espionage and misroute or disrupt U.S. communications. Although China Telecom currently has only an LOA as its mitigation agreement, and presumably could be required to enter into a more comprehensive NSA, the Executive Branch explicitly rejected the transition to an NSA based on China Telecom being deemed “an untrustworthy and unwilling partner” in its current LOA. Unlike other Executive Branch license revocation recommendations which typically cited to general mitigation agreement noncompliance and, more often, apparent cessation of operations, the China Telecom revocation recommendation identifies numerous and detailed concerns and relies, in part, on information obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Similarly, on Friday the Commission issued show cause orders to China Telecom Americas, China Unicom Americas, Pacific Networks, and ComNet giving them thirty days to show cause why their FCC licenses should not be revoked. The show cause orders cite to Team Telecom’s China Telecom revocation recommendation when noting that, as entities ultimately owned or controlled by the Chinese government-owned entities, the four FCC licensees would be vulnerab[le] . . . to the exploitation, influence, and control of the Chinese government.” Although the show cause orders were issued on the Commission’s own motion, the FCC’s action undoubtedly is related to the EO’s review of existing licensees for national security and law enforcement concerns. In light of the national security concerns the Executive Branch outlined in the China Telecom recommendation, the FCC’s show cause orders to China Telecom Americas, China Unicom Americas, Pacific Networks, and ComNet, and the similar concerns regarding Huawei and ZTE equipment, we anticipate the Committee similarly will be proactive in revisiting any licensees that may raise national security concerns.

Key Takeaways

The EO provides some clarity regarding the Referred Application review process and timeframe but many uncertainties remain, including just how long the process will begin after the application is referred.

Applicants contemplating transactions or new FCC licensing that will involve a Referred Application will benefit from a clearly defined review timeframe, once triage is “complete,” but also may face different, and potentially more stringent, mitigation obligations.

Current FCC licensees, whether parties to mitigation agreements or not bound by such agreements, may have their communications operations reviewed for national security concerns and the licensee could be subjected to new or revised mitigation requirements.

* * *

The Warning Letters

The agencies identified the three VoIP gateway providers as the sources of the illegal calls through the efforts of the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group, a consortium of phone companies that help officials identify potentially unlawful calls. The phone companies used a process known as “traceback,” in which they share information to trace unlawful spoofed robocalls to their origination.

In the letters, the agencies reminded the companies that the COVID-19 scam robocalls are in fact illegal and directed them to cease transmitting the traffic immediately, as the calls have “the potential to inflict severe harm on consumers.” The letters warned the companies that if they did not stop transmitting the identified traffic within 48 hours, the FCC would authorize other U.S. voice providers to block all calls from the companies and take any other steps necessary to prevent transmission of the calls. The agencies also sent a separate letter to USTelecom advising the trade association that, if the VoIP providers do not block the traffic, the FCC will authorize other U.S. service providers to block all calls coming from that gateway and will take other actions as necessary to authorize U.S. service providers to block traffic from the originating entities. In addition, the FCC encouraged other service providers to take immediate action to block unlawful calls pursuant to existing legal authority.

This action is a significant – and significantly aggressive – new approach by the agencies. While both agencies have taken actions to prevent and deter unlawful robocalls, the threat to block traffic from the originating carrier is a new tactic in the fight against unlawful calls. Notably, it is not clear under what authority the FCC can or would order the blocking of all traffic from the subject VoIP gateway providers if they failed to block the allegedly unlawful robocalls. The letter does not cite any provision of the Communications Act that would authorize such blocking. Moreover, existing FCC orders relating to call blocking have authorized only limited call blocking practices that were optional for the carriers. Were the FCC to order such blocking (and to make it mandatory), it appears that such action would be the first of its kind by the agency.

Briefly, we will review the agencies’ recent history with anti-robocall activities.

The Educare Services Enforcement Action and Prior FTC Warning Letters

In the three letters to the VoIP gateway providers, the FCC and FTC reference the FTC’s recent enforcement action against VoIP provider Globex Telecom. This action relied upon provisions of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), which addresses calls made for a telemarketing purpose. In December 2019, the FTC obtained a preliminary injunction against Educare Services and Globex Telecom Inc. for robocalling consumers to promote allegedly fraudulent credit card interest rate reduction services. The FTC complaint alleges that Globex played a key role in “assisting and facilitating” the illegal credit card interest rate reduction services Educare promoted by providing Educare with the means to call consumers via interconnected VoIP communication services and facilities. For a VoIP company to be liable under a TSR “assisting and facilitating” theory, the FTC must prove that the company “knew or consciously avoided knowing” the robocall campaigns violated the TSR.

A week before the joint letters, the FTC sent letters to nine VoIP service providers and other companies warning them that “assisting and facilitating” in the transmission of illegal COVID-19-related telemarketing or robocalls is unlawful. The agency also sent letters to nineteen VoIP service providers in January with a similar warning about all illegal robocalls.

FCC TRACED Act Implementation and the STIR/SHAKEN Mandate

Like the FTC, the FCC recently shifted its focus in robocall enforcement towards the originating carriers. On February 4, 2020, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau sent letters to seven VoIP gateway service providers, notifying them that unlawful robocalls had been traced to their networks and asking for their assistance in tracking down the originators of the calls. Although no enforcement action was threatened at the time, the FCC also asked each provider to detail their anti-robocall efforts to the Commission.

More recently, the FCC took several steps in implementing the TRACED Act, which requires the FCC to initiate several near-term rulemakings and other actions aimed at addressing unlawful spoofing and robocalling operations. On March 27, the agency adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking establishing rules for the registration of a single consortium to conduct private-led “traceback” efforts, which is expected to formalize the relationship with the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group. Additionally, on March 31, the FCC adopted a separate Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking mandating that originating and terminating voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021. STIR/SHAKEN—the technology framework behind the “traceback” process—allows providers to verify that the caller ID information transmitted with a particular call matches the caller’s number as the calls are passed from carrier to carrier. FCC Chairman Pai previously urged major providers to adopt STIR/SHAKEN technology voluntarily and warned that the voluntary approach would become a mandate if the providers did not move fast enough. Still to come are comments on a “know your customer” obligation for service providers and rules to deny access to numbering resources to originators of unlawful calls.

As we have previously noted, the TRACED Act also requires the implementation of an alternative call authentication framework in non-IP networks, extends the FCC’s statute of limitations for bringing some illegal robocall enforcement actions, and eliminates the requirement to give warnings before issuing certain filings.

Takeaways

These letters, coupled with the recent activity by the FTC and FCC to combat illegal robocalls, signal the agencies’ desire to cause a meaningful reduction in unlawful calling, and in particular, demonstrate a desire to prevent scammers from taking advantage of the COVID-19 crisis to carry out their deceptions. Both agencies can seek civil penalties and take other actions necessary to prevent the proliferation of these calls.

Importantly, the targets of agency action are not necessarily limited to the entities that place the unlawful calls. These federal actions are a good reminder for VoIP and other service providers to assess whether their customers’ practices may indicate unlawful use of VoIP or other services. With the warning letters, and now these blocking letters, the FCC and FTC increasingly are showing an openness to pursuing penalties under vicarious liability theories. If there are facts that support knowledge of the unlawful activity or “red flag” type practices (such as a customer being the target of multiple third party government subpoenas, among other facts), that’s a good indication that further steps by the VoIP provider may be warranted to mitigate the risk of facing an enforcement action by the FTC or FCC. If you have questions about how these enforcement trends and related risk factors are relevant to your business, please contact your Kelley Drye counsel.

If you have any urgent questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on other aspects of the federal and state response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as labor and employment and other issues, please visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

FCC Establishes the COVID-19 Telehealth Program

On April 2, 2020, the FCC issued a Report and Order (FCC-20-44) establishing the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. The COVID-19 Telehealth Program will provide $200 million in funding, appropriated by Congress as part of the CARES Act, to help health care providers provide connected care services to patients at their homes or mobile locations. The COVID-19 Telehealth Program will provide immediate support to eligible health care providers responding to the COVID-19 pandemic by fully funding telecommunications services, information services, and devices purchased on or after March 13, 2020 until the program’s funds have been expended or the COVID-19 pandemic has ended. The COVID-19 Telehealth Program represents the FCC’s most significant action yet to ensure telehealth services remain affordable and available during the crisis.

On April 8, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau (“WCB”) released guidance on the COVID-19 Telehealth applications process. The barriers to funding are relatively low. There are three steps interested providers should take immediately to prepare to apply for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program: (1) obtain an eligibility determination from the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”); (2) obtain an FCC Registration Number (“FRN”); and (3) register with the System for Award Management. The WCB recommends that potential applicants undertake these steps now to apply for the early stages of funding.

On April 10, 2020, the WCB announced via Public Notice (DA 20-403) that it will begin to accept applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program beginning today, April 13, 2020 at 12:00 PM ET. Applications for the program may be filed through a dedicated application portal, available on the COVID-19 Telehealth Program page: www.fcc.gov/covid19telehealth. The WCB will accept applications on a rolling basis. To assist applicants in preparing their applications, the WCB will hold a webinar today, April 13, 2020 at 11:00 AM ET, which also will be available on the COVID-19 Telehealth Program page: www.fcc.gov/covid19telehealth. The presentation will assist interested parties in navigating the application portal and provide answers to frequently asked questions regarding the COVID-19 Telehealth Program’s application process. The webinar will remain publicly available for viewing.

FCC Adopts Connected Care Pilot Program

On April 2, 2020, in the same Report and Order (FCC 20-44) establishing the COVID-19 Telehealth program, the FCC adopted the Connected Care Pilot program. This three-year Pilot Program will provide universal service support to help defray certain health care provider costs incurred in delivering connected care services, with a primary focus on services aimed at low-income or veteran patients. The FCC will support selected pilot projects to help health care providers improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs, thereby supporting efforts to advance connected care initiatives. The Pilot Program also would study how connected care could become a permanent part of the Universal Service Fund. All eligible nonprofit and public health care providers that fall within the statutory categories under section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act, regardless of whether they are non-rural or rural, can apply for funding under the Pilot Program.

FCC Extends E-Rate Program Deadlines

On April 1, 2020, the WCB granted extensions of key deadlines for participants in the Schools and Libraries (or E-Rate) program (DA 20-364). Specifically, the Bureau waived the service implementation deadline for special construction projects for all funding year 2019 applicants and extended the deadline for funding year 2020 applicants by one year (from June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021). Under the FCC’s rules, applicants normally must complete special construction projects and the network must be in use by June 30th of the applicable funding year. With schools and libraries closed for lengthy periods of time, the Bureau recognized that service providers may not be allowed on the premises and may experience significant challenges in meeting this construction deadline. The Bureau also (1) extended the service delivery deadline for nonrecurring services for funding year 2019 by one year (from September 30, 2020 to September 30, 2021); (2) granted schools and libraries an automatic 60-day extension to file requests for review or waiver of decisions by USAC; (3) provided applicants and service providers an automatic 120-day extension of the invoice filing deadline; and (4) gave all program participants an additional 30-day extension to respond to certain information requests from USAC.

FCC, FTC Demand Gateway Providers Cut Off Robocallers

On April 3, 2020, the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) demanded that service providers take action to stop coronavirus-related scam robocalls from bombarding American consumers. They specifically warned three gateway communications providers allegedly facilitating COVID-19-related scam robocalls originating overseas that they must take action to stop carrying these calls or face serious consequences. Specifically, if the providers do not take action to address the scam robocalls, the FCC will allow other providers to block all traffic from these gateway providers’ networks. The FCC and FTC have been working closely with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on this first-of-its-kind effort to stop scammers from reaching American consumers. The warning shows that the FCC, FTC, and other agencies plan to aggressively address consumer protection-related issues during the crisis. Click here to read more about the FCC and FTC actions.

Chairman Pai Announces More Keep Americans Connected Signatories

On March 25, 2020, Chairman Pai announced that additional service providers have signed the Keep Americans Connected Pledge (see our coverage of the pledge here). Under the pledge, service providers agree to forgo service terminations due to inability to pay, waive late fees, and open Wi-Fi hotspots for those who need them for a 60-day period. There are now 626 service providers and 14 trade associations that have signed the Chairman’s pledge.

FCC Enables Rural Broadband Providers to Waive Certain Consumer Fees

On April 1, 2020, the WCB approved waiver requests from the National Exchange Carrier Association (“NECA”) and John Staurulakis, Inc. (“JSI”) to allow the two organizations to quickly implement tariff changes to ensure that NECA and JSI participant companies have the flexibility to meet the Keep Americans Connected pledge during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WCB’s action immediately permitted waivers of late payment penalties as well as installation and early cancellation fees that the providers normally would be required to assess in accordance with their tariffs. The WCB’s waiver deserves close attention by tariffed service providers and signals the agency’s openness to regulatory relief benefitting consumers.

FCC Waives Restrictions on Hiring Contractors for ASL Interpretation Services

On April 3, 2020, the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau granted a temporary, limited waiver of the Commission’s rule restricting providers of video relay service (“VRS”) from contracting for video interpretation services with an entity that is not itself an eligible provider (DA 20-378). With increased VRS traffic levels and employee absences due to health concerns, school closures, and other restrictions imposed by state and local authorities, VRS providers continue to face a shortage of interpreters able to work as communications assistants. By allowing VRS providers additional flexibility to contract for qualified American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreting from other entities, such as providers of video remote interpreting, the FCC hopes to alleviate this shortage.

FCC Postponing 3.5 GHz Auction on Account of COVID-19

On March 25, 2020, the FCC announced a one-month postponement of the 3.5 GHz auction (3550-3650 GHz) in the Citizen’s Broadband Radio Service (“CBRS”), a.k.a. Auction 105 (DA 20-330). The Commission cited the need to protect the health and safety of Commission staff during the auction and the ancillary benefit that parties would have additional time to prepare to participate. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reiterated the agency’s commitment to hold the auction this summer. The auction is the first in the so-called mid-band, a range of spectrum seen as critical to the rollout of 5G wireless applications. Commissioner Michael O’Rielly tweeted that a further delay would be unlikely absent absolutely compelling circumstances. The start of the auction has been postponed to July 23, 2020 (from June 25, 2020), and the new short-form application filing window is April 23 through May 7, 2020. For more information on the postponement and the auction, please see our blog post.

Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Mozilla Remand Comment Cycle

On March 25, 2020, in response to a March 11, 2020, petition asking for a 30-day extension, the WCB issued a Public Notice (DA 20-331) granting a 21-day extension of the comment and reply comment cycle for the proceeding in the wake of the D.C. Circuit’s remand in Mozilla v. FCC (2018). Comments are due on April 20, 2020 (from March 30, 2020), and reply comments are due on May 20, 2020 (from April 29, 2020).

In issuing the extension, the WCB agreed with the petitioners’ argument that individuals, organizations, and state and local governments whose work is dedicated to public safety are increasingly focused on managing the COVID-19 pandemic and may be unable to submit comments on the public safety issues discussed in the remand proceeding. However, the FCC cited the need for expediency in remand proceedings as the reason for granting a 21-day extension instead of the petition’s request for a 30-day extension.

In addition, the FCC took the following actions in response to the pandemic:

• On March 25, 2020, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued a Public Notice (DA 20-334) granting a 21-day extension of the reply comment deadline in the 5.9 GHz proceeding. Reply comments are now due on April 27, 2020 (from April 6, 2020). Initial comments were due on March 9, 2020. The entire 75 megahertz of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band is allocated for connected car intelligent transportation systems using dedicated short-range communications ("DSRC") technology. Under pressure to allocate more spectrum for Wi-Fi operations and dissatisfied with the pace of DSRC development and deployment, the Commission has proposed reallocating 45 megahertz of the Band for unlicensed use and 20 megahertz to cellular vehicle-to-everything intelligent transportation system technology, while preserving only 10 megahertz for DSRC.
• On April 10, 2020, the FCC’s Office of Economics and Analytics (“OEA”) extended via Public Notice (DA 20-401) the comment and reply comment deadlines for its Public Notice, released on February 27, 2020, which sought input on the state of the communications marketplace to inform the Commission’s required assessment of competition within the communications industry in its second Communications Marketplace Report to Congress. The Report provides an opportunity for stakeholders to evaluate competitive barriers to wireless and fixed broadband deployment, as well as international services. With this extension, comments are now due April 27, 2020 and reply comments are due May 28, 2020.
• On April 1, 2020, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) announced (DA 20-365) a compilation of instructions for filing Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) and waiver requests in response to the declaration of national emergency due to COVID-19 issued on March 13, 2020. The WTB STA and Wavier Filing Guide can be found online here. On April 10, 2020, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau provided guidance to public safety entities on requesting STA and waivers (DA 20-404). All providers should consider whether an STA is appropriate to provide additional flexibility and improve service.
• ​On March 27, 2020, the FCC granted​ STA for 33 wireless Internet service providers (“WISPs”) to use the lower 45 megahertz in the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band for 60 days to address the increase in consumer demand because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participating WISPs are required to file FCC Form 601 (application for an STA) within 10 days to access the full 60-day STA, and are required to operate in the band on a secondary, non-interference basis so as not to interrupt existing DSRC and federal radiolocation operations.
• ​On March 26, 2020, the FCC's WTB granted AT&T Special Temporary Authority (“STA”) to utilize additional spectrum in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for 60 days to handle increased network traffic as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 30, 2020, the WTB granted A:shiwi College & Career Readiness Center an STA to utilize unassigned Educational Broadband Service(“EBS”) spectrum for 60 days in the eligible rural tribal land on the Zuni Reservation in New Mexico for similar reasons. These STAs are in addition to the ones previously granted by the Commission. ​
• On April 10, 2020, the FCC’s WTB enabled AT&T to deploy two cell sites in Wisconsin to support wireless service for a critical medical facility. That facility is being constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Wisconsin State Fair Park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to care for COVID-19 patients. The WTB granted AT&T’s request to expedite environmental review of the two proposed wireless tower sites, which will also serve first responders as part of AT&T’s FirstNet public safety broadband network. It is likely that the FCC will grant similar requests to expand communications infrastructure during the crisis.
• On April 2, 2020, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau released a Public Notice (DA 20-367) reminding authorized alert originators, including state and local governments, that the Wireless Emergency Alert (“WEA”) system is available as a tool to provide life-saving information to the public during the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. In recent years, the FCC, together with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and participating wireless service providers, have taken important measures to promote the effectiveness of WEA, and to make such messages more accessible, including the capability to send more detailed alerts of up to 360 characters for 4G-LTE networks, the option to convey recommended actions for saving lives or property for use in connection with Imminent Threat Messages, and the ability to send alerts in Spanish.
• On March 26, 2020, the WCB waived a number of rules in its Rural Healthcare Program affecting existing users of the support programs. Most importantly, the Bureau’s order (DA 20-345) permits RHC applicants to extend existing evergreen arrangements with service providers by one year, without conducting an additional competitive bidding process, thereby ensuring continuity of service during the crisis. This builds on the Commission's previous waiver of rules for both the Rural Healthcare Program and the E-Rate program.
• On March 30, 2020, the FCC's WCB issued an order (DA 20-354) waiving certain rules requiring involuntary de-enrollment of Lifeline subscribers, including for non-usage of the service, until May 29, 2020. The Bureau also extended the previous waivers​ of the annual recertification and National Verifier reverification process de-enrollments to May 29 so that all of the waivers will expire at the same time.

If you have any questions, please contact your usual Kelley Drye attorney or any member of the Communications Practice Group. For more information on labor, advertising, and other issues, visit Kelley Drye’s COVID-19 Response Resource Center.

Over 500 Service Providers Pledge to “Keep Americans Connected”

On March 13, 2020, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called on broadband and telephone service providers to forgo service terminations due to inability to pay, waive late fees, and open Wi-Fi hotspots for those who need them for the next 60 days. As of March 31, 2020, the FCC’s Keep Americans Connected page lists 550 participating service providers and 10 trade associations. The providers that have taken the pledge have agreed to, for the next 60 days: (1) not terminate service to any residential or small business customers because of their inability to pay their bills due to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic; (2) waive any late fees that residential or small business customers incur because of their economic circumstances related to the coronavirus pandemic; and (3) open their Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs them.

The Pledge applies only to residential and small business customers. “Small business” is not defined in the Pledge and may be subject to some variation depending upon the service provider. The Pledge does not apply to enterprise customers.

Additional Voluntary Actions for Low-Income Consumers

Chairman Pai also asked providers to expand or implement programs for low-income Americans, and to relax data cap policies in appropriate circumstances. Several carriers have already rolled out modified service offerings aimed at providing Internet access for free or at a reduced cost to low-income individuals and households, as well as K-12 households. Consumers and small businesses should review the list of service providers to determine if additional offerings are available in your area.

FCC Pauses Most Lifeline De-Enrollments for 60 Days

The FCC also has taken actions designed to protect customers of the FCC’s Universal Service Program providing wireless service to low-income customers. On March 17, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued an order (DA 20-285) waiving the Lifeline program’s recertification and reverification requirements (sections 54.405(e)(4) and 54.410(f) of the Commission’s rules) until May 16, 2020. This FCC order follows several state orders and decisions prohibiting or discouraging public utilities from disconnecting a consumer’s communications services. The FCC order also postpones the March 26, 2020 effective date of the requirement under section 54.406(a) of the Commission’s rules that eligible telecommunications carriers must require their enrollment representatives to register with USAC to May 25, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the FCC also waived the de-enrollment requirement for non-usage of the Lifeline service until May 29, 2020 and extended the previous waivers to May 29 as well so that all of the waivers would expire at the same time.

FCC Eases Rules for Providers of Video Relay Services for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired

On March 16, 2020, the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau issued an order (DA 20-281) waiving several telecommunications relay services ("TRS") rules and at-home Video Relay Service ("VRS") pilot program requirements in response to increased demand for communications assistants ("CAs") and an anticipated reduction in the number of CAs able to work from call centers. Under the order, rules that limit the number of at-home minutes a CA can handle, that require CAs to have at least three years of experience, and multiple other rules designed to protect against fraud by CAs are waived for 60 days. In addition, the waiver permits a VRS CA to handle international calls (otherwise prohibited under the pilot program) and, in the traditional TRS program, waives the speed-of-answer call requirements. The applicable provisions of the Commission’s rules are waived through May 15, 2020. These actions should enable TRS and VRS providers to keep up with increased demand and to better utilize workforces that are unable to report to a traditional call center during the COVID-19 outbreak.

FCC Temporarily Grants Wireless Carriers Access to Additional Spectrum

The FCC has taken several actions designed to expand the ability of wireless service providers to handle the anticipated increase in demand from remote workers and distance learning in schools. On March 15, 2020, the FCC began granting Special Temporary Authority to several U.S. carriers, allowing them access to additional spectrum for the next 60 days in order to handle the increase in network traffic because of social distancing and stay-at-home orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. T-Mobile, Verizon (also here), U.S. Cellular, AT&T, rural wireless ISPs, and a tribal service provider in New Mexico have all received permission to utilize additional spectrum. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, in a tweet, questioned whether U.S. networks can handle increased traffic and called on the FCC to utilize the disaster reporting system for COVID-19 and expand reporting requirements beyond telephone service to reflect the “broadband age.”

FCC Actions to Promote Service to Schools, Libraries, and Rural Healthcare Providers

Recognizing the likely increase in distance learning and telehealth services, the FCC has taken multiple actions designed to ease its rules applicable to existing FCC subsidies and is planning to accelerate new programs to support telehealth applications. Schools, libraries, and rural healthcare providers should review these actions carefully to determine their impact on their current operations.

The FCC’s primary actions are as follows:

On March 18, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau released an order (DA 20-290) waiving gift rules in the Rural Health Care and E-Rate programs to “enable service providers to offer, and RHC and E-Rate program participants to solicit and accept, improved broadband connections or equipment for telehealth or remote learning.” The order is intended to allow schools, libraries, and rural healthcare providers to meet anticipated short-term demands outside of the restrictions of the programs. By waiving the gift rules, applicants are free to accept – and service providers are free to offer – arrangements that would otherwise qualify as gifts. For example, a service provider might make significantly discounted service available, might waive data caps, or might provide free (or loaner) equipment to meet additional demand, all of which might have disqualified the service provider from future E-Rate or RHC bidding. Under the order, the gift rules (47 C.F.R. sections 54.503(d)(1), 54.603(b), 54.611(b)(2), 54.622(h)(1), 54.623(a)(1)(vi), 54.627(c)(3)(ii)(H), and 54.627(d)(1)(ii)(F)) will be waived through September 30, 2020.

On March 26, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau waived a number of rules in its Rural Healthcare Program affecting existing users of the support programs. Most importantly, the Bureau’s order (DA 20-345) permits RHC applicants to extend existing evergreen arrangements with service providers by one year, without conducting an additional competitive bidding process, thereby ensuring continuity of service during the crisis.

On March 30, 2020, the FCC announced that the Commission would consider two actions providing up to $300 million in new support for telehealth services. The Commission first will consider an order implementing a $100 million Telehealth Pilot Program first proposed in 2019. In addition, the Commission will consider an order that implements the recently-passed CARES Act, which provided $200 million to support telehealth applications. The $200 million may be used by healthcare providers for telecommunications services, information services, and devices to support telehealth and will be allocated via streamlined applications for the duration of the crisis. The news release does not specify timing for these actions, but they likely would be voted upon by the Commissioners soon.

FCC Clarifies that the TCPA Does Not Restrict Hospital, Healthcare Provider, and Government COVID-Related Communications

Finally, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order that will enable many enterprises and small businesses to send certain emergency related communications under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act’s ("TCPA’s") “emergency purposes” exception. On March 20, 2020, the Bureau released a Declaratory Ruling (DA 20-318) regarding the TCPA’s “Emergency Purposes” exception to the consent requirement. The Bureau order declares that COVID-19 constitutes an emergency under the TCPA’s exception, thus allowing communications (voice calls and texts) related to the emergency without consent. The order specifically permits calls/texts where (1) the communication is made by a hospital, healthcare official, state, local or federal government official, or a person or entity acting on their behalf; and (2) the communication is informational, directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and related to the imminent health or safety risk of the pandemic. The order provides several non-exhaustive examples of communications that would fall within the emergency purposes exception. The Bureau made clear, however, that marketing messages may not be included in the communications. Indeed, on the same day, the Bureau released a warning identifying several COVID-related scams that had arisen.

It is important to note that this clarification applies to both voice calls and text messages that are sent by the designated entities (so long as the content is related to the COVID-19 crisis). The order is designed to ensure that time-sensitive messages are delivered promptly and are not impeded by the TCPA’s consent requirements. For entities not identified in the Bureau’s clarification, we recommend that you obtain the advice of counsel to determine how the TCPA applies to the proposed call or message. On March 30, 2020, a group of banking interests petitioned the FCC to extend its declaratory ruling to COVID-related communications from banks and financial institutions.

The Commission also postponed indefinitely its Auction 106, which was set to begin April 28, 2020, and was selling through competitive bidding construction permits in the FM broadcast service.

So far, Auction 107, which will be used to license through competitive bidding 280 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz range, is still slated to begin December 8, 2020, and it is too early to suggest that the coronavirus pandemic will have an impact on timing. However, there is still something of a race against time. The regulatory framework for the band the FCC just adopted in its February 28, 2020, Report and Order is riddled with a sequence of deadlines until the auction begins, and the first dates are fast approaching. In an effort to keep things on track, the Commission has asked the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB’s”) for emergency review of the information collection requirements in certain rules adopted which impact impending deadlines, that require OMB’s approval under the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act. Tomorrow, March 26, 2020, the FCC is scheduled to publish in the Federal Register its notice seeking comment on several rules for purposes of OMB Review. We expect the resulting (30-day) comment date to be Monday, April 27, 2020. The rules for which the Commission seeks emergency review require “eligible space station operators” that elect to commit to clear satellite operations in the 3700-4000 MHz band on the accelerated schedule set out in the Report and Order in exchange for accelerated relocation payments to make their written election with the Commission by May 29, 2020. Further, all space station operators with operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band must submit their transition plans by which they would clear the band, whether on the accelerated or regular schedule, by June 12, 2020. The Commission hopes for expedited OMB review to permit these rules to become effective in a timely fashion and keep the rest of the schedule, which we describe in detail in a companion post, intact.

While many details were lacking, the Chairman confirmed his previously shared intentions that the FCC adopt rules to move existing satellite operators and earth stations outside of the 3700-4000 MHz range to make way for a public auction of the lower 280 megahertz of spectrum in that range, beginning as early as December 8, 2020. The top 200 megahertz of the C-Band (4000-4200 MHz) would be available for repacking the earth station operators currently in the lower 300 megahertz.

The Chairman’s remarks and summary also proposes what he calls “accelerated relocation payments” designed to create incentives for an early migration from the lower portion of the band. His proposal would entitle satellite operators to receive these payments if they clear the lower 100 megahertz of the C-band in 46 of the top fifty Partial Economic Areas by September 2021 and the remaining 180 megahertz of the C-band by September 2023. Apart from the general statements about timing, the exact mechanics and conditions for satellite operators’ receipt of the payments were not spelled out except that there would be accelerated relocation payments from the winning bidders outside of winning bid payments to the FCC/US Treasury and there would be no pro-rated accelerated relocation payments. He also explained that satellite operators may be entitled to total accelerated relocation payments of up to $9.7 billion. Because of questions about the Commission’s authority to do so, without Congressional action, the Chairman explained that satellite operators would not receive a percentage of auction revenues.

Chairman Pai recommitted to a framework by which winning bidders would also reimburse satellite operators for “every single reasonable cost” of relocation, noting that “[a]mong other things, new satellites will need to be launched, and filters will need to be placed on earth stations,” estimating total relocation costs of $3-5 billion.

The Chairman also explained why he is not waiting for Congressional action before moving to adopt rules, despite continued calls from Capitol Hill that the Commission do so. First and foremost, in order to maintain what Chairman Pai called the U.S. leadership in 5G, he believes the time to move and make available significant mid-band spectrum for advanced flexible use applications is now. He also expressed a confidence that there are no legal impediments to his proposed rules. He explained his view that, under the Communications Act, “we have the authority to modify the licenses of C-band incumbents, which would still be able to provide the same level of service to their customers that they do today,” noting the Commission’s general auction and rulemaking authority, and hearkening to the FCC’s court-tested Emerging Technologies Framework precedents by which the Commission has required winning auction bidders to pay for the relocation of affected incumbents. While dismissing arguments that the Commission should wait for Congress before acting, Chairman Pai welcomed Congressional action that would direct some of the auction proceeds to address national priorities like rural broadband, closing the “digital divide,” and Next-Generation 911.

Commissioner Carr’s statement expressed “strong support” for the Chairman and what he termed the “right decision.” Commissioner O’Rielly was “incredibly excited” to see the C-Band draft circulated and the item moving forward at the February meeting, noting that he “still need[ed] to review the particulars.” No comments were posted by the two Democratic Commissioners.

The Chairman’s preview was silent on the technical details regarding protection of incumbents and other services, such those in adjacent bands, e.g., radio altimeters in the 4200-4400 MHz band, and the matter of whether the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band would be made available for point-to-multipoint, or P2MP, operations, as advanced by several tech companies and public interest groups. The draft report and order likely to be issued today will merit a close review from all interested stakeholders, and the Commission will continue to take ex parte meetings and receive submissions until the Sunshine Notice for the February 28 Open Meeting is issued, which is expected on February 21.

Since the recording of this episode, it now appears that a C-Band item will be on the agenda for the FCC’s next Open Meeting on February 28, 2020.

First, the Order adopts rules prohibiting the use of USF support to purchase services and equipment from “Covered Companies” deemed to present national security threats and initially designates Huawei and ZTE as Covered Companies. Second, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) solicits comments on a proposal to require eligible telecommunications carriers (“ETCs”) – and possibly all communications providers – to remove and replace Huawei and ZTE services and equipment subject to the FCC establishing a reimbursement program providing financial assistance. Third, the Order establishes an information collection and requires ETCs to submit information regarding their use of Huawei and ZTE equipment and services as well as the costs associated with removing and replacing such services and equipment from communications networks.

The new rules will take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register rather than providing the standard thirty-day post-publication waiting period. Federal Register publication of the Order also initiates a thirty-day comment period regarding the initial designations of Huawei and ZTE. The Public Safety Homeland and Security Bureau will issue a “final designation” on Huawei and ZTE – we fully expect that Huawei and ZTE will be designated as Covered Companies – and set a compliance effective date. In light of the potentially short timeframe before the rules and compliance requirements take effect, USF support recipients should be sure to review the Order/FNPRM carefully and assess whether and how the rules will affect the recipient’s specific circumstances.

A Focus on China

Pulling no punches, the FCC made clear its concern about the potential for the Chinese government to engage in industrial and economic espionage and other malicious acts by exploiting Huawei’s and ZTE’s access to U.S. communications networks. Chairman Pai (here and here), Commissioner O’Rielly, and Commissioner Starks, among others, have spoken out regarding the need to protect U.S. communications networks from security threats. Prohibiting USF recipients from using USF support for Huawei and ZTE services and equipment was an easily foreseeable next step.

While the Order received unanimous support from the FCC, Commissioner O’Rielly expressed some reservation regarding the likely significant equipment replacement costs and advocated for a process to challenge future designations of Covered Companies should there be concern that a designation was mistaken. Interestingly, and suggesting the FCC anticipates that the Order will be appealed, the Order appears to methodically respond to Huawei arguments and provide further support for the FCC’s decision.

We highlight below a few of the key takeaways from the Order.

The Order – USF Support Usage Prohibitions

First, the USF support use prohibitions are broad. The new rules prohibit USF support recipients from using USF support to “purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any equipment or services [including software] provided or manufactured by a covered company.” The FCC defines a “Covered Company” as including not only the particular company at issue but also the company’s affiliates, subsidiaries, and parents. Consequently, USF support recipients will need to understand a Covered Company’s “family” of companies to avoid inadvertently violating the FCC’s rules.

The rules do not bar USF support recipients from using Covered Company services and equipment, although, in practice, the restrictions may have that effect. While the FCC appears to prefer that Covered Company services and equipment not be used at all, the rules are based on the FCC’s authority over the USF program and, therefore, the restrictions are limited to the use of USF support. USF support recipients are permitted to use Covered Company services and equipment but must self-fund purchases, including ongoing maintenance for existing services and equipment. USF support recipients will need to assess whether they are able to completely self-fund ongoing Covered Company equipment and service maintenance, upgrades, etc. or if they will need to replace the services and equipment.

Second, USF support recipients may find compliance with the new rules challenging. For example, the Order dismisses concerns about compliance difficulties where USF support recipients are unaware that their underlying providers are reselling, such as under “white labeling” arrangements, the services and equipment of Covered Companies. Parties to multiyear contracts for Covered Company services and equipment also could face difficulties because, although the rules apply prospectively only, such contracts are not exempted from the new rules, potentially exposing USF support recipients to early termination or other contract modification costs.

Third, USF support recipients will be required to certify compliance with the new rules once the Wireline Competition Bureau (“WCB”) and USAC develop the specific certifications and information collection revisions for the USF programs. USAC audits will be used to confirm compliance and, unless the WCB or USAC provide guidance on acceptable compliance support, USF support recipients will need to consider what records may best support compliance should they be audited. USAC will seek recovery from the entity that violated the rule, potentially including entities such as schools, healthcare providers, or consortiums, rather than a service provider.

The FNPRM – Potential Replacement and Reimbursement of Covered Company Equipment

The FNPRM seeks comment on a wide range of questions related to removing and replacing Covered Company services and equipment from U.S. telecommunications networks. While the initial draft of the FNPRM limited the removal and replacement proposals to ETCs, the final FNPRM takes a much broader approach. The FCC now questions whether the prohibition on the purchase, maintenance, improvement, etc. of Covered Company services and equipment, as well as the remove and replace requirement, should extend to all communications companies, not just those receiving USF support.

The FNPRM proposes conditioning future USF support on an ETC’s agreement not to use Covered Company services and equipment and requiring such services and equipment be removed and replaced, contingent on the FCC’s establishment of a reimbursement fund to aid ETCs with costs of complying with the changes. The FNPRM seeks comment on a variety of issues related to this proposal, including, but not limited to, the scope of the remove and replace requirement, what costs should be reimbursed, who should be eligible for reimbursement, and the timing of compliance with the proposal. Carriers should note that the FCC also seeks comment on whether Huawei and ZTE handsets should be prohibited even though not supported by the USF program.

The FNPRM also seeks comment on the scope, as well as the authority for, a possible expansion of the Covered Company services and equipment remove and replace requirement to all communications networks. The FNPRM also queries how the FCC should treat entities such as interconnected VoIP providers and facilities-based ISPs for purposes of the proposed service and equipment prohibitions.

ETC Information Collection

The final component of the Order requires an information collection to determine the scope of Huawei and ZTE services and equipment currently in use on ETC networks and the cost of removing and replacing the equipment. The information collection is mandatory for ETCs, including their affiliates and subsidiaries, and ETCs should be prepared for the information collection to proceed quickly as the FCC directed the WCB to request emergency collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget if necessary. While not required, USF recipients that are not ETCs voluntarily may participate in the information collection, particularly should they have pending ETC applications or intend to seek ETC designation in the future.

Kelley Drye will be following these rules and proceedings so check back for further updates.

First, the Order would amend the FCC rules to allow carriers to cross-reference their own or their affiliate’s tariff filings. The Order states that the rules, put in place long before the advent of electronic tariff filing, prohibited tariff cross-references to prevent difficulties in following cross-references within the hard copies of tariff filings. Now, electronic tariff filings make such references simple to find and thus eliminate the need for a prohibition on cross- references, according to the Order. These changes should be particularly beneficial to incumbent local exchange carriers that often are managing multiple federal tariffs and might want to cross-reference to their own or their affiliate’s tariffs. Competitive local exchange carriers are less likely to be managing multiple federal tariffs but still may find the rule change useful for cross-referencing an affiliate’s tariffs.

Second, the Order eliminates the FCC requirement that price cap local exchange carriers ("Price Cap LECs") file short form TRPs 90 days before their annual interstate access tariff filings are effective. These tariff review plans provided material such as exogenous cost adjustments related to Telecommunications Relay Service and North American Numbering Plan Administration expenses among others but, as the FCC explained in the Notice, the necessary information was not always available or could change, thereby potentially rendering the plans of little value. According to the Order, electronic filing and the general decrease in the complexity of the annual access charge filings have diminished the usefulness of the short form TRPs and support eliminating the filing requirement. Recognizing that the data necessary to prepare the short term TRPs would not be available in time for the filing deadline, the filing requirement has been waived for each of the past three years.

Because the short form TRP filing requirement and tariff cross-reference prohibition are subject to waivers, the requirements are not currently in effect. Therefore, the FCC’s Order would simply codify the current tariff filing practices. To ensure that carriers can continue to benefit from the waiver of the tariff cross-reference prohibition, that waiver will remain in effect until 30 days after the Order is published in the Federal Register and the Order takes effect.

You will find more details on some of the most significant October meeting items after the break:

Measuring CAF Recipients’ Broadband Performance: The draft Order on Reconsideration would modify the uniform testing methodologies for all carriers receiving Connect America Fund (“CAF”) support to use for speed and latency testing established by the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology last year, and provide flexibility based on carrier sizes, networks and technical abilities. The modifications would, for example, align testing dates more closely with build-out obligations and establish a pre-testing period so that carriers can address any issues without penalty before formal testing and reporting begins.

911 Fee Parity: The draft Declaratory Ruling responds to a primary jurisdiction referral from a dispute between 911 districts in Alabama and BellSouth and other telecommunications carriers. The federal NET 911 Act prohibits states from discriminating against interconnected VoIP services by assessing a higher 911 fee than is assessed on traditional telecommunications services. Under Alabama law, local telephone services were assessed per “line” to the network while VoIP services were assessed per telephone number (not per line). The Declaratory Ruling is intended to ensure parity between VoIP services and traditional telecommunications services by clarifying that the NET 911 Act provision applies to the total amount of 911 fees that a subscriber pays for the same 911 outbound calling capability. Thus, even if the per-unit assessment is the same, the state may not impose a larger total fee on VoIP providers.

Tariff Rules Modernization: The draft Report and Order would adopt two uncontroversial changes to the FCC's tariff filing requirements that were the subject of a 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Interim Waiver Order released nearly a year ago. Specifically, the Order would allow carriers to cross-reference their tariffs and those of their affiliates, and would remove the requirement that certain carriers file short form tariff review plans 90 days before their annual interstate access charge tariff filings are effective. The requirements have become outdated now that tariffs are submitted and reviewed electronically, and annual access charge filings have diminished in complexity.

The OTARD rule was originally adopted to protect antennas used to receive video programming signals, like consumer DirecTV and DISH satellite dishes. It prevented local ordinances and homeowners’ association rules from restricting consumers’ ability to install a satellite dish to receive television programming. It only applied to small antennas (1 meter in diameter or diagonal measurement) that were installed on property within the exclusive use or control of the user – meaning the antenna was for personal consumer use. In 2000, the Commission expanded the OTARD rule to apply to antennas used for transmitting or receiving fixed wireless signals (which can be used for voice, video or data communications), but the protections applied only to antennas at the customer end of the wireless transmission. That meant it did not protect hub or relay antennas used by the service provider to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations. A subsequent clarification extended the protections to antennas used to route service to additional users, such as a node in a mesh network.

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (“WISPA”), which represents fixed wireless service providers, has asked the FCC to update and expand the OTARD rule to apply to all fixed wireless transmitters and receivers used for reception or transmission or both, which would extend the OTARD protections to the hub and relay antennas previously excluded. Such small antennas may be deployed to support the dense infrastructure necessary for 5G using higher frequencies. The draft NPRM proposes to retain the exceptions in the rule, which allow state, local and private restrictions to accomplish clearly defined safety objectives, or to preserve prehistoric or historic places eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Those permitted restrictions must impose as little burden as possible and must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

If the draft NPRM is adopted at the April 12th meeting, comments will be due 30 days after publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register and reply comments will be due 45 days after publication.