Photo of Matthew DelNero

Matthew DelNero

Matt DelNero provides expert regulatory counsel to companies of all sizes in the telecommunications, technology and media sectors. As a former senior official with the FCC and longtime private practitioner, Matt helps clients achieve their goals and navigate complex regulatory and public policy challenges.

Matt serves as co-chair of Covington’s Technology & Communications Regulation (“TechComm”) Practice Group and co-chair of the firm’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion initiative.

Matt advises clients on the full range of issues impacting telecommunications, technology and media providers today, including:

Structuring and securing FCC and other regulatory approvals for media and telecommunications transactions.
Obtaining approval for foreign investment in broadcasters and telecommunications providers.
Broadband funding under federal and state programs, including under the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) and NTIA’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.
Representing broadcasters, media networks, and other content owners and producers on both existing and proposed FCC regulations and policies.
FCC enforcement actions and inquiries.
Online video accessibility, including under the Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Equipment authorizations for IoT and other devices.
Spectrum policy and auctions, including for 5G.
Privacy and data protection, with a focus on telecommunications and broadband providers.

Matt also maintains an active pro bono practice representing LGBTQ+ and other asylum seekers, as well as veterans petitioning for discharge upgrades—including discharges under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and predecessor policies that targeted LGBTQ+ servicemembers.

Prior to rejoining Covington in January 2017, Matt served as Chief of the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau. He played a leading role in development of policies around net neutrality, broadband privacy, and broadband deployment and affordability under the federal Universal Service Fund (USF).

Chambers USA ranks Matt within “Band 1” in his field and reports that he is a “go-to attorney for complex matters before the FCC and other federal agencies, drawing on impressive former government experience.” It also quotes clients who praise him as “an outstanding regulatory lawyer...[who] understands the intersection between what’s important for the client’s operations and how the law impacts those operations."

Follow:Read more about Matthew DelNeroEmailMatthew's Twitter Profile

Earlier this week, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that proposes to clarify existing definitions in the FCC’s foreign ownership rules and codify certain practices regarding the filing requirements for, and the agency’s processing of, foreign ownership petitions (Petitions for Declaratory Ruling, or “PDRs”).  These changes generally seek to provide filers with additional guidance when seeking FCC approval for complex foreign ownership structures and include several updates that, if adopted, would modify the standard filing practices for foreign ownership-related PDRs.

The FCC’s filing requirements for approval of foreign ownership in certain FCC licensees are nuanced and typically result in a challenging filing process, particularly when the proposed ownership structure of a licensee is complex.  The following is a high-level summary of the FCC’s current foreign ownership rules and filing requirements and what the NPRM proposes to change.Continue Reading FCC Proposes Changes to Foreign Ownership Rules and Related Filings Processes

On March 12, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice to announce it is seeking comment on whether any FCC rules, regulations or guidance documents should be removed due to the stated purpose of “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”  The FCC opened the new “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, GN Docket No. 25-133, to receive filings from interested parties.

This action follows a number of recent actions by the Trump Administration focused on deregulation, such as the “Executive Order on Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” which established new restrictions on the federal contracting process.

The Public Notice requests that commenters consider the following policy factors when responding:

  • Cost-benefit considerations – what cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken by the Commission in determining whether the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit it brings to society.   
  • Experience gained from the implementation of the rule – whether the application of a given rule, either as currently interpreted or otherwise, reasonably supports the conclusion that the rule is “unnecessary or inappropriate.”

Continue Reading FCC Announces “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” Docket in Support of Deregulatory Agenda

Yesterday, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” (the EO).  The EO asserts Presidential authority over independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  While the precise impacts remain to be seen, overall the EO will likely result in greater involvement by the White House in policymaking at independent agencies, both in substance and process.

OIRA Review of Agency Regulations.  The EO amends the Clinton Administration-era Executive Order 12866, which established a review process for regulations promulgated by executive branch departments and agencies but excluded independent agencies from that process.  The process includes requirements that departments and agencies submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before publication in the Federal Register.  Executive Order 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” to mean “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:”Continue Reading Trump Administration Asserts Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies

On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration released a memorandum, “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” to halt agency rulemaking processes (the “EO”).

The EO orders all executive departments and agencies to “not propose or issue any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (the ‘OFR’), until a…

Continue Reading Trump Administration Releases “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” Executive Order

On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order, which had attempted to reclassify broadband access as a regulated “telecommunications service” and adopted net neutrality regulations.  As we previously covered here, a different panel of the Sixth Circuit had previously stayed that Order pending outcome of the litigation against it.   The decision means that the FCC will not generally have a direct role in regulating at-home or mobile broadband service, absent action by Congress.

The three-judge panel held that broadband internet service providers offer only an “information service” as that key term is defined by the Communications Act, “and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the ‘telecommunications service’ provision” under Title II.  In a related finding, the Sixth Circuit found that mobile broadband is a “private” mobile offering and thus it too cannot be regulated as a common carrier offering such that it can “then similarly impose net-neutrality restrictions on those services.”Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Strikes Down FCC Net Neutrality Rules

Last week, California’s telecommunications regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), adopted a new regulatory framework for providers of interconnected voice over Internet protocol (“iVoIP”) that marks a significant shift in regulation of a service that has long been lightly regulated both at the state and federal level.  Under the new rules adopted at Thursday’s CPUC meeting, iVoIP providers are now subject to registration and licensing requirements in California, which also will require that these companies notify the CPUC of – and in some cases, seek prior approval for – any transfers of control or assignments of their assets.

The new rules could have significant and far-reaching ramifications for carriers providing iVoIP services in the largest market in the United States.  For example, because the CPUC’s decision now requires at least some form of filing with the regulator before transfer of control of an iVoIP provider may occur, financial or strategic investors focused on the telecommunications space should take note that regulatory requirements may apply to any acquisition or investment in an iVoIP provider with operations in California.  In some circumstances, a transfer of control of a California iVoIP provider or assignment of iVoIP provider assets may require prior approval from the CPUC, a process that tends to be the lengthiest state regulatory approval process for communications transactions that require state review.

Substantively, the CPUC’s order concerns the creation of new utility classifications (and corresponding authorization types) for iVoIP providers, which are subject to different licensing or registration requirements depending on the nature of the iVoIP services they provide.  The following is a summary of the three new utility types and the key requirements for each from the CPUC’s order.

Continue Reading California PUC Adopts New Rules Implementing Sweeping Changes in Regulation of Interconnected VoIP Providers

Updated July 15, 2024.  Originally posted July 11, 2024.

On July 8, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a group of Internet Service Providers, represented by national and regional trade associations, filed supplemental briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in In re MCP NO. 185. On July 15, the Sixth Circuit granted an administrative stay until August 15, 2024 “[t]o provide sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion.”

The Sixth Circuit is considering challenges to the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (Open Internet Order), which reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  The Order was scheduled to take effect on July 22, 2024, but the ISP representatives asked for a stay.  The Sixth Circuit requested that the parties address the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo for the petitioners’ motion to stay enforcement.Continue Reading Industry Groups and FCC File Briefs in Net Neutrality Case Following Loper Bright

On June 10, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Consumers’ Research et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.  In its petition, the advocacy group Consumers’ Research, along with a small carrier and a five individuals, sought the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of…

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Constitutional Challenges to Federal Universal Service Fund Program

Earlier this week, the FCC released a Second Report and Order revising and expanding requirements to identify and disclose whether any “leased” broadcast program is sponsored by an agent of a foreign government.  The new order followed a decision in 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to strike down a component of the original rule adopted by the FCC.  The new rule was adopted on a 3-to-2 vote, with the FCC’s two Republican members dissenting.  While the FCC has underscored that these rules are intended to provide broadcasters with flexible and simple options for compliance, failure to comply with these new information gathering and retention requirements could lead to enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures. Continue Reading FCC Adopts Revised Foreign Sponsorship Disclosure Requirements

On April 4, 2024, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel released a draft of the agency’s long-anticipated Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order (Open Internet Order), which would reclassify broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  The FCC is expected to consider and vote on the draft at its next Open Commission Meeting scheduled for April 25, 2024.  The FCC is expected to adopt the Open Internet Order now that Democrats hold a 3-2 majority at the agency.Continue Reading FCC Shares Draft Open Internet Order Ahead of April Meeting