FCC

Updated June 27, 2025.  Originally posted May 28, 2025.

At an Open Meeting in May, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  unanimously adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to permit more intensive and efficient use of the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands by satellite communications, either as an alternative or complement to terrestrial wireless.  Chairman Carr emphasized that, if adopted, the Proposed Rule would make 20,000 megahertz of spectrum available for satellite-based services, which Chairman Carr characterized as a necessary step for U.S. leadership in spectrum and a clear sign to China.  Carr stated that the additional spectrum, in conjunction with other actions the FCC is taking across multiple spectrum bands, would protect American technological leadership.  Comments may be filed on or before July 28, 2025, and reply comments may be filed on or before August 26, 2025, as set forth in today’s Federal Register.

The FNPRM builds upon the FCC’s recent requests for comments on providing increased access to spectrum for terrestrial wireless services.  This FNPRM expands upon that record to contemplate authorizing satellite communications in the 12.7 GHz and 42 GHz bands and seeks comment on the feasibility of allowing satellite communications in those bands in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comment on Opening Up Spectrum for Satellite Broadband

Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research (No. 24-354), upholding the constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund (“USF”).  The Court in a 6-3 majority opinion penned by Justice Kagan explained that the USF does not violate the “public nondelegation doctrine” or the “private nondelegation doctrine” because Congress provided adequate guideposts and guardrails for the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) to implement the USF, and because the FCC had not impermissibly subdelegated its implementation authority to a private entity.  Because the Court upheld the USF, it is unlikely that there will be any immediate implications for the telecommunications industry more broadly.  That said, in analyzing the legal issues, the Court clarified several limits on the FCC’s USF authority, which could constrain the scope of the USF program in the future, and likewise could serve as the basis for future legal challenges should the FCC transgress those limits.

Consumers’ Research Decision

This case involved the FCC’s authority to subsidize programs designed to further “universal service.”  Those subsidies are paid for by telecommunication carriers, who are each required to contribute an amount equal to a percentage of their projected annual revenues.  A not-for-profit corporation established by the FCC (the “Universal Service Administrative Company” or “USAC”) calculates and recommends this quarterly contribution percentage (or “contribution factor”), which the FCC then reviews and approves.  Consumers’ Research challenged this structure as violating both the nondelegation doctrine—a legal doctrine that generally prevents Congress from delegating legislative authority to federal agencies—and the private-delegation doctrine—which prohibits federal agencies from delegating their sovereign authorities to private individuals or entities.  In earlier proceedings, the Fifth Circuit held that the USF was unconstitutional and relied on a novel theory that the combination of Congress’s delegation to the FCC and the FCC’s sub-delegation to USAC was unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in today’s decision.Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund

On Friday, May 23, the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) released a Public Notice requesting public input on whether certain CAV-related communications equipment and services with connections to Russia and the People’s Republic of China should be added to the “Covered List” – a list maintained by the FCC of communications equipment and services found…

Continue Reading FCC Seeks Public Input on Adding Connected Vehicle Technology to the Covered List

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released the final text of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) aimed at identifying FCC regulated entities that are controlled by a “foreign adversary.”

This development, along with a separate action recently taken by the FCC to adopt new rules that prohibit the use of test labs or telecommunication certification bodies located in certain jurisdictions outside the U.S., reflect a continued and growing focus by the FCC on national security, particularly with respect to foreign ownership.

The NPRM proposes to, among other things:

  • Define a “foreign adversary” as “any foreign government or foreign non-government person determined by the Secretary [of Commerce] to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons.”

Continue Reading FCC Looks to Identify Telecom Investments by Foreign Adversaries

On May 13,  the House Energy and Commerce Committee (“E&C Committee”) voted on its portion of the budget reconciliation package which includes a major proposal to identify new radio spectrum bands for auction and to restore the FCC’s long-lapsed spectrum auction authority.  The budget reconciliation proposal directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within two years to identify at least 600 megahertz of spectrum between the 1.3 GHz and 10 GHz frequencies for auction.  The proposal also requires the FCC to complete an auction (with its restored auction authority) for at least 200 megahertz within three years, and to auction the remainder of the spectrum within six years from enactment.  This approach of requiring the FCC to identify a minimum of 200 megahertz of spectrum for auction and to complete such auctions in the near term follows the pattern Congress used in the 1990s to jumpstart growth in the wireless industry. 

The spectrum designated for auction would be allocated on an “exclusive, licensed basis for mobile broadband services, fixed broadband services, mobile and fixed broadband services, or a combination thereof.”  Note that the legislation would carve out from auction-eligible spectrum bands the frequencies between 3.1 GHz and 3.45 GHz, and between 5.925 GHz and 7.125 GHz.  The bill also provides that the auction proceeds would cover “110 percent of Federal Relocation or Sharing Costs.”  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the auction will raise $88 billion of new revenue; this “score” of $88 billion makes it the second-biggest item in the budget reconciliation bill for the E&C Committee behind changes to Medicare/Medicaid.Continue Reading Energy and Commerce Committee Votes on GOP House Spectrum Plan

Updated June 24, 2025.  Originally posted April 30, 2025.

In April, 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…

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

Recent reports suggest that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may be considering issuing an advisory opinion on Section 230 of the Communications Act.  Section 230, among other things, provides immunity to a provider of an “interactive computer service” from civil liability for third-party content posted on the provider’s site.  An advisory opinion could potentially play…

Continue Reading FCC Reportedly Considering Advisory Opinion on Section 230

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