Guggenheim analyst Paul Gallant said he believes the odds are 1 in 3 that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will stay two parts of the FCC net neutrality order: broadband reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act and an Internet conduct standard. He said his reasons were: "1) Carriers don’t appear to have a strong argument that Title 2 would cause 'irreparable harm' if it takes effect on June 12. The FCC didn’t actually regulate prices or prohibit any services that carriers are currently selling. 2) Title 2/net neutrality was enacted by a Democratic FCC on a 3-2 party line vote, and two of the three judges on the panel are Democrats." Both Democrats were nominated by President Barack Obama, who in November urged the FCC to use its full authority to uphold net neutrality. Gallant said in an email to investors that most of them probably don't even realize a stay is possible, but it would be "clearly positive for cable."

The FCC is working on rules, educational campaigns and telecom billing issues, as well as on partnering with grassroots and advocacy groups for aging Americans, to try to help improve their digital literacy, agency officials said during a webinar Thursday. The webinar is the first in a series tied to Older Americans Month, which was created with partners to highlight resources for professionals who work with seniors to address their digital literacy and broadband adoption needs, officials said. "It's so very important that seniors understand and appreciate how technology can be used to help improve lives," said Kris Monteith, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau acting chief. For many older Americans, digital literacy isn't a part of their lives, for a number of reasons, said Gwenn Weaver, NTIA program officer. Individuals may not have access to the technology or can't afford to acquire it, she said. They may not feel that the current technologies are relevant to them and their lives, or it just may be too unfamiliar and too scary. Access to and the ability to use information and communications technologies is critical for older Americans, as well, Weaver said. Seventy-seven percent of older adults say they would need assistance before using a new high-tech device, said Dina Lehmann-Kim, Department of Housing and Urban Development program manager. For those older Americans who use HUD services, the cost of devices and accompanying services are also a barrier, she said. HUD can help open and operate neighborhood networks or computer centers and hire staff to support those initiatives, she said. In-unit routers may also be purchased with some HUD funds, Lehmann-Kim said. Service coordinators can link residents in HUD housing to services or bring services on-site, she said. Software and hardware purchases from community centers or computer labs are also an available service from HUD that can benefit the aging population, she said.

Telco and cable petitioners filed their final brief Thursday in support of their motion to stay two key parts of the FCC net neutrality order, which they called "a seismic departure from the status quo that has prevailed for more than two decades." The American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association filed their response to the stay opposition of the FCC, Department of Justice and others (see 1505220037) a day before the filing deadline imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The petitioners said FCC reclassification of broadband Internet access as Title II common carriage under the Communications Act would expose their industry members "to a host of new, ill-defined requirements, and it immediately threatens them with class-action litigation and enforcement actions." They said the reclassification is likely to be set aside as contrary to the Communications Act and promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, citing a host of reasons. "This is thus a paradigmatic case for granting a stay pending appeal," the groups said. "The Internet economy has thrived without Title II mandates, to the immense benefit of the public." Petitioners knocked FCC arguments invoking Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to claim that case-by-case adjudication can't cause harm. "Petitioners object not to case-by-case adjudication itself, but to a massive regulatory sea change, accompanied by potential class-action litigation and multi-million dollar forfeitures, without any intelligible guidance as to what 'rates' and 'practices' are 'just' and 'reasonable' in the broadband context, and what conduct the newly concocted Internet conduct standard proscribes. Justice Holmes never sanctioned such a regime," they said. Thousands of providers face "immediate and irreparable harm," with the situation "most dire for the hundreds of small broadband providers," they said. The petitioners haven't asked that the four FCC net neutrality rules -- no Internet blocking, throttling or paid prioritization, along with transparency duties -- be stayed. Absent a stay, the commission order takes effect on June 12. The petitioners said at a minimum the court should grant expedited review, which the agency and its intervenors support.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai continued his attacks on the agency's net neutrality order, and also took aim at the agency's recent broadband privacy guidance (see 1505200059). "There’s been a dramatic shift towards heavy-handed regulation of the Internet -- one that has created tremendous uncertainty and is already resulting in broadband providers cutting back on investments," he said in his written remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday at the International Institute of Communications Telecommunications and Media Forum in Miami. Pai said FCC policy for years removed barriers to investment, helping spur broadband deployment and innovation. "Unfortunately, the U.S. government is now putting our success at risk," he said. "First and foremost is the FCC’s recent net neutrality decision -- a decision to apply last century’s public-utility laws to today’s broadband providers, a decision to regulate everything from the last mile of the network to interconnection near the Internet’s core." Pai said the FCC order, which adopted net neutrality rules and reclassified broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, complicated the business case for deployment. He said the regulations "give the FCC power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how broadband providers offer service and manage their networks." That injected uncertainty into the market, Pai said. "Take the so-called 'Internet conduct standard' as an example. It gives the FCC power to review businesses models and prohibit pricing plans that benefit consumers," he said. "Everything from zero rating to usage-based pricing might be on the chopping block. And 'might' is the key. The vaguely worded standard gives the FCC a lot of discretion." Pai also questioned the utility of recent Enforcement Bureau guidance on broadband privacy, which he said was vague. "What exactly do broadband providers have to do to comply with the law? I'm an FCC Commissioner and a lawyer, and I have no idea. You're guess is as good as mine. This 'guidance' casts far more shade than sunlight."

AOL had at least three other potential suitors before agreeing to be bought by Verizon, AOL said in a 14D-9 filing Tuesday at the SEC, without naming the three. Verizon’s pursuit of AOL started last summer, when Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam first met with AOL CEO Tim Armstrong to discuss “ongoing and emerging trends in their respective industries,” the filing said. On March 15, Verizon made a more formal offer to buy a majority of AOL, which Armstrong took to his board four days later, AOL said. Discussions continued with a second potential suitor in April, the filing disclosed. It said AOL has considered selling off some assets. Armstrong is slated to get an incentive award of 1.5 percent of the company’s market value at the time of the deal's completion, which would translate to $59 million at the current $3.9 billion value, the filing said. Armstrong also holds options and shares that would bring him $179 million or more. The deal was unveiled two weeks ago (see 1505120019).

USTelecom asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene in defense of the FCC against Full Service Network's petition for review challenging the agency's net neutrality order. "Unlike all of the other petitioners that have filed petitions to date, these Petitioners intend to argue that the FCC should have imposed even more regulation on providers of broadband Internet access service, including USTelecom’s member companies," USTelecom said in its motion Tuesday. USTelecom has filed a petition for review (and sought a stay) of the FCC order on the grounds that the commission allegedly overstepped its authority in seeking too much regulatory oversight, among other things.

FCC E-rate changes are working, but this isn't the time for the agency to stop moving forward, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn told the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition in a speech Friday. The group understands “E-rate modernization was about far more than just adopting speed targets and revamping a budget,” Clyburn said in written remarks. “I am optimistic, because the FCC remains focused on its objective of ensuring access to world-class digital learning tools -- an objective shared by SHLB and the education community.” Clyburn asked attendees to provide plenty of feedback about how the revisions are working in practice. Also “tell us what we are doing right, because positive feedback is welcome as well,” she said. Clyburn also repeated calls for similar overhaul of the USF Lifeline program. The FCC isn't meeting a congressional mandate to ensure that all Americans, including those with low incomes and in rural and high-cost areas, have access to advanced telecom and information services at affordable prices, Clyburn said. “Lifeline, the only universal service program focused on bridging the affordability gap, remains stuck in an era where leg warmers, stretch stirrup pants, and scrunchies were the fashion craze, and talking on our home telephone or sending a letter through the mail were the main means of communicating.” Lifeline should help people build a better life, she said. The program's goal should be “for it to work so effectively that current subscribers will no longer need Lifeline, or any other federal benefits program,” she said. Industry and FCC officials have predicted Lifeline changes could headline the agency’s June 18 open meeting (see 1505010051). Chairman Tom Wheeler is to circulate draft orders for that meeting Thursday. Wireline Bureau Chief Julie Veach said in a blog post Friday that the FCC has drawn some important lessons from its Low Income Broadband Pilot Program, including lessons for possible Lifeline changes. Among the lessons is that consumers “respond well to having a choice of plans” and all households don’t have the same needs for “data speeds, usage amounts, service type and devices,” Veach wrote. Price matters, even if it is not the only barrier to adoption, and carriers “aren’t necessarily the best” at addressing these barriers, especially “lack of digital literacy and relevance to one's life,” Veach said. There is no “silver bullet,” she said. “While the pilots were focused on different approaches for adoption, let's be clear that Lifeline is focused on ensuring services are affordable, not to solve the broadband adoption challenge,” she said. “As the Commission moves forward to consider how to restructure the Lifeline program for the digital age, the pilot report will help provide useful data for the Commission and public to consider.” The FCC also released the report on the pilot program Friday.

The FCC asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject Neustar’s challenge of the agency’s March order effectively giving rival Telcordia the inside track to become the next local number portability administrator. Neustar is the longtime incumbent LNPA. Neustar had asked the court for an expedited review of the challenge (see 1505070047). The challenge isn't ripe because the March order is “not final Commission action,” the FCC told the D.C. Circuit in a pleading posted by the agency Friday. “Rather, it is an interim step in a process that, after additional Commission action, may result in the selection of a new Local Number Portability Administrator. Because the order from which Neustar seeks review is not final, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review it.” The selection of a new LNPA is a process that “has involved multiple steps over the course of several years” and the order "is merely the latest stage," the FCC said.

The FCC unanimously approved the creation of a regulatory fee category for satellite carriers in its 2015 rulemaking on regulatory fees, said a regulatory fee NPRM and order in Friday's Daily Digest. This corrects a “long-time imbalance“ in the treatment of pay-TV carriers “that exempted two of the nation’s largest [multichannel video program distributor]s from contributing to the regulatory costs of the Media Bureau because they happened to be satellite operators,” said Commissioner Ajit Pai in a statement. The NPRM seeks comment on total proposed FY 2015 fees of $339.8 million. That breaks down to $21.3 million or 6.28 percent from International Bureau regulatees, $69.3 million or 20.4 percent from Wireless Bureau regulatees, $131.1 million (38.57 percent) from Wireline Bureau regulatees, and $118.1 million (34.75 percent) from the Media Bureau regulatees, the order said. The NPRM seeks comment on a request for relief from fee assessments by the Puerto Rico Broadcasters Association. Along with new fees for direct broadcast satellite, the order contains instruction for a new toll-free number fee requirement, and takes amateur radio vanity call signs and general mobile radio service off the fee schedule, the order said. It included in the rulemaking specifies when delinquent fee debt is transferred to the U.S. Treasury.

The Department of Justice and the FCC, backed by intervenors, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals Friday for the D.C. Circuit to deny the telco/cable request to stay the FCC net neutrality order's Communications Act Title II broadband reclassification and Internet conduct standard (see 1505130049). “We remain confident the court will deny the request for a stay," an FCC spokeswoman said. "Petitioners have not demonstrated that they are likely to prevail, and granting the stay motion would strip the FCC of the ability to protect consumers and innovators from harmful conduct by broadband providers.” In their opposition, DOJ and the FCC said the stay motion wasn't what it seemed. "It asks the Court to halt the application of Title II of the Communications Act to broadband, while allowing three bright-line rules to go into effect," they said. "But those bright-line rules are precisely the kind of regulation this Court held (in Verizon v. FCC, 2014) could not be applied until and unless broadband was reclassified as a 'telecommunications service.'" DOJ and the FCC said the Supreme Court's 2005 NCTA v. Brand X ruling was controlling, giving the commission authority to set telecom policy in a complex area, including the discretion to divide broadband into a telecom service of pure transmission and a separate information service, such as providing an email address. "The order does precisely that," they said. "The decision to reclassify broadband as offering a telecommunications service is consistent with the marketplace today and necessary to fulfill the goals of an open Internet, which the Verizon Court held were valid." DOJ and the FCC disputed petitioner claims they would suffer irreparable harm, another stay requirement: "Petitioners showcase a few broadband providers representing a small percentage of the marketplace to allege that the entire industry will be harmed, yet even these cherry-picked examples fail to demonstrate harm from the order." Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "would be astonished to hear petitioners claim that unfairness, vagueness, and uncertainty result from the use of case-by-case adjudication in which the commission simply seeks the 'experience' that our common law tradition extols," the agencies said. In their opposition, industry and "public interest" intervenors said the broadband reclassification and net neutrality rules "safeguard the public's ability to use the Internet ... without interference from petitioners." They said "the harms from a stay would dwarf the speculative injury petitioners claim, none of which is irreparable and little, if any, of which qualifies as injury at all." The intervenors are Cogent, Comptel, Dish Network, Level 3, Netflix, Etsy, Kickstarter, Meetup, Tumblr, Union Square Ventures, Vimeo, Credo Mobile, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Center for Democracy and Technology, New America's Open Technology Institute, Vonage, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, ColorOfChange, Public Knowledge and Free Press. The telco/cable petitioners have until noon next Friday to file a reply.