Granting a Mozilla petition to classify remote delivery services as Title II telecom services might not allow the FCC to ban access fees, said Stanford Law’s Barbara van Schewick in a meeting with Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Thursday, said an ex parte filing (http://bit.ly/1oIDQQz). Van Schewick is the faculty director of Stanford Law’s Center for Internet and Society. Because telecom services are defined as being offered for a fee, classifying services offered to edge providers as requested by Mozilla would leave edge providers that don’t charge fees vulnerable to blocking and discrimination by ISPs, van Schewick said. It would be “arbitrary and capricious” to use Title II as a “backstop” for net neutrality rules based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, van Schewick said. “The definitions of telecommunications service and information service are mutually exclusive,” said the filing.

The government doesn’t have to disclose Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rulings about the telephone metadata collection program authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, ruled Monday. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had sued the Department of Justice, seeking the names of the phone companies helping the government collect call records, according to court documents. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the release of such specifics could compromise national security. “Official confirmation of the existence of or general information about an intelligence program does not eliminate the dangers to national security of compelling disclosure of the program’s details,” Rogers said.

Telecommunications Law Professionals has moved and its new address is 1025 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1011, in Washington, the law firm said Tuesday.

Correction: NATOA’s most recent monthly webinar, on FirstNet, was Aug. 4 (CD Aug 4 p21)

In an apparent first for the FCC, all three legal aides to an FCC commissioner live tweeted numerous times during Friday’s open meeting. Matthew Berry, Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) and Nick Degani (@NickDeganiFCC), aides to Commissioner Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC), all tweeted during the meeting, as did their boss, mostly about the text-to-911 item (see related story), which was the subject of a Pai dissent.

Several groups argued that President Barack Obama’s recent comments on net neutrality (CD Aug 7 p2) differ from the FCC’s rulemaking notice, and asked for Obama’s help. “Your vision of net neutrality is fundamentally incompatible with FCC’s plan, which would explicitly allow for paid prioritization,” the groups said in a letter to the White House Friday (http://mzl.la/1B12X5V). “The only way for the FCC to truly protect an open Internet is by using its clear [Communications Act] Title II authority. Over the next few months, we need your continued and vocal support for fair and meaningful net neutrality rules.” The letter’s signers include the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Consumers Union, Demand Progress, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, MoveOn.org, Mozilla and Public Knowledge. The FCC had declined comment on the allegation of any difference between Obama and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, and the White House has not responded to requests for clarification on where Obama stands. Wheeler has defended his commitment to protecting the open Internet and has said the NPRM asks many questions rather than prescribes any one path.

Paid prioritization would hinder innovation in e-government, online voter registration, and online civic engagement, Common Cause representatives including Program Director Todd O'Boyle, Legal Fellow Allison Venuti, and Media and Democracy Fellow Michelle Forelle told an aide to FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Monday, said an ex parte notice (http://bit.ly/1ss3x6K) posted in docket 14-28 Thursday. Non-prioritized Web services would suffer from decreased traffic and utilization, creating a choice for local governments and non-profits of either facing curtailed traffic or paying access charges, the group’s representatives said. Access charges paid by local governments would ultimately be borne by local taxpayers, Common Cause said, while nonprofits may be excluded from the online marketplace of ideas. Communications Act Title II reclassification would offer voters and consumers safeguards, while relying on Section 706 to pass open Internet rules “would leave too much room for negotiation, leading to unacceptable fast lanes,” Common Cause said.

The FCC Media Bureau seeks comment on a petition for rulemaking for expanding online public file obligations to cable- and satellite-TV operators. Comments are due Aug. 28, replies Sept. 8, the bureau said Thursday in a public notice (http://bit.ly/1r1T0yf). The petition was filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and Sunlight Foundation, it said. The bureau also seeks comment on whether the FCC should begin a rulemaking proceeding to require radio stations to use the online public file, it said. Because all comments will be posted in the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System, “we hereby waive the requirement that parties be served copies of the comments and reply comments,” it said.

The FCC seeks comment on AT&T’s proposed buy of DirecTV. Initial comments and petitions in docket 14-90 are due Sept. 16, the FCC said Thursday in a public notice (http://bit.ly/1sAYySe). Responses to comments and oppositions to petitions are due Oct. 16, replies and further oppositions Nov. 5, it said.

Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood fired back at industry officials questioning the group’s statements that President Barack Obama’s views on net neutrality go well beyond policy advocated by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (CD July 14 p2 or WID July 14 p4). One commenter suggested Free Press is living in a fantasy land. “Prepaid pundits are free to spout off whenever they want,” Wood said Thursday. “There is indeed a Title II crowd” that believes broadband should be reclassified, Wood said. “It’s made up of millions of Americans,” he said. “It includes thousands of civil society group and grassroots leaders. It counts hundreds of innovative edge companies, venture capitalists, and dozens of real broadband providers among its numbers. It also has a growing list of lawmakers at the local, state and federal level.” Obama mentioned the Internet for a second time in a week Wednesday, at a news conference. The administration is “disturbed by efforts to control the Internet,” Obama said (http://1.usa.gov/1qYUEFD). Over the past decade the growth of “new media, new technology allow people to get information that previously would have never been accessible, or only to a few specialists,” he said. “Now people can punch something up on the Internet and pull up information that’s relevant to their own lives and their own societies and communities.” Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in an interview Thursday Obama’s statement on Tuesday made clear the president “understands the stakes” involved in the open Internet proceeding. “I think he did it with clarity and with a clear-headed approach to what the cost of a ‘fast-lane, slow-lane’ Internet would be,” Copps said. “I would hope that the commissioners would be looking at that and listening to that.”