About 40,000 AT&T union workers returned to their jobs Monday -- as planned -- and the Communications Workers of America returned to the bargaining table, after a three-day strike over the weekend (see 1705190046). CWA said several elected officials supported the strike, including Democrats Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Reps. Tim Ryan of Ohio and Pennsylvania's Bob Brady and Dwight Evans. Hawaii AT&T workers joined the strike and other unions showed support, including Teamsters and Writers Guild of America, West. “Our employees are returning to work, and we remain committed to reaching fair agreements in these contracts,” an AT&T spokesman said. CWA looks forward “to returning to the bargaining table with the expectation we see genuine proposals that protect good jobs and quality service from AT&T,” AT&T Mobility Customer Service Representative Sarrah Nasser said in a statement.

The Phoenix Center disputed a Free Press report that aggregate capital expenditures at publicly traded ISPs were 5 percent higher in the two years after the FCC's 2015 Title II broadband reclassification order than in the previous two years (see 1705150061). "Correcting only for inflation, Free Press’ data shows capital expenditures" were "down significantly in 2016," almost "$4 billion below expectations," said a Phoenix release Monday. That reduction "is similar to the $3.7 to $5.1 billion investment decline" cited by FCC Chairman Alit Pai in announcing his proposals to return broadband to a Title I classification, said Phoenix Chief Economist George Ford. “While Free Press wishes to peddle the fairy tale of positive investment effects, in fact their Report demonstrates that reclassification has been a nightmare,” he said. Free Press Research Director Derek Turner responded in a statement: "Phoenix Center starts with the strange assumption that the industry’s aggregate capex should have risen 10 percent, then says since it didn’t, it must be Title II’s fault. There's no proof whatsoever for that strange assertion. And as our report specifically notes, looking at aggregate capital expenditures is a foolish way to measure the impact of Title II in the first place. Even if there was a real decline in the aggregate value between 2014 and 2016, that doesn’t mean Title II had an impact. It could simply reflect the fact that a few larger ISPs had reached the completion of an upgrade cycle, and/or entered a phase of more cost-effective deployment, which is exactly what happened at AT&T. No matter what Phoenix wishes the data says, they can’t rebut the facts that most ISPs are investing more..."

Former FCC and Justice Department antitrust heads rejected a possible Sprint/T-Mobile, as a T-Mobile executive talked up potential synergies. Such a deal would hurt competition and raise prices for consumers, ex-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and former DOJ Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer wrote in a Friday commentary for CNBC. After the FCC and DOJ said no to AT&T's buying T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile revamped its pricing and products, spurring rivals to match them to consumers' benefit, the former officials said. Later, Baer and Wheeler told Sprint owner SoftBank that they wouldn’t support an acquisition of T-Mobile. SoftBank may believe it will find “more sympathetic ears in the new administration,” Baer and Wheeler said. “But the merger made no sense before, and it makes no sense today.” Free Press also opposed the possible wireless deal (see 1705120050). Democratic FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny tweeted that the remarks had "excellent points re value of competition to consumers in the wireless market." Monday at a J.P. Morgan investor conference, T-Mobile Chief Financial Officer Braxton Carter said possible $30 billion synergy estimates for a Sprint/T-Mobile may be conservative, said Wells Fargo analyst Jennifer Fritzsche in a research note. “These synergies would include traditional hard cost synergies from combining networks, with the ability for capex avoidance down the road as they leverage their combined spectrum,” the analyst wrote. Carter said integration costs could be at least $10 billion, Fritzsche said. A recording of Carter’s remarks wasn’t available.

The FCC will vote June 22 on a proposal to create a special “Blue Alert” emergency alert system code for notifications about threats to law enforcement, Chairman Ajit Pai announced Friday at a news conference at the Department of Justice. Operating similar to an Amber Alert, the new code “would be used by authorities in states across the country to notify the public through television and radio of threats to law enforcement and to help apprehend dangerous suspects,” said an FCC news release. “My proposal would give state and local authorities that option to use a dedicated alert code to send the warnings to the public, broadcast, cable, satellite, and wireline video networks,” Pai said. The draft NPRM was circulated to the eighth floor Thursday, Pai said. Twenty-seven states already have blue alert plans, but the FCC proposal would create a “nationwide framework” that states could adopt, the release said. The FCC’s Blue Alert proposal stems from federal legislation, the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015, the release said. The act, “directs cooperation with the FCC,” and is being implemented by DOJ’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, the release said. “The COPS Office has expressed the need for a dedicated EAS code for Blue Alerts,” the release said. The Blue Alerts may provide extra warning for police and enable them to defend themselves or catch dangerous criminals, said acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chief Tom Homan at the news conference, saying Friday was “a good day for law enforcement, a better day for American communities.”

Industry parties urged the FCC to scrap international traffic and revenue reporting duties, with many also calling for eliminating international circuit capacity reporting duties. "These anachronistic reporting requirements are largely holdover requirements for enforcing settlement rates and regulatory fee requirements and policies that the Commission has eliminated," said a filing of an international carrier/infrastructure group (North American Submarine Cable Association, DoCoMo Pacific, Globe Telecom, GTI and Level 3). "They impose often significant resource burdens on international carriers and infrastructure owners with little or no corresponding benefits, as the reports duplicate existing data collections, are stale upon release, and reflect often inaccurate and inconsistent data." Twelve comments were posted Wednesday and Thursday in docket 17-55 on commission proposals to eliminate the annual international traffic and revenue reports and streamline annual international circuit capacity reports (see 1703230042). A March 23 NPRM, citing the agency's biennial review of telecom regulations, said retaining the circuit capacity reports "might be warranted because the benefits appear to exceed the costs of collecting the data." There was no opposition filed to the proposed easing of reporting duties, and seven commenters backed eliminating all the reports under review: AT&T, Inmarsat, Sprint, USTelecom, Verizon, the Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition and the carrier/infrastructure group. Inmarsat said if the circuit capacity duties are kept, the FCC should clarify they don't apply to "satellite operators like Inmarsat that do not provide dedicated transport capacity between two fixed points." The VON Coalition said any streamlining should ensure "non-common carrier licensees need file Circuit Capacity Reports only with respect to those submarine cables for which they hold a license." CTIA, Iridium, T-Mobile, TNZI USA and the SD family of companies (Satcom Direct, Satcom Direct Communications and Comsat) backed eliminating the international traffic and revenue reports. The SD companies also supported streamlining the circuit capacity reports.

The FCC Friday released the full text of three items it adopted at its meeting Thursday. A combined order/NPRM blocks hikes in a rural telco USF-related rate floor while the commission considers possible policy changes (see 1705180061). Another order makes broad changes to the Part 95 personal radio service rules for Citizens Band radios; walkie-talkies; radio-controlled toy cars, boats and planes; hearing assistance devices; and more sophisticated apparatus including medical implants and personal locator beacons (see 1705180040). A separate NPRM aims to harmonize various mobile earth station rules and open up the conventional Ka-band to those earth stations in motion (see 1705180042).

A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Aviation Administration requirement that recreational drone users register their model aircraft, ruling that the agency lacks the statutory authority to impose that mandate. In its Friday opinion (in Pacer), a three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with hobbyist John Taylor. Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion that the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act says the agency "'may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,' yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a 'rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.' Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft." In a statement, the FAA said it's "carefully reviewing" the decision and considering options. "The FAA put registration and operational regulations in place to ensure that drones are operated in a way that is safe and does not pose security and privacy threats," said the agency. Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International CEO Brian Wynne said in a statement his group is "disappointed" with the decision. The registration system is needed "to promote accountability and responsibility by users of the national airspace, and helps create a culture of safety that deters careless and reckless behavior," he said. In December 2015, the FAA created a system that required owners of small drones to pay a $5 registration fee (see 1512140019).

AT&T employees called a three-day strike Friday after threatening to walk off the previous day (see 1705180010), Communications Workers of America said in a news release. The 40,000 strikers are covered by four disputed contracts: wireless workers in 36 states and the District of Columbia, DirecTV workers in California and Nevada, wireline workers in California and Nevada, and wireline workers in Connecticut. They seek better wages, benefits and job security and are protesting outsourcing. It’s the first time AT&T wireless employees have gone on strike, CWA said. They were scheduled to return to work Monday after the weekend strike, a CWA spokeswoman said. “This is a warning to AT&T,” said CWA Vice President-District 1 Dennis Trainor. “There’s only one way out of this now -- a fair contract -- and we’ll settle for nothing less.” Mark Bautista, an AT&T wireline worker from El Sobrante, California, said striking wasn’t easy because he’s a father, but he believes it’s important to stand up to AT&T for his kids’ future. “On the picket lines today, I’ll be chanting ‘No Contract, No Peace,’ until I lose my voice,” he said. AT&T was ready for the strike, but the carrier continues to find the union’s complaints “baffling," said a carrier spokesman. A three-day strike shows workers are serious, emailed 556 Ventures analyst William Ho on Friday. "That strike may disrupt any weekend work and may potentially push any backlog work," he said. "If the majority of the union membership are Monday to Friday workers, it minimizes any bigger monetary impact on them." While a more open-ended strike might show conviction, a protracted strike can make a big dent in union members' incomes, Ho said. "That path is pretty serious and union leadership will need to manage the membership’s expectations, if that is their strategic decision."

President Donald Trump's Thursday notice to Congress that he plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement spurred tech groups to recommend the White House address copyright-related issues in any update of the 1994 deal. NAFTA hasn't changed, “while our economy and businesses have changed considerably,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in a letter to House and Senate leaders: “Many chapters are outdated and do not reflect modern standards. For example, digital trade was in its infancy when NAFTA was enacted. In addition, and consistent with the negotiating objectives in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, our aim is that NAFTA be modernized to include new provisions to address” IP rights and other issues. The administration can begin renegotiation 90 days after notifying Congress, the White House said. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross hailed the move as a sign that “free and fair trade is the new standard for U.S. trade deals.” The Telecommunications Industry Association believes it's a “timely opportunity” to update the agreement “by incorporating new rules of digital trade and related policies that will make internet-based services and other digital products more affordable and accessible,” said Senior Vice President-Government Affairs Cinnamon Rogers: “It is essential to maintain existing elements of the agreement that have contributed to U.S. leadership" in information and communications technology. NAFTA “was negotiated before the emergence of the Internet as an engine for international commerce, and consequently lacks rules protecting and promoting digital trade,” said BSA|The Software Alliance. Any inclusion of a chapter in the renegotiated NAFTA on copyright "must have mandatory language on copyright limitations and exceptions, including fair use,” the Re:Create Coalition said.

The FCC approved for filing the long-form applications of a first round of 600 MHz licenses bought by companies in the TV incentive auction. The notice moves licensees another step closer to being able to begin operations in the band, as the post-incentive auction transition gets underway. The FCC said other applications will be addressed in later notices. The licenses include many purchased by T-Mobile, Dish Network through ParkerB.com, Comcast through CC Wireless Investment, and AT&T. Other parties can file petitions to deny the grant of the licenses, but must do so by May 30, the public notice said. The Incentive Auction Task Force and the Wireless Bureau released the notice. Meanwhile, stations that will be changing channels during repacking but aren’t eligible for reimbursement will need to file progress reports the same as stations that can be reimbursed, said the FCC Media Bureau and IATF in a PN. Nonreimbursable stations include band changing stations, stations that “accept a waiver of the Commission’s service rules to allow them to make flexible use of their reassigned spectrum to provide services other than broadcast television services in lieu of receiving reimbursement” and a small number of Class A's, the PN said. Requiring all broadcasters changing channels to file will give the FCC and the wireless and broadcast industries a more complete picture of the progress of the post-incentive auction transition, it said. The filing “will permit the Commission, broadcasters, and other interested parties to get a snapshot of progress at regular intervals and critical periods within each transition phase,” the PN said. IATF released a user guide for the commission registration system (Cores) incentive auction financial module. Full-power stations, Class A broadcasters and MVPDs that “anticipate receiving incentive and/or reimbursement payment(s) following the incentive auction” must “use the Financial Module to submit bank account information electronically,” the PN said. The user guide is available on the auction website.