On May 20, 2021, the FCC Published in the Federal Register the opposition and reply deadlines for two petitions for reconsideration. The first is CTIA’s Petition for Reconsideration filed in the Establishing Digital opportunity Data Collection and Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program matters. CTIA is seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s Third Report and Order and requests that the FCC reconsider two portions of the order. First, CTIA argues that the FCC should eliminate the requirement that mobile wireless broadband providers submit signal-strength heat maps, or, at minimum, require these maps to be submitted only upon request consistent with other verification tools. CTIA argues heat maps are unnecessary given the broad variety of other verification resources at the FCC’s disposal and will lead to unnecessary confusion in the event that challenges are raised in the 5G Fund. In the event that there’s some value to the heat maps, CTIA argues they should only be required in response to staff requests to resolve a challenge or data inconsistency and that they should be kept confidential. Second, CTIA argues that the FCC should revise the base forfeiture to harmonize with similar programs. CTIA proposes that the base forfeiture should be $3,000 for materially inaccurate or incomplete filings, not $15,000, and that the record does not support the FCC’s arbitrary decision to charge a substantially higher forfeiture for these proceedings as compared to forfeitures in similar instances. In addition, CTIA urges the FCC to grant its pending September 2020 Petition for Reconsideration in these matters, which seeks elimination of the requirement to model in-vehicle coverage for each mobile wireless technology and to maintain the confidentiality of link budgets for mobile wireless providers consistent with the treatment of link budgets for fixed wireless providers.
The second is USTelecom’s Petition for Reconsideration filed in the Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls matter. USTelecom is seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s Fourth Report and Order in this matter and requests that the FCC reconsider and clarify three portions of the order. First, USTelecom argues that the FCC should reconsider the prescriptive blocking notification requirement, and instead afford the industry flexibly. USTelecom argues the adopted notification requirement is based upon unfinished and untested standards, which may ultimately result in providers to cease blocking calls because they cannot meet this notification requirement, contrary to the FCC’s goals. In addition, USTelecom argues that allowing providers’ flexibility in adopting notification standards will allow them to develop tailored solutions that protect legitimate callers while furthering the FCC’s goals of blocking illegal calls. Second, USTelecom asks the FCC to confirm that the notification and blocked call list requirements are only required for analytics-based blocking, whether opt-in or opt-out, and not for contexts in which there would not be any reasonable expectation for them. Specifically, USTelecom asks the FCC to confirm that notification is only necessary where a legitimate caller has a reasonable expectation that its call is completed (i.e. was blocked by the provider), not when the call was not completed as a result of the called party’s action, such as the use of Do Not Disturb, call rejection, etc. Similarly, USTelecom asks the FCC to confirm that only the calls blocked by analytics programs need to be included in the providers’ blocked call lists. Finally, USTelecom asks the FCC to confirm that originating voice service providers have flexibility to work with their enterprise customers to determine the best way and approaches for notifying those customers if their calls are blocked. USTelecom argues that the rule is vague, but suggests originating voice service providers must provide a response code to blocked callers to notify the caller the call was blocked. USTelecom alleges that there are many viable solutions to notify customers that their call was blocked, which providers should be permitted to adopt as appropriate.
Oppositions to the Petitions are due on or before June 4, 2021.
Replies to an opposition are due on or before June 14, 2021.
Please Contact Us if you have any questions.