Comments are due Aug. 30 on the FCC’s tentative findings for its biennial report to Congress required by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, a public notice (docket 10-213) listed in Wednesday’s Daily Digest said. The agency tentatively found that “accessibility of telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment continues to improve; however, some accessibility gaps remain.” In addition, the agency found companies must improve how they provide information for those with disabilities about using their products, though a wide variety of customizable accessibility apps are increasingly available. Moreover, entities "have continued to include people with disabilities in product and service design and development,” it said. The FCC also said that "accessibility barriers persist with respect to new communications technologies, although the Commission and other groups are actively working towards addressing those barriers.” The barriers include an “inconsistent landscape of accessibility functionality” among videoconferencing platforms and voice-activated user interfaces that don’t recognize commands from those with speech disabilities, the PN said. The agency must submit final findings to Congress by Oct. 8.

The FCC should shift to a fair-notice enforcement policy or risk having the courts reverse enforcement actions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s SEC v. Jarkesy (see 2406270063) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see 2406280043) decisions, former FCC General Counsel and Harris Wiltshire partner Chris Wright wrote in a post on the firm's website Wednesday. Recent FCC enforcement actions –such as an April forfeiture order against major wireless carriers over personal data (see 2404290044) -- have evaded statutory limits on fines by treating single incidents as multiple acts of rule-breaking and penalized companies for actions that weren’t explicitly prohibited under the agency’s rules, Wright wrote. “Now that Chevron has been overruled," Wright anticipates "courts will review interpretations such as that without deference.” As such, “Courts will determine what the best reading of the statute is, and the Commission’s creative interpretations of the statute to generate higher penalty amounts will flunk that test.” To avoid that, FCC should propose forfeitures only when a company has violated a clear FCC rule and limit forfeiture amounts to conform to statutory requirements, Wright argued. This would also ensure the agency “has a sound basis for any forfeiture orders that it ultimately has to defend before a jury,” as it might be required to do in the wake of the Jarkesy decision. Wright was FCC general counsel in 1999 when the Enforcement Bureau was created, and is “disappointed that the Commission’s enforcement efforts have gone so far off-track.” The FCC “should correct itself sooner rather than later to avoid protracted legal challenges and judicially crafted remedies."

Proposed FCC rules on closed caption display settings shouldn’t apply to preinstalled apps on any covered devices, said CTA in an ex parte filing Monday (see 2407150052). NCTA has argued the rules shouldn't apply to preinstalled apps on MVPD set-top boxes. “It is important that consumers have a consistent experience across covered entities with respect to pre-installed apps.” In another ex parte filing, CTA said the agency shouldn’t require that caption display settings all be previewable on the same screen at once. “It may not be possible to fit programming, sample captions, and all caption display settings on screen at once,” CTA said. “Squeezing so much information on screen at once would likely result in settings that are no longer readily accessible,” CTA said. The agency should also clarify that a long press of a button is an acceptable route to access caption settings under the rules, which would require that they be accessed using “a button, key, or icon.” “As a general matter, CTA observes that pushing a button, including long-pressing a button, is comparable to a button, key, or icon.”

FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, reacting to Saturday's assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, said Americans should “renounce the abuse of the vast reach of telecommunications to falsely describe political adversaries as threats to democracy, fascists, and by other false and hate-filled terms.” In a two-page statement Monday, Simington wrote that the FCC “has few or no powers to compel or limit political speech.” As such, he was making the request “not as an officer of the US government, but as a concerned citizen.” However, his remarks used the same letterhead as FCC news releases. They were released in the manner of official FCC commissioner statements. “It is no more than the truth to say that President Trump’s survival also saved the election’s legitimacy by preserving the political choices of tens of millions of Americans,” Simington wrote. "The image of President Trump, blood streaming down his face, on his feet and shaking his fist in regal defiance, became an instant classic of American history." FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr also reacted, posting on X that it's “past time for politicians that know better to stop fanning the false flames of fear.” Carr said he was “Praying for President Trump tonight and for any innocent loss of life in Butler, Pennsylvania.” The FCC's Democratic commissioners didn't release statements on the shooting.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the FCC's net neutrality order until Aug. 5. In an order Friday (docket 24-7000), Judges Jeffrey Sutton, Eric Clay and Stephanie Davis granted an administrative stay "to provide sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion to stay" the order. The judges gave a July 19 deadline for filing supplemental briefs on the application of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision. The FCC didn't comment. "This is big," former FCC Commissioner Rob McDowell, now at Cooley, posted Friday on X. The stay decision "inherently signals the court’s determination of appellants’ likelihood of success on the merits against the FCC," he said.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us Thursday she plans to hold a follow-up meeting with members of that panel and the Armed Services Committee later this month on her Spectrum and National Security Act (S-4207). She’s hoping to jump-start stalled spectrum legislative talks after S-4207’s momentum appeared to stall amid a series of scuttled May and June Senate Commerce markups (see 2406180067). The Senate Armed Services-Commerce meeting will happen “when we get back” the week of July 22, after a week-long congressional recess to accommodate the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. “We had a call with some” Senate Armed Services and Commerce members before scheduling the canceled June 18 markup session, “but we didn’t get to communicate with everybody” before pulling the vote. She hoped to hold the follow-up meeting this week, "but everything that’s been transpiring” meant it’s been “pretty busy around here.” Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Roger Wicker of Mississippi and other Republicans in June blamed Cantwell’s lack of communication about behind-the-scenes revisions of S-4207 to secure backing from Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Biden administration-appointed military leaders as a major reason they couldn’t support the bill at that time (see 2406170066). Cantwell earlier this week cited a July 1 FCC report to Congress that found 40% of Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program participants lacked enough funding to complete removal and replacement of suspect network gear (see 2407020042) as a reason for Congress to move on S-4207.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel told Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., the FCC's study of fixed wireless use of the lower 12 GHz band continues with the agency drawing no conclusions so far. Proponents hope for a decision soon (see 2407030061). “Since the record in the proceeding closed, Commission staff has been carefully reviewing stakeholder submissions -- including technical feasibility studies and suggested coordination mechanisms -- with an eye to opening up this band for new services while protecting vital satellite services,” Rosenworcel said in a letter posted Thursday. “A wide range of FCC legal, technical, and policy experts are engaged in evaluating the complex questions raised in this record, which now includes competing technical analyses,” she said: The staff review “requires carefully examining the characteristics of this spectrum band -- including its propagation and capacity characteristics, the nature of in-band and adjacent band incumbent use, and the potential for international harmonization -- prior to determining technical feasibility and if harmful interference can be avoided.” Eshoo raised the issue in a letter to the FCC last year.

The FCC World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) Advisory Committee scheduled a second meeting for Aug. 5 where the group will consider status reports and recommendations from its informal working groups preparing for WRC-27 (see 2403210049). The FCC announced the meeting in a public notice Thursday. The in-person meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the FCC.

Equitable broadband speed targets are "wise and worthy," but they must be attainable and nonarbitrary, Disruptive Analysis' Dean Bubley wrote Wednesday on LinkedIn. Arbitrary targets can exclude "perfectly good-enough solutions" that don't meet that threshold, he said. "'Gigabit connectivity' has a nice ring to it, which means almost nobody thinks to ask 'why not 700 Mbps or 1.3 Gbps?' when setting targets for broadband," he said. Broadband targets and metrics often haven't kept up with the development of low earth orbit satellite constellations, high-throughput geostationary satellites, high-performance fixed wireless access, and stratospheric or lower-altitude aerial platforms, he said. As a result, they often don't qualify for recognition, promotion or funding, Bubley wrote. Some governments, like Japan and the U.K., take satellite broadband seriously, he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court is "clear[ly] ... exasperated with the FCC's flip-flopping between Title I and Title II" classification of the internet, International Center for Law & Economics scholars blogged Wednesday. ICLE's Eric Fruits and Ben Sperry pointed to Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurrence in the Loper Bright decision. Gorsuch cited the FCC's changing Title II policies despite no changes in statutes governing those regulations as a weakness of Chevron deference. The current legal appeal of the agency's most-recent reclassification (see 2406030053) could be tied up in courts for years, Fruits and Sperry added. It's unclear if the FCC's most recent flip "was the last or if there will be one more."