The Justice Department is trying to avoid public attention to and judicial scrutiny of its conduct, Vermont National Telephone (VTEL) told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week as it argued for an oral hearing on DOJ's motion to dismiss. In a reply in support of its motion for an oral hearing (docket 1:15-cv-00728), VTEL said the court can't follow DOJ's argument that the issue can be decided based on the parties' written submissions, since DOJ hasn't submitted evidence supporting its dismissal decision. DOJ is seeking dismissal of relator VTEL's litigation against Dish Network designated entities (DE) Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless over allegations of fraud in the FCC's 2015 AWS-3 auction (see 2403040052). In a reply in support of its motion to dismiss this month, DOJ said there's a lack of evidence Dish and the DEs failed to make a material disclosure to the FCC as well as a lack of damages. It said VTEL hasn't contested that Dish and the DEs paid full price for every license they received as they were never awarded any bidding credits. "Given the extensive written submissions by the parties (with Relator filing hundreds of pages on this issue), the United States respectfully submits that such a hearing is not necessary here," DOJ said. In a statement, EchoStar's Dish said VTEL's fraud claim case "has always been frivolous, and the DOJ was absolutely justified in moving to dismiss it." It said VTEL's allegations of political interference "are false and baseless."

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society supported the FCC’s request that the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court move a challenge to the FCC’s net neutrality order to the D.C. Circuit (see 2406100044). A lottery chose the 6th Circuit to hear the case. Yet Benton said the law governing random selection by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation “merely provides a means for determining which court will initially administer the proceeding, including determining the appropriate venue for its ultimate disposition.” Benton argued that “few cases are as deeply tied” to a particular circuit as net neutrality is to the D.C. Circuit: “Since 2008, the core legal issues presented here have been presented to the D.C. Circuit in five successive cases.” Benton noted that a 2020 FCC order responding to a remand of the 2018 net neutrality order remains before the D.C. Circuit. Groups that brought the challenge say it should remain before the 6th Circuit (see 2406110073).

SpaceX's pending direct-to-device service will employ terrestrial spectrum (see 2405140059).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Jan. 5 cert petition of Consumers’ Research challenging the FCC's method for determining the USF quarterly contribution factor (see 2401100044), a docket entry Monday said (docket 23-743). The petition asked SCOTUS to review a Dec. 14 decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Q4 2022 contribution factor (see 2312140058).

CTIA, the Ohio Telecom Association, USTelecom, NCTA, the Wireless ISP Association and other ISP groups asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the FCC’s net neutrality order (see 2406100044). The FCC wants to move the case to the D.C. Circuit and has declined to stay the order, which takes effect July 22. The agency “has asserted total authority over how Americans access the Internet,” according to a joint motion filed Monday (docket 24-3450). “That is not hyperbole,” the groups said. The order “is only the latest jolt in a decade of regulatory whiplash for ISPs,” the associations said. After nearly 20 years of a light-touch approach to regulating the internet, in 2015 the FCC asserted for the first time authority over high-speed internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act, the filing said: Before the U.S. Supreme Court “could weigh in, a new Administration reverted to the traditional light-touch approach. Now, after another change in Administration, the Commission is back to a heavy hand, promising to make even more aggressive use of its claimed powers.” The court should stay “the latest flip-flop pending judicial review” since “petitioners are overwhelmingly likely to succeed on the merits,” the ISPs said. They argue that the order should be rejected under the Supreme Court’s evolving major questions doctrine. “Because the Commission cannot point to clear congressional authorization for applying common-carrier regulation to the Internet, the Order is unlawful,” they said.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit granted the FCC’s motion to dismiss the petition of Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net that challenged the authority of the agency and the Universal Service Administrative Co. to withhold reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that the two companies provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan issued a per curiam order Friday (docket 24-1027). The petitioners didn’t challenge the FCC's “final reviewable order,” the order said. The D.C. Circuit also denied the petitioners’ request for mandamus relief to order USAC to release the reimbursements, said the order. USAC’s investigations of the two petitioners and their eligibility to receive universal service fund reimbursements are complete, the FCC told the D.C. Circuit last week (see 2406050001). USAC’s delay in completing the investigations wasn’t so egregious as to warrant mandamus, the order said. The petitioners haven’t otherwise demonstrated a “clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief,” it added.

Financier BIU, which unsuccessfully petitioned the FCC to reinstate a Spectrum Five complaint against Intelsat, is appealing the agency's dismissal of that petition. The full commission's April dismissal of a petition seeking reinstatement of the SF complaint (see 2404110053) was fraudulent because it was done at the instruction of someone who had no right, power or authority to do so, BIU said Friday in a petition for review (docket 24-1189) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit complaint seeks reinstatement of SF's petition that the FCC act against Intelsat for allegedly interfering with SF's spectrum license. "The unauthorized withdrawal of the [SF] Petition amounts to a fraud on the Commission itself," BIU said. The SF petition was withdrawn at the instigation of SF CEO David Wilson, who lacked authority to do so, BIU argued. Wilson didn't comment Monday.

The FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee will meet virtually June 26, starting at 11 a.m. EDT, the FCC said Thursday. CAC last met in April (see [Ref:2404040040).

The Universal Service Administrative Co.'s investigations of Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.Net and their eligibility to receive universal service fund reimbursements are "now complete," FCC counsel James Carr wrote the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday (docket 24-1027). USAC has begun to notify the companies and the schools they serve “of any downward adjustments in universal service funding stemming from USAC’s findings in the investigations,” said Carr. USAC expects to complete this notification process within the next month, he said. The two companies petitioned the D.C. Circuit in February to order USAC to release the reimbursements they said they were due for IT and broadband services that they provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044). The FCC said in late April that USAC’s investigations stemmed from evidence that the companies and the schools they served “may have had a prohibited pre-existing relationship” before the schools awarded the companies their business (see 2404250028). Carr’s letter to the D.C. Circuit didn’t delve into USAC’s findings from those investigations.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr on Tuesday urged the FCC to address allowing jamming to fight contraband cellphones in correctional facilities. “In prisons and jails throughout the country, contraband cell phones are being used to plan and orchestrate violent attacks and other criminal activity, posing a real and substantial safety risk to correctional officers, visitors, inmates, and the public at large,” Carr said. Jamming is “the easiest way to protect the public” from the dangers of contraband cellphone use, Carr added. The wireless industry has embraced managed access systems as the most effective tool for curbing contraband cellphones in prisons (see 2109140049).