The U.S. Office of Personnel Management released a final rule Thursday intended to clarify and reinforce protections for career civil servants and defend against future versions of former President Donald Trump’s Schedule F executive order (see 2010300048). “This final rule honors our 2.2 million career civil servants, helping ensure that people are hired and fired based on merit and that they can carry out their duties based on their expertise and not political loyalty,” OPM Director Kiran Ahuja said in a news release. Trump’s Schedule F order, which was reversed in the first week of President Joe Biden’s administration, would have reclassified many career civil servants, making it easier to terminate them and transfer their positions to political appointees. Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party have announced detailed plans -- partially authored by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr -- to make sweeping changes to federal agencies, including the FCC, during a second Trump term. Thursday’s final rule is aimed at preventing another Schedule F order, and clarifies that a career federal employee who has earned civil service protections retains them until the worker voluntarily waives them. The order also establishes a transparent, appealable process for changing which positions receive civil service protections. “With these regulations, President Biden’s administration has strengthened the guardrails around the merit-based civil service,” said NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald in a release. “It will now be much harder for any president to arbitrarily remove the nonpartisan professionals who staff our federal agencies just to make room for hand-picked partisan loyalists.” An “independent federal workforce ensures that our government works for all of us, not for one party or one person,” said Bitsy Skerry, regulatory policy associate for Public Citizen, in an emailed release. The final rule will be published in the Federal Register Tuesday, OPM said.

Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the redacted version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing Feasibility Assessment demonstrates the importance of the lower 3 GHz band to U.S. defense. DOD released the report Wednesday (see 2404030052). “Modern equipment vital to our nation’s defense, including aircraft and radar, requires access to the entirety of the lower 3 GHz band,” Fischer said. “To protect this country from adversaries like China, the DOD must retain that access. … NTIA can no longer overlook the facts included in this report.” DOD shouldn’t be viewed “only as the pot of spectrum gold at the end of the rainbow,” she said. “It’s very clear the DOD is still upset that it had to vacate the 3.45-3.55 GHz band,” Reconanalytics Roger Entner told us. But the U.S. military uses its systems globally, Entner said, and the 3.3 to 3.8 GHz band was harmonized internationally for 5G. “I am not sure what the U.S. military is going to do when it operates outside the U.S. territory,” he said. Entner noted there could be problems along the borders with Canada and Mexico if those countries use the spectrum for 5G. “Acknowledging the global coexistence of 5G with these defense systems, we underscore the necessity of exploring effective approaches beyond traditional spectrum sharing, including relocation and optimization of federal spectrum use, to make more spectrum available for commercial services,” a spokesperson of 5G Americas wrote in an email. “The report confirms what experts have been saying all along -- dynamic spectrum sharing in the lower 3 GHz band can unleash U.S. innovation and commercial 5G uses without weakening national security, if the right interference mitigation techniques are applied,” said Spectrum for the Future, a pro-sharing group.

While the wireless industry has explored georouting calls made to the 988 Lifeline, requiring carriers to implement georouting is necessary to ensure it happens in a reasonable time frame, the FCC said in the draft NPRM on the commissioners' April 25 open meeting agenda (see 2404030051). The 38-page draft item was released Thursday, as was the net neutrality draft order (see 2404040064). The draft asks about potential downsides to mandating use of georouting to connect wireless 988 callers with local crisis centers. The draft NPRM is short on specific policy recommendations, instead asking numerous questions. It seeks comment on "each functional step" needed to route a call from a wireless carrier to a geographically appropriate crisis center, that would perform each function and the facilities and systems needed to perform those functions. It also asks whether georouting steps involve proprietary elements, such as licenses, that would limit whether and how wireless carriers could implement it. The draft NPRM said that while georouting based on cell tower information would best identify a caller's location, it seeks input on alternative methods as well. The draft NPRM doesn't make a recommendation on a time frame for implementation but asks about timelines for deployment.

The FCC's April open meeting will see commissioners voting on a draft NPRM about georouting calls to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote Wednesday. Also on the agenda is reinstatement of net neutrality rules (see 2404030043). More than 80% of calls to 988 come from wireless numbers, and network design makes it "challenging to receive help from close by," she wrote. The NPRM, which circulated on the 10th floor last month (see 2403210033), proposes routing calls to the crisis call center closest to where the call is made.

Don't expand space operations in the 2110-2120 MHz portion of the AWS-1 band, wireless interests urged the FCC this week in docket 13-115 reply comments. The agency in September adopted a Further NPRM proposing changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations addressing the use of spectrum by manned and unmanned spacecraft during missions, and seeking comment on new spectrum allocations in certain bands for communications with cargo and crew capsules. Wireless providers have relied on the 2110-2120 MHz band for their networks, and the proposed expansion of satellite uplinks in the band ignores that it was auctioned and licensed to commercial wireless operators subject only to interference from one federal user at one location in California, CTIA said. Expanded use outside of NASA's Deep Space Network research facility would undermine wireless licensees' "investment-backed expectations in acquiring [licenses] and foundational network deployment," it said. CTIA said minus the protections that come with exclusive use licenses, consumers could face service-quality disruptions and there would be less confidence in the auction and regulatory process. AT&T said its use of the 2110-2120 MHz spectrum is constrained only by the need to accept interference from those high-power NASA transmitters. It said additional restrictions on AWS-1 A-Block licensees’ use of the 2110-2120 MHz portion of the band would undermine the auction process and put new terms on licensees post auction. Such a move would also put AWS-1 A-Block licensees at a competitive disadvantage to other AWS-1 licensees, it said. More nonfederal spectrum allocations for launch activities will help relieve lower S-band congestion, SpaceX said. It urged streamlined coordination in the upper S band as a way of supporting launch and space operations while protecting incumbent flight-testing services. It pushed for looking beyond the S and L bands for spectrum for launch and space operations, including for commercial crewed and uncrewed spacecraft. In a separate filing, SpaceX and fellow crewed launch capability companies Vast Space, Sierra Space, Voyager Space Holdings and Starlab Space urged the FCC to make an allocation for future crewed space stations and operations not connected to the International Space Station, which is to be retired in 2030. They said additional bands should be considered for space-to-space communications. The Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council said that before there are any changes to the L and upper S bands, the FCC, NTIA, DOD and the space launch industry should get more experience with the lower S bands being available for nationwide licensing on a secondary basis. It said the FCC also should monitor commercial launch operators' use of the L and upper S bands under the existing framework.

The FCC’s net neutrality order will likely circulate this week (see 2403290057), with a 3-2 vote in favor on April 25, New Street’s Blair Levin said Tuesday. The order will largely restore 2015 rules, he said in a note to investors. “Like its predecessors, this policy debate will generate significant headlines and commentary, [but] is unlikely to generate significant changes in how the ISPs operate, nor material changes in their revenues, margins, or opportunities,” Levin said. “Traditional issues of non-discrimination, as well as the key investor concerns about price regulation and unbundling, will largely be treated as they were in 2015,” he added. Whether the FCC will preempt state action remains a question, though that matters less than in the past, he said. The new issue of how 5G network slicing is treated “puts the wireless companies on one side against the cable industry and certain public interest groups on the other,” Levin said: Another concern, the application of Section 214 of the Communications Act to ISPs, “can create some administrative headaches but is unlikely to be material to investors.” Barbara van Schewick, director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, meanwhile, submitted a paper on throttling rules. “The new Open Internet Order needs to clearly prohibit ISPs from speeding up and slowing down applications and classes of applications,” the paper sent to the FCC says: “Neither the 2015 no-throttling rule nor the proposed no-throttling explicitly prohibited ISPs from speeding up an application or class of applications. … Clarifying this in the Order is critically important.” The paper was posted Tuesday in docket 23-320.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and Incompas told the FCC they support allowing broadband internet access to “monetize networks in new ways through the use of non-BIAS services,” including network slicing. But the rules shouldn’t create a loophole that benefits only some companies, they said. The treatment of slicing has emerged as a large issue as the agency moves closer to an expected vote on new rules (see 2403290057). “How the Commission addresses non-BIAS data services in the Order is one of the most critical issues in this proceeding,” said a joint filing posted Monday in docket 23-320: “As currently proposed -- without expanded guidance and clarity-- the rule could create a large loophole that undercuts the FCC’s otherwise strong open internet rules.” Free Press raised concerns in meetings with an aide to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “The forthcoming order would benefit by stating explicitly that supposed non-BIAS data services may not be used to evade the rules and the order’s conduct standards,” Free Press said. CTIA, meanwhile, explained to the FCC why network slicing is important and should be protected from regulation under proposed net neutrality rules. The filing adds detail to comments the group offered last week (see 403290042). “Network slicing is a technology that can provide innovative, virtualized wireless offerings targeted to users’ needs and is just emerging in the U.S.,” said a filing posted Monday in docket 23-320. “Network slicing will allow wireless providers to offer over a single physical network a series of virtual networks configured to satisfy different use cases -- including those that benefit from low latency, low jitter, high speeds, or heightened security, as well as those that can tolerate lower speeds, more jitter, or more delay than a typical [broadband internet access service] offering,” CTIA said. Use cases are still emerging and may include public-safety communications, robotic surgery, smart grids and other infrastructure, and communications at crowded events, the group said. Slicing also improves spectrum management, the group explained, allowing carriers to “manage finite spectrum resources more efficiently,” and can enhance network security and privacy “by isolating traffic in its own network slice, so that data and traffic cannot be intercepted or faked by entities of another network slice.”

The FCC announced the membership of the rechartered Communications Equity and Diversity Council ahead of the group’s first meeting Wednesday. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced in May that she would recharter the advisory committee, and the group’s new charter began in June (see 2305250058). “Currently, across the federal government, including here at the Commission, there is a focus on ensuring equity for all, including under-served communities,” Rosenworcel said in a news release Tuesday. “The CEDC exists to help level the playing field.” Wednesday’s meeting will open with an address from Rosenworcel, and otherwise involve introducing the advisory committee’s members, announcing working groups and receiving guidance on federal advisory committee best practices. Many members are returning from the previous charter, including the group’s chair and vice chairs (see 2403150059), Neptuno CEO Leticia Latino-van Splunteren, Multicultural Media Telecom and Internet Council President Robert Branson and former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera. New members include University of Minnesota journalism professor Christopher Terry.

The FCC said Tuesday it has “more than doubled” the number of employees assigned to privacy and data protection since the launch last year of the Privacy and Data Protection Task Force (see 2306140075). The commission has “integrated technologists, software and hardware engineers, and other subject-matter experts into its enforcement matters, adding to the FCC’s deep technical expertise in rulemaking and licensing matters," and “convened technical experts” to focus on AI, machine learning and other emerging technologies through its Technological Advisory Council, it said in a news release. The announcement was part of a broader administration push (see 2403260029). “This ongoing work will allow us to maximize our efforts to address risks arising from the misuse or mishandling of sensitive data we entrust with service providers and the continued threats posed by cybercriminals and foreign adversaries,” said Enforcement Bureau Chief Loyaan Egal, chair of the task force.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Essential Network Technologies and MetComm.net's Feb. 26 emergency motion to expedite consideration of their Feb. 14 E-rate program petition for review, said its order Monday (docket 24-1027). The petitioners haven’t demonstrated that delay “will cause irreparable injury and that the decision under review is subject to substantial challenge, or that the public interest otherwise warrants expedition,” said the order. Their petition for review challenges the authority of the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC) to stop processing the reimbursement of discounts for IT and broadband services that MetComm and Essential provided to schools under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2402200044). Their motion for expedited consideration argued that unless a briefing schedule is set that would allow for a D.C. Circuit decision on the appeal before the end of the court’s May sitting period, numerous elementary and secondary schools will be deprived of affordable IT infrastructure and broadband service for the new school year this fall (see 2403140002). But the FCC’s opposition said the petitioners have provided no compelling reasons for the D.C. Circuit to expedite review. “Under the circumstances, far from needing to expedite this case,” the D.C. Circuit “lacks jurisdiction to decide it,” because there is no final FCC action for the court to review, said the commission’s opposition.