The Daily Ex Parte, July 17, 2025
Submarine cable landing licenses, Slamming, and "a dangerous overreach of delegated authority!"
The Daily Ex Parte
Filers
INCOMPAS
Public Knowledge, National Consumer Law Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS
Public Knowledge, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS, National Hispanic Media Coalition
INCOMPAS
Proceeding(s): 24-523, 24-524
Date of Meeting: July 16, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 17, 2025
Participants:
INCOMPAS: Christopher L. Shipley; Taylor Abshire (Attorney and Policy Advisor)
DC Blox: Alan Poole (General Counsel)
FCC: Deena Shetler (Chief of Staff and Legal Advisor to Commissioner Anna Gomez)
Summary of Discussion:
Representatives from INCOMPAS and DC Blox met with Deena Shetler, an advisor to Commissioner Anna Gomez, to discuss the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the rules and procedures for submarine cable landing licenses. The dockets under review are OI Docket No. 24-523, which addresses evolving national security and policy risks, and MD Docket No. 24-524, which covers amendments to the schedule of application fees.
INCOMPAS reiterated the positions from its previously filed comments, emphasizing its members' commitment to strengthening national security and protecting Americans' data through robust security practices. The representatives urged the FCC to modernize the submarine cable licensing framework. They argued that any new rules should be designed to increase information sharing among government agencies, provide greater regulatory certainty for licensees, and protect the significant investments made by submarine cable operators in this critical infrastructure.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, INCOMPAS, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10717930227686/1]
Public Knowledge, National Consumer Law Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS
Proceeding(s): 17-169, 98-170, 25-133
Date of Meeting: July 15, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 17, 2025
Participants:
Public Knowledge (Alisa Valentin, Sara Collins, Bria Johnson),
National Consumer Law Center (Olivia Wein),
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (Jonathan Walter), and
UnidosUS (Claudia Ruiz)
Office of FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez:
Deena Shetler, Jonathan Uriarte, and Harsha Mudaliar
Summary of Discussion:
The discussion covered two main topics: a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on consumer billing protections and a proposed Direct Final Rule (DFR) procedure for eliminating existing rules.
1. Protecting Consumers and Truth-in-Billing (CG Docket No. 17-169; CC Docket No. 98-170)
The participants addressed the FCC's draft NPRM aimed at modernizing slamming and truth-in-billing rules. While the FCC argues that the current rules are outdated, advocacy groups have urged the Commission not to weaken core consumer protections, especially in light of economic instability, the rise of artificial intelligence, and potential changes to the Universal Service Fund. They argued that consumers, particularly those with fixed incomes, low literacy levels, and older adults, are increasingly vulnerable to fraud and financial strain from unauthorized charges.
The groups urged the Commission to revise the NPRM to include questions addressing:
The heightened risk of consumer fraud from AI tools and what safeguards are needed.
The need for additional protections for Lifeline consumers, especially with potential USF reform.
The negative impact that eliminating the toll-free contact number on paper bills would have on older, low-literacy, low-income, and rural communities.
Whether slamming and cramming rules should be expanded to cover VoIP services.
Furthermore, they expressed specific concerns about two proposals in the NPRM:
Consent Verification: The proposed "reasonably designed" standard for verifying consumer consent is too vague and could lead to weak, ineffective procedures.
Complaint Resolution: Removing the "Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau" as the primary body for complaint resolution would be burdensome for consumers, create agency inefficiencies, and make it difficult to identify broad patterns of provider abuse.
2. "Delete, Delete, Delete" Direct Final Rule (Docket No. 25-133)
The participants expressed "grave concern" about the Commission's proposal to allow its bureaus and offices to eliminate existing rules using a Direct Final Rule (DFR) process under the "good cause" exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued this represents a dangerous overreach of delegated authority. A letter detailing these concerns, signed by 22 public interest, civil rights, labor, and digital rights organizations, was sent to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and attached to the filing.
Their primary objections are:
Elimination of Judicial Review: The proposed procedure would make timely judicial review of a rule's elimination "virtually impossible." A bureau's decision would take effect immediately, but an appeal must first be filed with the full Commission. A Chairman could block judicial review indefinitely by simply refusing to act on the appeal, denying injured parties their day in court.
Exceeds Statutory Authority: The proposal delegates authority far beyond what the Communications Act intended, allowing bureaus to eliminate rules they deem "anticompetitive" or "no longer in the public interest"—substantive decisions that should require notice-and-comment rulemaking by the full Commission. This undermines the FCC's bipartisan structure and concentrates excessive power in the hands of the Chair.
Removal of ACUS Safeguards: The proposal eliminates or weakens critical safeguards recommended by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). Key deviations include:
A 10-day comment period instead of the recommended 30 days.
Requiring "multiple" adverse comments to consider reverting to standard rulemaking, whereas ACUS recommends that a single adverse comment should trigger it.
Failing to publish key notices and determinations in the Federal Register.
The groups warned that this accelerated process provides insufficient time for stakeholders, especially those representing vulnerable populations (e.g., rural, immigrant, unhoused communities who may still rely on "obsolete" technologies like calling cards), to identify and comment on the potential harm of eliminating certain rules.
The organizations strongly urged the Commission to pull the item from the agenda. At a minimum, they requested that the authority not be delegated to the bureaus and that the proposal be modified to explicitly enable judicial review and adopt the stronger ACUS guardrails.
Public Knowledge, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Proceeding(s): 17-169, 98-170, 25-133
Date of Meeting: July 17, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 17, 2025
Participants: Representatives from:
Public Knowledge (PK) (Alisa Valentin, Sara Collins, and Bria Johnson),
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry (Cheryl Leanza),
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (Jonathan Walter),
UnidosUS (Claudia Ruiz), and
The National Hispanic Media Coalition (Daiquri Ryan Mercado)
The Office of FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty:
Jessica Kinsey and William Holloway
Summary of Discussion:
The discussion covered two main topics: a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning consumer billing protections and a proposed Direct Final Rule (DFR) procedure for eliminating existing rules.
1. Consumer Protections: Slamming, Cramming, and Truth-in-Billing (CG Docket No. 17-169; CC Docket No. 98-170)
The participants urged the Commission not to weaken core consumer protections in its effort to modernize slamming and truth-in-billing rules. They argued that shielding consumers from unauthorized or deceptive billing changes is more critical than ever due to economic instability, potential changes to the Universal Service Fund, and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI).
Key arguments and recommendations included:
Vulnerable Consumers: Economic pressures make consumers, especially those on fixed incomes, highly sensitive to unexpected fees or provider switches.
AI-Driven Fraud: The increasing sophistication of AI will lead to more consumer fraud, such as fake billing notices or impersonation of consumers and customer service agents. The groups urged the FCC to create a proactive framework to address these emerging threats.
Revisions to the NPRM: The coalition asked the Commission to add questions to the NPRM to better address the needs of vulnerable populations, including:
What safeguards are needed to protect consumers from AI-related billing fraud?
What extra protections should be available to Lifeline consumers, particularly in light of potential Universal Service Fund reforms?
How would eliminating the requirement for a toll-free contact number on paper bills affect older adults, low-literacy individuals, and those in low-income or rural areas without reliable internet?
Should slamming and cramming rules be expanded to include VoIP services?
Consent and Complaint Resolution: The participants raised concerns about a proposal to streamline consent verification, arguing the term "reasonably designed" could lead to ineffective procedures. They also strongly opposed removing the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau as the central point for complaint resolution, stating it would be burdensome for consumers and would make it harder for the agency to identify systemic provider abuse.
2. "Delete, Delete, Delete" Direct Final Rule (Docket No. 25-133)
The coalition expressed "grave concern" about a proposed procedure that would delegate authority to FCC bureaus and offices to eliminate existing rules under the "good cause" exception of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), bypassing traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking. This point was emphasized by referencing an attached letter sent to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and signed by 22 public interest organizations.
Major concerns with the proposed DFR procedure include:
Elimination of Judicial Review: The groups argued the process would effectively block timely judicial review. A bureau's decision to delete a rule would take effect immediately, but an aggrieved party must first appeal to the full Commission. A Chairman could prevent a court appeal by simply refusing to act on the internal review, leaving the rule eliminated without recourse.
Excessive Delegation of Power: The procedure would grant "unprecedented power" to the FCC Chair, who controls the bureaus, undermining the Commission's structure as an independent, bipartisan agency.
Lack of Public Input: The accelerated process, with a proposed 10-day comment period and no required publication in the Federal Register, would give the public and stakeholders little opportunity to explain why a rule considered "obsolete" may still be necessary, particularly for marginalized communities (e.g., rules for calling cards and pay phones still used by immigrant, unhoused, and rural populations).
Deviation from ACUS Safeguards: The proposed process eliminates or weakens key safeguards recommended by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), such as providing a 30-day comment period and reverting to standard rulemaking after a single significant adverse comment.
The participants strongly urged the Commission to withdraw the item. As an alternative, they requested that it be modified to explicitly enable judicial review and to incorporate the protective guardrails recommended by ACUS.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Public Knowledge, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, UnidosUS, National Hispanic Media Coalition, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/107172337419845/1]