The Daily Ex Parte, July 21, 2025
Consumer Technology Association objects to NAB's request for a mandatory transition to the ATSC 3.0, SpaceX argues against Petitions for Reconsideration
Filers
Totelcom Communications, LLC - 10-90, RM-11868
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC - 13-115
International Connectivity Coalition (ICC) - 24-523, 24-524
Rural Wireless Association, Inc., Communications Workers of America, Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute - 25-150, 24-286, 25-192, 24-186
Center for American Rights - Daniel R. Suhr - 24-275
Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, ACA Connects - America's Communications Association, American Television Alliance, LPTV Broadcasters Association - 16-142
AURA Network Systems, Inc. - 24-629
Totelcom Communications, LLC
Proceeding(s): 10-90, RM-11868
Date of Meeting: July 15, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 18, 2025
Participants:
Totelcom Communications, LLC:
Jennifer Prather, Chief Executive Officer
Brandi Iley, Chief Operating Officer
Jana Holland, HR and Marketing Manager
Herman & Whiteaker, LLC (Counsel to Totelcom):
Donald L. Herman, Jr.
FCC:
William Holloway, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Olivia Trusty
Harsha Mudaliar (Legal Advisor to Commissioner Anna Gomez)
Danielle Thumann (Legal Advisor to Chairman Brendan Carr)
Summary of Discussion:
Representatives from Totelcom Communications, LLC and their counsel met with William Holloway, Legal Advisor to Commissioner Olivia Trusty, to discuss issues related to the broadband map and the Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model (E-ACAM) program.
The primary concerns raised by Totelcom were twofold:
Re-addition of Challenged Locations: Totelcom expressed concern that certain locations were being added back to the broadband map even after those same locations had been previously challenged and adjudicated in Totelcom's favor. This suggests a potential flaw in the process of permanently updating the map following successful challenges.
Incomplete E-ACAM Data: The company argued that the most recent E-ACAM interim data file appears to be incomplete. Specifically, the file does not seem to accurately reflect the outcomes of the challenge process, further compounding the issue of map accuracy for program participants.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Totelcom Communications, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10718173808595/1]
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Totelcom Communications, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10718144002835/1]
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Totelcom Communications, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/107182000406503/1]
Space Exploration Holdings, LLC
Proceeding(s): 13-115
Date of Meeting: July 18, 2025*
Date Disseminated: July 21, 2025
Participants: The filing was a written ex parte communication from Jameson Dempsey (Director, Satellite Policy) of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) to Marlene H. Dortch (Secretary) of the Federal Communications Commission.
Summary of Discussion:
This filing is a written communication, not a meeting.
SpaceX filed this letter to argue against Petitions for Reconsideration submitted by GE Healthcare Technologies Inc. (GEHC) and the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council, Inc. (AFTRCC). SpaceX contends that both organizations are attempting to introduce unnecessary complexity and delay into the launch spectrum coordination process, contrary to the direction from Congress in the Launch Communications Act to make the process more efficient.
Arguments against GEHC: SpaceX asserts that GEHC's request for a new, complex coordination process for its Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) devices is unwarranted. SpaceX highlights that a coordination framework has been in place for over a decade, allowing MBAN devices to automatically re-channel (frequency hop) to avoid interference from aeronautical mobile operations like space launches. SpaceX argues that GEHC is ignoring this existing, effective solution in an attempt to gain superior spectrum rights that the Commission has already considered and denied. Despite this, SpaceX states it has offered in good faith, and at its own expense, to provide launch schedules and spectrum usage details to the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA), the MBAN coordinator, to facilitate deconfliction without altering existing rules.
Arguments against AFTRCC: SpaceX characterizes AFTRCC as an "incumbent lobbying organization" composed of legacy prime contractors seeking to stifle new entrants in the launch industry. According to SpaceX, AFTRCC’s proposal presents new launch providers with a "Hobson's choice": either agree to all of AFTRCC's restrictive conditions upfront or allow AFTRCC to unilaterally impose restrictions later. SpaceX claims this would position AFTRCC as a "spectrum gatekeeper" rather than a neutral coordinator, creating a spectrally inefficient and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that undermines the goal of a modern, streamlined coordination framework for the Upper S-band.
Conclusion: SpaceX urges the Commission to reject the proposals from both GEHC and AFTRCC, arguing they would introduce needless procedures, delays, and gatekeeping. Instead, SpaceX recommends that the Commission focus on further streamlining and modernizing its coordination framework to promote more intensive and efficient use of critical space launch frequencies, in line with the objectives of the Launch Communications Act.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10718319614820/1]
International Connectivity Coalition (ICC)
Proceeding(s): 24-523, 24-524
Date of Meeting: July 16, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 18, 2025
Participants:
International Connectivity Coalition (ICC) Representatives:
Nico Roehrich, Meta
Kelly Donohue, Meta
Dan Ball, Meta
Preston Johnson, Meta
Stephanie Sharp, Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Sarah McComb, AWS
Grace Koh, Ciena
Colin Andrews, TIA
Marty Stern, Counsel to PC Landing (Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP)
David Redl, Salt Point Strategies (Counsel to ICC)
Anderson Helton, Salt Point Strategies (Counsel to ICC)
Ansley Erdel, Salt Point Strategies (Counsel to ICC)
Savannah Schaefer, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP (Counsel to ICC)
Slate Herman, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP (Counsel to ICC)
FCC Participants (Office of Commissioner Trusty):
Commissioner Olivia Trusty
Krista Senell
Jessica Kinsey
William Halloway
Summary of Discussion:
Representatives of the International Connectivity Coalition (ICC) met with Commissioner Olivia Trusty and her staff to discuss the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning Submarine Cable Landing License Rules (OI Docket No. 24-523) and Application Fees (MD Docket No. 24-524).
The ICC shared its perspective on several key issues related to submarine cable infrastructure. They highlighted existing permitting challenges that cause significant delays in deploying new cables. A central argument presented by the ICC was the necessity of a 25-year licensing period. They argued that a longer license term is critical to solidifying the business case for these substantial infrastructure investments.
The coalition also reported on its positive and constructive engagements with Executive Branch agencies that are involved in the permitting, coordination, deployment, and maintenance of submarine cables.
Ultimately, the ICC advocated for the creation of an "effective, transparent, and streamlined" submarine cable licensing review process. They emphasized that this improved process must continue to protect U.S. national security while simultaneously ensuring the nation maintains its leadership role in meeting the growing connectivity demands of the global digital economy. The ICC expressed its intent to continue engaging with the Commission on this matter.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, International Connectivity Coalition (ICC), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10718207801148/1]
Rural Wireless Association, Inc., Communications Workers of America, Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute
Proceeding(s): 25-150, 24-286, 25-192, 24-186
Date of Meeting: July 16, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 18, 2025
Participants: Representatives from the Rural Wireless Association, Inc. ("RWA"), Communications Workers of America ("CWA"), Public Knowledge ("PK"), and New America’s Open Technology Institute ("New America") (collectively, the "Coalition") met with William Holloway, Acting Legal Advisor to FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty. Specific attendees from the Coalition included:
Carri Bennet, Outside General Counsel, Rural Wireless Association, Inc.
Stephen Sharbaugh, Regulatory Counsel, Rural Wireless Association, Inc.
Hooman Hedayati, Senior Strategic Research Associate for Telecommunications Policy, Communications Workers of America
Peter Gregory, Broadband Policy Fellow, Public Knowledge
Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Program & Senior Advisor, New America’s Open Technology Institute
Summary of Discussion:
The Coalition met with Commissioner Trusty's office to discuss their collective concerns regarding the proposed transactions between United States Cellular Corporation ("UScellular") and T-Mobile US, Inc. ("T-Mobile"), Cellco Partnership ("Verizon"), and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T"). The meeting took place after the FCC staff's approval of the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction, but it was the Coalition's first opportunity to meet with the newly appointed Commissioner's office on the matter.
The Coalition argued that the transactions, when viewed together, represent a significant threat to competition, consumers, and rural wireless markets.
Rural Wireless Association, Inc. (RWA) raised several key points:
Elimination of a Competitor: The deals will eliminate UScellular, a key facilities-based competitor, in many rural and regional markets.
Spectrum Concentration: The transactions will further concentrate valuable low- and mid-band spectrum in the hands of the three largest national carriers. RWA contested the FCC staff's finding that rural carriers had a fair opportunity to acquire this spectrum, arguing that UScellular's intent to sell was not made clear until the T-Mobile deal was announced. The few rural carriers that did acquire spectrum were left with the "scraps" hand-picked by the major carriers.
Roaming Harm: The loss of UScellular as a reliable roaming partner is a major concern. UScellular historically offered commercially reasonable, reciprocal roaming agreements. RWA fears the national carriers will only offer unilateral agreements, threatening the financial viability of rural carriers by increasing their costs and reducing roaming revenue, which in turn impacts their ability to maintain networks and provide public safety communications.
Consumer Price Hikes: The reduction in competition will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers. RWA pointed to T-Mobile's rate increase following the Sprint merger and AT&T's 2024 rate hikes as evidence of this trend.
Flawed FCC Staff Approval: RWA criticized the FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order approving the T-Mobile deal for failing to impose necessary public interest safeguards. RWA disagreed with the staff's conclusion that cable MVNOs provide effective competition, stating that growing subscribership does not equate to a competitive constraint on the national carriers. The order also failed to address harmful spectrum aggregation and handset locking policies.
Public Knowledge (PK) added:
Burden of Proof: The applicants have not met their burden to prove that the transactions serve the public interest and will result in no consumer harm. PK argued there is insufficient evidence of transaction-specific benefits.
Enhanced Review for AT&T Deal: PK urged Commissioner Trusty's office to actively review the pending AT&T/UScellular transaction, noting that it triggers "enhanced review" due to spectrum aggregation levels that exceed FCC limits and create a high potential for competitive harm, a concern echoed by the Department of Justice.
New America’s Open Technology Institute (New America) focused on:
Handset Unlocking: New America stressed the need for handset unlocking requirements to promote consumer choice and competition, noting that countries like Canada and the UK have implemented point-of-sale unlocking mandates without a measurable increase in fraud.
Need for FCC Action: New America argued that Verizon's recent waiver request for its unlocking requirements underscores the urgency for the FCC to finalize its rulemaking on the issue (WT Docket No. 24-186). In the absence of an industry-wide rule, the FCC should have imposed unlocking conditions on the T-Mobile/UScellular transaction, consistent with its approach in the T-Mobile-Mint Mobile deal.
Communications Workers of America (CWA) expressed concerns about:
Labor Market Impact: The merger will further entrench T-Mobile's dominance in local labor markets for retail wireless workers. CWA stated that the applicants have failed to demonstrate how the transaction would enhance competition in both upstream labor markets and downstream consumer markets.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Rural Wireless Association, Inc., Communications Workers of America, Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1071887027930/1]
Center for American Rights - Daniel R. Suhr
Proceeding(s): 24-275
Date of Meeting: July 21, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 21, 2025
Participants: Daniel R. Suhr of the Center for American Rights submitted a written ex parte communication to Erin Boone, Legal Advisor to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.
Summary of Discussion:
In a written communication regarding the proposed transaction between Skydance Media and Paramount Global, Daniel R. Suhr of the Center for American Rights urged FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to impose conditions on the merger to protect localism and the independence of local broadcast affiliates. The letter frames its arguments by frequently citing Chairman Carr's own public statements and past actions, which advocate for local broadcasters against the influence of national networks.
Suhr commends Chairman Carr's consistent focus on localism, referencing his remarks about empowering local broadcasters to serve their communities, rather than merely being a "pass-through for nationwide content." He aligns the Center for American Rights' position with a recent notice from the CBS Television Network Affiliates Association, emphasizing that the FCC's public interest duty requires protecting local news and broadcasters from improper network control.
The letter proposes that the FCC use the NBCU/Comcast transaction as a model for applying "numerous and substantial conditions" to the Paramount deal. Suhr outlines four specific areas of concern, modeling them after a letter Chairman Carr reportedly sent to ABC CEO Bob Iger:
Economic Pressure on Affiliates: The FCC should ensure that the new owners of Paramount commit to fair programming fees. Suhr highlights the existing financial tension between CBS and its affiliates, arguing that the new entity must not extract "onerous financial and operational concessions" that would prevent local stations, particularly in smaller and rural markets, from investing in their own local news operations.
Conflict of Interest with Streaming: The letter points to the inherent conflict between Paramount's broadcast network obligations to its affiliates and its strategic goal of growing its direct-to-consumer streaming service, Paramount Plus. This creates a situation where Paramount is competing directly with its own affiliates for audiences and advertisers. The letter expresses concern that CBS already controls its affiliates' distribution on virtual MVPDs (like YouTube and Google) and that networks are pulling marquee programming from broadcast in favor of their streaming services.
Protection of Local Content Prerogatives: The transaction must protect the ability of local stations to make their own programming decisions. Suhr argues that local broadcasters are the best check against the "Hollywood-New York 'foie gras'" and can better serve consumer demand for "patriotic, faith-inspired, and family-friendly" content that reflects community values.
Preventing Network Domination: The filing warns against the trend of networks converting independent affiliates into owned-and-operated (O&O) stations. Suhr cites the recent replacement of Gray Media's affiliate in Atlanta with a new CBS O&O station as an example of an independent local operator being supplanted by "corporate bureaucrats in New York."
In conclusion, Suhr reiterates Chairman Carr's own stated position that the FCC has the authority and obligation to act if the network/affiliate relationship jeopardizes the economic and operational independence of local stations. He urges the Commission to use its review of the Paramount transaction to implement strong conditions that safeguard localism as "the cornerstone of broadcasting."
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Daniel R. Suhr, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10721253377429/1; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10721253377429/1; https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10721253377429/2]
Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, ACA Connects - America's Communications Association, American Television Alliance, LPTV Broadcasters Association
Proceeding(s): 16-142
Date of Meeting: July 17, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 21, 2025
Participants:
Consumer Technology Association (CTA): David Grossman (Vice President, Policy & Regulatory Affairs) and Rachel Nemeth (Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs)
Public Knowledge: Alisa Valentin (Broadband Policy Director)
NCTA - The Internet & Television Association (NCTA): Radhika Bhat (Vice President and Associate General Counsel)
ACA Connects - America's Communications Association (ACA Connects): Zamir Ahmed (Senior Vice President, External Affairs)
American Television Alliance (ATVA): Michael Nilsson (Counsel to ATVA, HWG LLP)
LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTVBA): Frank Copsidas (President)
Met With:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Commissioner Trusty: Jessica Kinsey and Will Holloway
Summary of Discussion:
Representatives from a diverse coalition of technology, consumer, cable, and broadcast organizations met with the Office of Commissioner Trusty to collectively oppose the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). The coalition urged the FCC to deny NAB's request for a mandatory transition to the ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) standard and to maintain the current voluntary, market-driven approach. The group noted broad opposition in the docket from consumers concerned about costs and from free-market organizations concerned about regulatory overreach.
The main arguments presented by each organization are summarized below:
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) argued that a mandatory transition would harm consumers by increasing costs, stifling innovation, and imposing unnecessary regulations. CTA stated the consumer technology industry has already supported the transition voluntarily by developing standards and partnering on the "NEXTGEN TV" brand. They asserted that if broadcasters want to increase adoption, they should focus on consumer education rather than a mandate. CTA presented data indicating a decline in over-the-air (OTA) viewership (from 32% of homes in 2020 to 19% in 2025) and broadcast's overall share of TV viewing. They provided a cost analysis showing that TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners are significantly more expensive, concluding a mandate would force all consumers to pay more for a feature that only a minority desires.
Public Knowledge focused on the negative impacts of ATSC 3.0's digital rights management (DRM) and patent licensing. They argued the A3SA certification process, controlled by incumbent broadcasters, is an opaque gatekeeping mechanism that would stifle competition by locking out startups and open-source developers. This would lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Citing the American Library Association v. FCC case, Public Knowledge argued the FCC lacks the legal authority to mandate technology in consumer electronics, comparing the proposal to the "broadcast flag" regime that was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit. They concluded that the broadcast industry, as the beneficiary, should bear the costs of any transition.
NCTA - The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) stressed that NAB's proposal would impose substantial and unjustifiable costs on Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) without clear consumer demand. Cable operators would face millions of dollars in equipment upgrade costs, which would inevitably be passed on to subscribers. NCTA also highlighted formidable technical challenges for MVPDs to carry ATSC 3.0 signals and argued that, unlike the DTV transition, the FCC lacks the required clear congressional authority for such an economically significant mandate. They also raised constitutional concerns, stating that extending must-carry rules to ATSC 3.0 would violate the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
ACA Connects explained that the high costs of new equipment for receiving and converting ATSC 3.0 signals would be disproportionately burdensome for smaller and mid-sized providers. This financial pressure could force many to cease offering linear video services, thereby reducing consumer choice, particularly in rural and smaller markets.
American Television Alliance (ATVA) questioned whether the purported benefits of ATSC 3.0 would even reach most pay-TV subscribers, as many MVPDs (especially satellite) lack the capacity to pass through the new standard's features. ATVA raised concerns that broadcasters intend to use the majority of their new capacity for non-broadcast services rather than improving television service. By their calculation, NAB’s proposal would permit broadcasters to use over 95% of their spectrum for such ancillary services, raising legal questions about whether this constitutes a de facto spectrum reallocation. This would impose costs on all viewers for the benefit of a few broadcasters.
LPTV Broadcasters Association (LPTVBA) expressed support for flexible authorization, allowing LPTV and Class A stations to transmit using any approved standard (ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0, or 5G Broadcast). They strongly opposed a mandatory transition for their member stations, which are primarily small businesses, arguing that the ATSC 3.0 standard has not delivered on its promises. They stated that if a transition is mandated, the federal government or full-power broadcasters must absorb the significant costs for LPTV and Class A stations.
In conclusion, the coalition emphasized that they were active and honest participants in the Future of Television Initiative (FOTVI) and stated that the resulting FOTVI Report did not accurately reflect the consensus reached in its working groups. They urged the Commission to deny NAB's requests and reject a mandate that would decrease flexibility and increase costs for consumers and the industry.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, Consumer Technology Association, Public Knowledge, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, ACA Connects - America's Communications Association, American Television Alliance, LPTV Broadcasters Association, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10721143994947/1]
AURA Network Systems, Inc.
Proceeding(s): 24-629
Date of Meeting: July 21, 2025
Date Disseminated: July 21, 2025
Participants: This was a written ex parte submission from Denise Olmsted, SVP of Legal, Compliance & Regulatory for AURA Network Systems, Inc. ("AURA"), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").
Summary of Discussion:
In this ex parte letter, AURA Network Systems, Inc. supplemented its previous comments in the FCC's proceeding on Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), WT Docket No. 24-629. AURA expressed support for the FCC's proposal to modernize the rules for the 450 MHz band but offered modified suggestions on two key topics: buildout milestones and measurement bandwidth resolution.
1. Buildout Milestones and Performance Requirements
AURA presented a modified proposal for buildout requirements, which is contingent on the FCC accepting AURA's earlier recommendation to set the low-altitude coverage requirement at 5,000 feet instead of the FCC's proposed 400 feet. AURA argues that the greatest need for robust connectivity is for larger aircraft in controlled airspace (above 5,000 feet), while low-altitude small UAS can be served by existing terrestrial networks.
The new proposal seeks to align more closely with the FCC's proposed 4-year and 8-year deadlines but introduces separate, less stringent requirements for Alaska due to its unique geographical challenges, vast land mass, and lack of existing telecommunications infrastructure.
AURA's Modified Buildout Proposal (contingent on 5,000 ft altitude metric):
Interim Benchmark (4 Years):
For the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) and Hawaii: Provide service at 25,000 feet across the entire area AND at 5,000 feet over 50% of the area.
For Alaska: Provide service at 25,000 feet over 13% of the geographic area.
Final Benchmark (8 Years):
For CONUS and Hawaii: Provide service at 25,000 feet across the entire area AND at 5,000 feet over 90% of the area.
For Alaska: Provide service at 25,000 feet over 25% of the geographic area.
AURA justified its Alaska-specific proposal by noting that while the state is critical to the AAM ecosystem, the practical realities of building infrastructure are significant. AURA stated it already has five active sites in Alaska and that its proposed benchmarks are based on connecting major airports and population centers, with plans to expand further as customer demand materializes.
2. Measurement Bandwidth
In response to the FCC's proposal to consider a 100 kilohertz (kHz) measurement bandwidth for out-of-band emissions (OOBE), AURA reiterated and clarified its alternative suggestion.
AURA's Proposal:
For the 1 megahertz (MHz) bands immediately adjacent to the 450 MHz band, the measurement bandwidth should be defined as 200 hertz (Hz).
For the spectrum beyond those adjacent 1 MHz bands, a 100 kHz measurement bandwidth would be suitable.
AURA argued that using a narrower 200 Hz bandwidth for immediately adjacent spectrum provides a more accurate and protective test of unwanted emissions into the nearest channels. The company asserted that this approach would not increase interference risk and would ensure OOBE limits are met, even as AURA operates with wider channel bandwidths than were historically used in the band.
Source: [NOTICE OF EXPARTE, AURA Network Systems, Inc., https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10721521827149/1]