U.S. Chamber Submits Reply Comments to the FCC's Delete, Delete, Delete Proceeding

Dear Ms. Dortch:  

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) appreciates the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) Public Notice to alleviate “unnecessary regulatory burdens and facilitate network and infrastructure modernization and offering new and innovative services.”[1] The robust response to the Public Notice indicates a broad desire to right-size regulations in light of the present legal, marketplace, and technological realities. We encourage the Commission to move promptly to prioritize and pursue regulatory modernization. 

In our earlier comments, the Chamber offered forty-two areas of regulatory reforms that broadly would modernize media and video regulations, ensure fairness and due process in enforcement, connect all Americans, rein in abuse of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reform the equipment authorization process, and unleash the space economy.[2] The record underscores significant support for these areas of reform. 

Moreover, we offer several additional reforms for consideration that will allow the Commission to update regulations to fit the modern era, bolster the equipment authorization process, and strengthen the emerging space economy. 

Finally, the Chamber respectfully requests the Commission refrain from pursuing changes to its digital discrimination rules until the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has completed its review. But we recommend that the Commission terminate the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding as it is beyond the Commission's authority, is unnecessary and contrary to marketplace facts, and would impose substantial costs and burdens on businesses without any corresponding consumer benefit.

      I.         The Record Reinforces that the Commission Should Prioritize These Areas for Reform.

A.    Modernizing Media and Video Regulations

The media and video marketplaces have dramatically transformed over the last few decades due to the substantial technological changes brought by high-speed broadband internet. The Internet distribution of video, media, and audio content has been a boon to consumers, increasing choice, enabling the use of new and innovative technologies and business models, and expanding the ability for content creators to reach new customers and vice versa. 

However, the Commission’s legacy regulations on video and media have neglected to account for these technological and marketplace changes. The record underscores the widespread desire to modernize media and video regulations.[3] These include updating Cable Act regulations,[4] revising the Local Radio Ownership Rule,[5] consolidating burdensome broadcaster reporting obligations,[6] updating closed captioning requirements,[7] revisiting rules on navigation devices,[8] reversing all-in-pricing,[9] and repealing content-related programming obligations.[10]          

B.    Reducing Barriers to Connect All Americans 

Connecting all Americans to 21^st century communications services should be a high priority of the Commission. Tailored and targeted regulatory obligations tied with smart permitting rules are essential to achieving this objective. Commenters widely recognized that the Commission must right-size existing regulatory obligations and avoid imposing new rules that would increases compliance costs that hinders capital investment and innovation. This includes closing rulemaking proceedings and repealing regulations pertaining to novel network security obligations,[11] usage-based pricing for broadband plans,[12] and outdated common carrier obligations.[13] The Commission should also focus on modifying existing regulatory requirements, such as streamlining consumer broadband labeling rules,[14] repealing expanded data breach requirements,[15] revising outage reporting rules,[16] and updating the broadband mapping process.[17] 

Further, commenters underscored the need for smart permitting rules to build communications infrastructure.[18] For example, the Commission should provide permanent regulatory relief to modernize antiquated copper networks,[19] limit the scope of environmental and housing preservation review only to when the Commission plays a substantial oversight role,[20] and reform its submarine cable licensing rules to unlock additional private sector investment to strengthen resiliency and connectivity.[21] 

C.    Ensuring Fairness and Due Process in the Commission’s Enforcement Proceedings. 

A fair and appropriate enforcement process is a cornerstone to all the Commission’s regulatory responsibilities and objectives. Many commenters highlighted that a comprehensive review of the Commission’s regulations should include a review of its enforcement practices.[22] The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy raises a question if the Commission’s pursuit of civil penalties in its in-house enforcement proceedings violates the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial.[23] Further, the Administration recently issued Executive Order 14219, Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, which directs agencies to focus on repealing regulations that are inconsistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including SEC. v. Jarkesy. 

Multiple lawsuits testing the application of Jarkesy to the Commission’s enforcement processes are ongoing.[24] On April 17^th, the United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit vacated the Commission’s multi-million-dollar forfeiture order on AT&T on the basis that the Commission violated AT&T’s constitutional right to a jury trial and an Article III decisionmaker.^[25] This decision implicates not just AT&T, but other regulated parties subject to the Commission’s in-house enforcement proceedings. Until legal clarity is provided by either the Congress or the courts, the Commission should pause the assessment of any forfeiture penalties that are inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

D.    Reforming the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is an important law to protect consumers from fraudulent robocallers and other bad actors. Unfortunately, the TCPA’s expansive private right of action has also been a boon for the plaintiff’s bar and serial plaintiffs, which has imposed substantial litigation and compliance costs on legitimate businesses while not effectively deterring bad actors. Commenters broadly agreed that that the Commission should take action to clarify TCPA requirements.[26] This includes modifying the consent revocation rule, for which the Commission recently granted a one year stay of certain aspects of the rule in recognition of compliance burdens associated with the rule.[27] Further, many commenters echoed the need for a comprehensive review of TCPA regulations to provide clarity to regulated parties and increase compliance[28] as well as clarify that the TCPA does not cover text messaging.[29]

Continue reading here

[1]In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete, Public Notice, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 1 (Mar. 12, 2025) (“Public Notice”).

[2]See Comments of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al., GN Docket No. 25-133 (filed April 11, 2025) (“Chamber Comments”).

[3] Comments of NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 4 (filed April 11, 2025) (“NTCA Comments”); Comments of the International Center of Law & Economics, GN Docket No. 25, at 8 (filed April 11, 2025) (“ICLE Comments”); See generally, Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters, GN Docket No. 25-133 (April 11, 2025) (“NAB Comments”).

[4]See generally, Comments of the NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, GN Docket No. 25-133 (filed April 11, 2025); Comments of the Free State Foundation, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 11 (filed April 11, 2025) (“FSF Comments”).

[5] NAB Comments at 10; Comments of the U.S. Small Business Association Office of Advocacy, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 6 (filed April 11, 2025) (“SBA Comments”).

[6] NAB Comments at 16; Comments of Sinclair, Inc., GN Docket No. 25-133, at 18 (filed April 11, 2025) (“Sinclair Comments”); SBA Comments at 6.

[7] Comments of ACA Connects, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 18 (April 11, 2025) (“ACA Connects Comments”).

[8] FSF Comments at 9; NCTA Comments at A-1.                                                                                                                                       

[9] FSF Comments at 9; ACA Connects Comments at 10; NTCA Comments at 22; NCTA Comments at 11.

[10] NAB Comments at 44; Sinclair Comments at 16; SBA Comments at 8; NCTA Comments at 15.

[11] ACA Connects Comments at 7; NCTA Comments at 13; CCA at 19; SBA Comments at 14; Comments of CTIA, GN Docket No. 25-133, at A-13 (April 11, 2025) (“CTIA Comments”).

[12] CTIA Comments at A-5; ICLE Comments at 21.

[13] NTCA Comments at 2; Comments of USTelecom – The Broadband Association, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 16 (April 11, 2025) (“USTelecom Comments”).

[14] ACA Connects Comments at 11; CTIA Comments at A-4; NTCA Comments at 11; Comments of the Competitive Carriers Association, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 8 (April 11, 2025) (“CCA Comments”); USTelecom Comments at 8; Comments of WISPA – The Association for Broadband Without Boundaries, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 3 (April 11, 2025) (“WISPA Comments”).  

[15] ACA Connects Comments at 16; Comments of the Information Technology Industry Council, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 11 (April 11, 2025) (“ITI Comments”); NTCA Comments at 20; CCA Comments at 23; USTelecom Comments at 23; WISPA Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at A-17.

[16] ACA Connects Comments at 14; CCA Comments at 15; USTelecom Comments at 12.

[17] CTIA Comments at A-3; Comments of Verizon, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 12 (April 11, 2025) (“Verizon Comments”); Comments of INCOMPAS, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 10 (April 11, 2025) (“INCOMPAS Comments”); CCA Comments at 2; USTelecom Comments at 9.

[18] IMCOMPAS Comments at 6; ICLE Comments at 18.

[19] USTelecom Comments at 3; Verizon Comments at 11.

[20] CTIA Comments at A-8; Verizon Comments at 13; CCA Commentsat 10; SBA Comments at 12.

[21]See generally, Comments of the International Connectivity Coalition, GN Docket No. 25-133 (April 11, 2025).

[22] Comments of AT&T, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 16 (April 11, 2025); CTIA Comments at A-22; ICLE Comments at 17.

[23] Thomas M. Johnson, White Paper on FCC Enforcement Bureau Reform, Wiley (Jan. 29, 2024), https://comms.wiley.law/8/5148/uploads/white-paper-on-fcc-enforcement-bureau-reform-01.29.2024-tj.pdf.

[24] AT&T Inc. v. FCC, No. 24-60223 (5th Cir. April 17, 2025); T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. FCC, No. 24-1225 (D.C. Cir. filed June 27, 2024); Verizon Comm’c v. FCC, No. 24-1733 (2nd Cir. filed June 28, 2024).

[25] AT&T Inc. v. FCC, No. 24-60223 (5th Cir. 2025).

[26] SBA Comments at 3; See generally, Comments of American Bankers Association et al., GN Docket No. 25-133 (April 11, 2025) (“American Bankers et al. Comments”); Comments of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 3-6 (April 11, 2025).

[27] Comments of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 1-2 (April 11, 2025); NCTA Comments at 13; American Bankers Association et. al Comments at 6; ITI Comments at 9; Comments of the National Association of Automobile Dealers, GN Docket No. 25-133, at 2 (April 11, 2025) (“NADA Comments”); ICLE Comments at 20; In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Order, DA 25-312 (Apr. 7, 2025).

[28] INCOMPAS Comments at 19.

[29] NADA Comments at 1.

About the authors

Matt Furlow

Matt is the Senior Director and Policy Counsel for the Chamber's Center for Technology Engagement Center.