The Federal Trade Commission is now up to full strength.

Sworn in this week were four of the five new commissioners--Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Noah Joshua Phillips, Rohit Chopra and new chair Joseph Simons, who was the first sworn in, on May 1.

Acting chair Maureen Ohlhausen will remain a Republican commissioner pending the status of her judgeship. Christine Wilson, who has been confirmed by the Senate but not sworn in yet, will replace Ohlhausen once that judgeship nomination is approved.

"I also congratulate Christine, who will take my seat if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed by the Senate as a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims." Ohlhausen said last week of Wilson's confirmation.

In January, President Donald Trump nominated Ohlhausen to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Already exited is Terrell McSweeny, whose last day was April 28.

Before the swearings-in, the FTC had been down to two commissioners, acting chair Ohlhausen and McSweeny, a Democrat.

The FTC will be under increased scrutiny now that it will be principally responsible for overseeing network neutrality following the FCC's reclassification of ISPs as information services not subject to Title II common carrier regs. Common Carriers are exempt from FTC oversight. 

LAS VEGAS -- Five federal policymakers offered their familiar visions of core regulatory issues, including spectrum policy and net neutrality, during CES sessions.

Read More: MCN's Complete Coverage of CES 2018

With FCC chair Ajit Pai absent because of death threats he has recently received, and Democratic commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel opting to skip the program, the sessions were largely status reports on activities at the FCC, NTIA and FTC. The on-stage discussions did not address the commission’s split decision in November on ATSC 3.0 rules.

David Redl, who heads the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, opened the session by reading very quickly through prepared remarks touching on spectrum policy, cybersecurity, international governance and the development of telecom infrastructure, including sharing of bandwidth assigned to federal agencies.

He promised that spectrum policy will be a major focus of NTIA this year, and the agency will work with industry to develop procedures to make better use of the airwaves.

“We must do everything we can this year and beyond to accelerate America’s 5G leadership,” he said. “With 5G set to drive demand for more access to spectrum, we’ve been looking at bands across NTIA’s notorious spectrum chart.” Citing the 37-GHz band, he said NTIA is “optimistic” that “if we can get this right, it will serve as a model on how to handle sharing in other bands.”

Redl also emphasized NTIA’s prioritization of cybersecurity.

After Redl’s speech, Julie Kearney, CTA’s VP-regulatory affairs, sat down for a chat with FCC commissioners Mignon Clyburn, Brendan Carr and Michael O’Rielly.

O’Rielly said he expects a “busy and exciting year” in which the Commission will eliminate rules “that no longer make any sense,” citing Pai’s intent to delete aging regulations.

Carr predicted, “We’ll unleash more innovation and greater investment.” He also said he expects that the policies will lead to broadband expansion.

Clyburn called the Dec. 14 net-neutrality decision and its aftermath a “teachable moment.”

Kearney sought to extract opinion from the commissioners about the need for or likelihood of an update of the Communications Act that steers their decision-making. Analysts acknowledge that Congressional action on such legislation is not currently on the drawing board.

Related: Net-Neutrality Bill Is Longest of Long Shots

O’Rielly said that a new law would mean the FCC wouldn’t have to “parse out meaning” from the 1934 communications legislation and subsequent laws.

Clyburn said she is hopeful that Congress will move in a way to recognize what the FCC, although she added, “We’re not going to get a blueprint of everything that comes before us.”

At an earlier session, Federal Trade Commission chair Maureen Ohlhausen assured the audience that the FTC is ready to play a larger role in enforcing Open Internet regulations that are part of the FCC’s repeal of Title II classification.

“From the advent of the Internet until 2015, the FTC played an active role," she said. “Now that the Open Internet order was put out, eventually the authority is going to come back to the FTC.”

CTA president Gary Shapiro, who interviewed Ohlhausen on stage, said, “No other session in CES history has gotten as much pre-show attention” as the expected Pai participation.

Shapiro characterized CTA’s stance on net neutrality as "very complex in terms of nuance.” He said that he believes Republicans and Democrats agree on “the most fundamental basic principle” that consumers should be able to get whatever they want.

The European Union has given a thumbs up to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in its first annual review of the framework for protecting cross-border data flows.

The first annual report concluded the shield works, but could use some bolstering, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

"Overall the report shows that the Privacy Shield continues to ensure an adequate level of protection for the personal data transferred from the EU to participating companies in the U.S. The U.S. authorities have put in place the necessary structures and procedures to ensure the correct functioning of the Privacy Shield, such as new redress possibilities for EU individuals," the report concluded. "Complaint-handling and enforcement procedures have been set up, and cooperation with the European Data protection authorities has been stepped up," it said. "The certification process is functioning well - over 2,400 companies have now been certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce. As regards access to personal data by U.S. public authorities for national security purposes, relevant safeguards on the U.S. side remain in place."

LeBlanc Tapped As Privacy Shield Arbitrator

Among the recommendations for bolstering the shield include "more proactive and regular monitoring of companies' compliance with their Privacy Shield obligations by the U.S. Department of Commerce," appointing an ombudsperson and filling vacancies on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

The report will be distributed to the European Parliament and U.S. authorities for follow-up on the recommendations.

The White House had predicted the positive review. Last month, press secretary Sarah Sanders said: "We firmly believe that the upcoming review will demonstrate the strength of the American promise to protect the personal data of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic."

The privacy shield replaces the safe harbor agreement that a European Union court invalidated in October 2015 over concerns about the U.S. being able to hold up its end of the agreement given the government surveillance revealed by the Edward Snowden leaks. The voluntary framework requires companies to provide notice of what personal information is being collected and stored, the purposes it is used for, and an "opt out" mechanism.

“We welcome the positive outcome of the first EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Annual Review," said Federal Trade Commission Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen. "Enforcing international privacy frameworks such as Privacy Shield is an integral part of our Privacy and Data Security program, as highlighted in three recently announced Privacy Shield enforcement actions. We look forward to continuing to work with our European counterparts to ensure that the Privacy Shield remains a robust mechanism for protecting privacy and enabling transatlantic data flows.”

"We applaud, and are relieved by, the positive review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield," said ACT | The App Association President Morgan Reed. "We support the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield as a model framework to foster cross-border data flows and secure privacy protections. Our small business members are among the 2,400 businesses that depend on Privacy Shield certification to engage with and access customers throughout the EU. Their growth and success hinges on the ability to protect consumer privacy, and maintain consumer trust. We will continue to work with U.S. government entities to ensure the Privacy Shield and its commitments are upheld."

WASHINGTON — It’s been like rush hour inside the Beltway as internet service providers get in what they hope are their parting shots at Title II classification, and defenders of the common carrier-based rules try to warn of impending doom if the reclassification is reclassified back to Title I.

Meanwhile, Hill Republicans continue to try to push for bipartisan legislation, which is the only kind that will fly in the Senate, where the real action is likely to take place. Here are five key takeaways from that rush of activity.

Closing Time: The Federal Communications Commission’s deadline for filing comments passed Aug. 30, with almost 22 million comments filed since the docket opened July 3. The FCC’s unwillingness to expurgate the comments led to more four-letter words being offered for public consumption by the FCC than would be found in a decade’s worth of indecency complaints against broadcasters.

And while the docket is officially closed, the FCC will continue to accept input. It is just that the late comments will not be included in the official record upon which the FCC is supposed to base its decision.

Numbers Game: A new analysis filed with the FCC last week found that of those almost 22 million comments, the vast majority were either duplicates or of dubious origin. The analysis, which was conducted by analytics company Emprata for the ISP-backed group Broadband for America, found that of the 21.766 million comments assessed, more than 20.684 million “appear to be artificial, international filings, form letters and duplicative submissions.”

Apple Backs Core ’Net Protections: In Apple’s first public position on the issue — it has kept its net-neutrality cards close to the vest — the company signaled it was open to considering a non-Title II path as long as it was a legally sustainable route to the same protections the current rules provide.

“Apple remains open to alternative sources of legal authority, but only if they provide for strong, enforceable and legally sustainable protections, like those in place today,” the company said, according to a copy of the filing, billed as its first FCC filing in the proceeding.

Those protections currently in place are no blocking, throttling or paid prioritization, which some ISPs have argued can be legally sustained using non-Title II authority, and Maureen Ohlhausen, the Federal Trade Commission’s acting chair, argued can be enforced by the agency on a case-by-case basis. Net-neutrality activists say no way. Apple’s support of no paid “fast lanes” coincides with its heavying up in the online video business.

FTC to the Rescue: Ohlhausen said last week that the agency has the muscle to protect against harmful online conduct. In an op-ed in The Hill newspaper, Ohlhausen said that if the FCC repeals what she called heavy-handed net-neutrality regulation, the FTC would be there to pursue harmful conduct on a case-by-case basis, along with state attorneys general and private plaintiffs — the FTC’s power is to file suit against companies it concludes have broken their pledges.

She said a case-by-case approach “better protects consumers and promotes innovation because it focuses agency resources on actual consumer injury and doesn’t require regulators to predict the future.”

View From the Hill: The House Energy & Commerce Committee postponed its planned Sept. 7 hearing on net neutrality — “indefinitely,” suggested one source — and the prospects for congressional action remain cloudy at best.

Republicans are trying to get both sides together on a bill, but sources said Democrats have not been part of those talks and aren’t feeling the bipartisan love. A bipartisan House bill is needed to avoid being stymied in the Senate, where a single senator — like, say, Title II cheerleader Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — could hold it up.

The House hearing is said to have been postponed because neither ISPs nor edge providers wanted to send their CEOs, which had been the request from committee chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.), instead sending their association heads to make their respective pitches.

D. Bruce Hoffman has been named acting director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition.

Hoffman will join the agency Aug. 17. He succeeds Tad Lipsky, who retired July 3.

Hoffman is currently a partner at Shearman & Sterling, where she has been global co-head of the antitrust group.

“Bruce brings tremendous qualifications to his new role as acting director of the Bureau of Competition, and I am thrilled he will be joining us in August,” Ohlhausen said.

Ir will be a homecoming for Hoffman, who is former deputy director of the bureau.

"My priorities as acting chairman are to ensure the FTC protects competition and promotes free-market principles, while reducing regulatory burdens on legitimate businesses," Ohlhausen said. "Bruce will be instrumental in ensuring that the agency achieves these goals.”

Earlier this week Ohlhausen named an acting Economics Bureau director and acting chief technologist.

Federal Trade Commission Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen has joined FTC bureaus in backing FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Title II and review the 2015 Open Internet order rules, and even argues that net neutrality activism is a governor on ISP actions and a reason Title II is not needed.

Ohlhausen filed separate comments, but said they were in agreement with those of the Consumer Protection, Competition and Economics bureaus.

Rolling back Title II would restore the FTC's authority to regulate ISPs, which Ohlhausen says would allow the FTC to apply its expertise on privacy and data security.

RELATED: FTC Names Acting Chief Technologist

Ohlhausen went beyond the bureau comments to argue that one of the market forces that will remain in place if FCC regs are rolled back, and which incentivize firms to hew to "non-pecuniary" values, meaning not simply serving the bottom line, is "the capability of advocacy groups to rally grassroots action for various 'net neutrality' causes.

"This advocacy serves as a strong constraint on the ability of BIAS providers to violate norms these groups support," she told the FCC. "Indeed, the potent reactions to past actions by BIAS providers have demonstrated the potential of such market feedback mechanisms to affect firm behavior."

Maureen Ohlhausen, acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, has named Neil Alan Chilson acting chief technologist.

Chilson has been an attorney advisor in Ohlhausen's office, principally on tech, privacy and data security.

RELATED: FTC Competition Bureau Chief Retires

Before that he was at law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer.

“Neil has spent his career at this intersection and has been a valuable contributor to the FTC’s technology-related work," said Ohlhausen. "I am pleased to have his technical expertise and policy experience available to the Commission in this new role.”

A group of privacy advocates have asked the Federal Trade Commission to act on a complaint against MVPDs' collection and use of subscribers' personal information.

The group filed a complaint a year ago charging that Comcast, AT&T and Cablevision (owned by Altice USA) were not providing adequate disclosure of their collection and marketing of customers' personal information gleaned from set-top boxes.

In a letter dated June 12, those groups -- Public Knowledge, Center for Digital Democracy, TURN–The Utility Reform Network, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Action and Consumer Federation of America -- urged the FTC to act on the complaint.

An intervening court decision -- FTC v. AT&T Mobility -- cast doubt on the FTC's authority to act on the privacy practices of the non-common carrier businesses of common carriers; AT&T, Comcast and Cablevision are all ISPs under Title II classification at the moment.

But they pointed out in the letter to FTC chair Maureen Ohlhausen that the even-more-recent decision by that court has vacated the earlier decision, so the FTC is now free to act on the complaint, and should.

Related > FCC to Court: FTC Common-Carrier Exemption Is Activity Based

"You have underscored the important role that the FTC plays as an expert cop on the privacy beat, and now that the AT&T Mobility decision has been vacated, it is time for the FTC to do some policing." they wrote. "We ask that you now publicly and expeditiously resolve the pending complaint concerning cable TV and satellite TV privacy, an area of joint jurisdiction with the FCC."

Related > Court Throws Out Throttling Case Against AT&T Mobility

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last month agreed to an en banc (full court) review of its three-judge panel decision that left the Federal Trade Commission's authority to oversee privacy in some circumstances very much in doubt. The court also said that in the interim that panel decision was not to be cited as precedent of the Ninth Circuit. Such en banc review is unusual, but the decision had prompted a lot of attention given that potential consumer privacy impact.

The Federal Trade Commission has launched an effort to streamline the agency's process.

The effort comes under the directive of acting chair Maureen Ohlhausen and in the spirit of an executive order to that effect to federal agencies by President Donald Trump -- "spirit" because independent agencies such as the FTC, and the FCC as well, are not bound by executive orders. An FTC spokesperson was checking at press time but that has generally been the theory about executive orders and independent agencies.

Related: FTC's Ohlhausen Says Agency Should Focus on Real Harms

But both agencies are under the executive branch, both headed by Trump appointees, who are both cut from a deregulatory cloth, and both have gotten into the spirit of process reforms.

Related: FCC's Pai Institutes More Process Reforms

“I welcomed the President’s directive," Ohlhausen said, "and we’re already working hard to achieve it. The FTC will continue to pursue the right answer for consumers, but we will work hard to get there as efficiently as we can."

She said the agency will better focus its resources in the interests of taxpayers.

She said Monday that already underway are streamline information "demands" in competition and consumer protection investigations to (1) eliminate "unnecessary costs" to companies and individuals; (2) close "older" investigations where possible; (3) identity "unnecessary regulations no longer in the public interest; (3) review data security investigations that are now closed to improve guidance and transparency; (4) integrate economic expertise earlier in investigations for the sake of consumer welfare; and (5) seek input across the agency on other reforms.

FCC chair Ajit Pai is also trying to bake economics into FCC processes.

Ohlhausen said Monday (April 17) that those are only the first steps, echoing a theme of the Trump Administration.

"[I]mproving efficiency and productivity never stops in the private sector, government should operate no differently," she said.

FCC chair Ajit Pai and FTC chair Maureen Ohlhausen took to the electronic pages of The Washington Post late Tuesday to defend the rollback of the FCC's broadband privacy regulations, a move Congress enabled last week through a Congressional Review Act resolution and President Donald Trump made official with the stroke of a pen earlier this week.

In a co-bylined op ed, Pai and Ohlhausen said "professional lobbyists" had lit a wildfire of misinformation, which the two agency chairs wanted to quell  by stating "what's really going on."

They said the "Chicken Little" warnings made no sense, but that restoring broadband privacy oversight to the FTC did. That could happen either by removing the FTC exemption from regulating common carriers or by reclassifying ISPs so they are not considered common carriers under Title II or by doing both.

Pai has long argued that Title II reclassification of ISPs under the Open Internet order, which is how the FCC deeded itself broadband privacy oversight, was a mistake in need of correcting.

They said that despite "hyperventillating headlines," ISPS have never planned to sell browsing histories to third parties -- something ISPs were saying this week and have pledged not to do in voluntary privacy principles.

Pai and Ohlhausen also pledged to come up with a new system for protecting consumer privacy.

They took aim at the FCC approach, which required ISPs to get permission to share Web, app and geolocation data with third parties while edge providers -- under the FTC's privacy-by-design regulatory approach -- did not have to get that permission, as well as the argument that disparate treatment was justified due to ISPs' unique gatekeeper status or the lack of competition for service.

"If two online companies have access to the same data about your Internet usage, why should the federal government give one company greater leeway to use it than the other?" they wrote, citing privacy policy expert Peter Swire.

"As Peter Swire, President Bill Clinton’s chief counselor for privacy and President Barack Obama’s special assistant for economic policy, explained in a paper he co-wrote for Georgia Tech’s Institute for Information Security and Privacy, 'ISPs have neither comprehensive nor unique access to information about users’ online activity. Rather, the most commercially valuable information about online users ... is coming from other contexts,' such as social-media interactions and search terms," they said.

That would be the Googles and Facebooks of the world, the edge providers that don't need opt-in permission.

As for lack of competition, they argued that doesn't hold up, either.

"As a result, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Congress decided to disapprove the FCC’s unbalanced rules," they said.

"The American people deserve a comprehensive framework that will protect their privacy throughout the Internet," they added. "And that’s why we’ll be working together to restore the FTC’s authority to police ISPs’ privacy practices."

The Copyright Alliance, which represents content creators, has asked President Donald Trump to stand up for copyright protections here and abroad, pointing out he has a personal interest in that protection.

One sign that the President, whose own copyrights include NBC's The Apprentice, may already be listening was his reported selection of Maureen Ohlhausen as interim Federal Trade Commission chair. She said Monday that "anything we are doing that is devaluing intellectual property rights inappropriately...will actually hurt the U.S economy and innovation down the road."

In a letter to the president Monday (Jan. 23), the group pointed to Trump's own IP.

"Throughout the long history of our country, few, if any, presidents have had a more sizable and diverse copyright portfolio than you," the group wrote. "Your experiences as a businessman have afforded you insights into the value and importance of copyright and how copyright protections help drive the U.S. economy and create millions of well-paying jobs and small businesses."

It said that it's important for copyright owners to get free-market value for their work, free of undue government regulations, and in the limited cases where the government does deem it necessary to set royalties, that fair-market value still applies.

Trump ran on a platform of boosting U.S. companies and cutting regulations, so unless there is a populist hiccup in that trajectory, he should be on the same page as the Copyright Alliance.

The "interplay" of three pending FCC issues -- the "unlocked" set-top box proposal, privacy rules and "the ultimate resolution of  net neutrality -- is impeding cable industry development and improperly putting "a government imprimatur on the notion of competition," NCTA president/CEO Michael Powell said March 23 at the Free State Foundation’s Eighth Annual Telecom Policy Conference.

Expanding his criticism of several FCC initiatives, Powell cited the agency's "biases [towards] the development of tech companies" that "makes it possible for tech companies to invade our traditional areas" but prohibits cable firms from moving in  their direction. 

He singled out the recent privacy proposal that would affect Internet Service Providers (including cable operators) in different ways than it would impact content or application suppliers.

"Privacy is not controversial; it is the hypocritical inconsistency that is controversial," Powell said.  "You cannot describe that data collection and monetization is the justification for this level of rules while ignoring the fact that [similar actions] take place on every other platform that consumers use."

Powell challenged the FCC to find a way to differentiate "between the value of privacy and personalization" without taking a heavy-handed approach.

He also slammed the set-top box proceeding, saying that it "perfectly encapsulates government intervention."

"You cannot find one soul who doesn't recognize that there is no market that is shifting more than video delivery," Powell emphasized.  He said cable has lost 50% of its market share to new entrants, referring to telco TV and over-the-top operators. "This market is on fire."  He called the FCC's STB plan a "rent transfer" decision and an "unrestrained violation" of its role.

"All costs will be borne by customers," Powell said. He pointed out that the proposal will take at least five years to implement, "by which time the market will have changed."  The commission should not "pick winners and losers," Powell said.

His criticisms came during a panel of association executives discussing "Hot-Topic Communications Issues," part of a day-long program that included FCC commissioners Michael O'Rielly and Mignon Clyburn plus Federal Trade Commission member Maureen Ohlhausen. FSF's intent was to explore "the FCC and the rule of law," although many of the speakers focused on perceived abuses of power.

Even FCC general counsel Jonathan Sallet, in a conversation with FSF president Randolph May that was centered on procedural processes at the commission, conceded that "more direct conversations between commissioners would be a very helpful step."  Sallet, who recommended changes to sunshine laws "so that commissioners can deliberate," acknowledged that the FCC could use more input on many topics it is reviewing.

"Sometimes we know issues are in flux and we need to know more," he said.

Right-leaning FSF's agenda began with politicized rhetoric when keynoter Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)  lambasted the FCC and singled out chairman Tom Wheeler as "a bull in a china shop."  Blackburn, vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a member of its Communications and Technology Subcommittee, characterized the FCC staff as having "failed to exercise regulatory humility," citing its recent effort to oversee privacy, which she said is the FTC's responsibility.

"The FCC does not have the necessary expertise to oversee privacy," she said.  "It is arguing for a solution that is one-sided and focused only on one part of the Internet ecosystem."  

Blackburn also plowed into the issues of unlocked set-top boxes and municipal broadband, citing that Memphis "is $27 million in the hole" from its flirtation with such plans, and "the list of failures goes on and on."

"It's the government's job is to create an environment that encourages competition, not to create a system where the government is the competition," she said. "If the state decides to create broadband networks, so be it, but "the FCC has no right" to butt in.

As for the open STB issue -- which she referred to under the old "All-Vid" name -- Blackburn said, "Nashville content creators are absolutely baffled by what the FCC is trying to do." She contended that the FCC plan would encourage theft and could create conflict between FCC policy and business contracts between content producers and carriers.

"It has created a tremendous amount of confusion," Blackburn said.

"The FCC's decision-making has frustrated content makers, the telecom industry and policy makers," she concluded, emphasizing that telecom "has thrived under light-touch regulation."

Diplomatic Commissioners

FSF's May sought to explore possibilities for less politicization and more "collegiality" among FCC commissioners during his "fireside chat" with O'Rielly and Clyburn, with a series of "can't we all just get along" questions.  Both officials initially tried to be cordial.

O'Rielly: "I get along with my colleagues very well. ... I try not to let one issue color my feelings about the next one."

Clyburn: "My compass is serving the public interest. We're not in a vacuum." 

And then they got into specifics, where political polarization quickly emerged.  They disagreed on the STB plan.

"Words have meaning," O'Rielly said about the chairman's perception that software is part of the STB revision. "When Congress wrote 'equipment,' it didn't mean 'software.'"  The direction toward applications and software has nothing to do with the statute and is "problematic," he added.

Clyburn insisted that "Congress envisioned a robust marketplace...whatever the interface is."  She said that the plan is focused on "whether this is a non-competitive marketplace."

Similarly, on the privacy issue, O'Rielly pointed out that "our expertise, the number of people at the FCC working on privacy is small, compared with expertise at the FTC."  Clyburn said she doesn't use the word "duplicate" but rather focuses on "context," considering the two agencies' efforts "complementary."

"We work together to insure that expectations are met," Clyburn said.

And again when discussing the Open Internet situation, she emphasized "flexibility and innovation," while O'Rielly insisted, "You can never have certainty when you have no structure." 

"That's what the chairman created under the 'net neutrality rule," O'Rielly said.

They also sparred over proposals for "lifeline" services.  O'Rielly said he prefers "a hard budget rather than a [percentage] cap," while Clyburn insisted that the plan "removed duplicates, put in discipline and [provided] a lot of accountability."

The panel of association executives, which included (in addition to NCTA's Powell) CTIA president/CEO Meredith Baker; U.S. Telecom Association president/CEO Walter McCormick; NARUC general counsel Brad Ramsay; and Nicol Turner-Lee, VP of the Multicultural, Media, Telecom and Internet Council, continued the blast of the FCC rulemakings and its process.

Regarding muni cable, Ramsey said, "The FCC is telling the state what to do." He predicted if the Sixth Circuit appeals court in Cincinnati, which is reviewing challenges by Tennessee and North Carolina to the FCC's muni cable ruling, sides with the FCC,  the case is likely to go to the Supreme Court and it will be reversed.

McCormick focused on FCC decisions that are "slowing investment in the industry. "

"We've seen that in every year since the recession, there were increase in broadband investment up until Title II," he said, referring to the FCC's 2014 ruling to regulate broadband.  McCormick said that annual investment growth for the industry dropped from 9% to almost nothing, contending that the privacy issue has further muddied the financial market's view of telecom. He criticized FCC policies as thwarting "the full development of the telecom industry."

The CTIA's Baker focused on 5G (fifth generation) wireless as a "life-changing technology," calling it the "high-speed spectrum frontier." She emphasized the Internet of Things opportunities.

Most of the panelists were also critical of President Obama's intervention in the net -neutrality decision rulemaking which led to the now-contested Title II decision.

"It sets a bad precedent," Powell said. "Future administrations will use it as a precedent.  We might as well have a Secretary of Communications."

At an afternoon session wrapping up the "rule of law" theme, AT&T senior VP Robert Quinn promoted the value of a revision of the Communications Act.

"We have to go back to the drawing board," he said. "The Act really doesn't contemplate the kinds of things we're doing differently with the Internet.  We compete with everyone."

FSF's May said that this year's event was the best-attended conference in its eight years.