DISH Network will enter the US wireless market as the fourth nationwide facilities-based network competitor. DISH has reached agreements with the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, T-Mobile US, and Sprint to complete this transformative transaction. Additionally, DISH has committed to the Federal Communications Commission that DISH will deploy a facilities-based 5G broadband network capable of serving 70 percent of the U.S. population by June 2023, and has requested that its spectrum licenses be modified to reflect those commitments. DISH will:

• Acquire Sprint's prepaid businesses and customers, including Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile and the Sprint-branded prepaid service.
• Acquire 14 MHz of Sprint's nationwide 800 MHz spectrum.
• Access the New T-Mobile network for seven years, including the ability to serve DISH customers seamlessly between T-Mobile's nationwide network and DISH's new independent 5G broadband network.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) introduced the Modern Television Act of 2019, a bill to repeal outdated regulations of the 1992 Cable Act, including retransmission consent and compulsory copyright license, to increase competition in the TV marketplace and to better address perennial broadcast TV blackouts. The legislation:

• Extends the “Good Faith” negotiation requirements (that otherwise expire on December 31^st) and applies these requirements to small- and medium-sized cable operator buying groups. This will allow smaller competitors to band together in negotiations for programming and lower costs for consumers. (Effective 90 days after enactment.)
• Protects consumers from experiencing broadcast blackouts when MVPDs and broadcasters fail to extend an agreement by requiring MVPDs carry a broadcast signal while the parties continue negotiations for up to 60 days. Parties are retroactively paid for their content aired during this time. (Effective 90 days after enactment.)
• Repeals retransmission consent, compulsory copyright licenses, and several other outdated statutory provisions and regulations. This would allow free-market contract negotiations to happen under traditional copyright law. (Effective 42 months after enactment.)
• Establishes a mechanism by which the FCC may, but is not required to, compel parties to seek “baseball-style” binding arbitration through a neutral third-party arbitrator, following an extended impasse or a finding of bad faith. Consumers are protected from blackouts that otherwise would have occurred, and copyright holders are paid for their content during this process. (Effective 42 months after enactment.)
• Preempts federal, state, and local authority to regulate rates of cable services. (Effective 42 months after enactment.)
• Requires the Government Accountability Office to report specific metrics about the impact of this Act on consumer and the marketplace every two years. Based on the totality of these metrics the FCC must determine if this Act has had a net positive, net negative, or indeterminate impact on consumers and the marketplace. If the FCC finds a net negative impact, it must recommend specific policies for Congress to improve the marketplace.
• Ensures consumers have access to local programming by retaining the ability of a local television broadcast station to require carriage on cable and satellite providers in their local market. (Effective immediately, no change in law.)

Members of Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to review issues related to identity information associated with public comments on proposed rulemakings. This report examines (1) the identity information selected agencies collect through Regulations.gov and agency-specific comment websites, (2) the internal guidance selected agencies have related to the identity of commenters, (3) how selected agencies treat identity information collected during the public comment process, and (4) the extent to which selected agencies clearly communicate their practices associated with posting identity information collected during the public comment process.

While the public comment process allows interested parties to state their views about prospective rules, the lack of communication with the public about the way in which agencies treat identity information during the posting process, particularly for duplicate comments, may inhibit users’ meaningful participation in the rulemaking process. Without clearly communicating how comments and their associated identity information are presented in the data, public users could draw inaccurate conclusions about public comments during the rulemaking process, limiting their ability to participate in the rulemaking process.