Two groups that favor FCC rescission of 2015 net neutrality rules spoke out Monday against a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval aimed at reversing the order. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is expected to file a petition Wednesday to discharge the resolution (Senate Joint Resolution-52) from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction, setting up a bid to force a floor vote (see 1804260030 and 1804300033). House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., is spearheading the measure in the House (House Joint Resolution-129). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation advocated Monday for “bipartisan compromise” legislation that mirrors elements of its earlier 2015 “grand bargain” proposal as a contrast to the CRA approach (see 1510290040). The Institute for Policy Innovation said the resolution “is an abuse of the CRA process.” It “is clear from the legislative history of the CRA that the intent of the law was to give Congress an opportunity to overturn ‘new rules,’ not to restore” rules as lawmakers intend with the net neutrality measure, IPI President Tom Giovanetti said. “Such misuse of the CRA would be contrary to the spirit of the law, because the FCC’s 2017 action was itself a review and repeal” of the 2015 rules. “It would be contrary to the letter of the law, in that the CRA can only be used to overturn rules, not orders," the group said: “Courts would likely find that the Order itself would survive a CRA challenge” but could overturn an accompanying transparency rule that supporters of the 2015 net neutrality rule back. “Instead of relying on near-impossible mechanisms (or risky political bets) to restore deeply flawed rules, policymakers should be negotiating in earnest to end the debate on net neutrality,” said ITIF Director-Telecom Policy Doug Brake. “Instead of focusing narrowly on net neutrality issues, expand the scope of legislation to include funding for broadband adoption and digital-literacy programs, while at the same time establishing baseline rules to protect and promote the open Internet.” It “is in both parties’ interest to end the national nightmare that is the net neutrality wars, particularly given only a small number of hardcore” advocates of Communications Act Title II-backed net neutrality rules “vociferously resist such a bipartisan legislative solution,” the proposal said.

Two groups that favor FCC rescission of 2015 net neutrality rules spoke out Monday against a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval aimed at reversing the order. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is expected to file a petition Wednesday to discharge the resolution (Senate Joint Resolution-52) from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction, setting up a bid to force a floor vote (see 1804260030 and 1804300033). House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., is spearheading the measure in the House (House Joint Resolution-129). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation advocated Monday for “bipartisan compromise” legislation that mirrors elements of its earlier 2015 “grand bargain” proposal as a contrast to the CRA approach (see 1510290040). The Institute for Policy Innovation said the resolution “is an abuse of the CRA process.” It “is clear from the legislative history of the CRA that the intent of the law was to give Congress an opportunity to overturn ‘new rules,’ not to restore” rules as lawmakers intend with the net neutrality measure, IPI President Tom Giovanetti said. “Such misuse of the CRA would be contrary to the spirit of the law, because the FCC’s 2017 action was itself a review and repeal” of the 2015 rules. “It would be contrary to the letter of the law, in that the CRA can only be used to overturn rules, not orders," the group said: “Courts would likely find that the Order itself would survive a CRA challenge” but could overturn an accompanying transparency rule that supporters of the 2015 net neutrality rule back. “Instead of relying on near-impossible mechanisms (or risky political bets) to restore deeply flawed rules, policymakers should be negotiating in earnest to end the debate on net neutrality,” said ITIF Director-Telecom Policy Doug Brake. “Instead of focusing narrowly on net neutrality issues, expand the scope of legislation to include funding for broadband adoption and digital-literacy programs, while at the same time establishing baseline rules to protect and promote the open Internet.” It “is in both parties’ interest to end the national nightmare that is the net neutrality wars, particularly given only a small number of hardcore” advocates of Communications Act Title II-backed net neutrality rules “vociferously resist such a bipartisan legislative solution,” the proposal said.

The House Communications Subcommittee will re-enter the net neutrality debate Tuesday via a long-expected hearing on paid prioritization and other forms of data prioritization (see 1712120037, 1804030024 and 1804100057), though lawmakers and lobbyists differed on the extent to which the panel could result in a consensus on the contentious policy issue. Hill Republicans are urging all parties to reach a compromise on legislation, after the FCC's December order to rescind its 2015 net neutrality rules, while Democrats are emphasizing legal challenges and legislation aimed at reversing the FCC's action. The House Communications hearing is to begin at 10:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.

The House Communications Subcommittee will re-enter the net neutrality debate Tuesday via a long-expected hearing on paid prioritization and other forms of data prioritization (see 1712120037, 1804030024 and 1804100057), though lawmakers and lobbyists differed on the extent to which the panel could result in a consensus on the contentious policy issue. Hill Republicans are urging all parties to reach a compromise on legislation, after the FCC's December order to rescind its 2015 net neutrality rules, while Democrats are emphasizing legal challenges and legislation aimed at reversing the FCC's action. The House Communications hearing is to begin at 10:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.

Policymakers should avoid data-protection regulations that inadvertently limit artificial intelligence (AI), ITIF President Rob Atkinson said Tuesday, delivering a report during a G7 ministerial meeting in Montreal. Laws and other regulations that “apply restrictive standards to automated decisions that would not apply to human decisions would raise costs and limit AI innovation, as well as force a trade-off with the accuracy and sophistication of AI systems,” said the report.

Policymakers should avoid data-protection regulations that inadvertently limit artificial intelligence (AI), ITIF President Rob Atkinson said Tuesday, delivering a report during a G7 ministerial meeting in Montreal. Laws and other regulations that “apply restrictive standards to automated decisions that would not apply to human decisions would raise costs and limit AI innovation, as well as force a trade-off with the accuracy and sophistication of AI systems,” said the report.

Policymakers should avoid data-protection regulations that inadvertently limit artificial intelligence (AI), ITIF President Rob Atkinson said Tuesday, delivering a report during a G7 ministerial meeting in Montreal. Laws and other regulations that “apply restrictive standards to automated decisions that would not apply to human decisions would raise costs and limit AI innovation, as well as force a trade-off with the accuracy and sophistication of AI systems,” said the report.

President Donald Trump’s signing of a memorandum Thursday proposing tariffs on about $60 billion worth of Chinese goods imported to the U.S. didn’t detail for now which specific products would be targeted. But CTA President Gary Shapiro wasted little time in warning the tariffs would threaten to put “a new tax on U.S. businesses” and force consumers “to pay dramatically more to access the technology products they need.”

President Donald Trump’s signing of a memorandum Thursday proposing tariffs on about $60 billion worth of Chinese goods imported to the U.S. didn’t detail for now which specific products would be targeted. But CTA President Gary Shapiro wasted little time in warning the tariffs would threaten to put “a new tax on U.S. businesses” and force consumers “to pay dramatically more to access the technology products they need.”

President Donald Trump’s signing of a memorandum Thursday proposing tariffs on about $60 billion worth of Chinese goods imported to the U.S. didn’t detail for now which specific products would be targeted. But CTA President Gary Shapiro wasted little time in warning the tariffs would threaten to put “a new tax on U.S. businesses” and force consumers “to pay dramatically more to access the technology products they need.”