The FCC should delay its planned Feb. 26 vote on net neutrality, House Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said in a statement Tuesday. “Allegations that the White House may have pressured Chairman Wheeler to adopt Title II Net Neutrality regulations are troubling,” Blackburn said. “This was supposed to be an open process. We have watched the FCC go through a lengthy notice and comment period only to learn that the rules may have been written behind closed doors at the White House.” Other lawmakers plan to gather for a net neutrality briefing in favor of the FCC action. The National Hispanic Media Coalition is co-hosting that briefing with Presente.org, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Media Action Grassroots Network, set for noon Thursday in B-338 Rayburn. Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairman Keith Ellison, D-Mich., is expected to attend.
The Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act was reintroduced Tuesday by Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a joint news release said. The bill is the Senate version of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s, R-Va., Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (HR-235) and would ban taxes on Internet access permanently (see 1501090042). Without the bill, “access to information would no longer be tax-free,” Wyden said in the release. ITFFA would “encourage more American innovators and entrepreneurs to use broadband to develop the next big thing,” Thune said. The Senate bill has 39 co-sponsors; HR-235 has 29 House co-sponsors. CTIA and USTelecom applauded the Senate bill in statements Tuesday.
Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., hasn't prejudged whether the White House wrongly influenced the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding, he told us Tuesday. Johnson pressured FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Monday about whether the White House interfered, sending a letter to Wheeler (see 1502090049). “It’s kind of the first step,” Johnson said. “But we still want to find out what extent his change of heart was actually his own or was it influenced by the White House. It’s supposed to be an independent agency. So we’re trying to find the information we want to find, the communication between himself and the White House, his agency and the White House, and see whether this truly was an independent act.” Johnson would defer any possible hearings or legislation, preferring to wait until the Feb. 20 deadline for his inquiry: “I’ll give the chairman a chance to respond.” Johnson isn't ruling out any actions, instead following the facts, a Republican Senate staffer told us. She predicted the FCC will face court scrutiny and changes under future FCC chairmen, creating uncertainty that will hurt the marketplace. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., was familiar with the inquiries in both the House and Senate letters and has also accused the administration of involving itself in the net neutrality debates. It’s “certainly within their purview to ask questions and I think they just want to get some answers,” Thune told us Tuesday of the letters from Johnson and House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. Johnson backs the legislative route Thune has outlined, the GOP staffer said, saying the FCC should defer to Congress.
The House Commerce Committee will mark up the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act (HR-734) this week. The Communications Subcommittee unanimously approved the legislation at a meeting last week (see 1502040036). Lawmakers will meet at 5 p.m. Wednesday in 2123 Rayburn for opening statements and then reconvene Thursday at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn to vote on the bill. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced a Senate companion last month.
Congress needs to resolve net neutrality issues through compromise bipartisan legislation, insisted Ev Ehrlich, a former undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton administration, in a Monday op-ed for Roll Call. He now advises ISPs and is a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. “Congress can cut this Gordian knot with ease, using its obvious power to pass new rules that create strong net neutrality policy without the excess baggage and uncertainty caused by Title II,” Ehrlich said. “Why go through years of litigation and the risk we end up right back where we started if the court sees things differently than the FCC (which it has already done twice on this very issue) when a simpler, cleaner, more stable answer is ready at the hand?” Ehrlich suggested legislation would create more enduring rules than what would come of the agency’s net neutrality order, to be voted on Feb. 26: “A 2016 Republican president would likely appoint an FCC chairman who would jettison the rules. Not going to the Congress for authority to impose neutrality is tantamount to an invitation -- a double-dog dare -- to do so.” Republicans have proposed draft legislation along the lines of what Ehrlich described, but Democrats warn that it includes loopholes and unnecessarily curtails FCC authority.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed the FCC on whether it has truly operated as an independent agency, asking several questions in a Friday letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Chaffetz inquired about the agency’s independence in developing its draft net neutrality order, on circulation now. “I am interested in hearing from the FCC on this matter, in particular how the FCC communicated with the White House and other Executive Branch agencies,” Chaffetz said. He asked for several documents, including visitor logs and meeting minutes chronicling interactions between administration and agency staff as well as other communications on this front. He requested the documents and available staffers for briefings by Feb. 20.
Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla., threatened legislation following the controversy around Verizon’s “supercookies,” a type of mobile tracking technology. The use of supercookies “raises the specter of corporations being able to peek into the habits of Americans without their knowledge or consent,” Nelson said in a statement Friday. “That’s why I think we need to get to the bottom of this and perhaps new legislation.” Nelson and other Senate Democrats wrote Verizon last month inquiring about the practice (see 1501300029). Friday, Nelson and Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., sent letters to the FCC and FTC asking them to scrutinize the practice. “As we consider whether legislation may be necessary to fully protect consumers from the use of these supercookies, we also believe the [FCC] should use its full existing statutory authority to examine these practices,” they told the FCC. “The use of these supercookies may implicate the Commission’s rules and policies related to consumer privacy and transparency.” They asked the FTC to “investigate Verizon’s disclosures to wireless customers with regard to its mobile tracking technology.” A Verizon spokesman said the company takes customers’ privacy seriously and it will respond to the letters. Verizon General Counsel Craig Silliman responded to the senators’ earlier inquiry to Verizon, in a Wednesday letter. “We never share information that individually identifies our customers with third parties and we give customers appropriate choices about whether and in what circumstances they will see advertising that is tailored to them,” Silliman said. “We are also sensitive to concerns raised by our customers, and we make changes to our programs to address their concerns.” The concerns followed revelations that Turn, a third-party online advertiser, was using the unique identifier headers (UIDH) of Verizon customers. “We have confirmed with all of our advertising partners that they will not use the UIDH to regenerate deleted browser cookies,” Silliman said. "Consumers expect that their private information remain just that: private,” emailed an FCC spokesman about the letter. “The Commission takes violations of consumer privacy extremely seriously. We have put in place robust rules to protect consumer privacy and regularly pursue enforcement for violations of those rules.”
Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., reintroduced his bill Thursday that would prevent authorities from abusing a cellphone kill switch. HR-791 would “prohibit the unauthorized remote shut down of a cellular phone,” its longer title said. Griffith pressed the issue in the last Congress in the bill known as the Cell Phone Freedom Act. His legislation didn't advance in the last Congress, as Griffith himself predicted (see 1409020045). The new bill has no co-sponsors and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, would be interested in seeing net neutrality legislation considered but there has to be a green light with both parties’ leadership first, a Democratic staffer told us Friday. There’s no real green light from Democratic leadership, the staffer said. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week that the bar for any legislation would be the net neutrality proposal put forth by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Green has opposed Communications Act Title II reclassification of broadband, which the FCC is planning to do in an order to be considered Feb. 26. Green has led multiple letters among Democrats slamming a Title II approach. The Capitol Hill Republicans preparing net neutrality legislation also strongly oppose Title II, and their legislation would codify net neutrality protections while limiting FCC reliance on Title II or Section 706. They have aggressively sought Democratic backers to no avail, they have said, with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., telling us the only chance of avoiding Title II is Democratic backing of the legislation (see 1501270044). Green has interest in a permanent legislative solution that could get bipartisan support, with a wide selection of stakeholders on board, the Democratic staffer said. There’s some potential support among Democrats, but there has to be a true partnership and a space to do it, he said. Title II reclassification may not be permanent if courts overturn it, he added. The staffer compared Green’s position to that of House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla. Both told us last week they would be very open to bipartisan negotiation on legislation following the FCC’s Feb. 26 vote (see 1502040047).
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., formally introduced the FCC Consolidated Reporting Act (HR-734) Wednesday. Its two co-sponsors are Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., and subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. The Communications Subcommittee unanimously cleared a version of the bill at a markup Wednesday. Walden had circulated it as a discussion draft early in the week (see 1502040036). Scalise and Eshoo had introduced a manager's amendment specifying the bill would not modify the FCC's authority over broadband, which the subcommittee approved.