Lawmakers can't ignore cost to innovation when considering stringent privacy regulations, said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Wednesday. Senior Policy Analyst Alan McQuinn and Vice President Daniel Castro said that if European digital advertising revenue grew at the same rate as in the U.S., the EU, where "strict privacy regulations reduce the revenue digital companies can earn from online ads," would have had an additional 11.7 billion euros flow through its digital ecosystem 2012-17. The report suggested a three-part test for adopting potential privacy regulations: Lawmakers should “target specific, substantial harms,” “directly limit those harms,” and “the costs of the regulations must be outweighed by their countervailing benefits.”

Lawmakers can't ignore cost to innovation when considering stringent privacy regulations, said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Wednesday. Senior Policy Analyst Alan McQuinn and Vice President Daniel Castro said that if European digital advertising revenue grew at the same rate as in the U.S., the EU, where "strict privacy regulations reduce the revenue digital companies can earn from online ads," would have had an additional 11.7 billion euros flow through its digital ecosystem 2012-17. The report suggested a three-part test for adopting potential privacy regulations: Lawmakers should “target specific, substantial harms,” “directly limit those harms,” and “the costs of the regulations must be outweighed by their countervailing benefits.”

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other supporters of a Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at reversing the FCC order to rescind 2015 net neutrality rules (Senate Joint Resolution-52) said Wednesday they remain hopeful they will pick up support from additional GOP senators before a final vote seen likely next week. Fifty senators publicly support the resolution -- all 49 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Markey filed a petition Wednesday to discharge the measure from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction, as expected (see 1804260030 and 1804300033), a final step in their bid to force a floor vote by a June 12 deadline.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other supporters of a Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at reversing the FCC order to rescind 2015 net neutrality rules (Senate Joint Resolution-52) said Wednesday they remain hopeful they will pick up support from additional GOP senators before a final vote seen likely next week. Fifty senators publicly support the resolution -- all 49 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Markey filed a petition Wednesday to discharge the measure from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction, as expected (see 1804260030 and 1804300033), a final step in their bid to force a floor vote by a June 12 deadline.

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.