Amy Schatz

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is visiting Silicon Valley to get an earful from the tech community about what they think about his network neutrality proposal.

Chairman Wheeler reportedly met with a group of venture capitalists for a roundtable discussion about net neutrality and is meeting with a group of startups today, according to a person with knowledge of the meetings. Among the attendees, representatives from Y Combinator, Mozilla, Andreessen Horowitz’s (and former DC mayor) Adrian Fenty, Homebrew’s Hunter Walk and Engine Advocacy, the public interest group which has been responsible for whipping up support among startups for net neutrality.

“An Open Internet is an essential foundation for startups to build upon so very glad that Chairman Wheeler is spending time in Silicon Valley meeting with entrepreneurs, tech execs and investors,” Walk said. Many of the people in the meetings represent companies that signed onto a letter raising concerns about Chairman Wheeler’s recent net neutrality proposal, which opens the door to allowing broadband providers to sell fast-lane service to content companies.

Wireless companies successfully convinced regulators in 2010 to keep mobile networks mostly free of network neutrality rules -- and it should stay that way, the mobile industry’s top lobbyist said.

Federal Communications Commission officials are looking into whether wireless networks should remain exempt from net neutrality rules under a controversial proposal released by Chairman Tom Wheeler. They’re currently seeking comments on how they might cover wireless networks under future net neutrality rules. Not surprisingly, mobile carriers aren’t thrilled by the prospect.

“Wireless is different … it is dependent on finite spectrum,” Meredith Attwell Baker, the new head of CTIA, the wireless industry’s lobbying arm, told reporters. Baker previously served as the top lobbyist for Comcast’s NBCUniversal* division, joining the company after serving as an FCC commissioner.

AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said he doesn’t see how regulators can approve a rumored deal by SoftBank’s Sprint to buy T-Mobile USA.

“The problem as I see it is the way the government shut our deal down. They wrote a complaint and a very specific complaint. You’re consolidating the industry from four to three national competitors,” Stephenson said. “If you think of Sprint and T-Mobile combining, I struggle to understand how that’s not four going to three,” Stephenson said.

Senate lawmakers expressed doubt about legislation to overhaul the National Security Agency’s bulk-data collection program as the US marked the first anniversary of surveillance revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In May, the House overwhelmingly passed the USA Freedom Act, legislation that would move bulk data collection from the NSA to phone companies. It’s not clear yet what the Senate will do about the legislation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that he “will fight for a stronger USA Freedom Act” which “bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability and improves transparency.” But members of another Senate committee with jurisdiction over the intelligence community -- the Senate Intelligence Committee -- took a dimmer view of the proposed NSA bulk data collection overhaul during a hearing on the legislation.

Senate Intelligence Committee members have often been more tolerant of the intelligence community’s surveillance efforts, so it’s not surprising members of both parties expressed reservations about the legislation. More notable will be what other Senators without ties to the intelligence community say about it. Several Republicans on the intelligence committee questioned whether changes are needed at all.

“We all need to step back and ask ourselves whether all of these changes are really necessary,” said Sen Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) during the hearing. Sen Dan Coats (R-IN) said “there has been significant misrepresentation of the current program” and urged his colleagues to make sure any legislation doesn’t “compromise our ability to detect and thwart threats against American citizens.”

Notably, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said the bipartisan House passage of the NSA bill sent “a very loud signal” to the Senate and said she believes her colleagues should look at the House legislation “with a view of its passage perhaps as amended through the Senate.”

SoftBank CEO and Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Son continued his unusual campaign to convince regulators to let him buy T-Mobile but criticizing the US wireless market, broadband speeds and regulation at the Code Conference.

“Regulation in this country is wrong,” Son said, saying that telecommunications and anti-trust regulators have allowed an environment in which “the monopolist can become even more stronger.” Americans are satisfied with their Internet speeds because they don’t know any better, Son said, comparing it to Chinese people who have grown used to living under gray, smoggy skies. While the US dominated the 20th century because of its robust infrastructure -- both highway and electricity -- it’s falling behind now, he said.

Although Son wouldn’t say the word T-Mobile -- he just referred to his desire to buy an American wireless carrier -- he said that regulators haven’t been very excited about talking to him about his possible deal.

“They don’t want to see me,” he said. “They don’t want to talk about things like this.” One thing they might want to talk about is Son’s comment that he “provide network neutrality” on his network if he’s allowed to buy T-Mobile.

There has been no shortage of outrage on the Internets about the Federal Communications Commission’s recent net neutrality proposal, which would allow broadband providers to offer fast-lane service to content companies. But do most people really care? A recent study by the Pew Research Center suggested that most Americans have no idea what net neutrality is or what all the fuss is about, since network and cable news shows have mostly ignored the debate.

According to Pew researchers, of the 2,820 news programs that aired on eight network and cable news channels from January thru May 12, just 25 programs mentioned the term net neutrality. Six of those programs were on Al Jazeera America which is, shall we say, thinly viewed.

Tech industry hopes of a solution to the problem of patent trolls became more elusive when lawmakers gave up on patent legislation after being unable to reach a compromise on some details.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), announced he’s pulling the patent troll legislation for the foreseeable future because of an inability to resolve some outstanding issues.

“Unfortunately, there has been no agreement on how to combat the scourge of patent trolls on our economy without burdening the companies and universities who rely on the patent system every day to protect their inventions,” Sen Leahy said.

Disagreement between tech companies and universities over “fee shifting,” or who pays the legal fees when patent troll lawsuits fail, has been a stumbling block for lawmakers.

The Federal Communications Commission will look into issues raised recently by Netflix and other companies about Internet traffic delivery, chairman Tom Wheeler said at a hearing, as he faced a bipartisan chorus of complaints about his recent net neutrality proposal.

Chairman Wheeler said that the FCC “needs to look at and will be looking at” an issue raised by Netflix about deals it has had to cut recently to get its traffic delivered more quickly to Comcast, Verizon and other Internet providers.

Content companies routinely enter into peering, or interconnection, agreements with middle-mile Internet providers to carry traffic more efficiently across the Internet so it can get to consumers more quickly. Netflix recently signed a paid deal to deliver traffic directly to Comcast’s network after customers complained about delayed videos.

[Commentary] Despite all the hand-wringing statements about network neutrality that Silicon Valley companies were shooting out, tech actually had a pretty good day in DC.

While Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s fast-lane/slow-lane net neutrality proposal was taking a beating on all sides (even Chairman Wheeler took a few whacks at it), Internet companies sneaked through a huge victory when the agency agreed to set aside up to three channels of TV airwaves for unlicensed use.

That doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it’s something that Google, Microsoft and other tech companies have spent years advocating.

The Internet Association, which represents Google, Facebook, Twitter and other Internet companies, said it will “advocate for the FCC to use its full legal authority to enforce rules that lead to an open Internet -- nothing should be taken off the table as this discussion evolves.”

And Netflix issued a statement saying, “Netflix is not interested in a fast lane; we’re interested in safeguarding an Open Internet.”

Was the FCC’s vote the victory that Internet companies wanted? No. But net neutrality advocates appear to be better positioned today to make the case for Title II than they were before.

In a surprise to no one, Internet service providers warned federal regulators that treating broadband like phone lines will stunt future investments and service upgrades.

Twenty-eight CEOs representing companies which provide Internet service to a majority of Americans sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission warning the agency against adopting more regulations of broadband lines. AT&T’s Randall Stephenson, Verizon’s Lowell McAdam, Comcast’s Brian Roberts, Cox Communication’s Patrick Esser and Brian Sweeney of Cablevision were among the signatories.

The letter, meant to strike back at net neutrality activists who have been pressing for the re-regulation of broadband lines, offers few new arguments in the debate but is a reminder to regulators that Internet providers won’t allow re-regulation of their lines without a fight.

“Reclassification of broadband Internet access offerings as Title II -- telecommunications services -- would impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy,” the companies warned. “An era of differentiation, innovation, and experimentation would be replaced with a series of ‘Government may I?’ requests from American entrepreneurs. That cannot be, and must not become, the US Internet of tomorrow.”