Agenda

Top House Commerce Committee Democrats rebuked their GOP colleagues for failing to hold any oversight hearings of the Federal Communications Commission amid the FCC's efforts to strike network neutrality regulations.

Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA), the top Democrat on the technology subcommittee, suggested in a letter that House Republicans are trying to “shield the FCC from having to explain its push to install such unpopular policies,” like the repeal of net neutrality rules. “This Committee has an obligation to perform oversight on behalf of the American people and ensure that the American people understand the consequences of the FCC’s actions,” they wrote in the letter to full Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Net neutrality supporters preparing for July 12’s online protests to defend the set of rules enacted two years ago by the Federal Communications Commission are using the freedom of speech to bolster their case.

The Obama-era rules, codified in the 2015 Open Internet Order, aim to prevent internet service providers from blocking, slowing or otherwise unreasonably discriminating against content that end-users could access. On July 12, in response to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to undo the rules, a slew of prominent websites and companies intend to show their support for net neutrality. Similar protests against a crackdown on copyright violation in 2012 were able to help move the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act bills off the table through coordinated site “blackouts.” For the net neutrality fight, participants will use memes, push notifications, banner ads and other means to drive comments to the FCC’s website before a July 17 public comment deadline. “Wednesday’s day of action is only the beginning of a massive pushback against the effort to remove essential net neutrality protections,” said Chris Lewis, vice president at digital consumer rights group Public Knowledge by email Monday. “This is especially important when broadband providers are getting into a variety of other markets where they can prefer their services over competitors, from online payments and financing to security systems and competitive video offerings.”

July 12, AT&T will join the “Day of Action” for preserving and advancing an open internet. This may seem like an anomaly to many people who might question why AT&T is joining with those who have differing viewpoints on how to ensure an open and free internet. But that’s exactly the point – we all agree that an open internet is critical for ensuring freedom of expression and a free flow of ideas and commerce in the United States and around the world.

We agree that no company should be allowed to block content or throttle the download speeds of content in a discriminatory manner. So, we are joining this effort because it’s consistent with AT&T’s proud history of championing our customers’ right to an open internet and access to the internet content, applications and devices of their choosing.

Internet service providers have asked the Supreme Court for a 60-day extension of the deadline for filing their appeals to the Supreme Court of a DC federal appeals court decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission's Title II-based Open Internet order. They want an extension from July 30 to Sept. 28 in case the new FCC proposal to roll back Title II moots that appeal. Seeking the extension are NCTA–The Internet & Television Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, USTelecom, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink , Alamo Broadband, TechFreedom and various individuals including VoIP pioneer Daniel Berninger.

The FCC has sought comment on the proposal by the Republican FCC majority under chairman Ajit Pai to reclassify internet access—wired and wireless, fixed and mobile, customer facing and interconnections—as an information service not subject to Title II and to review whether rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization are necessary. Those comments are due July 17 (initial comments) and Aug. 16 (replies).

You are probably used to pop-ups on websites begging you to sign-up for an e-mail newsletter, enter a contest, or watch an ad. But tomorrow the web will be plastered in a different sort of pop-up as some the tech's biggest companies fight to maintain a free and open internet. July 12, sites across the web will place alerts on their pages encouraging people to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency not to jettison net neutrality. Hundreds of companies and organizations plan to participate in this so-called "Day of Action," from giants such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Netflix to Reddit, Etsy, PornHub, Spotify, and even some smaller internet service providers like Ting and Sonic. But not every company is equally committed to the cause of net neutrality. Here's where six internet giants stand on the issue, and what a world with fast and slow lanes might mean for them.

Microsoft will harness the unused channels between television broadcasts, known as white spaces, to help get more of rural America online.

In an event at the Willard Hotel in Washington, where Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated a coast-to-coast telephone call a century ago, Microsoft plans to say that it will soon start a white-spaces broadband service in 12 states including Arizona, Kansas, New York and Virginia to connect two million rural Americans in the next five years who have limited or no access to high-speed internet. Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, said white spaces were “the best solution for reaching over 80 percent of people in rural America who lack broadband today.” To support the white-spaces plan, Microsoft is appealing to federal and state regulators to guarantee the use of unused television channels and investments in promoting the technology in rural areas. But the company faces many hurdles with the technology.

Microsoft said its goal was not to become a telecom provider. It will work with local internet service providers like Mid-Atlantic Broadband Communities in Virginia and Axiom Technologies in Maine by investing in some of the capital costs and then sharing in revenue. It has also opened its patents on the technology and teamed with chip makers to make devices that work with white spaces cheaper.

With the July 12 Title II Day of Action protest targeting Internet service providers getting a lot of attention, Broadband for America (BFA), which backs and includes those ISPs, was pushing back with a backgrounder on why Title II fans are off base. BFA said the protestors will claim that the FCC wants to end network neutrality, that Title II is the only way to preserve an open internet, and that ISPs oppose net neutrality. Wrong, wrong and wrong said BFA.

It said ISPs strongly support an open internet and have pledged to support enforceable principles and legislation to permanently protect against "blocking or unreasonable discrimination." BFA says that the current Title II regime has led to a $3.6 billion decrease in infrastructure investment and puts the entire internet ecosystem at risk. While Title II fans say that is the only foolproof legal framework for protecting the internet, BFA said legislation "can pass" that will protect it without the "burdens and problems" of utility regulations.

A group of news organizations will begin an effort to win the right to negotiate collectively with the big online platforms – Facebook and Google -- and will ask for a limited antitrust exemption from Congress in order to do so.

It’s an extreme measure with long odds. But the industry considers it worth a shot, given its view that Google and Facebook, regardless of their intentions, are posing a bigger threat economically than President Trump is (so far) with his rhetoric. That’s how David Chavern, the chief executive of the News Media Alliance, put it. The Alliance, the main newspaper industry trade group, is leading the effort to bargain as a group. But it has buy-in across the spectrum of its membership, bringing together competitors like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, as well as scores of regional papers like The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, which face the gravest threats.

The small army of career antitrust officials is marching toward a great unknown. For one thing, the Justice Department officials still don’t have a boss who will have the final say on whether to approve or block AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner.

President Trump’s pick for assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust matters, Makan Delrahim, has been held up in a logjam of nominees in the Senate. And President Donald Trump himself, who said during the 2016 campaign that he opposed the deal, is another wild card. A senior administration official said that members of the White House were discussing how they might use their perch over the merger review as leverage over Time Warner’s news network, CNN. All of that has effectively put into limbo the most significant business deal before the Trump administration, a benchmark for business transactions going forward. In turn, that has cast a cloud over the business world, which is watching the lengthy regulatory process with intense interest.

The Federal Communications Commission is opening up the docket on the Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s proposed acquisition of Tribune Media for the public to weigh in. The FCC is currently reviewing the $3.9 billion deal between the two media companies to determine if it is in the “public interest.” Parties interested in making their case regarding the merger heard can, as of July 6, make “ex parte” presentations to the FCC, which will be publicly disclosed on the agency’s website. The presentations can come in the form of oral or written arguments.

Critics of the deal have argued it might harm the public by significantly consolidating the local news media market, where both Sinclair and Tribune have large holdings. In its public notice, the FCC said the merger would slightly exceed the 39 percent national audience reach limit. The companies, however, have told the FCC that they “will take such actions to the extent required to comply with the terms of the Merger Agreement and the national television ownership limit (including the UHF Discount), in order to obtain FCC approval of the Transaction.”