Upcoming policy issue

On July 19, 2017, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to examine the nominations of Ajit Pai, Jessica Rosenworcel, and Brendan Carr for seats on the Federal Communications Commission.

On March 7, President Donald Trump nominated Pai, the FCC’s current chairman, for a second five-year term ending June 30, 2021. Rosenworcel is nominated for a term that would end June 30, 2020. Carr, the current general counsel at the FCC, has actually been nominated for two terms, one expiring June 30, 2018 and the second ending June 30, 2023. Carr served as legal adviser to then-FCC Commissioner Pai for three years before Pai was named chairman and appointed Carr as general counsel.

Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) characterized the hearing as both an examination of the nominees and a FCC oversight hearing, “fulfilling a commitment I’ve made to hold regular, biannual oversight hearings of the Commission.” His opinions of the nominees: “In my view, the FCC will be in very good hands when all three of these nominees are confirmed.” He noted Chairman Pai’s efforts around transparency and FCC processes, network neutrality, and robocall prevention.

Sen Bill Nelson (D-FL), the committee’s ranking member, raised issues around all three nominations. Concerning Rosenworcel, he noted that she should not have been forced to step down from the FCC at the end of 2016 when the Senate failed to reconfirm her.

Sen. Nelson identified two concerns about Brendon Carr: 1) “two consecutive terms to which the Senate is being asked to confirm you would provide you with the longest single, initial period of service of any nominee to the FCC” and 2) “it is hard to recall a similar situation where someone was nominated to serve at the commission alongside, rather than to follow, their current boss.” He stressed that it is important to have commissioners who have independent voices and “ones who will fight for consumers and the public interest.” He later asked Carr to cite an issue that he and Chairman Pai disagree on – Carr failed to answer on more than one occasion. “Going forward, I’ll make my own decisions; I’ll call it the way I see it,” Carr said. “I think my record shows that I’m not a shrinking violet.” Sen. Nelson called that response “not confidence-building.”

Finally, Sen. Nelson congratulated Chairman Pai on some recent pro-consumer actions, but said, “[M]any view these most recent consumer protection actions as mere icing on what is otherwise an unpalatable cake. A cake constructed out of actions that eliminate competitive protections, that threaten dangerous industry consolidation, that make the Internet less free and less open, and that weaken critical consumer protections for those most vulnerable.”

Net Neutrality

Network neutrality and the FCC’s 2015 decision to classify broadband internet access service providers as telecommunications providers under Title II of the Communications Act were key issues for the hearing. In his opening remarks, Chairman Thune said,

“I am pleased that Chairman Pai has sought to hit the reset button on the 2015 Title II Order, because, as I have previously said, the FCC should do what is necessary to rebalance the agency’s regulatory posture under current law. I continue to believe, however, that the best way to provide long-term protections for the Internet is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. Two and a half years ago I put forward legislative principles and a draft bill to begin the conversation, and I stand ready and willing today to work toward finding a lasting legislative solution that will resolve the dispute over net neutrality once and for all.”

Two senators questioned the nominees about the impact of the Title II decision on broadband investment in the US. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) cited stats, offered by broadband providers, that investment has gone down. He took issue with a New York Times story that said investment had gone up since the 2015 order. He said that increase included foreign investment, some of which he said was spurred by the Title II disincentive to invest in the US, and that there was evidence that US infrastructure investment had declined precipitously.

On the other side was Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) who said that almost half of the venture capital funds, or about $25 billion, invested since 2015 was in Internet-related businesses, with broadband providers investing $87 billion, the highest rate in a decade. Sen Markey said investment and job creation are high, so there is no problem that rolling back Title II or reviewing net neutrality rules would fix.

Both senators asked Chairman Pai for his take on their respective views, but the chairman's answer was cautious given that he has an open proceeding before him and comments on his proposal to roll back Title II and review the rules are still coming in. He said that evidence of decreased investment was one of his concerns, but that the FCC was testing that theory, as well as the opposite, as part of its due diligence.

E-Rate

While Rosenworcel, Carr and Chairman Pai all generally agreed on the importance of the FCC's E-rate program -- which makes broadband services more affordable for schools and libraries -- they initially refrained from an outright promise not to cut its funding. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had to ask Rosenworcel a second time before she explicitly said she would not reduce the funding for E-rate. Neither Pai nor Carr would make that commitment.

Broadband Deployment

The three nominees were largely unanimous on measures to expedite rural broadband like “dig once” policies, which require installation of conduits for fiber-optic cable when preparing infrastructure such as roads. The policies aim to reduce cost and limit wait times for installing fiber in different municipalities.

“I think it would be helpful for ‘dig once’ policies and similar policies to be the law of the land,” Chairman Pai told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

“The agency, working with local jurisdictions, should try to come up with a model code — one that includes policies like ‘dig once,’” Rosenworcel said. She added that there should be incentives built in for local communities to adopt the model.

Senators also pressed the three on the need for accurate coverage maps so that subsidies issued to companies to build out their infrastructure are actually targeted to the right places.

“I would hope to get your commitment that the commission will work to ensure that mapping data used at the FCC accurately accounts for on-the-ground mobile coverage,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). The nominees affirmed they are committed to working toward ensuring accurate data coverage moving forward.

First Amendment

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) pressed all of the nominees on their commitment to the First Amendment in light of the many statements President Trump has made disparaging outlets covering his Administration. Sen. Udall pointed to a story that the White House could use AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner as a way to punish CNN for its stories and suggested the Administration might want to reward Sinclair by approving Sinclair’s purchase of Tribune television stations. Each of the nominees pledged to speak out against violence or intimidation against journalists. Chairman Pai reiterated that the White House had not contacted him about retaliating against negative news stories and said he would not do so if asked. And he promised that the FCC would not be used to punish media companies or reward others and would be troubled by any attempt to pressure it to do so.

"I have not directly had any conversations with anyone in the administration with respect to media regulatory proceedings," Chairman Pai said. "To the best of my knowledge, no one on my staff or in the FCC has indirectly had any such conversations as well."

“I have consistently stated that I believe … that First Amendment freedoms, including the freedom of the press, are critical,” Pai added. “If I were ever asked by anyone in the administration to take retaliatory action, for instance, in a media regulatory proceeding, I would not do so.”

Conclusion

If all of the hearing’s nominees are confirmed by the full Senate, the FCC would have a 3-2 Republican majority. Senators on the committee have until July 21 to submit additional questions for the nominees who will be given time to reply in writing.

Key tech industry leaders are expressing openness to having Congress step in to legislate net neutrality — putting pressure on Democrats who've been adamantly opposed to such a move. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg said they’re willing to work with lawmakers on the issue, and Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian expressed a similar view. That flies in the face of the resistance many Democrats and activists have shown to working with Republicans on enshrining open internet protections into law. Democrats have been focused on stopping the GOP-led FCC from rolling back the current net neutrality rules, and fear their Republican colleagues want to pass weaker standards than what the FCC has already put in place.

[Commentary] A curious thing happened on a day that many internet companies and public policy groups had christened a “Day of Action” aimed at protesting the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to overturn so-called net neutrality rules. The curiosity was that several broadband companies — the very same companies that pushed to rewrite the rules that undergird net neutrality — put out statements suggesting that they, too, supported the aims of the protesters.

So why, now, are broadband companies suggesting that they support the aims of the other side? There are two possibilities: A cynic might argue that it’s just puffery, that the broadband industry is simply trying to present a friendly image to an outraged online horde. Or you might take them at their word. Here’s one idea for longtime proponents of network neutrality: Call the broadband companies’ bluff, if that’s what it is. Maybe it is time to push Congress, rather than the FCC, to take up the neutrality fight — and maybe, finally, end the debate for good. Internet giants control the world’s most important channels for information, from your Facebook feed to Google results to your phone’s home screen. They are more than capable of applying enormous pressure to members of Congress to push for what they want. And then, if nothing else, we’ll be able to see where the broadband companies really stand.

[Commentary] Could a consumer revolt against cable television rates before the 1992 election replay with digital data in the upcoming election cycle?

Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), chair of the of the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, introduced a bill that requires internet service providers to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing sensitive personal information, and allow opt-out of sharing other information. Her abrupt and unconventional turn on internet privacy came after widespread public reaction to the congressional repeal of the Federal Communications Commission’s privacy rules.

Those who believe that the bill is not likely to pick up any legislative momentum might argue that general anxiety about digital trails left across the internet does not pack the political punch of rising cable rates that consumers could feel when they balanced their checkbooks each month. Blackburn’s bill also may be seen as a response to some of the edge providers that were most vocal in their objections to the repeal of the privacy rules.

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.

[Commentary] Telecommunications companies are preparing to roll out the next generation of wireless networks, dubbed “5G,” which promise an enormous increase in capacity and connectivity. These networks not only will increase competition in broadband, they are a key enabling technology for a host of advanced products and services. They also represent a gateway to better economic opportunities in inner-city areas that are underserved by broadband today.

But these new networks are different in structure and appearance too. Instead of high-powered antennas on tall towers, they rely on an array of lower-power transmitters closer to the ground that serve much smaller “cells.” That’s why mobile phone companies are concerned that cities and counties will throw up bureaucratic or financial roadblocks to 5G in their communities. It’s not a groundless worry; wireless companies already have encountered local resistance in places where they have introduced the new technology. It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that seems to spark the controversy. People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucratese for municipal utility poles, street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in some cases — to houses and people. The wireless industry has a solution to this potentially huge NIMBY headache: A bill in the California legislature (SB 649) that would “streamline” the approval process for putting small cell networking gear on public poles and lights. If it’s on property the government controls, approval would be automatic in most cases, so local governments couldn’t drag out the permitting process with public hearings and studies. The bill also would limit how much rent locals can charge the companies for space on their poles and lights.

The telecommunication industry has been pushing this “streamlining” strategy in other states, with various degrees of success. Eleven have adopted some sort of laws to limit the local permitting process and pole fees. Legislators in other states, like Washington, have been more skeptical. California’s lawmakers ought to be wary as well and show more interest in protecting the rights of communities to govern the use of their infrastructure, rather than letting telecommunication companies make those decisions for them.

As part of its ongoing efforts to accelerate access to high-speed Internet service, the Federal Communications Commission is seeking comment on ways to increase deployment, competition and innovation in the market for broadband in apartments, shopping malls and other “multiple tenant environments,” or MTEs. While FCC rules currently bar telecommunications and video services providers from entering into exclusive agreements that can stifle competition in MTEs, the FCC has adopted a Notice of Inquiry seeking information about what additional barriers to deployment may exist. The FCC is requesting input on whether and how it should act to remove any barriers that raise the cost and slow deployment in MTEs of next-generation networks, which are critical to jobs, health care, education, innovation, and information.

Specifically, the Notice seeks comment on:

• The current state of broadband competition in MTEs.
• Whether there are state and local regulations that may inhibit or have the effect of inhibiting broadband deployment and competition within MTEs, such as by preventing market entry or mandating infrastructure sharing by private companies.
• Whether the Commission should take any action regarding service providers’ exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements within MTEs.
• How revenue sharing agreements and exclusive wiring arrangements between MTE owners and Internet service providers may affect broadband competition within MTEs.
• Other practices that may impact the ability of Internet service providers to compete in MTEs.

[Commentary] After decades of failed efforts to enact “regulatory reform” bills, Congress appears to be within a few votes of approving reform legislation that would strip Americans of important legal protections, induce regulatory sclerosis and subject agencies that enforce the nation’s laws and regulations to potentially endless litigation. This is not reform.

These bills would sabotage agency regulation with legislative monkey wrenches. Key compromises about agency power and procedures, worked out under the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, would be discarded by these overwhelmingly anti-regulatory bills. And because they would be statutory changes, not mere presidential edicts, these changes would likely long outlive the Trump administration. Independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, long protected from direct presidential control, would now be subject to this bill’s requirements and oversight by the information and regulatory affairs office.

[Buzbee is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a founding member-scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform]

NTIA, on behalf of the Department of Commerce, is requesting comment on actions that can be taken to address automated and distributed threats to the digital ecosystem as part of the activity directed by the President in Executive Order 13800, "Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure." Through this Request for Comments, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders - including private industry, academia, civil society, and other security experts - on ways to improve industry's ability to reduce threats perpetuated by automated distributed attacks, such as botnets, and what role, if any, the U.S. Government should play in this area.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and a host of tech companies asked Congress to reform a government surveillance program that allows the National Security Agency to collect emails and other digital communications of foreigners outside the United States.

The requests came in the form of a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who is overseeing the debate in the House of Representatives to reauthorize a program, known as Section 702, which will expire at the end of the year without action by Capitol Hill. In their note, the tech companies asked lawmakers for a number of changes to the law particularly to ensure that Americans’ data isn’t swept up in the fray. Meanwhile, they endorsed the need for new transparency measures, including the ability to share with their customers more information about the government surveillance requests they receive. Signing the note are companies like Airbnb, Amazon, Cisco, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Lyft, Microsoft and Uber. Absent, however, is Apple.