Democrats Seek Early House Action on Net Neutrality Bill; Senate Waits

Potential Save the Internet Act passage in the majority-Democratic House would represent an inverse of the CRA measure's fate last year. The Senate passed that resolution 52-47. A discharge petition aimed at forcing a House vote on the measure fell short of the 218 minimum signatures (see 1901020046).

The Democrats' legislation would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC's rescission order “shall have no force or effect.” The bill would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service, along with any other rule “amended or repealed” because of the commission's 2015 actions. It would bar the FCC from reissuing a rescission order “in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as” the 2017 order “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted” after this act.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., supported the bill during a news conference with lead sponsors House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “Supporting this bill means supporting our democracy, ensuring that the voices of the public are heard, their will is respected and the internet remains free and open to all,” Pelosi said. Forty-six of the 47 members of the Senate Democratic caucus are co-sponsors of the Senate version. Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema is the holdout.

Pelosi and House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., vowed swift House action, with Pelosi saying a floor vote could come “in a matter of weeks.” Doyle later told us that vote could happen “as early as the end of April.”

Markup Soon

House Communications is eyeing a markup of the measure “after we get back” from Congress' upcoming recess the week of St. Patrick's Day, with a full House Commerce vote coming soon after, Doyle said. “A markup's a markup, and we'll be there as long as we have to be to get it marked up through regular order.”

House Communications Democrats intend to focus only on their bill during an upcoming Tuesday net neutrality legislative hearing (see 1903050042), Doyle said. House Commerce Chief Democratic Counsel Timothy Robinson said during a Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council event Wednesday (see 1903060056) that the bill opens up questions about the designation of ISPs and what exceptions might apply, and that a conversation on those issues will start during the Tuesday hearing.

Lobbyists predict House Communications Republicans are likely to use their time during the panel to also bring up a trio of bills they filed last month that aim to address the issue without the use of Title II -- the Open Internet Act (HR-1006), Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act (HR-1096) and HR-1101 (see 1902070056). Doyle and other Democrats have been unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001).

The lead sponsors of the three GOP bills criticized the Democrats' bill. “Title II is not the answer,” said House Commerce ranking member Greg Walden of Oregon, House Communications ranking member Bob Latta of Ohio and House Consumer Protection Subcommittee ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. Lawmakers should instead “come together to ensure that continues, because all sides want a permanent solution. Instead of looking to the extremes, and discarding twenty years of bipartisan consensus, we can come together on shared principles.”

Senate Hopes

Markey told reporters he's aiming for any Senate action to “build on the momentum coming out” of the pending House action on the bill. “I think that there's going to be a number of Republicans in the House who will be voting for it and I think it will give us an opportunity then” to seek more support from GOP senators, he said. If Sinema ultimately decides to vote yes, the measure would still require support from at least 13 Senate Republicans to get the required 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on legislation.

Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., called the trio of GOP senators who voted for the CRA resolution last year -- Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- the “best advocates thus far” for crossover support in the chamber, but “we'll look for opportunities” among other Republicans as well. State-level net neutrality debates in the months since the CRA vote may have also “changed the complexity of the debate a little bit, so I think there will be members that will come back and reconsider” the position they held at that time, Cantwell told reporters.

Collins and Kennedy separately told us they will need to review the new bill's text before committing to a position. “My position's unchanged” about opposing the FCC's rescission action, Collins said. “I want net neutrality rules.”

Senate Commerce Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told us he hasn't scheduled any net neutrality hearings, but “I see a few bipartisan glimmers of optimism.” He showed little enthusiasm for the Democrats' bill, saying “there was a lot of overstatement, if not hysteria, during” the CRA debate. “None of these cataclysmic predictions” about the FCC's rescission action “have turned into reality, so our vision has been vindicated in that respect,” Wicker said. He hopes “we could get a handle on” a “bipartisan solution” that eschews Title II and allows for the FTC to be the lead enforcer of any future rules. “I think they're better able to do that,” Wicker said.

FCC members divided along partisan lines in statements. Chairman Ajit Pai and fellow Republicans Brendan Carr and Mike O'Rielly criticized the bill. Democrats Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks praised it. Communications sector companies and groups also divided, reflecting their established positions on Title II.

“The FCC’s return in 2017 to the bipartisan, light-touch approach to Internet regulation has been a success,” a Pai spokesperson said. The internet “in America today is free and vibrant, and the main thing it needs to be saved from is heavy-handed regulation from the 1930s.” There's “a lot of common ground on net neutrality,” but “this bill studiously avoids it,” Carr said. “I would welcome legislation that codifies bipartisan net neutrality rules rather than a failed Title II regime that only slowed down broadband deployment throughout the country.” O'Rielly said the bill is "lacking in substance, fraught with peril, and completely unhelpful in creating certainty or furthering the debate in a constructive way."

The FCC was “on the wrong side of the law, the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of the American public when it rolled back net neutrality,” Rosenworcel said. “I’ll keep raising a ruckus to support net neutrality and I’m glad so many others are too,” including via the Democrats' bill. “The American people have demanded a free and open internet and I am pleased that Congress has responded with today’s legislation,” Starks said.

State Bills

Colorado senators voted 19-15 Wednesday for SB-78, which would restrict Colorado high-cost support or other state broadband funding to companies that adhere to open internet principles. The previous day, the Hawaii Senate sent to its House a net neutrality bill restricting state procurement (see 1903050066).

Colorado’s net neutrality bill might not restrict Comcast, the state’s dominant cable company in urban areas. The operator didn't comment.

“Comcast has not applied for or received a grant from our Broadband Fund program which is funded by the Colorado High-Cost Support Mechanism,” Broadband Deployment Board Director Jordan Beezley emailed. This could change, a Colorado Senate Democrats spokesperson emailed: “It may not apply to Comcast right now, but the state just started funding the Broadband fund at a level where it can be effective for large corps.”

“It’s not perfect, but it is an honest attempt to ensure open access to the Internet for many Coloradans,” emailed Eric Bergman, policy director for Colorado Counties Inc., which is watching SB-78 but hasn’t supported or opposed the measure. It at least would “provide protections for rural Colorado citizens, since most of their providers get" support from the high-cost fund or grants from the broadband fund, he said.