Pro-Save the Internet Act Testimony Expected to Dominate Tuesday House Hearing
Three of the four witnesses set to testify at Tuesday's House Communications Subcommittee hearing on Democrats' Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill support the measure in written testimony released Monday. A fourth witness, Cooley's Robert McDowell, doesn't criticize the bill but urges lawmakers not pursue measures unlikely to get bipartisan support. HR-1644/S-682, filed last week, would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC order rescinding its 2015 rules “shall have no force or effect.” The bill would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077). The hearing begins at 11 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
House Communications Democrats are expected to focus on HR-1644, while subcommittee Republicans are expected to contrast that measure with a trio of GOP-led bills that aim to address net neutrality without the use of Title II. Those bills are the Open Internet Act (HR-1006), Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act (HR-1096) and HR-1101 (see 1902070056). Democrats are unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001). A House Commerce Committee Democratic staff memo mentions only HR-1644 and outlines FCC adoption and rescission of the 2015 rules.
The 2015 rules' repeal means “people with disabilities are without protections that ensure their access to broadband service,” Democrats' memo said. “The repeal also did away with provisions that ensure fair access to utility poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way.” It “undermined the FCC’s authority to fund rural broadband access and adoption efforts for low-income individuals by relinquishing the FCC’s authority to accelerate to deployment of broadband, Democrats said.
HR-1644 will “fix in place … the statutory interpretations and declaratory rulings put forward by the FCC in 2015,” says Free Press General Counsel Matt Wood in his written testimony. “Bill opponents will tell its sponsors that they cannot inoculate undecided Members of this House against people (or, let’s be honest, it’s really just cable and telecom lobbyists) saying that the Title II framework is a bad thing.” Opponents "will say that restoring strong rules and returning to strong laws is bad for broadband business, and unnecessary for reinstating open internet protections,” Wood said. “But those naysayers couldn’t be more wrong.”
Supporting HR-1644 “should not be a partisan issue,” says National Hispanic Media Coalition General Counsel Francella Ochillo. “Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide in my home state of Louisiana and in your districts do not care about whether a Democrat or Republican drafted this Bill.”
Fatbeam believes HR-1644 “will provide the assurance that all ISPs are held to the same rules -- no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, and no unreasonable conduct, with strong interconnection oversight,” says CEO Gregory Green. “No one ISP could take unfair advantage of their market position by unreasonably discriminating against online competition or another provider with which it interconnects.” HR-1644 “would encapsulate all of the 2015 protections in the Communications Act, including requiring all ISPs to offer just and reasonable, non-discriminatory service so that their customers can access the online content, applications and services of their choice,” which “would end the long debate about which protections apply.”
“Provide clarity and certainty by enacting” net neutrality legislation, says McDowell, a Republican former FCC commissioner. “Any bill passed by this House must have a reasonable chance to garner 60 votes in the Senate if there is to be any hope of it becoming law.” The “only path to that goal of meaningful, positive and constructive public policy for the Internet -- a law that will last beyond election cycles of two to four to eight years -- is through finding that reasonable majority that offers a win-win-win scenario for all who build and are affected by the Internet,” he says. “Without a large bipartisan majority, any legislative effort is largely symbolic.”