Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told us Wednesday he hasn't decided whether to participate in the bipartisan net neutrality legislation working group launched by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., but “I'm happy to help any way I can” to reach a compromise. Manchin is among the 46 Senate Democrats who back the Save the Internet Act (HR-1644/S-682). Sinema is the only Senate Democrat who hasn't backed the bill, which would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC order rescinding its 2015 rules “shall have no force or effect.” HR-1644/S-682 would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077). Wicker and Sinema announced the working group Tuesday (see 1903120078). Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told us he doesn't see the working group as hurting S-682's already long odds of Senate passage. “Nobody had any illusions that [Wicker] was going to mark up” S-682 via Senate Commerce, Schatz said. “I'm always for people sitting down and negotiating, but count me as not that optimistic that we're going to be able to find a legislative solution” this Congress. “The Republicans' view is that they won” by gaining a majority on the FCC after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, so “the only way this is going to change is with a different FCC” composition, Schatz said.
The House Communications Subcommittee appears likely to press forward with a markup of the Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644) despite a divide among members during a Tuesday hearing. HR-1644 and Senate companion 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).
Monday's release of President Donald Trump's FY 2020 $4.7 trillion federal budget proposal provided a limited picture of its potential impact on telecom and tech-centric federal agencies, with the FTC the only of those entities to release budget justification documents. The White House said it won't release an appendix of its full budget proposal figures until March 18. The FCC and Commerce Department didn't release their proposals. The administration is proposing $312.3 million in funding for the FTC, up from the almost $310 million it proposed in FY 2019 and the similar amount allocated in the federal spending law Trump signed last month (see 1902150055). The FTC's budget would keep staffing level from FY 2019 at 1,140 full-time equivalents. The agency plans to keep its division of labor unchanged, too, with 612 employees working in jobs aimed at consumer protection activities and 528 in competition-related roles. DOJ said it's allocating $166.8 million of its $29.2 billion proposed FY 2020 budget for the Antitrust Division and proposes increasing the division's staffing level by 39 positions. The White House's budget proposal again mentioned a perennial proposal to introduce a spectrum license user fee, which it estimates would generate about $4 billion revenue through 2029. FCC-administered spectrum auctions could generate $6.6 billion revenue through 2029, the White House said. The Trump administration also outlined infrastructure-related aspects of its budget proposal, which include $200 billion in funding for rural broadband and other non-transportation sectors.
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.
House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Thursday he's disappointed that committee Democrats are interested in pursuing only their own net neutrality bill, the Save the Internet Act, but he's also looking at future options. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., said Friday he filed the House version of the bill with 132 co-sponsors, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J. That bill and Senate companion S-682 would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC's rescission order “shall have no force or effect" (see 1903060077). The bill would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service and would bar the FCC from reissuing a rescission order. A Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee hearing is expected to focus on only the Democrats' bill and not discuss a trio of GOP-led measures that avoid using Title II (see 1902070056 and 1903050042). Democrats have been unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001). The Save the Internet Act is "not something the White House is going to be signing, and I doubt the Senate will pass it," Walden told reporters. "Hopefully we can find" a path forward. Walden said he believes lawmakers should use work on net neutrality as a way of re-examining online platforms’ content liability protections under Communications Decency Act Section 230 because edge providers' argument they need the statute makes them sound like common carriers. "It may be time to take a look at" changing aspects of that statute, because it "seems kind of peculiar to argue on the one hand you get Section 230 protection because you're a common carrier but on the other hand call for net neutrality legislation" that governs "everybody but yourself," he said. "We've had hearings on shadow banning, we've had hearings on the algorithms and there's not a real clear picture here" about "how some of these platforms operate." Net neutrality and Section 230 "are distinct policies that both give consumers more access to ideas and content online,” an Internet Association spokesperson said. "Net neutrality means consumers, not ISPs, get to decide where they go online," while Section 230 "allows online platforms to host -- and to moderate -- user generated content online."
The Senate Commerce Committee is eyeing March 27 as the date for a media marketplace hearing, several lobbyists told us Friday. The hearing is expected to be a likely precursor to Senate Commerce's debate on reauthorizing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, lobbyists said. The House Communications Subcommittee held a similar hearing in September (see 1809270062). Senate Commerce Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in February he views STELA renewal as a "must-pass" measure despite lobbying by broadcasters against such action (see 1902270018). The committee is lining up witnesses for the potential hearing, lobbyists said. Senate Commerce didn't comment.
Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer Huawei sued the U.S. government Wednesday over language in the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that bars U.S. agencies from using “risky” technology produced by the company or fellow Chinese firm ZTE. The lawsuit itself didn't come up during a Thursday-Senate Commerce Security Subcommittee hearing on security implications of China's market activities. Members repeatedly returned to concerns about Huawei and major tech sector issues, including the U.S. race against China to dominate 5G.
Democrats are aiming to move their newly filed Save the Internet Act through the House first amid perceptions the net neutrality bill faces better prospects there than in the Senate, lobbyists said. The bill mirrors the Congressional Review Act resolution that last year aimed to undo FCC rescission of its 2015 rules. Colorado and Hawaii state-level net neutrality bills this week cleared their originating chambers.
T-Mobile acknowledged to lawmakers it spent $195,000 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington since announcing its proposed buy of Sprint in April 2018 (see 1903050071). T-Mobile's Trump hotel spending during that period is “approximately 14 percent of the $1.4 million T-Mobile incurred at hotels in Washington, DC during the same period for travel and other business-related activities,” said Vice President-Federal Legislative Affairs Anthony Russo in a letter to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Wash. The Democratic lawmakers wrote T-Mobile seeking such information. T-Mobile spent $750,000 at area Hilton hotels during the period, Russo said. He acknowledged T-Mobile CEO John Legere and other executives stayed at the Trump hotel only once before announcing the Sprint deal, and 52 times since. Legere separately acknowledged also staying at Trump properties in Chicago and New York. “T-Mobile respects the regulatory review process underway concerning our pending merger,” Russo wrote. The FCC and DOJ “are giving this transaction a thorough and objective analysis. While we understand that staying at Trump properties might be viewed positively by some and negatively by others, we are confident that the relevant agencies address the questions before them on the merits.” Americans "deserve better than an administration that appears to be for sale to businesses eager to line the president's pockets,” Warren and Jayapal said. The disclosure could give House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee member Jayapal and other subcommittee members fodder for questions at the subpanel's upcoming hearing on T-Mobile/Sprint, lobbyists said. The House Judiciary Committee plans to formally announce the hearing for March 12, about a month after it was originally scheduled (see 1902120056), a committee spokesperson said. Jayapal was among three dozen House Democrats who signed onto a letter sent Tuesday by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and DOJ Antitrust Division head Makan Delrahim in opposition to T-Mobile/Sprint (see 1902050050).
The House Communications Subcommittee set a March 12 hearing on net neutrality legislation, which would happen just under a week after Democrats are to file their Save the Internet Act. That bill, which lawmakers will file Wednesday, is aimed at restoring FCC-rescinded 2015 rules via statutory language (see 1903040059). The panel will begin at 10 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn, the House Commerce Committee said. The majority-Democrat committee didn't say whether the hearing will solely focus on the Democrats' pending legislation. Lobbyists expect minimal mentions of a trio of GOP-led bills. Top House Communications Democrats supported restoring the 2015 rules and reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1902070056). They were less enthusiastic about the GOP-sponsored bills, which avoid reinstating Title II as a legal basis for new rules (see 1902220001). The Save the Internet Act is expected to include language from Title II that would reflect its elements used to enforce the 2015 rules, possibly by creating a new Communications Act title, lobbyists said.