CTIA and the Telecommunications Industry Association praised Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., for introducing the Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses (E-LABEL) Act of 2014. The FCC “requirement for manufacturers to either etch or print mandatory regulatory markings on the exterior of devices unnecessarily increases costs and limits industrial and aesthetic design options, while ineffectively conveying important information to consumers about their devices,” TIA President Grant Seiffert said in a Thursday letter (http://bit.ly/1mONmSb). “Through the E-LABEL Act, device manufacturers will have the ability to use eLabels, easing technical and logistical burdens on manufacturers while increasing countless American consumers’ ability to access easily readable and prominently displayed information about the devices they use every day.” CTIA Vice President-Government Relations Jot Carpenter said it’s time to bring these “rules into the 21st century by giving manufacturers the option of providing labeling information digitally.” FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mike O'Rielly also praised the bill. “Modernizing the display of FCC device certification has real benefits,” they said in a joint statement. “For starters, more devices and new technologies can be designed with innovation in mind, rather than regulatory labeling requirements.” A Fischer spokeswoman confirmed the legislation’s introduction. The bill text is on Fischer’s website (http://1.usa.gov/1r0oKYa) and a news release was expected to be released Thursday after our deadline, the spokeswoman said. CEA views the legislation as “a commonsense approach for the digital age,” said Veronica O'Connell, vice president-government and political affairs, in a statement. “E-labeling would be cost-effective, in keeping with the consumer electronics industry’s important ongoing environmental sustainability efforts, and a beneficial and innovative use of today’s technology,” she said. It would be a welcome alternative to the FCC’s existing physical labeling requirements, which “are burdensome, costly and present logistical challenges for consumer electronics manufacturers,” she said.

"Carefully scrutinize” AT&T’s proposed acquisition of DirecTV to ensure the deal is in consumers’ best interests, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., told the FCC and Justice Department in a letter Wednesday (http://1.usa.gov/1juEz7q). He identified several key factors he thought the regulators should consider. “To protect consumer choice, I believe that AT&T must thoroughly articulate its commitment to standalone broadband pricing,” Franken said, also citing concerns about net neutrality and mobile broadband.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (S-517) to the floor, approving it by voice vote Thursday. Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., had introduced a bipartisan compromise version of the cellphone unlocking legislation last month, mirroring a bill the House passed earlier this year. Ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, praised the legislation and said all members and stakeholders seem “on board” with the manager’s amendment. Leahy has been working with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., to make sure Congress can approve cellphone unlocking legislation this year, his office said. The vote is “certainly a step in the right direction and we can only hope the Librarian of Congress gets the message,” said Competitive Carriers Association CEO Steve Berry. CTIA Vice President-Government Affairs Jot Carpenter thanked Leahy and said CTIA appreciates Judiciary’s “effort to strike an appropriate balance by authorizing unlocking without imposing obligations on carriers.”

Congressional Republicans began raising concerns about the FCC’s Friday E-rate vote, focusing primarily on the financing of any E-rate overhaul. “Since Chairman [Tom] Wheeler first announced his $5 billion Wi-Fi stimulus proposal, I have been concerned that he cannot realistically expect to pay for it without forcing Americans to pay more for communications services or diverting E-Rate funds that support necessary connectivity in our nation’s schools, particularly in rural areas,” said Senate Commerce Committee ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., in a statement Wednesday night. He also suggested that if Wheeler lacks bipartisan backing on the commission, Wheeler should postpone the vote. “Moving forward in a partisan manner, relying on untested budget assumptions, and shifting E-Rate’s priority from connectivity to Wi-Fi will only erode the Chairman’s and FCC’s stature, and potentially jeopardize support for E-Rate,” Thune said. House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., sent a joint letter (http://1.usa.gov/U5xsq1) to Wheeler Thursday questioning the math that Wheeler has said will be used to pay for the E-rate expansion. Upton and Walden support the described approach but worry about “discrepancies” and the plan’s sustainability as well as “press reports that you have promised to increase the E-rate budget in the ‘near term,'” they said. There are also procedural “red flags” on bipartisan deliberation, they added. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., sent Wheeler a letter Wednesday raising her concerns about broader USF equity among the states. Real E-rate overhaul “means simplifying the process by reducing the paperwork needed to apply for funding” and “distributing aid to schools on a more equitable per-student basis (rather than the complex discount formula that the program now uses),” Ayotte said. “Moreover, this means giving schools the flexibility to spend E-Rate funds on technologies that directly benefit students, instead of a complicated system of technology priorities dictated by Washington.” Do not increase the size of the E-rate budget without these changes, she cautioned.

TVfreedom gave Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., data it says highlights failures of the pay-TV industry. “There have been 3,050 substantial service failures experienced by the five largest pay-TV service providers in the United States during the first five months of 2014,” said the letter (http://bit.ly/1qKvYxQ) from the group, which includes NAB and other broadcast interests. TVfreedom said “the average consumer who pays upwards of $130 per month for bundled pay-TV/broadband services must typically bear the brunt of this type of service degradation without explanation or remuneration.” Congress should include relevant protections for consumers in legislation, TVfreedom said. McCaskill, who chairs the Commerce Consumer Protection Subcommittee, has attacked pay-TV industry billing practices and said she intends to develop legislation addressing its problems. NCTA and the American Television Alliance both lashed out at TVfreedom. “Sadly, local broadcasters are back to their old tricks of ginning up spurious claims and pointing fingers at others instead of working constructively with Members of Congress on sensible reforms that would update a dated statute and yield actual consumer benefits,” an NCTA spokesman said by email, calling the pay-TV industry “more competitive than it has ever been” and slamming the “disingenuous” attacks. “We encourage broadcasters to stop slinging mud and instead focus their energies on fulfilling their public interest obligations and trying to innovate in something other than attacking others.” The NCTA spokesman also attacked “outdated” rules creating situations wherein “local stations who freely embrace ‘market negotiations’ for carriage terms insist on retaining government guaranteed channel placement that unnecessarily limits package flexibility and consumer choice.” TVfreedom replied: “The basic service tier enables low-income households, those families who otherwise couldn’t afford the hefty price tag of expanded basic or premium programming packages, to get their cable TV service and access to valuable local broadcast TV stations at affordable prices, totaling about $22 per month, on average.” The American Television Alliance, meanwhile, representing many pay-TV interests, attacked in a blog post (http://bit.ly/1pZTYiC) the TVfreedom allegations as hypocritical and wrong. “Broadcasters are in an all-out war against pay-TV companies, trying anything -- even lying -- to protect their billions from retransmission consent” fees, ATVA said.

Industry-backed groups are coalescing in support of a bill to curb vague patent demand letters. The Innovation Alliance, a tech research and development coalition, said in a statement that the bill “appropriately targets abusive behavior rather than particular types of patent owners, while maintaining the integrity of legitimate patent enforcement practices for all patent holders"(http://bit.ly/1mJkk6p). Application Developers Alliance President Jon Potter said the bill rightly targets “patent trolls,” who send deceptive demand letters to “extort unjustified payments from companies that cannot afford to fight back in court” (http://bit.ly/1qkdwKj). Alliance staff members have previously testified on patent legislation, the organization said. The Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform (21C), which includes many large pharmaceutical companies, called the bill a “welcome step” in updating patent laws. The coalition would like more explicit language in the bill, however. The bill, from Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would give the FTC the authority to go after companies for sending patent demand letters written in “bad faith.” 21C worried the term “bad faith” itself was too vague, and should be clarified “in order to make it more effective in targeting bad behavior while safeguarding legitimate patent licensing and enforcement communications.” The House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee is expected to vote on the measure Tuesday at 10 a.m. (CD July 9 p15).

Two House Judiciary Republicans formally introduced their five-year Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization legislation Wednesday, said a committee news release (http://1.usa.gov/1oI0PJT). The committee had earlier this week announced a markup of this legislation, now with the number of HR-5036, to take place Thursday at 10 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn. Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and IP Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble, R-N.C., issued statements backing its passage and stressing the need for reauthorization. The bill is a clean reauthorization that does not include any revamps to video marketplace rules. Top committee Democrats did not comment on the bill.

The House passed the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act (HR 4289) in a vote of 393-0 Tuesday. Its sponsor, Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., introduced it in March and House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, and Emergency Preparedness and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Susan Brooks, R-Ind., also backed it as co-sponsors. The legislation would “amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Management of the Department of Homeland Security to take administrative action to achieve and maintain interoperable communications capabilities among the components of the Department of Homeland Security,” said the bill’s report (http://1.usa.gov/1zpWNvk). The report underscores the need for DHS radio communication to be interoperable, including the exchange of voice, data and video. “The Committee is disappointed that the Department has spent $430 million on communications capabilities without effectuating the changes within practices in the components [of the department] to achieve interoperability,” it said. “The [Homeland Security] Committee believes that to advance interoperability goals at the Department, there needs to be leadership at the highest level and that implementation of interoperability-related directives by components should be mandatory, not voluntary.” DHS would have to come up with a better communications strategy for its agencies within 120 days of the bill’s enactment. The legislation has not yet been introduced and advanced in the Senate.

The Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act (HR-4450) does not “adequately” solve the problem of vague and misleading patent demand letters, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., in opening remarks at a House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee markup Wednesday. The bill is intended to curb the practice of so-called “patent trolls” -- entities that enforce patents without producing products -- sending confusing and deceptive patent demand letters to businesses, requesting money to settle possible patent infringements (CD July 9 p15). “The Trol Act’s broad preemption of state laws would prevent the enforcement of tough anti-troll acts where they do exist,” she said. State attorneys general should have been consulted more while drafting the measure to avoid this problem, Schakowsky said. The bill has also “raised serious concerns at the FTC,” she said. The legislation would put the FTC in charge of bringing enforcement actions against companies for sending deceptive demand letters. But the FTC was “not in the room” while the bill’s language was drawn up, Schakowsky said. “Patent trolls should not be able to extort American businessmen and women,” she said. But as currently written, the TROL Act will not solve that problem, said Schakowsky. Industry groups have largely supported the bill. (See separate report in this issue.)

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., joined Free Press at an event at the Capitol Tuesday to press the FCC to approve strong net neutrality protections, while also forbidding paid prioritization deals. Franken blasted “fast lanes” and suggested net neutrality protections led the Internet to flourish. “This has been the architecture of the Internet from the beginning,” Franken said. “Everyone should understand that. … Some of my colleagues in the Congress don’t understand that.” He criticized the May FCC net neutrality NPRM for saying “maybe we should allow fast lanes” and insisted the Internet’s innovation is on account of net neutrality. “I hope the press is here to listen and report, and I hope your content gets to the consumer of the content as fast as the anti-net neutrality content does,” Franken said. “And I think it will now -- and that’s the point.” Free Press President Craig Aaron also spoke at the event, backing this message, and moderated a panel of speakers pushing for such protections. Free Press circulated a handout slamming what it called “myths” about FCC reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service, which Free Press backs. The group believes Title II reclassification will give the agency authority to create what Free Press believes will be stronger net neutrality rules.