The association representing Big Tech says that free speech will be increasingly under attack from state legislatures that, after the midterms, will be controlled by one party.

Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned about edge provider content moderation, though they disagree on the problem and the solution.

Democrats say the issue is that not enough hate speech is being restricted while Republicans say that the problem is liberal-leaning social media sites censoring conservative speech in the name of restricting hate speech.

Also: Privacy Bill Could Turn Off Targeted Advertising

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google, this week released a summery of what it called the state content moderation landscape.

That included the observation that in only the past year, 250 bills to regulate content on online platforms have been introduced, including legislation in California, New York, Texas, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Utah, and South Carolina.

CCIA says that "many of the bills are unconstitutional, conflict with federal law including Section 230, and would place major barriers on digital services' abilities to restrict dangerous content on their platforms."

CCIA says many of the bills conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that gives them protection from liability over third-party posts on their social media platforms, a protection national legislators from both parties have suggested needs to be modified or eliminated.

Federal privacy legislation could reduce the threat by preempting state efforts, but that is a long-shot in what will be a divided Congress in the New Year.

"As states convene legislative sessions in 2023, they’ll be doing so in a unique environment," says CCIA State Policy Director Khara Boender. "As a result of the midterm elections, a larger number of states will have one party controlling both chambers of the legislature in addition to the governor's seat. This, coupled with an increased interest in content moderation issues – on both sides of the aisle – leads us to believe this will be an increasingly hot topic." ■

Computer companies and edge providers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of whether state governments can impose what the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is branding must-carry for online platforms and a "road map" for those wishing to fill the internet with offensive content edge providers would have to carry.

Cable operators have long been subject to must-carry rules governing carriage of broadcast stations, carriage those operators have also argued is compelled speech that violates the First Amendment, though those rules remain on the books.

CCIA and NetChoice, whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and many others, have been making the same argument against a Florida law that made platforms liable for third-party speech.

On Monday (October 24), they filed a petition with the High Court asking it to rule on the constitutional issues after the State of Florida did the same.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last May upheld a lower court's injunction against the enforcement of provisions in the law that restrict social media platforms' ability to moderate content while the underlying issue made its way through the courts. That court suggested Big Tech was likely to win on its First Amendment arguments.

But that appeals court left in place content moderation disclosure obligations computer companies say are unnecessarily, and unconstitutionally, burdensome to speech and hope the Supreme Court agrees with them.

The law was the product of a Republican-controlled legislature. Republicans have argued that Silicon Valley giants have attempted to suppress conservative speech in the guise of moderating their platforms and under the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them from civil liability over most of that third-party content.

Asserting that “social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow-banned, deplatformed and applied post-prioritization algorithms to Floridians,” the law removed that Section 230 civil liability protection for content on Big Tech platforms — like Facebook or Twitter — that violated the law, including allowing for monetary damages up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming political candidates for statewide office and $25,000 for non-statewide offices.

That law, including the reporting obligations, “abridges websites’ editorial decisions and imposes crippling ‘disclosure’ obligations, forcing websites to explain each of the countless decisions they must make every day,” the CCIA/NetChoice petition said. “Such compelled obligations not only inflict enormous compliance burdens, but would provide a roadmap for those wishing to evade efforts to eliminate offensive content.” ▪️

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) said Wednesday (Oct. 19) that Josh Rogin will join as VP of government relations. He most recently was chief of staff to Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), who is retiring at the end of this term.

Alvaro Marañon has also joined CCIA as policy counsel, overseeing privacy, security and emerging technology issues, according to the group. He was most recently a fellow in cybersecurity at Lawfare Institute.

Finally, Jordan Rodell will be state policy manager — there are definitely a growing number of state policies to manage, given the number of states passing privacy laws and more recently ones trying to circumscribe edge provider content moderation. She comes from Stateside Associates, where she was a legislative issue manager.

“As our trade association marks its 50th anniversary of tech policy advocacy, we are excited to have Josh, Alvaro and Jordan join our team to promote policies that advance tech innovation in ways that benefit users and the economy," CCIA president Matt Schruers said in a statement. ▪️

A new paper commissioned by INCOMPAS quantifies the investment of the tech industry, particularly by streaming services, in internet infrastructure and pegs it at a whopping $833 billion over the past decade, saying that saved internet-service providers billions of dollars.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, also provided support for the report, conducted by Analysys Mason.

The report comes as Big Tech is under pressure around the world to pony up network usage fees. In the U.S., some want edge providers to pay regulatory fees to the Federal Communications Commission, pointing to the benefit they get from broadband infrastructure and suggesting they have done so without sufficiently paying for the privilege.

The report says otherwise and adds that such usage fees could disrupt the internet ecosystem. "We find that the imposition of network usage fees would risk creating barriers to entry and growth for smaller and new CAPs [content and application providers]," it asserts.

The report documents that attempts by telecom network owners to "extract" payments from online services are unfounded and misguided, CCIA president Matt Schruers said.

The report suggests that investments by streaming services and others to get traffic closer to end users saves ISPs up to $6.4 billion per year.

"INCOMPAS and the authors of this study have now proven what we already knew: Content delivery and edge internet services have always paid to build out of the network, both through subscriptions to broadband providers and their own investments in network infrastructure," Public Knowledge president Chris Lewis said. "Any calls for network user fees is simply an effort to charge these companies twice to give internet users the content they are also paying to access." ■

Edge providers have asked a U.S. appeals court to block the implementation of a Texas law that regulates how those platforms can moderate their content, a move the computer companies frame as an existential threat to their business models.

That motion of stay filed en banc (full court) with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose members include Facebook (Meta), Google, Twitter and Amazon, among many others, after a panel of the same court paved the way for the law’s implementation.

That panel two weeks ago ruled that corporations do not have a “freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” and thus has paved the way for the Texas law (HB 20), which restricts how social-media giants moderate their content. 

Also: Court Told Texas Law Would Wreck Online Ad Platforms

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature last year, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable-use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports and to have a complaint system in place.

The Supreme Court had stayed the implementation of the law until a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit made that decision. Now that the panel has weighed in, though, the law can take effect unless the 5th Circuit agrees to the CCIA/NetChoice stay request.

CCIA and NetChoice said they will appeal the panel decision to the Supreme Court, which they say is likely to hear it because it involves issues of great importance and because different appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue. Resolving such circuit splits is one of the reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear appeals.

“Granting a stay will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ member companies while the Supreme Court reviews the vital constitutional issues raised by legislation such as HB20,” they told the full 5th Circuit. “The majority opinion in this case creates a clear circuit split with the [11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] and misapplies the Supreme Court’s important First Amendment precedents.”

In a separate case, CCIA and NetChoice point out, the 11th U.S. Circuit ruled that websites have a First Amendment right to decide what speech they publish and their reasons for doing so, or not doing so.

The Supreme Court this week signaled it thinks the issue of online content moderation is one of great importance, agreeing to hear appeals of two decisions relating to the moderation of terrorist-related speech on social media.

Internet advertisers and others filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of NetChoice and the CCIA back when that court was staying the initial decision. Those advertisers and others said the law will irreparably damage online platforms as advertising vehicles.

“Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” CCIA president Matt Schruers has said of the law. “ ‘God Bless America’ and ‘Death to America’ are both viewpoints, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the State of Texas to compel a private business to treat those the same.”

In fact, those computer companies have likened the law to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, which once imposed an affirmative obligation on broadcasters to present issues of public importance and to seek out opposing viewpoints on those issues. The demise of the doctrine in the 1980s is credited with giving rise to the conservative talk-radio boom. ▪️

The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), which was favorably reported to the full Senate for a vote this week, isn’t the only online-targeted news content bill that computer companies are worried about.

According to the Computer & Communications Association (CCIA), the Canadian House of Commons’ Heritage Committee is meeting today (Sept. 23) to discuss a bill, the “Online News Act,” which would require search engines and social-media platforms to pay content providers if they want to index or link to their news content, or even quote from it.

According to CCIA, the bill would even require social-media sites to pay if a broadcaster set up their own page on the platform, like a Facebook page, to attract subs to their content.

Also: Senate Judiciary Approves Online News Antitrust Bill

CCIA, whose members include Facebook, Google and Twitter, said that like the JCPA, which creates an antitrust exemption for broadcasters, newspapers and other news content providers to jointly negotiate payment from Big Tech, the Canadian bill would “damage” the internet ecosystem and “exacerbate” news media concentration.

They also said the Canadian bill would likely land hardest on U.S. firms such as Twitter, Google and Facebook.

“Facilitating the discovery and sharing of information has always been at the heart of the Internet, a source of vast benefits to consumers around the globe,” CCIA VP for digital trade Jonathan McHale said. “The Online News Act threatens that core function, however, by creating a government-mandated paywall for the spreading of quotes, headlines, and even links.

“Internet platforms have a strong record of working with news outlets to develop innovative and mutually beneficial products to promote their digital offerings,” McHale added. “Targeting a select few U.S. firms, however, to force payments to Canadian news businesses, would not only constitute an unwarranted and discriminatory subsidy, but worsen competition in the media market by entrenching Canadian media conglomerates.” ■

Big Tech is beating up on broadcast consolidation as it pushes back on a bill that would give broadcasters and other original news creators an antitrust exemption to negotiate with the tech giants that leverage that original content online.

The Computer and Communications Industry Association issued a pull-no-punches statement— the term “cartel” was used multiple times — following the Senate Judiciary Committee’s favorable referral of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (S. 673) to the Senate for a vote.

The CCIA said the bill would create a “news cartel” while failing to solve the issue of compensation for original news creation.

Also: Big Tech Says Bill Benefits Big Broadcasters

The bill gives “news content creators” — print, broadcast or digital — an antitrust safe harbor to negotiate collectively with digital platforms like Facebook and Google for carriage of their original content.

While the idea behind the bill is that Big Tech is so big that broadcasters need the scale of joint negotiations to get fair compensation, the CCIA suggested the concentration shoe was on the other foot. “The Computer & Communications Industry Association has defended competition in the marketplace for 50 years and fought media consolidation and mergers including Comcast-NBC and Sinclair-Tribune,” it said.

Also: NAB Praises Progress on Big Tech Bill

“The JCPA continues to be an unprecedented government overreach,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “It encourages the creation of a media cartel which will impose link taxes, and it threatens to hamstring digital services’ efforts to moderate dangerous content with ‘must-carry’ obligations.

“While objective journalism is critical to informing voters, inserting federal regulators into private sector business negotiations, mandating carriage of what the government thinks is ‘news,’ and promoting cartels is an irresponsible way to encourage an independent and robust news media,“ Schruers added. ■

Computer companies are warning about the impacts of new California laws regarding online content moderation, data privacy and more targeted to go into effect at month’s end — including that the rules could become a revenue generator for local governments rather than a transparency generator for social media users.

The California laws regulate devices and features while cracking down on underage users on certain sites. The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) said the laws, with stiff penalties for violators, could stifle innovation — a familiar complaint about regulation in general — while likely conflicting with other laws and the U.S. Constitution.   

One of the new laws the CCIA has issues with requires social-media companies to post much more specific information on their privacy policy as part of their terms of service, including policies on “specified categories of content” and how they are moderated.

“[D]igital services providers already take aggressive steps to moderate dangerous and illegal content, consistent with their terms of service,” the CCIA told the state back in July.

CCIA offered up a parade of potential horribles should the bill and its provisions make it into law. "[R]ather than protecting consumers from harmful content, they might have the adverse unintended consequence of giving nefarious foreign agents, purveyors of harmful content and other bad actors a playbook for circumventing digital services’ policies.”

The CCIA also suggested the bill could become a new source of revenue rather than of greater transparency, given that the revenue from penalties levied on violators of the tougher requirements would be divvied up between the city and county treasurers. 

“This provision creates a punitive financial incentive for district, county and city officials to seek out formalistic violations in order to supplement local resources, while not necessarily supporting efforts to increase transparency,” the tech industry group said. ▪️

The Computer & Communications Industry Association is launching a data and analytics arm, the CCIA Research Center.

The idea is to oversee economic research and surveys CCIA can use to inform policymakers, industry, consumers and the media.

That comes as computer companies push back on Washington efforts to regulate edge providers over issues like privacy, disinformation, impact on teens and children, and algorithmic discrimination criticisms of Big Tech over antitrust issues.

The center will be led by CCIA director of research and economics, Trevor Wagener with an assist from research manager Kara Mazachek. PR for the center will be handled by communications manager Sara Young.

CCIA members include Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter. ■

The Supreme Court has blocked, for now, a Texas law that computer companies strongly oppose.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying they would have voted to allow the law to be enforced while the underlying challenge to the law is being adjudicated in a district court.

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature last year, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place.

NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) filed an emergency petition with the High Court to prevent the enforcement of the law, which they say prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion over content and irreversibly tarnishing their businesses.

That was after a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split 2-1 decision, reversed a lower court opinion and lifted a preliminary injunction against the law.

Computer companies called it a victory for free speech, but pointed out there is more work to be done. "While today’s victory is welcome news, we’re only halfway there  — our case will soon return to the district court, where we’ll proceed to arguments on the merits," NetChoice said in a statement. “And as this case proceeds, we await a ruling from the 11th Circuit in our parallel case against the State of Florida.”

“Texas’s HB 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig,’ ” said NetChoice counsel Chris Marchese. “We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain protected from Texas’s unconstitutional overreach. Despite Texas’s best efforts to run roughshod over the First Amendment, it came up short in the Supreme Court,” Marchese said. “HB 20 will once again be enjoined and the case will proceed in the lower courts.”

“We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law.” ■

Computer companies including the biggest Big Tech targets of a potential revamp of antitrust regulations have told the National Telecommunications & Information Administration that  the mobile app market is already a 'fair, open and competitive marketplace' and that using antitrust enforcement to go after perceived inequities could hurt consumers and innovation.

That is according to comments filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

NTIA, the White House’s chief communications policy adviser, last month asked for input on the state of mobile app competition, a request that suggested app competition needed "restoring" and that the goal was one of the "critical priorities" of President Biden's Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy."

Also: Amazon Freevee (Finally) Gets Apple TV App

CCIA, whose members include Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, essentially told NTIA 'nothing to see here,' or at least nothing that can't be fixed by Congress with federal privacy standards. “Growth and innovation in the mobile app ecosystem, together with rapid advancements in the power and diversity of mobile devices, have created a fiercely competitive environment benefiting consumers, developers, and the computer industry," it said.

CCIA renewed its call for Congress to come up with federal privacy legislation to protect consumers' privacy on mobile apps rather than have the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department "rewrite antitrust practice and jurisprudence accumulated over the course of many decades," in the process "overlooking the significant constraints that multi-sided firms face and, accordingly, finding anticompetitive conduct where none exists."

It said that such "false positives” by either regulators or the courts "deter innovation and hinder consumer welfare." ■

A federal appeals court has agreed to block enforcement of the major provisions of a Florida law targeting social media content moderation. NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association had sought the preliminary injunction while their legal challenge of the law works its way through the courts.

In a unanimous decision penned by judge Levin Newsom, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court's injunction against the enforcement of provisions in the law that restrict social media platforms' ability to moderate content and that they have to come up with a "thorough rationale" for all of their content moderation decisions.

The court said both are likely unconstitutional. It declined to block enforcement of the "far less burdensome" requirement of other disclosure provisions, saying the lower court got it wrong when it blocked those as well.

The law was the product of a Republican-controlled legislature. Republicans have argued that Silicon Valley giants have attempted to suppress conservative speech in the guise of moderating their platforms and under the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them with civil liability over most of that third-party content.

Asserting that “social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow-banned, deplatformed and applied post-prioritization algorithms to Floridians,” the law removed civil liability protection for content on Big Tech platforms — like Facebook or Twitter — that violated the law, including allowing for monetary damages up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming political candidates for statewide office, and $25,000 for non-statewide offices.

"The question at the core of this appeal is whether the Facebooks and Twitters of the world — indisputably 'private actors,' with First Amendment rights — are engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms. The State of Florida insists that they aren’t," Newsom wrote in the panel decision.

By contrast, Newsom said the panel was pretty sure those Big Tech companies were, indeed, private actors engaging in protected speech. ■

Internet advertisers and others have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which are challenging a Texas social media law they say will irreparably damage online platforms as advertising vehicles.

The brief paints a stark picture. It says the law (HB20) "will result in the wholesale lifting of content moderation. The resulting deluge of hate speech, graphic images and video, and vile content of all forms is not what users want," and will irredeemably harm those platforms' goodwill and reputations.

“Businesses large and small want to know that their advertising and marketing is reaching its intended audience without having their ads placed next to content they deem to be offensive or untrue," said Lartease Tiffith, IAB executive VP for public policy, in explaining why the group was weighing in.

CCIA and NetChoice filed an emergency petition at the Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of a Texas law they say prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion over content and irreversibly tarnishes their businesses.

Also: New Bill Would Break Up Big Tech Ad Giants

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature last year, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place.

Among the groups joining IAB in the brief are the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the NAACP, and the Anti-Defamation League. ■

Social media companies are asking the Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of a Texas law they say prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion over content and irreversibly tarnishes their businesses.

The law, which passed a Republican-controlled legislature September 9, 2021, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose membership includes Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter, filed an emergency brief with the Supreme Court Friday (May 13) asking it to block the statute, calling it an "unprecedented assault on the editorial discretion of private websites, listing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Vimeo and YouTube among those under assault.

Earlier in the week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a split 2-1 decision reversed a lower court opinion and lifted a preliminary injunction against the Texas law. CCIA and NetChoice want the Supreme Court to overrule the 5th Circuit panel.

Also: Big Tech Fires Latest Legal Volley at Texas Social Media Law

The social media companies say that denying them the ability to engage in any viewpoint-based content moderation would "compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints—such as Russia’s propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is warranted, neo-Nazi or KKK screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior like eating disorders."

They said the sites can't comply with the law without "irreversibly transforming" their worldwide platforms, in the process tarnishing their reputations, causing users and advertisers to flee.

They said the court should maintain the status quo while the courts consider the merits of their underlying challenge to the law. ■

Fans in the association sphere called on the Senate to confirm Democratic nominee Gigi Sohn to fill the fifth seat on the Federal Communications Commission, which has been vacant for well over a year.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the associations — comprising the Consumer Technology Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Chamber of Progress, CompTIA, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, INCOMPAS and NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association — acknowledged the Senate had a lot on its plate with “pressing national issues.” Nonetheless, they urged senators to end debate over Sohn’s nomination — a discharge vote is akin to a cloture vote, allowing for a final vote on a bill or nomination.

While the trade groups back Sohn, they also suggested ending debate was about just having a functioning — as in fully staffed — FCC “to advance regulatory items critical to our ability to help promote a strong economy and maintain our nation’s competitiveness.”

Also: Sohn Nomination Backed by Ex-FCC Homeland Security Bureau Chiefs

They also evoked some of the pressing issues the Senate is dealing with, like what to do about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its censorship of coverage critical of the war. “The absence of a fifth commissioner hamstrings the agency when U.S. leadership on technology policy is most needed,” they said. “As authoritarian regimes around the world move to supplant U.S. leadership and restrict access to an open and free internet, we must ensure the U.S. government is well-positioned to thoroughly consider and advance policies that promote democratic values.“

The Senate has yet to vote to discharge Sohn’s nomination from the Senate Commerce Committee after a tie vote out of the panel. The tie vote means Sohn was not favorably reported, so a Senate vote is required to discharge the nomination from committee before it can move to a final vote.

Republicans have been pushing back hard on Sohn's nomination, citing her criticism of Fox News Channel and past stands on intellectual property and net neutrality. But some Sohn fans see other forces at work, including a general Republican effort to slow roll key nominees until the midterm elections and broadband companies trying to delay the return of net neutrality rules under Title II of the Communications Act. 

The Senate last week voted to discharge Federal Trade Commission nominee Alvaro Bedoya after his vote in committee was also tied, but that Bedoya vote required Vice President Kamala Harris to weigh in since the discharge vote was also tied 50-50. The Senate has yet to take a final confirmation vote on Bedoya.

Sohn’s discharge vote, if and when it happens, might also need a nod from the VP.

Like Bedoya, Sohn represents the Democratic majority the Biden administration needs to move on politically divided issues such as media ownership regulations and restoring net neutrality rules. ▪️

Computer companies are telling a federal appeals court that a Texas court made the right call when it granted their request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a Texas law they say unconstitutionally prevents online platforms from exercising editorial discretion based on viewpoint.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, whose members include Google, Facebook and Twitter, filed a brief in the state of Texas' challenge of the injunction.

The brief came in advance of the planned May 9 oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on that challenge.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, 2021, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

Because the law prevents them from using their editorial discretion based on viewpoint, the companies told the court, it effectively and constitutionally compels them to "publish, display and even recommend all sorts of speech that they deem objectionable and contrary to policies governing their services -- including pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, Holocaust denial, and misinformation."

They also say the law requires a host of "burdensome" disclosure mandates including notice each time they remove speech from their platforms.

"Governments have no business dictating what speech must appear online. Digital services are constantly combating foreign disinformation, propaganda, and anti-American extremism," CCIA said. "Turning Texas into an online safe space for these adversaries puts Americans at risk from these evolving online threats." ■

A study commissioned by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) predicts that Big Tech-targeted antitrust bills being offered up in Congress would lead to an a la carte online services regime that would cost billions of dollars in consumer welfare and force Amazon to unbundle Prime Video.

CCIA is looking to slow the legislative momentum for breaking up and shaking up the biggest of Big Tech — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.

In releasing the study, commissioned from National Economic Research Associates (NERA), CCIA said the proposed bills “would force targeted companies to divest, eliminate or reduce the scope of services, including Amazon Prime.”

It broke out Amazon Prime as a case study, saying the harm to that service’s members and their subscription bundle of fast/free third-party product delivery with Prime Video and other services would result in a huge loss in value to consumers.

“In the case of Amazon Prime, the proposed bills would require Amazon to divest, discontinue, or fundamentally restructure numerous service offerings, and they would force Amazon to incur increased operating costs, which would be passed through to customers and business users,” the study said.

In a survey conducted in conjunction with the study, consumers said that Prime Video was the most important of the entertainment service offerings and, according to the study, the proposed legislation would "require the Amazon Prime membership package to only include free delivery for Amazon retail products and without any of the entertainment services."

Cable operators have long argued in Washington that breaking up their bundles of networks would result in major consumer harm given the collective cost of having to buy individual channels.

There are various antitrust bills in both the House and Senate, primarily spearheaded by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have been investigating situations where large online companies like Google or Facebook buy up smaller potential competitors, and whether current antitrust law captures that as potential exclusionary conduct given that the companies being bought are too small to raise anticompetitive red flags at the time of purchase.

Some of the bills would prevent future buy-ups, but also potentially retroactively break up some past combinations as well, as well as seek hefty civil penalties for violators. ■

Some Democratic senators are backing a bill that would severely limit the ability of large companies to merge, including by disallowing any deals valued at over $5 billion.

That would, had it been in effect at the time, allow the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission to have immediately blocked the mergers of Time and Warner, Viacom and CBS, Comcast and AT&T, Comcast and NBCUniversal, AT&T and Time Warner, Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable, The Walt Disney Co. and 21st Century Fox, AT&T and DirecTV, Discovery and WarnerMedia, and Facebook and WhatsApp, among many others.

The Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would also allow them to retroactively block “certain mergers” that had led to greater than a 50% market share.

Washington has been looking at unwinding Big Tech mergers, which many Democrats see as companies buying their way to monopoly by purchasing competitors before they get big enough to trigger serious antitrust scrutiny.

Also: Klobuchar Introducing Big Tech Antitrust Bill

The Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include a lot of those big Big Tech players, was not pleased with the latest salvo from Washington.

“This preemptive ban on mergers over an arbitrary size would harm both competition and consumers,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “Instead of enforcers continuing to evaluate transactions based upon whether they would substantially lessen competition, the bill would arbitrarily prohibit transactions that can bring significant benefits to consumers and the economy. This approach is ill-advised as it would eliminate judicial checks and balances that courts provide to ensure the merger review process remains apolitical.”

There is actually pretty much of a laundry list of things the new bill would do, including:

• 1.) “Allowing the agencies to reject mergers in the first instance without court orders;
•  2.) “Requiring the agencies to reject certain mergers, including prohibited mergers; 
• 3.) “Prohibiting firms with a history of corporate crime or antitrust violations in the last 10 years from acquiring other companies; 
• 4.) “Prohibiting the agencies from negotiating remedies with the merging parties; 
• 5.) “Directing the agencies to scrutinize the labor impacts of each deal and reject mergers harmful to workers ;
• 6.) “Prohibiting private-equity “roll up” strategies that quickly consolidate industries 
• 7.) “Giving a greater role to other relevant agencies and state attorneys general; 
• 8.) “Requiring courts to defer to certain agency determinations; 
• 9.) “Stripping merger litigation from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;
• 10.)  “Establish procedures for the antitrust agencies to conduct retrospective reviews and break up harmful deals that have destroyed competition.”

The bill is spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a House version by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). Co-sponsors include Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Edward J Markey (D-Mass.), and in the House by Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Katie Porter (D-Calif.), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).

“For the last five decades, big companies have had almost free reign over our economy, squashing competitors, growing bigger and bigger, and abusing their market power to price gouge consumers and crush workers and small businesses,” Warren said. “This unconstitutional behavior has to stop.” ■

A U.S. District Court in Texas has blocked the Dec. 2 effective date of a state law that prevents “censorship“ by social media platforms based on viewpoint, according to the groups who sought that action.

The law will now not go into effect until the court has heard the underlying legal challenge to the law.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which took the state to court over the law, had sought the injunction, arguing that the law would effectively ban content moderation and thus would allow "pro-Nazi speech, medical misinformation, terrorist propaganda, and foreign government disinformation" to be posted on social media sites without recourse by the platforms without facing civil suits.

There is a pretty high bar for granting such injunctions, including the likelihood that NetChoice and CCIA will win the underlying case on the merits, and that allowing the law to go into effect would cause harms not easy to undo.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Google to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

The groups filed suit against a similar Florida law, which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. 

Both the Texas and Florida legislatures are controlled by Republicans, many of whom have alleged that social media have been censoring conservative content and voices, pointing to bans on former President Donald Trump's accounts.

CCIA, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

"It exposes those platforms to the exact liability that Congress protected against in enacting Section 230. And it both regulates how the targeted websites disseminate speech to and from users around the globe—regardless of their connection to Texas—and specifically requires the websites to continue doing business in Texas," the groups had told the court back in September.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the federal law that generally provides immunity for third-party content posted to social media sites and other online platforms.

CCIA praised the court decision.

“This ruling upholds the First Amendment and protects internet users, said CCIA president Matt Schruers. "Without this temporary injunction, Texas’s social media law would make the internet a more dangerous place by tying the hands of companies protecting users from abuse, scams, or extremist propaganda. 

“Today’s outcome is not surprising. The First Amendment ensures that the Government can’t force a citizen or company to be associated with a viewpoint they disapprove of, and that applies with particular force when a State law would prevent companies from enforcing policies against Nazi propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation from foreign agents.” ■

Computer companies and edge providers are telling a U.S. Appeals Court that a lower-court judge was right when he blocked implementation of Florida’s content moderation law, concluding it was unconstitutional, and that it should come to the same conclusion.

Also read: Big Tech Sues Florida Over Sec. 230 Law

The Computer and Communications Industry Association and NetChoice teamed up on a brief this week to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing Florida's challenge to the lower-court judge’s ruling.

They told the appeals court that the law would allow anyone “from a foreign government spreading propaganda to those spreading terrorist content” to sue a platform if it didn’t host their material.

“The District Court properly enjoined Florida’s unprecedented effort to strip online service providers of their constitutionally protected editorial judgment and replace it with the state’s own judgments and preferences,” the brief asserted. “Florida did not conceal the motivation for its novel law: to target certain large online service providers for exercising their editorial judgment in a manner that the state disfavors.”

The law was the product of a Republican-controlled legislature. Republicans have argued that Silicon Valley giants have attempted to suppress conservative speech in the guise of moderating their platforms and under the protection of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them with civil liability over most of that third-party content.

Asserting that “social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow-banned, deplatformed and applied post-prioritization algorithms to Floridians,” the law presumes that doing so is not acting in bad faith, which means it is legally actionable. The law removes civil liability protection for content on Big Tech platforms — like Facebook or Twitter — that violates the law, including allowing for monetary damages up to $250,000 per day for deplatforming political candidates for statewide office, and $25,000 for non-statewide offices.

CCIA and NetChoice, whose membership also includes companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon, sued the state, saying that the law would open platforms to suits for content moderation policies designed to protect users’ safety. After the judge agreed to block the law as unconstitutional, Florida challenged that decision in the 11th Circuit.

“Digital services invest in protecting Internet users from dangerous and harmful content and behavior, whether it is extremists glorifying violence against Americans or trolls promoting self-harm, and a federal court has already agreed with us that Florida’s law would thwart those efforts,” CCIA said. “Policymakers shouldn’t guarantee safe spaces online for anti-American extremists, predators, or foreign agents spreading misinformation.”

Computer companies currently facing increased regulation and legislation from Washington are warning that such government action could cost the economy $300 billion and affect companies as wide-ranging as Comcast and Home Depot, as well as the edge-provider behemoths — Facebook, Google and Twitter — that are the bills‘ principal targets.

That was the takeaway from a just-released study from NERA Economic Consulting commissioned by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

The study came out just hours after powerful senators signaled they would be grilling edge providers Instagram, TikTok and YouTube at a hearing next week.

The CCIA study asserts that, under proposed edge-targeted legislation, more than a dozen companies, including Comcast and Netflix, would be subjected to "significant regulatory risks" stemming from an "overly broad" definition of online platform, the extensive regulatory scaffolding that would erected, the discretion given competition authorities and the penalties for noncompliance.

Among others on the list of affected companies are The Walt Disney Co., AT&T and Cisco Systems, which along with Comcast and Netflix would “exceed the inflation-adjusted market cap threshold of $550 billion or $600 billion from the bills in the next five to 10 years.”

That is assuming the legislation subjects online platforms and marketplaces to “common carrier, structural separation and line of business restrictions.”

Congres is considering a number of bills to rein in Big Tech, including ones targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which holds that companies cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by users. The current legislative focus of Big Tech’s pushback, though, is the just introduced American Innovation and Choice Online Act. That measure would prevent an online platform from: 1) keeping another business form interoperating with a dominant platform of other business; 2) requiring a business to buy a dominant platform's products or services in order to get preferred placement; 3) "misusing" a business's data to compete againt it, and 4)biasing search in their favor.

The bill allows civil penalties for violations of up to 15% of U.S. revenue for the duration of the violation and authorizes a court to penalize a CEO or corporate officer an amount equal to their compensation for the 12 months preceding or following a complaint.

Legislation that sets size thresholds for companies would force them to break up to avoid regulation, reversing cost savings that benefit consumers, the analysis concluded. By contrast, such restrictions would not apply to foreign operators of online platforms, creating a bias against U.S.-based companies.

“The bills are likely to negatively impact consumers, small and medium-sized businesses, U.S. firms’ international competitiveness, and the broader economy," CCIA director of research and economics Trevor Wagener said. “The preliminary findings will inform the public discourse surrounding these bills as policymakers determine whether the legislation’s purported benefits outweigh the costs.”

Computer companies have fired another legal volley in their fight against state efforts to undercut their Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability for most third-party content on social media sites.

The latest volley was a motion for preliminary injunction filed Sep. 30 against Texas for a new law that allows Web users to sue edge providers over how they moderate content.

Trade group the Computer & Communications Industry Association joined with NetChoice to file suit against the law earlier this month, as they had against a similar Florida law.

But that was an underlying law suit. This week's move is to prevent the law--scheduled to go into effect Dec. 2--from being enforced while that underlying suit is being litigated.

There is a pretty high bar for granting a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of winning the case and irreparable harm if the law goes into effect.

Computer companies said the loss of their First Amendment freedom to moderate and curate content as they choose is clearly such an irreparable harm and that because such an abridgement is unconstitutional they are likely to win their case.

The law, which passed Sept. 9, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Google to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

CCIA, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

Computer companies are suing Texas over a law that prevents social media censorship based on “viewpoint,” saying nothing is a clearer First Amendment violation than regulation based on viewpoint.

The bill, which passed Sept. 9, “prohibits an interactive computer service from censoring a user, a user’s expression, or a user's ability to receive the expression of another person based on … the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It also requires large social media platforms like Facebook and Google to disclose how they manage content, to publish an acceptable use policy that users can find telling them what content is acceptable, to publish quarterly transparency reports, and to have a complaint system in place for violations of its policies.

Trade group the Computer & Communications Industry Association joined with NetChoice to file suit, as CCIA did against a similar Florida law, the CCIA pointed out — that law was ruled unconstitutional, but that decision has been appealed by the state.

Also Read: Cruz Says Either Bias or Sec. 230 Protections Must Go

Both the Texas and Florida legislatures are controlled by Republicans, many of whom have alleged that social media have been censoring conservative content and voices, pointing to bans on former President Donald Trump's accounts.

CCIA, whose members include from Amazon to Yahoo!, and NetChoice, whose members include, well, from Amazon to Yahoo!, said the Texas bill would “compel private companies to host everything from Nazi propaganda to anti-American extremism or risk being sued,” adding, ”The First Amendment protects citizens and private companies from being compelled to speak.“

CCIA said the law would put Texans at greater risk of being subject to "disinformation, propaganda and extremism."

The computer companies pulled no punches, saying the law makes the internet safer for bad actors, "whether that be Taliban sympathizers or people encouraging kids to eat detergent pods." And while Texas Republicans are nothing if not self-described patriots, CCIA said that "[b]y constraining businesses free speech rights, the Texas law puts anti-American rhetoric [including from Nazis and white supremacists] on equal footing with God Bless America."

The suit was filed in the U.S. Court District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Big Tech companies are suing the state of Florida over its recently passed law that limits websites' Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability over third party content, saying it is a speech restriction targeted at select online businesses.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association teamed up with NetChoice, whose membership also includes companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon, saying that the law would open platforms to suits for content moderation policies designed to protect users' safety.

CCIA argued that edge providers have a First Amendment right to protect users including by determining "what material is appropriate for their community."

Also Read: Facebook to D.C. on Sec. 230: Regulate Us, Please

The suit, filed in the U.S. district Court for the Northern District of Florida, seeks to enjoin enforcement of the law, which they said is preempted by Sec. 230, exceeds the state's authority under the Commerce Clause, and is otherwise infirm.

“We are bringing this suit to safeguard the industry’s free speech right to deliver on their commitments to users to mitigate harmful content online," said CCIA president Matt Schruers.

The law, which was passed by the Republican majority legislature and signed earlier this week by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, removes that civil liability protection for Big Tech platforms—like Facebook or Twitter—that violate the law, including allowing for monetary damages up to $250,000 per day for de-platforming political candidates for statewide office, and $25,000 per day for candidates for non-statewide offices.

Also Read: Rep. Cicciline Says Big Tech Power Will Be Curbed

In addition to monetary penalties, the law prevents violators of antitrust law, which the Florida attorney general can pursue under Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, from contracting with any public entity, a "blacklist" DeSantis' office said would create "real consequences" for Big Tech "oligopolies."

“We cannot stand idly by as Florida’s lawmakers push unconstitutional bills into law that bring us closer to state-run media and a state-run internet," said Carl Szabo, VP and general counsel of NetChoice.

Concerned that a March 25 Big Tech hearing may be a chance for legislators to beat up on web platforms' Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability over third party content, computer companies wanted the House Energy & Commerce Committee leadership to know the implications of weakening or eliminating the protection.

They argue the section has allowed the internet to flourish and, in the process, develop content moderation policies that protect consumers and speech. Narrowing or eliminating the shield would lead to more disinformation, and cost millions of jobs and over $400 billion.

Also Read: Senate Democrats Target Sec. 230

That came in a letter from Arthur Sidney, VP of public policy for the Computer & Communications Industry Association to those committee leaders in advance of the hearing titled, "Disinformation Nation: Social Media’s Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation." 

It also comes as both Democrats and Republicans have said Sec. 230 needs reining-in or scrapping. Supporters of the latter have included President Joe Biden.

Sidney says Sec. 230 "facilitates legal certainty regarding online commerce and communication, making it possible for millions of entrepreneurs and businesses to flourish."

He argued that responsible services already aggressively moderate harmful content with a mix of automated and human reviews. He also said that nothing is preventing states or the feds to pursue content that violates civil rights laws.

He signaled that getting rid of Sec. 230 would eliminate the kind of moderation that prevents "racism and hate speech, religious and ethnic intolerance, public health-related misinformation, and election-related disinformation by foreign agents."

"Services can respond aggressively to this material because they have the legal certainty to do so," he said. "Narrowing this protection would have the perverse result of impeding online services’ and websites’ efforts to police bad actors and misconduct, including key consumer protections that users have come to expect, such as spam filtering."

Sec. 230 critics counter that such content is not being aggressively moderated, by which they mean prevented, and that the section's shield from liability for that insufficient moderation is to blame.

Also Read: CCIA Warns FCC Against Sec. 230 Rulemaking

But the cost is more than insufficiently moderated speech, he suggested. "The certainty provided by this [Sec. 230] framework reduces the threat of costly, likely ruinous litigation, enabling small U.S. businesses and startups to scale up. Undermining foundational intermediary liability protections could cost an estimated 4.25 million American jobs and $400 billion over the next decade, according to 2017 research."

CCIA members include Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter.

Computer companies have filed a complaint in U.S. district court against Maryland's Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax, asking the court to declare the law is, itself, unlawful and barring its enforcement.

The complaint was filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Internet Association, and NetChoice. CCIA members include Amazon, Dish, Google, eBay, and Facebook.

The Maryland General Assembly last week overrode Governor Larry Hogan's veto of the new law (HB 732). The Association of National Advertisers (ANA), which signaled it would take the law to court as well.

The law institutes a gross revenues tax on "certain" digital ad services, and presumes that digital ads are provided in the state under "certain" circumstances and require "certain" persons with "certain" annual gross revenues from digital ad services to pay the tax.  

Also Read: ANA Warns of D.C. Ad Tax

In its complaint, the groups call the act a "punitive assault on digital, but not print, advertising."

They argue it is meant to penalize digital advertisers, citing testimony during the bill's consideration to the effect that digital ad companies were eroding "the shared values and norms of American society."

They say taxing digital ads will reduce resources for creating high-value content, leaving the field open to low-quality "junk." They also say that it will raise consumer costs. 

Also Read: Advertisers Try to Help Providers Navigate CCPA

"Simply put, the Act will harm Marylanders and small businesses and reduce the overall quality of internet content—all while doing nothing to stave off the dissemination of misinformation and hate speech."

The law is itself unlawful in "myriad" ways, they say, including that it is preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) prohibition on “multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce," and violates due process "by burdening and penalizing purely out-of-state conduct and interfering with foreign affairs."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association said the FCC should keep its regulatory mitts off Sec. 230, the Communications Act provision that provides its members with immunity from civil liability for most third-party content hosted on their sites.

In reply comments on the Trump Administration's requests that the FCC find a way to regulate social media content by "clarifying" the limits of Sec, 230, CCIA took issue with the commenters who argue that the section was meant to protect garage start-ups not companies with market cap the equivalent of the GDP of some countries.

For example, AT&T, which supports an FCC review, in its comments cited a Ninth Circuit court decision in arguing that "this corner of 'the Internet has outgrown its swaddling clothes and no longer needs to be so gently coddled.'"

CCI calls that assertion that Sec. 230 was only for internet infants revisionist history. "Section 230 was not, as some proponents suggest, solely “intended to protect struggling startups at the dawn of the internet. The text of the statute makes clear that online innovation was flourishing and Congress intended “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services."

Related: Trump Officially Seeks Help to Regulate Edge

CCIA said tinkering with Sec. 230 could actually favor larger players at the expense of smaller ones. "Impairing Section 230 because some smaller firms have now grown runs the risk of entrenching larger firms at the expense of startups," it said. In any event, it is Congress' business do deal with Sec. 230. 

As to the argument AT&T and others make that Sec. 230 allows edge players to play by "radically different rules," CCIA says that is a misconception. It argues that any company that provides an interactive computer service is covered, which can and does include libraries and news publishers, "among others."

Besides, it said, "content distributors from bookstores, to telephone companies, to radio and television broadcasters, to cable TV companies, all have extensive common law and First Amendment immunities from liability for materials they carry."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association has joined with almost two dozen other companies and associations to urge the Federal Trade Commission to seek full court review of a court decision concluding Qualcomm was not guilty of anticompetitive conduct.

That came in a joint letter from, among others, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) and Public Knowledge.

In a big victory for the smart device essential patents holder, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month reversed a district court decision and lifted a permanent, worldwide, injunction against Qualcomm. 

Computer companies almost immediately signaled they would appeal the decision.

The Federal Trade Commission had contended that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the "code division multiple access ('CDMA') and premium long-term evolution ('LTE')" cellular modern chip markets, and the district court agreed. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was unpersuaded. Writing for the majority, Judge Consuelo M. Callahan said that the district court "erred in holding that Qualcomm was under an antitrust duty to license rival chip manufacturers."

In the letter, the companies said the decision "undermines longstanding U.S. law and policy and wrongly applies competition law," and that "if it becomes precedent, this decision would endanger domestic competitiveness, as well as weaken the ability of the FTC to protect consumers through future enforcement actions.... If allowed to stand, the panel’s decision could destabilize the standards ecosystem by encouraging the abuse of market power acquired through collaborative standard-setting," they said. "The panel’s opinion could embolden foreign entities to refuse to license their standard essential patents (SEPs) to competitors in the United States."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association has told the Supreme Court that to uphold the findings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Google had infringed Oracle's copyrights would erode permissionless and the interoperability that is a long-standing and vital tenet for tech development. The Federal Circuit deals with copyright issues. 

That came in an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to the Supreme Court, which back in November agreed to hear the appeal of two decisions that Google's copying of a portion of the Java application API to Android, so programmers could more easily write apps for Android phones, says CCIA, was a violation of copyright.  

Related: Court Says Google Poached Java API's for Android 

CCIA says that if the decisions are not reversed, interoperability would be dealt a blow and there could be a "rebalkanization" of the U.S. technology industries," it said "particularly if incumbent firms refused to license their interfaces. Walled gardens of computing environments could reemerge, taking us back to the 1970s." CCIA sais that would mean higher prices and less innovation.   

“U.S. law has allowed companies to offer competing, interoperable products," said CCIA President Matt Schruers. "This principle of interoperability has been key to our innovation and economic success -- and ironically to Oracle’s success decades ago. It would be unfortunate for the U.S. to erode this framework for permissionless innovation, and give an advantage to companies in countries with more enabling legal frameworks. We look forward to the Court reaffirming that copyright law does not prohibit interoperability." 

CCIA members include Google, Amazon, Netflix, and eBay.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association has beefed up its D.C. and Brussels communications policy staff. 

Vann Bentley, who had been policy counsel at CCIA member Amazon, has joined the Washington office as policy counsel focusing on AI and telecom policy. 

Kayvan (Kay) Hazemi-Jebelli has joined the Brussels office as competition and regulatory counsel He has been a competition law and regulatory policy adviser. His resume includes most recently as a lawyer with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, as well as law firm Hogan Lovells in Brussels. 

"Kay handling competition issues and Vann advocating on telecom and internet access uses will be valuable at a crucial time as governments formulate policies impacting both our members and the products and services consumers use," said CCIA president Ed Black. 

CCIA members include Dish, Facebook, Google, Samsung and Netflix.

The tension between protecting online and device privacy and helping law enforcement track down criminal activity was on display Thursday (Oct. 3). 

That came after Attorney General Bill Barr planned to join with other countries in a letter asking Facebook not to deploy end-to-end encryption. 

Related: DOJ Fires New Encryption Warning Shot at Silicon Valley 

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, said it was "dismayed" by Barr's opposition to strong encryption, though the Justice Department has made it clear in the case of Apple and its reluctance to provide back doors to device security that it needs access to info, whether in devices or elsewhere.  

“Strong encryption is increasingly vital to the privacy and security of individuals, national security and economic prosperity," said CCIA President Ed Black. "Companies should be encouraged to develop and employ the security standards that the public expects for their devices and online activity. ” 

In a speech back in July, Barr said time was running out on warrant-proof encryption and painted a bleak picture of the internet and communications platforms morphing into "law free" zones where criminals "go dark" with impunity leading to more crime, abetted by Big Tech.

Citing the reported White House meeting Thursday (July 11) at which conservatives are expected to air their issues with alleged Silicon Valley bias against them, the Computer & Communications Information Association called that a move to intimidate social media into favoring conservative speech.

CCIA says the meeting it troubling because "it’s always a concern when any government officials who have broad power to issue orders, investigations or regulations haul company officials in for a meeting to discuss 'bias'" and, in this case, it said the meeting "seems designed to intimidate companies to bias content in favor of whoever is calling the meeting."

CCIA President Ed Black came to the defense of Sec. 230, the Communications Decency Act, which allows social media sites to remove extremist speech without facing legal liability.

“Internet services depend on the legal certainty of the Telecom Act’s ‘Good Samaritan’ protections provided to companies to remove hate, extremism, and other objectionable content from the Internet," said Black. "As they do that, no private company should be browbeaten by the government into giving a pass to objectionable content that violates company policies."

Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has said that Facebook tries to weed out content that makes its community uncomfortable.

But conservatives, including the President, say social media sites are using that exemption to censor conservative speech.

Black suggested that if conservatives don't like the calls some social media sites are making, they can go elsewhere.

“Social media sites may wish to allow many types of speech, but should not be required to stay neutral on hate or religious intolerance," he said in a statement. "If those airing grievances at this week’s meeting are unsatisfied with one company’s policy against objectionable content, there are plenty of competitors from which to choose.”

Perhaps, but Facebook and Twitter, two targets of conservatives' ire, arguably have no competitive equals.

CCIA members include Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Computer companies were quick to attack Sen. Josh Hawley's bill that would make social media networks promise not to censor political speech, and create a government apparatus for certifying that. Those companies, or at least a major trade association representing many of them, said it was the stuff of dystopian fiction and worse, even suggesting the Senator was creating a home for white nationalist propaganda.

Hawley, a freshman senator from Missouri, has been an unrelenting critic of social media, calling it an "unproductive peril," echoing the sort of rhetoric leveled by legislators at, successively, publishers of ghoulish comics, violent westerns and detective TV shows, and violent video games, though the issue has wider implications given the power of the 'net over every facet of life and work.

Hawley's latest volley came Wednesday (June 19) in the form of the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.

“Fans of the fictitious ‘1984’ novel would no doubt appreciate the ludicrousness of a so-called anti-censorship bill that would require companies to get government approval to censor nefarious content -- or face legal liability, said Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Google and many other edge providers."This is an unbelievable disregard for the essence of the First Amendment and attempt to overlay a lens of partisan politics over the communications of millions of Americans," he said.

While Democrats have their own issues with social media and Big Tech, they generally view the "conservative bias" allegation as a distraction from other issues like, say, use of social media for Russian election meddling or sex trafficking or hate speech.

“If Congress is serious about tech companies doing more to remove hate speech and illegal content online, putting new restrictions on the legal protection that allows them to do that would be ill-advised," he said. "CCIA has spent decades fighting internet censorship regimes around the world, alongside U.S. diplomats. It would be disappointing to see the country that has been a leader against restrictive regimes create its own government-regulated regime to oversee the political correctness of internet content.” 

“At a time when white nationalists are stealthily seeding calls in the mainstream press for ‘viewpoint neutrality’, it’s troubling that the Senator would contemplate legislation forcing online services to carry these views. American businesses shouldn’t be forced to be neutral toward racism and extremism," said Black.

What speech is harmful and should be removable is the central  issue of the debate over what role social media should have in policing its content given the power and reach of those platforms.

A just-released Pew Research poll found that respondents did not trust Big Tech to be able to decide what was offensive content and were split on whether they could identify it themselves.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that would route internet traffic through Russian servers, according to the Associated Press, which is either insurance against having a "hostile power" cut off Russia's access to the wider web, or a way to control information to its citizens.

The bill was reportedly first introduced in response to the U.S. response to 2016 Russian election meddling.

U.S. computer companies are definitely seeing it as the latter.

"The Russian government enacted legislation that will extend Russia's authoritarian control of the Internet by taking steps to create a local Internet infrastructure, shutting out citizens from the rest of the online world," the Computer & Communications Industry Association said Thursday (May 2).

CCIA has expressed concerns about what it sees as a growing trend by foreign governments to balkanize the Web, a point it made to the U.S. Trade Representative last fall.

"[I]n recent years countries have begun to adopt laws and regulations that hinder the further growth and cross-border delivery of Internet services. Under the guise of promoting domestic innovation, national security, and privacy protections, countries are increasingly adopting discriminatory policies that disadvantage U.S. technology companies," it told USTR.

It cited, among other things, the 2015 law that "requires all operators that process the personal data of Russian citizens to maintain databases located in Russia and the 2017 amendments to its Information Law that requires VPN operators from preventing users in Russia from accessing Web sites blocked in Russia.

"For years we've seen alarming censorship measures in Russia," said CCIA president Ed Black. "The legislation approved today is yet another step by the Russian government to restrict access online and artificially create borders on the Internet. We strongly encourage the international community and U.S. Administration to respond."

CCIA members comprise a Who's Who of edge providers, tech companies and others including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Intel, Samsung, Mozilla, Dish and Univision.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association is naming Keir Lamont as counsel for privacy, security and emerging technology, a job title that covers a lot of ground in an "internet of everything" world.

CCIA members include Facebook and Google, both of which have faced the ire of Congress over privacy and security issues.

CCIA is expected to make the announcement Tuesday (Jan. 8).

Lamont has been manager of the Program on Data and Governance at The Ohio State University. His resume also includes policy fellow at Access Now.

“We welcome Keir back to Washington and to our tech trade association," said CCIA President Ed Black. "His experience and advocacy will be valuable as policymakers consider online privacy issues and updating electronic surveillance rules so that electronic data has the same Fourth Amendment protections as information stored in a file cabinet.”

Washington was reacting Tuesday to the news that Google has been hammered by the European Commission with a record fine for using its dominant position in search to anti-competitively favor its comparison shopping service over others.

Google had not returned a request for comment at press time.

Related: European Commission Fines Google $2.7 Billion

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a tech policy think tank, jumped to Google's aid.

"Today’s ruling is bad for consumers and bad for innovation," said ITIF president Robert Atkinson. "The EU has effectively decided that some companies have become too big to innovate. The EU’s actions have created a cloud of uncertainty that will make large tech companies overly cautious about making changes to the user experience and service offerings that would benefit consumers."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, of which Google is a member, took aim at the EC decision.

“The Commission’s Decision marks a worrying step away from the key objectives of competition law enforcement," said CCIA Europe director Jakob Kucharczyk. "Companies should not be punished for introducing innovative products that consumers and advertisers value. Providing direct answers to users’ search queries is unquestionably a product improvement. All major search engines do it. Courts and competition authorities around the globe have found that there are procompetitive justifications for such product improvements.

“It seems the Commission’s case is mainly focused on competitors who disagree with Google competing on the merits," Kucharczyk continued. "We fail to see the evidence for consumer harm and for quality-related product degradation. If the result of this investigation is to force Google to undo more than 10 years of search engine evolution, EU competition enforcement would clearly not live up to its promise of spurring innovation.

“Leaving aside the commission’s very narrow market definitions, Europe’s e-commerce sector is thriving," he added. "The success of companies like Zalando, Asos or Trivago show consumers have increasing choices to find, compare and buy products online. Investments into e-commerce ventures have steadily increased. All of that is not indicative of a market suppressed by a dominant player.”

Thomas Lenard, senior fellow and president emeritus at the Technology Policy Institute, suggested the EC had gotten off track.

"The focus of the European Commission’s action against Google today appears to be harm to competitors rather than harm to consumers, which should be the focus of antitrust enforcement," Lenard said. "The EC should demonstrate in concrete terms how consumers have been harmed."

Google has maintained that it is simply helping consumers find products they are looking for more quickly and easily.

Scott Cleland, president of Precursor LLC and chair of the ISP-backed NetCompetition, saw it quite differently.

"The EU is right," said Cleland, long a strong critic of the search giant. "Google is a monopoly. It abuses its search monopoly by self dealing and predatorily foreclosing competition. This seven-year EU process has been fair, competent and patient to get it right."

Cleland suggested U.S. regulators should take a page from the EU, and said he expects that they will.

"Sadly the EU is cleaning up the mess created by U.S. non-enforcement of antitrust law caused by obvious political interference and protection orchestrated by Google's outsized political clout," Cleland said. "This decision will trigger a domino effect of additional enforcement against Alphabet-Google in the EU, the U.S. and around the world in search, advertising, Android and Google Play.

"This is the first inning of Google's new official monopoly abuse reality," he added.

“All competition authorities should take questions of platform dominance seriously," said Public Knowledge President Gene Kimmelman. "Although we are not in a position to assess the merits of this particular case, we appreciate the European Commission focusing on these important issues. In these types of cases, antitrust officials must ensure that no company use its market power to foreclose competition, or to leverage its success in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.

“This case is likely to have much wider implications than the comparison shopping dispute highlighted in the Commission’s statement. We believe effective antitrust enforcement must offer marketplace solutions that benefit consumers and enable competition and innovation to flourish. However this case is ultimately resolved, we believe it is critical that any online platform with excessive market power should not be allowed to discriminate unfairly against competitors while being allowed to develop product and service innovations that benefit consumers."

"Google's market power is one of the most critical challenges for competition policymakers in the world today," said
Barry C. Lynn, director of the Open Markets program at New America. "By requiring that Google give equal treatment to rival services instead of privileging its own, [European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe] Vestager is protecting the free flow of information and commerce upon which all democracies depend. We call upon U.S. enforcers, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and states attorneys general, to build upon this important precedent, both in respect to Google and to other dominant platform monopolists including Amazon. U.S. enforcers should apply the traditional American approach to network monopoly, which is to cleanly separate ownership of the network from ownership of the products and services sold on that network, as they did in the original Microsoft case of the late 1990s."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competiton Policy and Consumer Rights, said she would be keeping an eye on dominant players.

“Dominant internet platforms increasingly affect not just the products we buy and the information we seek, but innovation and economic opportunities for small businesses," she said following the decision. "I am committed to pursuing these issues to ensure that the internet is an engine to increase economic opportunity and protect consumers in the 21st century economy.”

The Computer & Communications Industry Association is hoping the Supreme Court will modify a lower court judgment in a patent case involving Apple and Samsung, and thereby remove a possible tool for uncsrupulous patent assertion entities (so-called 'patent trolls').

CCIA had filed an amicus brief asking the court to hear the patent and design case, arguing that the lower court decision expanded a small ornamental feature to include all of the innovation in the complex device (a Samsung phone).

“To award all the profits of a product based on a dispute over a design feature devalues all the other innovation and components that go into producing a high tech device. We are hopeful the Supreme Court can offer a sensible review of this senseless interpretation of the law,” said CCIA President Ed Black.

CCIA patent counsel Matt Levy, who explains the case here, said of the oral argument: "Samsung, Apple, and the U.S. government all agreed that the Federal Circuit was wrong to say that design patent damages must be based on the entire profits for the product sold to consumers. The Justices seemed to be comfortable with this position as well, because they focused on the correct standards to use in applying the statute," he said, adding: "based on what I heard, I think it’s very likely that the Court will modify the lower court’s decision.”

He says the damages statute was meant to apply to things like rugs, where the design was essentially what was being sold, not complex products as if the outward appearance rather than the Thousands of inventions constituted the phone.

"“If the lower court’s decision stands, it would provide yet another tool for patent assertion entities (PAE's) to use to extract money from companies that produce complex products; patent assertion entities could threaten them with the loss of their entire profit," said Levy.

The Federal Trade Commission just last week recommended changes it the way such entities can assert their patents as a way to prevent them from abusing the process and stifling innovators and hurting small businesses.

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has released her full technology  policy agenda, which includes fighting for Title II -- and applying it to interconnection -- in court if need be and tapping into a $25 billion Infrastructure Bank to provide money to localities to foster access to high-speed Internet at "affordable prices."

Among her other planks are defending net neutrality abroad, creating a Chief Innovation Adviser position, closing the "digital divide," pushing 5G wireless deployment, reallocating and repurposing government spectrum, and promoting a multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

"Hillary believes that the government has an obligation to protect the open internet," the campaign said. [She] strongly supports the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network-neutrality rules that deemed Internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. These rules now ban broadband discrimination, prohibit pay-for-play favoritism and establish oversight of “interconnection” relationships between providers. Hillary would defend these rules in court and continue to enforce them. She also maintains her opposition to policies that unnecessarily restrict the free flow of data online – such as the high-profile fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)."

In the platform, the Clinton campaign points out that the candidate made network neutrality a foreign policy imperative as Secretary of State..

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, representing many companies that also pushed for net-neutrality rules and broadband buildouts, applauded the candidate's tech platform.

“The ability to grow the economy in the future will depend on a good foundation for the digital economy," said CCIA president Ed Black. "This is the platform of a candidate who can be trusted to grow the economy. [W]hat distinguishes Clinton is her articulation of a platform to provide better trained workers, Internet access, and policies both here and with our trading partners to deliver economic growth.” 

CCIA had suggested a tech policy platform in a letter to the presidential candidates.

Linda Moore, president of TechNet, comprising senior technology execs, praised Clinton for outlining her agenda and echoed CCIA's shout-out.

“Hillary Clinton is the first of the presidential candidates to lay out a technology and innovation agenda," Moore said. "In doing so, Hillary proves that she gets it — that our nation's ability to grow our economy and drive job creation is dependent on our ability to stay ahead of the curve in innovation."

TechNet was also a signatory to that tech policy platform letter.

UPDATE:Shapiro: Bill Compelling Decryption Would Make Cybersecurity Illegal

A bipartisan pair of powerful senators wants to make sure communications companies help the government unlock encrypted information.

According to a draft of the legislation, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) plan to introduce a bill, the Compliance with Court Orders Act, that would make it clear that communications companies have to provide unencrypted versions of encrypted user information when ordered to by a court, or help the government unencrypt it.

Burr and Feinstein are chair, and vice chair, respectively of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That would only apply if the target of the order, or a third party on its behalf, had done the encrypting. If the communications company provides technical assistant in decoding the data, they would be compensate for reasonable and necessary costs.

The bill would not authorize the government require or prohibit any type of operating system, which means the bill would not prevent encryption but would require companies to be able to defeat their own encryption in order to be able to make the info available.

The bill follows the privacy vs. security tug-of-war between Apple and the FBI, and among privacy groups, stakeholders and government more broadly, over accessing the phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. A cable source said they believed the bill would apply to cable companies, too.

The FBI got a court order compelling Apple to help it access the encrypted information, but Apple did not comply and fought the order. The FBI ultimately got the information without Apple's help, so the company did not wind up having to comply by default--the FCC withdrew the request that the court compel them.

"All providers of communications services and products (including software) should protect the privacy of United States persons through implementation of appropriate data security and still respect the rule of law and comply with all legal requirements and court orders," the legislation says.

It did not sit well with privacy advocates, who slammed the draft.

"This leaked draft of the upcoming Feinstein-Burr bill instructs every tech vendor in America to use either backdoored encryption or no encryption at all, even though practically every security expert in the country would tell you that means laying down our arms in the constant fight to secure or data against thieves, hackers, and spies," said Kevin Bankston, director of New America’s Open Technology Institute. "This bill would not only be surrendering America’s cybersecurity but also its tech economy, as foreign competitors would continue to offer—and bad guys would still be able to easily use!—more secure products and services. The fact that this lose-lose proposal is coming from the leaders of our Senate’s intelligence committee, when former heads of the NSA, DHS, the CIA and more are all saying that we are more secure with strong encryption than without it, would be embarrassing if it weren’t so frightening."

“This bill is a clear threat to everyone’s privacy and security," said Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. Instead of heeding the warnings of experts, the senators have written a bill that ignores economic, security, and technical reality. It would force companies to deliberately weaken the security of their products by providing backdoors into the devices and services that everyone relies on. Senators Burr and Feinstein should abandon their efforts to create a government backdoor.”

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation said the bill would put communications companies in an untenable position.

"While companies should comply with lawful requests, it is simply not possible for a company to do so when the customer controls the only keys used to encrypt the data. For example, the popular messaging app WhatsApp, which provides end-to-end encryption on its platform, would not be able to comply with the legislation, unless it modified its system. Yet,

the bill explicitly states that it is not authorizing the government to require or prohibit any specific design changes to software or hardware. In short, this bill sets up a legal paradox that would further muddy the waters about how and when the government can compel the private sector to assist in gaining access to private information."

“The leaked draft shows that the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 would undermine any technology that helps secure people’s private communications," said Free Press Action Fund policy counsel Gaurav Laroia. "It’s a massive overreach by Senators Burr and Feinstein, who appear to have forgotten the rights guaranteed to Americans under the Constitution."

The senators took a hit as well from the group.

“Our right to communicate in private is being threatened by the very people Americans rely on for these protections. Burr and Feinstein lead the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is supposed to defend the rights of everyday Americans and prevent overreach from the intelligence community.

“If this dangerous bill passes, it would outlaw not just end-to-end encrypted communications but also the tools that protect our information from criminals, hackers and foreign governments working to undermine the security of millions of people and businesses. Our right to privacy should extend beyond in-person conversations to include communications made via the internet and wireless networks. Encryption is the tool that makes this possible."

“This legislation could establish standards that force companies to eliminate security features that may be exploited by others who do not share law enforcement’s good intentions,” said Linda Moore, president of TechNet.  “The results are that common transactions will become easy prey for bad actors and that customers around the world could lose faith in the trustworthiness of American products and choose alternatives that don’t have the same vulnerabilities.”

The FCC's special access (business broadband) reform proposal introduced Friday (April 8) drew an early crowd Friday after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler outlined the proposal--circulated to the other commissioners April 7) in a blog post.

"Sprint commends Chairman Wheeler for moving forward today on what we have long believed to be one of the most fundamental reforms necessary for broadband competition and 21st century innovations like advanced mobile broadband services and the Internet of Things," the company said in a statement. "High-speed, dedicated 'special access' connections are critical inputs to nearly every application and service that powers our economy and the overwhelming monopoly or duopoly control over those connections has cost our economy $150 billion in the last five years alone.

"The Chairman's recommendation today moves to end that enormous drag on our economy, ushering in a new framework supported by rules that look forward not backward, towards competition and away from market failure and artificial technology or legal distinctions."

"In a blog post today, Chairman Wheeler signaled that relief is finally on its way to the long-suffering market for high-speed, dedicated broadband connections," said COMPETIFY, whose members, in include Public Knowledge, Level 3, and INCOMPAS, which represents competitive telecom carriers. "Based on the largest and most comprehensive data collection

ever conducted on this dysfunctional market, the differential diagnosis revealed a disease of monopoly-duopoly control affecting a staggering 97% of markets across the country," the group said. "In his move towards the cure today, Chairman Wheeler proposed a comprehensive treatment that will deliver a 21st-century framework to end the scourge of this disease on all sectors of the broadband economy and drive innovations like the Internet of Things and 5G to consumers and businesses across the country."

“Chairman Wheeler today announced policy reform efforts intended to end a decade of delay and unleash a century of choice and innovation," said Broadband Coalition spokesman Jeff Sharp--the group represents competitive broadband providers. "The FCC is also taking additional steps to address anti-competitive terms and conditions that lock up customers and lock out competition. The Broadband Coalition welcomes pro-consumer action and looks forward to working with the entire FCC to promote more competition and choice for our customers."

Verizon and INCOMPAS this week offered up their own compromise on special access that tracked with the FCC proposal, and both weighed in with separate statements.

“In the more than 10 years that the FCC has been examining these business data services, the marketplace has changed dramatically," said Kathy Grillo, SVP and deputy general counsel, at Verizon. "Customers have moved past legacy services and are choosing better, faster services like Ethernet. We welcome Chairman Wheeler’s proposal and support his commitment to resolve these issues promptly and fairly." Wheeler planned to vote on the proposal at the FCC's April meeting and wanted to vote out an order this year.

"We are encouraged that he has proposed a path towards a balanced framework that would put all providers on equal footing under the same set of rules," said Grillo. "It would also rely on competition, rather than regulation, whenever possible. The framework recognizes that many different companies compete today to serve business customers and that the Commission should approach the marketplace in a technology-neutral manner.  We will work with the Commission and other stakeholders as it further develops its new approach over the coming months.”

“We have a business data revolution, and competition is the key. That is the message from Chairman Wheeler today who continues to remain steadfast in his support for competition policy," said INCOMPAS CEO Chip Pickering. “By ending anti-competitive lock-up provisions, the FCC is speeding the deployment of new, advanced networks and is providing relief to mobile and business customers hungry for more competition."

“No American business large or small, in services or manufacturing, should be held hostage to unfairly high rates for critical data transport simply because there is no competitive alternative and only crippled regulation," said Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. “After a decade of delays, the FCC has the data to analyze the special access marketplace and institute reforms that will promote competition, speed deployment of faster networks, and ultimately promote innovation and economic growth," he said. "CCIA applauds Chairman Wheeler’s proposal and urges the FCC to ensure that businesses and competitors are no longer gouged by a few incumbents for accessing this crucial broadband input.  We are glad to see that the FCC will vote later this month to begin the process of bringing real change to this market.  By reforming this market, the FCC can lower costs for consumers, incentivize the deployment of next generation networks, and facilitate economic growth.”

“I thank Chairman Wheeler and the FCC for including special access on the Agenda for the Commission’s April Open Meeting," said Competitive Carriers Association President Steven Berry. "After 11 long years, it is more than time for the broken special access regime to be reformed.  Wheeler appropriately noted today the growing dependence of wireless carriers on business data services for backhaul as networks move to 5G, and CCA looks forward to working with the FCC to establish policies that support competition and expanded services for consumers.”  

Cable operators, who face potential new regulations on their business-class service, were not equally celebratory about the prospect.

while neither the National Cable & Telecommunications Association nor the American Cable Association had immediate reaction to the FCC's proposal, both had weighed in on the Verizon/INCOMPAS proposal that also suggested extending regulations to cable operators.

ACA president Matt Polka said extending regs to cable ops will "impose costs on...new entrants - many of whom are small providers that have no experience with common carrier rate regulation -- slowing their entry and their efforts to bring competition and innovative services to market.  That is clearly not in the public interest."

“The ‘principles’ suggested by Verizon — INCOMPAS seem at odds with sound economics and a policy of promoting market-driven, facilities-based competition," NCTA said. "Cable operators are new entrants in the business services market, and are investing heavily in building their own facilities to serve business customers.  They are providing precisely the type of facilities-based competition that the Chairman has praised. The FCC should reject any call [it has not] to impose new, onerous regulations on an industry that is stepping up to offer meaningful choices to business customers.  The FCC will not achieve competition if it burdens new facilities-based entrants with regulation.”