Another day, another stern letter from legislators to Facebook about their social media practices. 

This letter  — to founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg — came from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), saying the company continues to engage in misleading targeted ad policies.

The legislators pointed out that in congressional testimony, Facebook global head of safety Antigone Davis said that young people could only be targeted on the site based on gender, age or location, but that new research showed that Facebook itself targets ads to people using a machine learning system tied to personal data, including browsing history.

The letter follows a complaint by a coalition of groups last week, led by Reset Australia and Fairplay, which said their analysis found that the company continued to collect teen data “to fuel its ad-delivery system.” While advertisers may not be able to target teens, they said, the company's algorithm's can.

Also: Haugen Hearing: Sen. Blumenthal Calls It Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment

“Facebook’s announcement that it would limit ad targeting to users under the age of 18 implicitly acknowledged the harms that targeted advertisements pose to young people, and Facebook explicitly stated it was committed to taking a ‘more precautionary approach’ in its advertising practices when it announced its policy change,” the lawmakers said in their letter to Zuckerberg. “Unfortunately, new research suggests that harmful advertising practices on Facebook continue.”

“[I]t’s wrong to say that because we show data in our transparency tools it’s automatically used for ads,” Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne said of the coalition’s complaint. "We don’t use data from our advertisers' and partners' websites and apps to personalize ads to people under 18. The reason this information shows up in our transparency tools is because teens visit sites or apps that use our business tools. We want to provide transparency into the data we receive, even if it's not used for ads personalization."

Markey, Trahan and Castor asked for the answers to the following questions by Dec. 13:

1.) “Since Facebook’s announcement [last July] that it will limit ad targeting to users under 18, what specifically has Facebook done to restrict advertisers’ abilities to reach young users?

2.) “Determine in part what commercial content users under 18 on your platform see? If yes, please describe the program in detail.

a. “What types of user data does this system collect or employ?

b. “Does this system collect or employ data from users under the age of 13?

c. “How long has Facebook used this system?

3.) “Will Facebook commit to releasing its algorithmic process for ad targeting to be studied by independent researchers? If not, why not?

4.) “Please describe in detail the ways in which Facebook uses data about the interest and browsing history of users under 18.

5.) “Has Facebook conducted any internal research on the effects of targeted advertising on

users under 18? If so, please provide this research in its entirety.

6.) “Has Facebook communicated with potential advertisers about Facebook’s advertising ‘Delivery System’ and its ability to target users under 18? If so, please describe these communications in detail.

7.) “Has Facebook’s advertising ‘Delivery System’ ever served an advertisement to a user under 18 that promoted weight-loss, nicotine or alcohol use?

8.) “Will Facebook commit to ending targeted advertising to users under 18 on all of its platforms? If not, why not?”

Markey, Castor and Trahan teamed up last April to discourage Facebook from plans to create a kids’ version of its Instagram platform. Those Instagram Kids plans have been under a klieg light in D.C. and elsewhere after whistleblower Frances Haugen turned over internal research to Congress showing the company knew that some young people were hurt by the platform. Facebook countered that the same research found that most kids said they were helped by being on Instagram, adding that it could use both findings to help improve the site.

“Once more into the data breach” could be the rallying cry of House Democrats trying once again to come up with federal privacy legislation.

Reps. Anna Eshoo and Zöe Lofgren, both California Democrats, have reintroduced their Online Privacy Act.

The bill is something of a bill of rights for user data, putting “limitations and obligations” on the companies that collect and use data, enforced by a new Digital Privacy Agency.

Among other things, the bill: “Criminalizes doxxing [publishing personal info to harrass or intimidate]; limits companies from using data to build behavioral profiles without consent; exempts small businesses from the most onerous requirements; and prohibits the sale of government records with personal data without consent.”

It includes a carve-out for journalists, making clear reporters can use or disclose personal information for investigative journalism purposes “no differently than they do today,” but that data can be disclosed only if ther are safeguards against it being used for non-journalistic purposes.

The legislators say the bill is new and improved, including adding an Office of Civil Rights to the DPA in a nod to the increased emphasis on digital equity and a recognition that user data can be used to discriminate against minority users.

The DPA would be an independent agency with a director appointed by the president to a five-year term and subject to Senate confirmation. 

The bill would minimize the data that could be collected and bars them from using that data in any discriminatory way. Plus, such collection and use would be opt-in, with companies required to get consent from users.

There is also a version of the eraser button that Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has been pushing since he was in the House. The bill would give everyone the right to “access, correct or delete their data,” as well as a “right to impermancence,” which allows users to decide how long a company can retain their data.

The bill would strengthen enforcement. In addition to the DPA being able to investigate abuses and enforce rights, states attorneys general would be able to enforce violations of the federal law and individuals would have a right of private action, able to join in class-action suits and have nonprofits represent them in those private actions.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Thursday (Sept. 30) that he and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) will reintroduce their KIDS Act, which would remake online content targeted to kids.

Markey also called for banning influencer marketing to kids online, as selling by hosts is banned in children’s TV programming.

That came at a subcommittee hearing with the global head of safety for Facebook, Antigone Davis, where her company was hammered for, among other things, planning an Instagram Kids version of that site for children 12 and younger.

The Markey-Blumenthal bill would, among other things, ban auto-play settings, push alerts and reward “badges” on websites and/or apps for kids and young teens.

Also Read: Big Tech Bashed in Senate Hearing On Protecting Kids Online

It would also prohibit websites from recommending content with host-selling and influencer marketing, including “unboxing videos” to kids and young teens or from “exposing children and young teens to marketing with embedded interactive elements.”

Also Read: Senators Push for Research into Tech Impact on Kids

In questioning Davis, Markey said online platforms should not allow influencers to push products on children because they lack the ability to distinguish between ad and non-ad content. He pointed out that such host selling is not allowed on TV — per his own children’s TV legislation — and that that regime should apply to influencers as well.

If Facebook has taught us anything, he said, it is that self-regulation is not an option.

Asked if she supported the bill, Davis said it was certainly time for updated regulations and she would be happy to work with him and would follow up. He pointed out that the company had had access to the legislation — which was launched in March 2020 — for months.

"[E]very single Senator who called out Facebook today should support Senator Markey and Senator Blumenthal's KIDS Act...," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay (Formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood). "[W]e need legislation to address the damaging design and predatory data collection practices of platforms like Instagram."

Some powerful lawmakers are telling Facebook it should pull the plug on plans for a kids‘ version of Instagram, not simply suspend them, and have signaled that Congress is stepping in regardless.

Facebook announced the pause on Monday (Sept. 27), but said it still thought a kid-targeted version of Instagram was a way to help prevent children under 13 from trying to access inappropriate apps.

The opposing view from lawmakers came in a joint statement from, among others, the lead senator for a hearing this week on the adverse impact of the adult/teen version of Instagram on young people, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Joining Blumenthal were Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the leading voices for kids’ online privacy, as well as Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.).

The legislators said that though they were glad Facebook had heeded their call to back off the kids’ version, a pause was not enough.

“Facebook has completely forfeited the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting young people online and it must completely abandon this project,” they said in a joint statement. “Time and time again, Facebook has demonstrated the failures of self-regulation, and we know that Congress must step in.”

In this case, that step is the Kids Internet Design and Safety (KIDS) Act, which the lawmakers said they plan to introduce. The bill would give young internet users “the protections they need to navigate today’s online ecosystem without sacrificing their well-being.” 

They said it is critical legislation and called upon their colleagues to support it.

Senate Democrats are attempting to add their distance learning E-Rate funding bill to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have proposed their Emergency Educational Connections Act as an amendment on the bill. 

The bill would ensure that all K-12 students have access to "adequate" home broadband connectivity and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Dems signaled last month they would be introducing the bill, the Senate version of a bill introduced by Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), but would double Chen's $2 billion allocation for the FCC's E-Rate schools and libraries broadband subsidy program to $4 billion because the pandemic could extend far longer than the current academic year, they said.

“We cannot allow the ‘homework gap’ to become a larger ‘learning gap’ during the coronavirus pandemic,” the Senators said in a joint statement. “Without immediate action by Congress and $4 billion in E-Rate funding, millions of students – especially those of low-income families, immigrants, communities of color and rural areas – are at risk of being left behind. We plan to seek any legislative vehicle available to us to make our proposal the law, which will take important strides towards ensuring that all students in America have the connectivity they need to continue their education online during the current crisis.”

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been calling on Congress to fund distance learning as they did with telehealth. He has said the FCC's hands are tied in terms of using E-rate broadband subsidies for learning-from-home broadband because the subsidy program is statutorily tied to "classrooms."

He has also pointed out that there is about $16 billion in CARES Act funding for states and localities that could be used for distance learning from home. 

The E-Rate is a Universal Service Fund subsidy for advanced telecommunications for schools and libraries.

The bill would clarify that the broadband billions could be used for equipment and service at "locations other than the school."

House Energy & Commerce Committee leadership said Friday that they have come up with bipartisan, bicameral, legislation to combat unwanted robocalls.

The FCC is on the same page and a parallel track with various initiatives and fines for illegal robocalls, but it is one of the key constituent issues on the Hill so legislators want to put their own stake in that turf.

Signing on to the compromise bill are Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), Energy & Commerce Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), and ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio).

Related: Cable Ops Oppose Default Robocall-Blocking Mandate

“Today, we are proud to announce that we have come to an agreement in principle on legislation, the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, to combat the robocall epidemic that we believe can be signed into law by the President,” they said in a joint statement. “It’s time to put Americans back in charge of their phones. Our agreement will require telephone carriers to verify calls and allow robocalls to be blocked in a consistent and transparent way, all at no extra charge to consumers. The agreement also gives the FCC and law enforcement the ability to quickly go after scammers. We look forward to finalizing the bill text in the coming days.”

The Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act will combine (and reconcile) the TRACED Act, which passed the Senate in May, and the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, which passed the House in July.

The FCC under chairman Ajit Pai has made cracking down on unwanted calls, that number in the many billions annually, one of his signature issues. That includes clarifying that carriers can block robocalls by default and incentivizing them to add the feature at no extra charge.  

The FCC is under pressure from Congress to help consumers weed out unwanted robocalls--for one thing, legislators keep pointing out that they get such calls during hearings about how to stop them.

“Help is on the way! Thank you to these Congressional leaders for coming together to provide critical new tools to fight back against the robocall criminals scamming consumers and polluting our networks," said USTelecom President Jonathan Spalter. "This is a powerful shot in the arm to our technology driven traceback and verification work and will go a long way in helping take back our phones.”

Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai takes issue with the characterization by Democrats that he “refused” to brief House Energy & Commerce Committee staff on a Motherboard story that wireless carriers were not disclosing real-time location data.

Pai told The Wire that while he did not brief them during the government shutdown, once the government was un-shut, he immediately offered “the FCC’s career staff” to provide such a briefing, an offer that was accepted. “That briefing has been given and we are committed to working with Congress and any other interested stakeholders on the committee or the Senate to provide them the information that we can, consistent with the obvious rules on pending enforcement investigations,” Pai said during an interview. One Democratic staffer familiar with the meeting confirmed it had taken place, but suggested there was not a lot of meat on the bone.

Democrats in the House are ramping up their oversight of the FCC, along with virtually every other agency under the Trump regime. But Democratic senators aren’t wallflowers either, although they remain in the minority.

Sens. Ed Markey, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden called on Pai to investigate if carriers were throttling and prioritizing traffic and not being transparent about it. That would violate the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order, which relies on disclosure of conduct the Federal Trade Commission can decide is or is not anticompetitive, false or deceptive. Pai was not briefing the senators or anyone else about that. “I can’t comment on any investigations that may arise or may in fact be underway,” he told The Wire.

Senate Democrats have pressed major ISPs on they are protecting consumer privacy in the wake of congressional

Republican's nullification of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, suggesting they should adhere voluntarily with all the FCC rules that those ISPs fought, while saying they remained committed to protecting sub privacy.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for privacy rights who pushed back hard against the Republican effort, led a group of eight senators in letters to AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and CenturyLink.

The letter seeks answers to a host of questions (see below), including whether they require opt-in consent for sharing web browsing, app use, and other information, whether they have "take-it-or-leave-it" offerings refusing service to those who do not agree to share their info, whether they have "pay for privacy" options, and more, essentially restating the rules and asking if their voluntary policies match them, plus some additional questions.

"We strongly disagree with the CRA resolution, and believe that broadband providers should follow strong privacy and security rules that give consumers control over how their information is used and shared, as well as confidence their information will be protected,” they wrote, urging them on their own to "provide your subscribers with the same level of privacy and security protections as stipulated in the FCC’s broadband privacy order.”

ISPs have pledged to adhere to voluntary privacy principles whatever happened to the fCC rules.

Democratic members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee at a hearing Wednesday (April 5) slammed Republicans for the CRA, suggesting promises that privacy would be protected were hollow.

Following is one of the letters, this one to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson:

April 5, 2017

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Congress recently passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution rescinding the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) broadband privacy and security rules.  We strongly disagree with the CRA resolution, and believe that broadband providers should follow strong privacy and security rules that give consumers control over how their information is used and shared, as well as confidence their information will be protected.  In light of this Congressional action, we write to ask how your company plans to protect the privacy of the millions of Americans who rely on your services to connect to the internet. 

In 2017, broadband access is no longer a luxury; it is essential.  Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are gatekeepers that control the infrastructure that Americans depend on to access vital applications and services.  ISPs can use this privileged position to collect and use sensitive information about subscribers, including precise geo-location,

financial information, and web and app usage history.  Yet, many consumers have limited choice for broadband service and cannot necessarily change ISPs if their privacy and security protections are not transparent or strong.  Given this limited choice, we urge your company to provide your subscribers with the same level of privacy and security protections as stipulated in the FCC’s broadband privacy order. 

We respectfully request that you provide a written response to the following questions:

     1.Do you obtain affirmative opt-in consent to use, share, or sell any of the following information: web browsing history, app usage history, the content of communications, children’s information, health information, financial information, geo-location, and Social Security numbers? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not? If no, please disclose what information you are sharing and selling and with whom you are sharing or selling that information.

     2.Do you provide consumers opt-out control over their information? If yes, for what types of information and please detail your policy. If no, why not?

     3.Do you maintain information or data related to former subscribers? If yes, what information do you keep, how is it maintained, and is it minimized? What are your data security and privacy policies for the data and personal information of former subscribers? 

     4.Do you make “take-it-or-leave-it” offerings, where consumers are refused internet service if they do not permit their information to be used, shared, or sold? If yes, why? When updating privacy policies, must current subscribers agree to the new terms in order to continue service?  Would a consumer be forced to pay a termination fee if service is denied for refusing to agree to new privacy or data collection terms?  Please detail your policy.

    5.Do you make “pay for privacy” offerings, where consumers could be required to pay an additional amount to protect their privacy or receive compensation for declining to protect their privacy? Please detail your policy for what purposes you use and share this information, and with whom that information is shared or sold?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no, why not?

    6. Do you notify customers at the point-of-sale, before purchase, of the types of information collected, how and for what purposes you use and share this information, and with whom that information is shared or sold?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no, why not?

    7.Do you develop and adhere to reasonable data security practices sufficient to protect the information you collect about your subscribers? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

    8.Do you notify customers within 30 days if their information has been breached or accessed by unauthorized parties? Do you also alert customers to any mitigating action they should take? Do you provide free services to mitigate the impacts of a breach, such as free credit monitoring service?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no,why not?

    9. Do you practice strong de-identification or anonymization, such that de-identified personal information cannot be reasonably linkable to a person or device? If yes, please explain your process for de-identifying data. If no, why not?

   10.Do you prohibit third parties with whom you share or sell consumers’ sensitive information from re-identifying de-identified information? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

   11.Do you refuse to serve a customer who does not agree to mandatory arbitration clauses? If yes, why? Please detail your policy.

   12.Do you notify customers when you make material changes to your privacy policies? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

   13.Do you have a clear, user-friendly, easily accessible, and responsive complaint process for consumers who have evidence or reason to believe their privacy has been violated? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not? 

   14.Many ISPs retain so called “netflow” records, related to their customers’ internet usage. Do you retain netflow records for your customers’ web browsing activity? If so, for how long do you retain them? Will you disclose netflow records pursuant to a National Security Letter, or only court orders?

   15.Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, carriers may not disclose subscriber location information without the “express prior authorization of the customer”. Over each of the last three years, how many times did your company disclose to third parties individually identifiable customer location data or other Customer Proprietary Network

Information with a customer’s express prior authorization?  Does your company obtain the consent from the subscriber directly?  If not, and the third party obtains the consent (or claims they do), do you request or retain a copy of documentation showing that the customer provided such consent?

   16.Please detail any changes you have made to your privacy policy or practices since the President signed the broadband privacy CRA into law.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  We respectfully request that you provide a written response by May 1, 2017.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to boost Obama Administration era Global Connect initiative, including through additional funding for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and with the goal of boosting access to broadband in developing countries.

The DIGITAL AGE (Driving Innovation and Growth in Internet Technology And Launching Universal Access to the Global Economy) Act  would include encouraging global "dig once" policies, spectrum re-use and promoting various Internet values like lower costs, a free and open 'net and nondiscriminatory access.

The bill would direct the State Department, USAID and other relevant agencies--that would include the FCC--to work with other government, financial institutions and private industry to:

• "encourage a competitive market for investment and innovation in internet infrastructure and services;
• "ensure effective, efficient, and transparent spectrum allocation;
• "encourage internet infrastructure sharing;
• "improve the affordability of internet access devices;
• "promote the creation of public access facilities;
• "encourage integration of internet backbone and other infrastructure into existing infrastructure projects supported by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and others, and;
• "encourage companies to adopt flexible policies infrastructure sharing and spectrum re-use."

Ajit Pai, the first Indian American FCC chair, this week at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona struck a nonbinding agreement to coordinate with his opposite number in India on issues including accelerating broadband deployment and spectrum policy for mobile broadband.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will join various groups pushing new broadband privacy regs Thursday (Oct. 20) to urge the FCC to vote on them at the Oct. 27 meeting as planned.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has put that vote on the agenda, but the set-top item was on the agenda for last month's meeting before being pulled at the last minute, so clearly the groups don't want a repeat of that. Thursday is the day the FCC releases the agenda for the meeting and the sunshine period prohibition on contacting the FCC decisionmakers about the privacy item begins.

The groups include Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute, and the Consumer Federation of America, and say the FCC "must act" to protect what they call the "growing" threat online of ISP data collection.

Related: Pallone Pushes for Broadband Privacy Vote

Wheeler's privacy proposal would make web site visits, app use histories and geolocation all sensitive data that requires ISP subs to opt in to their collection and use by third parties. ISPs point out that edge providers like Google and Facebook have no such restrictions, but Wheeler has said that IPSs have a unique window on everywhere their subs are going online.

In announcing a Thursday press conference, the groups echoed the chairman's argument, and argued that ISPs are collecting and monetizing more data on mobile use and Web histories and tracking them on the move (geolocation).

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) says Facebook and Instagram need to do more to curb guns sales via social networking, including coming up with a better monitoring system than reliance primarily on user reporting.

Facebook, following letters from Markey on the subject last November and again in July, announced that neither it nor co-owned Instagram would allow firearms listings, but Markey says, citing media reports, that the social media sites are still being used to "pursue" those sales.

Facebook and Instagram told Markey that, since January, they have prohibited listings of peer-to-peer guns sales of any kind, they would continue to remove content when made aware of it and notify law enforcement "where appropriate," appropriate being where there is a "direct, credible risk to others' safety" or it is necessary to detect and prevent fraud or other illegal activity.

Peer-to-peer sales are as distinguished from postings by online retailers about gun purchases that are made off of Facebook. It also pointed out that even before the January policy change they had education efforts about peer-to-peer gun sales complying with relevant laws and regulations, and prevented minors from accessing that content when it became aware they were doing so.

"Despite the companies’ policies prohibiting those [gun] sales, it remains too easy for users to solicit and conduct private gun sales through Facebook and Instagram," said Markey. “While I commend the platforms’ facilitating the reporting of prohibited content related to gun sales by users, I urge Facebook and Instagram to redouble their efforts to develop and deploy technology that can enforce their gun-sales ban without relying so heavily on user reporting. Facebook and Instagram’s ban on private firearms sales should have the teeth it needs to be effective, so that it can truly prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who should not have them."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is all for harnessing the power of drones, but also wants the government to establish privacy rules. Currently, the Obama Administration has helped stakeholders come up with voluntary drone privacy best practices, an approach it has taken with other privacy issues, including facial recognition and apps and, announced just this week, the Internet of Things.

But in the wake of the White House announcement of efforts to boost drone use, and voluntary efforts on privacy, Markey called for more.

“While I am pleased that the White House continues its efforts to safely integrate drones into our national airspace, when it comes to drone privacy, we are still essentially flying blind,” he said. “As more drones take flight, voluntary privacy guidelines and best practices are simply not enough. Drones flying overhead could collect very sensitive and personally identifiable information about millions of Americans, but right now, we don’t have sufficient safeguards in place to protect our privacy. We need to put privacy rules on the books now before more and more drones take flight over our heads and backyards.”

Markey has proposed The Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, legislation to establish drone privacy rules including informing the public about the location and ownership of drones.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to promote worldwide access to the World Wide Web.

The Driving Innovation and Growth in Internet Technology and Launching Universal Access to the Global Economy (DIGITAL AGE) Act of 2016 is targeted at the developing  nations where access trails far behind developing nations, says Markey, citing statistics showing that while 80% of the households in the developing world have access to the Internet, only 34% of those in developing countries do, and only 7% in the least developed.

Markey says the bill "expands U.S. government support for private sector investors, strengthens the State Department’s Global Connect Initiative, and affirms expanding internet access as a programmatic focus for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)."

Markey is looking to encourage infrastructure investment--including infrastructure sharing and spectrum re-use-- as well as ensure transparent spectrum allocation, encourage integrating Internet backbone into infrastructure projects funded by the World Bank, IMF, USAID and others, make computers and other 'net access devices more affordable, and promote public access facilities. It would also

The State Department has already planted a flag on global connectivity. Back in April, it launched "Global  Connect," an effort to bring 1.5 billion more people online by 2020. 

"“Bridging the global digital divide can help promote prosperity, democracy, educational opportunity and better health," said Markey.

Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, global broadband access and network neutrality were established as foreign policy goals.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined with four Democratic senatorial colleagues to raise red flags about the Charter-Time Warner Cable merger proposal at the FCC and Department of Justice.

In addition to Sanders, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), among the Senate's most consistent communications merger critics, as well as Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed their concerns in the letters to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

They said the merger would create a new nationwide broadband duopoly, with New Charter and Comcast controlling two-thirds of the high-speed homes.

They also took aim at the debt involved in the deal, saying it could affect the build-out commitments Charter has made.

“Unfortunately, the proposed deal raises serious concerns about the future of this critical marketplace because it would establish a duopoly in the high-speed broadband industry," they wrote. "Comcast and New Charter’s dual dominance of the market could lead to a number of concrete harms to consumers, including higher prices and fewer innovative services."

But they did not ask the agencies to block the deal.

“New Charter must not only prove that this deal would not harm consumers, but they must also demonstrate that it would actually benefit them and promote the public interest.”

But the letter extended beyond the particular facts of the deal to suggest a wider concern: "Greater consolidation among existing broadband incumbents stands in contrast to what we need today," they wrote, which his "greater competition."

Charter responded with a statement it has issued before in response to criticisms of the deal.

“Charter is a different type of cable company—committed to creating American jobs, offering the most innovative products, preserving an open internet and advancing policies that are friendly to both consumers and online video providers. New Charter's consumer-friendly, pro-broadband policies and national footprint, will enable it to be an industry leader committed to providing superior broadband and video services at competitive rates, improved customer service and a better platform for online video and independent programming. New Charter has received broad support from leading OVD provider Netflix because of its online video friendly practices; independent programmers including AXS, Fuse Media and RFD-TV due to its commitment to diverse programming; national multicultural organizations like National Urban League, NAN and LULAC with whom it is collaborating to expand diversity and inclusion; and from the State of New York which recently approved the merger. These parties have taken a close and honest look at the benefits of these transactions and have all come to the same conclusion: these transactions are in the public interest.”

The FCC is said to be in discussions over possible conditions on the deal, which could have prompted the letter to insure that the broadband concerns are getting the FCC and DOJ’s full attention. The commission has signaled broadband access and deployment and video are all key issues in this and other mergers.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) have reintroduced thier Community Access Preservation (CAP) Act, which would ensure funding for, and access to, public, educational and government (PEG) channels.

The bill would insure that public, educational and government (PEG) channels remain on cable's basic tier and would allow PEG funding to be used for salaries, among other things. "The CAP Act involves no federal spending, will address the severe challenges faced by PEG access channels and local community media, and will save thousands of jobs across the country," according to Sen. Markey's website.

“ACT has been working with these offices and many others to create a solution that will reverse the harm done to PEG access television,” said John Rocco, president of American Community Television, in a statement. “The CAP Act is critical to the survival of these important local television channels. We are already losing channels and could lose many more if we don’t restore the intent of the Cable Act, which found PEG access television important to local communities and democracy.”

Last time around, broadcast group TVFreedom backed the bill. Broadcasters have been fighting cable efforts to include a prohibition on basic-tier status for retrans stations, so they share with PEG proponents the goal of preserving their respective basic tier positions.

Specifically, the act "amends the Cable Act to ensure that PEG fees can be used for any purpose, including paying employee salaries. The legislation reaffirms that cable operators must deliver PEG channels to subscribers without additional charges, and via channel placement with the same quality, accessibility and functionality as provided to local television broadcast stations. Finally, it requires operators to provide the support required under state laws, the support historically provided for PEG, or up to 2% of gross revenue — whichever is greater.

The bill could have a hard slog in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.