Broadcasters are praising the House of Representatives for telling the FCC to "Keep off the grass"... advertising, that is.

The House Wednesday (July 20) passed the 2023 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, which prevents the FCC from taking any actions against broadcasters who air cannabis advertising if it is not against the law in the state or jurisdiction in which the station is licensed.

"Broadcasters have been looking for such protections, arguing that without them they cannot air cannabis ads even where the product is legal, which is in most states.

Also: House Committee to Broadcasters: Roll Your Own Pot Spots

Cable and streaming services, with essentially no FCC licenses at risk, can and do air cannabis ads.

State broadcast associations have been pushing for the right to air ads for a legal product in their states. The New York State Broadcasters Association has pointed out that stations currently run the risk of losing their license -- a risk the bill is meant to remove -- for airing any cannabis ads since the substance remains illegal under federal law.

The National Association of Broadcasters has also pushed for a more level playing field with cable and online.

"For too long, local broadcasters have been stuck in a regulatory purgatory because of conflicting federal and state cannabis laws," said NAB spokesman Alex Siciliano. "Today’s passage marks an important step towards allowing broadcasters to receive equal treatment for cannabis advertising that many other forms of media have enjoyed for years. While we are pleased to see the House act, broadcasters will continue to work with policymakers for a permanent resolution to this competitive disparity to the benefit of consumers.” ■

Some Democrats were agreeably disagreeing Wednesday (July 20) over a proposed bipartisan comprehensive federal data privacy regime.

The differences came to light during a House Energy & Commerce Committee markup of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act. The bill, which ultimately passed out of committee 53-2, would require companies to collect only the data necessary to provide their products or services, bill proponent Common Cause said, and would allow consumers to correct or delete their data. There are also prohibitions on discriminatory data practices, algorithms and ad delivery.

The bill has supporters on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of Congress, which is saying something in these politically divided times, particularly on an issue as complicated as data privacy protection.

But not everyone was singing kumbaya.

Also: ISPs, Edge Providers Oppose California Privacy Law

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who was one of the two no votes, said that her home state already has the best privacy protections in the country, including inalienable rights to access personal information, delete information and stop its sale. California residents may also opt out of automated decision-making and limit the use of sensitive information.

Eshoo said she was concerned the bill would threaten those privacy rights and protections because it does not enshrine protections already in state law. She said she understood industry concerns about not creating a patchwork of regulations, but said there is a history of Congress leaving stronger protections in place when “practical and compatible,” as she suggested was the case with California’s privacy law.

“State progress” should be preserved, she said, as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) does in not overriding state health information protections, or as civil-rights law does in protecting state laws on the matter.

Eshoo said the legislation also has a loophole that would allow law enforcement to go after the private data of women seeking abortions in the post-Roe v. Wade world. She also pointed to the strength of California's privacy law enforcement, with an expert agency focused on preventing the misuse of information. She said the federal bill would compromise California's ability to enforce the law.

The law would be an improvement for much of the country, she argued, but she could not say the same for her constituents in California.

Eshoo’s fellow California Democrat, Rep. Scott Peters, saw it quite differently. He applauded the bill as a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that was of paramount importance.

Peters agreed with Eshoo that California had led the way with its privacy bill, saying the state law had served as inspiration for the federal bill.

He said he recognized the concerns of Eshoo and others and that, ideally, it would take even more of the California law. But he said there needed to be one standard so that businesses know what their rights and responsibilities are, which means the federal standard would necessarily have to preempt various state standards.

Peters also pointed out that without that preemption, the bill would not be bipartisan.

He said there were at least three important aspects of the bill that provided at least as much protection as current law.

Peters said the bill has landmark data-minimization protections that go beyond “failed notice and choice regimes,” as well as robust anti-discrimination protections.

For example, he said, while California law requires kids under 15 to get permission from their parents before they can be targeted with online advertising, the federal legislation flat out prohibits such targetting for anyone under 17. The federal bill also creates a Youth and Marketing Division at the FTC.

“There is no state law in California or elsewhere that protects kids as much as this bill does,” he said.

The committee voted down an Eshoo amendment that would have allowed state laws with stronger privacy protections to remain on the books, but, interestingly, Peters voted for the Eshoo amendment despite his recognition that state laws needed to be preempted in the federal bill. ▪️

The House has narrowly passed the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Preeminence in Technology and Economic Strength) Act, which among many other things, provides $1.5 billion for securing the wireless mobile broadband market supply chain. 

The vote was 222-210, with only one Republican voting for the bill, and one Democrat opposing. A Senate version has already passed and will have to be reconciled with the House bill.

The bill was hailed by House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). His committee supplied many elements of the bill including the wireless funding, $45 billion for supply chain resilience.

The bill also has $52 billion in funding to boost domestic semiconductor production, another supply-chain issue that affects network security.

Democrats billed the spending as a way to better compete with China, but Republicans said it would do the opposite.

“This bill is essential to our supply chains, our economy, and our workers, and will unleash the next generation of innovation and manufacturing in the United States,” said Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. “I’m urging Congress to move quickly to begin negotiations and work out the differences between the bills, focus on areas of common agreement, and get a final version to President Biden’s desk for his signature.”

“The America COMPETES Act provides a critical boost to America’s technological leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security," said Jason Oxman, president of tech trade association ITI. "Its prioritization of research and development, entrepreneurship, and science will strengthen the national innovation ecosystem. Importantly, its investments in domestic semiconductor production will create a more resilient supply chain in the long-term."

Republicans saw it quite differently.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the ranking member of Energy & Commerce, branded it the “America Concedes Act” and said it was reckless spending that would “surrender” the country’s competitive edge, not sharpen it. “If the Democrats wanted to make America more competitive, they would abandon their destructive agenda and work with us to reform burdensome permitting, licensing, and regulatory regimes,” she said on the House floor in advance of the vote.

She called the bill a massive government handout to benefit political allies, and went so far to say that the Democrats‘ approach actually takes a page out of the Chinese Communist Party of “stealing, cheating and using their centrally controlled economy to pick winners and losers through massive government subsidies.”

One of the issues with the domestic communications supply chain is that it contains technology from Chinese companies that can undercut U.S. competitors because they have been subsidized by the government.

The broadband and chip funding had bipartisan support, but Rodgers said labor restrictions had been added that “are only going to make it harder for us to lead in 5G and next-generation communications.” 

"This bill was built on numerous bipartisan elements and on shared bipartisan agreement on the need to act," said President Biden. "If House Republicans are serious about lowering prices, making our economy stronger, and competing with China from a position of strength, then they should come to the table and support this legislation, which does just that."■

House Republicans want some answers from NBCUniversal about whether the Chinese government has tried to exert any influence on its upcoming coverage of the Beijing Winter Olympics. 

What they want to know includes how much NBCU has invested in the country, and whether the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has sought any changes to the way the games are covered or advertised.

That came in a letter Tuesday (Jan. 25) from House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio). They also want to know what safeguards the network has taken to ensure no forced labor is used by anyone associated with the coverage.

The legislators did not allege anything untoward but did seek a lot of information to make sure that was the case.

Also: ESPN Won‘t Send Staffers to Cover Olympics in Beijing

“Given China’s history of censorship and government control, and the fact that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) stands to benefit financially from NBCUniversal’s coverage of the games, we are concerned about the extent of influence the [Chinese Communist Party] may have over NBCUniversal’s coverage of the games,” the lawmakers said. 

They argued that as NBCU begins its coverage of the games, viewers had a right to know whether the programming has been influenced in any way by the International Olympic Committee or the CCP.

The legislators want the following information by February 7, though that is after the games have already begun on Februrary 4.  

1. “Please summarize your investment in the PRC.

2. “It has been reported that the IOC included human rights requirements several years ago in the host city contract for the 2024 Paris Olympics, but it did not include those guidelines for the 2022 Winter Olympics held in Beijing, China. Has the IOC or the CCP taken any steps to influence your coverage of the games relating to reported human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province? If so, please explain.

3. “Has the IOC or CCP asked you to make changes in how they are covered or advertised on NBCUniversal programming? If yes, please list every instance in which the IOC or CCP requested a change, when the request was made, why the change was requested, if failure to accede to the CCP requests and suggestions would have resulted in negative consequences for your company and if you subsequently abided by their demands and why?

4. “Has the CCP suggested changes to public content displayed on NBCUniversal programming in either the United States or China? If yes, please list every instance in which the IOC or CCP requested a change, when the request was made, why the change was requested, if failure to accede to the CCP requests and suggestions would have resulted in negative consequences for your company, and if you subsequently abided by their demands and why.

5. “As part of your rights to broadcast the games, are you in any way precluded by the IOC or CCP from coverage that would be critical of the government of the PRC?

“Does the government of the PRC or the CCP have the ability to block your broadcast feed to the United States as they deem fit?

6. “Please list any connections your company has with the CCP, including the name of the official within the CCP and the capacity of their role in your organization.

7. “What kind of safeguards do you have in place to ensure that there is no forced labor, specifically in Xinjiang province, used by NBCUniversal or any of your partner suppliers or support services?

8. “Do you believe the CCP privately influenced or pressured the IOC in any way to hold the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing?” 

Asked for comment on the letter and the info request,  NBCU responded by referencing comments last week by Molly Solomon, president, production, NBC Olympics, in a video presentation on coverage plans.

Solomon said that NBCU's Olympics coverage would "provide perspective on China’s place in the world and the geopolitical context in which these Games are being held," while the athletes remained the centerpiece of that coverage.

She pointed out that NBC News has a Beijing-based bureau and that NBC News would be there to cover the news out of China. "we have a record of not shying away from these topics," she said. " Not in 2008, the last time the Games were in China, in Sochi and PyeongChang. And most recently, we covered COVID and the athlete protests in Tokyo. We also plan to have reporters at all Beijing venues. If something happens, we’ll have our own cameras on site.”

Republican congressional leaders have reached out to key Biden administration agencies to make sure the billions of dollars in various broadband subsidy programs created by Congress goes to areas unserved by broadband, particularly rural areas, rather than to “duplicative and wasteful subsidized overbuilding.”

The definition of “access" is key, as Republicans generally define access as the availability of  “any” high-speed broadband service — definitions differ, but speeds of 25 Megabits per second downstream and 2 Mbps upstream are considered the low end. The Biden Administration, though, has suggested that price and competition can also be factored into the access equation, which would allow for upgrades where there is already service.

Republican lawmakers sent letters to the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration and the departments of Treasury, Agriculture and Education, making clear where they thought the money should go. They also requested an accounting of where any of the money from the CARES Act, American Rescue Plan Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act has gone.

Also: Commerce Says CARES Act Includes $1.5 Billion for Broadband

Signing on to the letters were Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee;  James Comer (R-Texas), ranking member of the Oversight and Reform Committee; and Kay Granger (R-Texas), ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

The NTIA is the lead agency on most of the Infrastructure Act grants, overseeing the distribution of almost $1.5 billion for access for unserved areas, tribal lands and minority communities; $42.45 billion for broadband deployment; $2.75 billion for “digital equity” grants and $1 billion for middle-mile infrastructure.  

“As you work to allocate grants pursuant to these laws, we urge you to prioritize funding for unserved communities that lack access to any broadband connection rather than funding duplicative or upgraded service in areas that already have broadband access,” the lawmakers wrote.

Also: ISPs Team to Track Biden's Broadband Billions

The legislators want answers by Jan. 14.

Anong the questions they want the FCC to answer are how it is preventing duplication with other subsidy programs — including the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), which is giving out its own billions for broadband in rural areas — and how the commission is preventing the overbuilding of existing service.

The House on Thursday (Dec. 2) passed three communications-related bills, including one requiring the Federal Communications Commission to start kicking the tires on 6G wireless.

The bills are the FUTURE Networks Act (HR 4045), the Understanding Cybersecurity of Mobile Networks Act (HR 2685) and the American Cybersecurity Literacy Act (HR 4055).

The Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks [FUTURE] Act directs the FCC to create a 6G task force comprising public interest groups, communications network businesses (though not ones considered to be “not trusted,” the law makes clear), and government stakeholders.

The bill defines “not trusted" as technology “owned by, controlled by, or subject to the influence of a foreign adversary” or that otherwise “poses a threat to the national security of the United States.”

Within a year, the FCC must report back to Congress on, among other things, the status of industry-led standards, supply chain security limitations, and how to coordinate siting, deployment and adoption of 6G.

The task force will have to produce a draft of that report within six months and put it out for public comment.

The bills together are meant to ensure the country leads in next-generation communications technology, said the Republican leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, adding that they “will strengthen our cybersecurity awareness, bolster our leadership in 6G technology and reinforce the security of our mobile communications network.”

The bills passed out of the committee back in July.

The “Understanding Cybersecurity of Mobile Networks Act,” which requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Biden administration's chief telecom policy advisory arm, to study and report on the cybersecurity of mobile broadband nets and their susceptibility to attacks and surveillance by “adversaries.”

HR 4055, the “American Cybersecurity Literacy Act,” would require the NTIA to educate the public about cybersecurity risks and best practices.

“The Understanding Cybersecurity of Mobile Networks Act gives policymakers a better understanding of the state of the cybersecurity in our wireless networks, which is a matter of national security,” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who was the driving force behind that and the American Cybersecurity Literacy Act, said.

The House has passed four communications-related bills including one that would expand the ban on suspect tech. All four passed out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee last summer by voice vote, meaning none were controversial. They all must still be passed by the Senate to make it to President Joe Biden‘s desk.

The “Secure Equipment Act of 2021” (HR 3919) — sponsored by Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) — would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from approving any wireless equipment authorization for a tech company on the list of companies that pose a national security risk. That list currently includes Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE.

The FCC, under its own initiative and with the direction of Congress in the Secure and Trusted Communications Act, published a list of tech suppliers deemed national security threats and prohibited the use of federal funds for telecom networks using that tech: the highest-profile companies on that list were Huawei and ZTE. Congress also funded the removal that suspect tech from existing government-funded buildouts.

Currently, the FCC is disallowing the use of technology from Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua in U.S. broadband networks built out with government subsidy money. But the prohibition has not extended to networks not built with government bucks. This bill expands the ban by not allowing them to get FCC authorization for use in any U.S. network.

The degree to which keeping suspect tech out of those U.S. networks is a bipartisan priority was evident in the lopsided vote, which was 420-4.

The House also passed:

• H.R. 4067, the “Communications Security Advisory Act of 2021,” which would codify and make permanent the FCC‘s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council and require biennial reporting to the FCC and public on how to improve communications network.

• H.R. 4032, the “Open RAN Outreach Act,” which directs NTIA to reach out and help small network providers who want to offer Open-RAN (ORAN) networks and other open architectures.

• H.R. 4028, the “Information and Communication Technology Strategy Act,” which would direct the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress on the state of the economic competitiveness of the trusted vendors the U.S. will rely on to replace the untrusted ones being weeded out of U.S. nets and how the government can help insure their competitiveness. China has helped insure the competitiveness of untrusted nets by subsidizing their tech giants.

All four of the bills advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a voice vote during a full committee markup in July. 

The bills' passage brought bipartisan praise from the other side of the Hill. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who introduced the Senate version of the Secure Equipment Act, applauded House passage and urged the Senate to follow suit.

“Today the House continued its work to strengthen our nation’s telecommunications infrastructure for the future by overwhelmingly passing four bipartisan bills,” the senators said in a statement. “Together, these bills will boost network reliability, protect against suspect equipment that poses a risk to our national security, support small communications network providers, and bolster the economic competitiveness of our technology supply chains. We commend the bipartisan work that went into these bills that advanced out of our committee in July and hope that the Senate will take action soon.”

The House Tuesday passed a bill and a resolution aimed at achieving greater media diversity.

The votes on each were 319-105 — they were part of a block vote on a handful of communications-related bills.

H.R. 1754, the MEDIA (Measuring the Economics Driving Investments and Access) Diversity Act, was introduced by Reps. Billy Long (R-Mo.) and Marc Veasey (D-Tex.). It would require the FCC to take into account market entry barriers to market entry for “socially disadvantaged individuals.”

Also passed was a resolution committing the House to work with media entities and others to advance media diversity by developing “common ground solutions to eliminate barriers to media diversity.” Resolutions don't have the force of law but instead express the sense of the House on a subject.

National Association of Broadcasters president Gordon Smith applauded the bills for “promoting solutions that address barriers to entry into the media industry for underserved populations.”

He also put in a plug for a bill from Reps. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) that would reinstate the tax certificate program, which gave media companies tax breaks for selling TV or radio stations to minorities and women.

“We are proud of the bipartisan support these important bills received in the House today and urge swift passage in the Senate,” said House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.).

The Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act has passed the House by unanimous consent, which is a way to fast track a bill vote off the floor and only works if no one objects.

The bill, which is meant to get better broadband deployment data out of the FCC, must still pass the Senate and be signed by the President.

A Senate version already passed (as did a separate House version last year, but a different version, so the two had to be reconciled). The new House version was amended on the floor, so the Senate will have to revote it. A House source said Senate leaders agreed with the change and it is expected to pass without issue in the Senate.

The bill requires the FCC to issue new rules "to require the collection and dissemination of granular broadband availability data and to establish a process to verify the accuracy of such data, and more."  

The bill essentially pushes an effort already underway at the FCC. The commission voted earlier this year to come up with a more granular broadband data collection process that could be crowd-vetted.  

“Today, the House once again passed legislation to fix our nation’s faulty broadband maps," said its Democratic supporters, which included Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle. "This bill is the result of an agreement with the Senate to merge multiple bills into one package that can be signed by the President. Accurately mapping the availability of broadband internet service is essential to promoting the deployment of high-speed service to all Americans, especially those in unserved and underserved areas."

The legislators did not cite the FCC's plans for a new data-collection regime, saying: "It’s unfortunate that the Federal Communications Commission has failed to address these issues on its own, but this bipartisan bill marks a huge step forward in building out broadband where it is needed."

“I commend the House for passing the Broadband DATA Act," said Competitive Carriers Association President Steven K. Berry. "Every Member of Congress knows the parts of their district that have insufficient or no broadband service, and this legislation will help ensure that these areas can access the advanced broadband services they need and deserve. Reliable data is essential to improving the maps and achieving the FCC’s goal of closing the digital divide. I thank the House for passing this legislation and urge the Senate to act swiftly to send it to the President’s desk for enactment.

“Today’s vote in the House brings us closer than ever to fixing our outdated broadband maps and getting a clearer picture of who has – and who still lacks – 21st century broadband connectivity," said USTelecom President Jonathan Spalter. "This is a major, data-driven step forward in how we map broadband, and ultimately close the digital divide, in rural America." 

"WISPA applauds today’s House passage of S. 1822, a bipartisan, merged House-Senate broadband mapping bill, which seeks to fix our broken broadband maps," said Christina Mason, VP of government affairs, for the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. "If signed into law, S. 1822 would go far in shepherding limited government support to areas that truly lack broadband, efficiently delivering Internet access to those who really need it, without overbuilding ISPs already there."

“While our way of life is becoming more reliant on technologies, 19 million Americans – including one-fourth of people in rural areas – still do not have access to broadband services," said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore) and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio). "We cannot expand broadband to communities who lack adequate access without understanding exactly where those communities are, which is why this effort is so important. This bipartisan bill will help us assess the availability of internet across our country and take the necessary steps to improve connectivity for all Americans, regardless of their zip code. Importantly, this bill will also make sure we do not repeat past mistakes by better directing our limited resources to the communities who need them most. We look forward to our Senate colleagues taking swift action on this bill and President Trump signing it into law,” Walden and Latta said."

The House has voted to approve the compromise USMCA trade bill.  

It now goes to the Senate for ratification.  

Related: ITI Tells Hill That USMCA Is Key Vote 

The bill includes first-of-its-kind, cutting-edge digital trade provisions," according to tech group ITI. Those include promoting cross-border data flows, allowing data storage "where it makes most sense," preventing tariffs and tech taxes, protecting source code and algorithms by disallowing divulging those as a condition of doing business, and creating consistent testing and certification of tech goods.  

Related: Sec. 230 Language Remains in USMCA 

“The North American Free Trade Agreement received a welcomed update in the form of USMCA, bringing the agreement into the digital age with strong rules that are critical to the continued growth of the Internet economy," said CCIA president Ed Black. "We applaud House Leadership for working with the Administration to get a deal, and the House of Representatives for their votes today. We encourage the Senate to move quickly in the new year on USMCA.” 

"We applaud the House’s swift vote today on USMCA—the new NAFTA," said Consumer Technology Association president Gary Shapiro. "The Senate now needs to do its part—carry this critical free trade agreement across the finish line and vote on final passage. 

"In addition to facilitating trade with our neighboring countries, the new NAFTA’s digital trade provisions – importantly intermediary liability protections, forced data localization prohibitions and balanced copyright provisions – are especially critical for small businesses. They will provide a solid platform for expanding trade and investment around the innovative technology products America is known for." 

"The USMCA reflects the importance of data, technology, and innovation to the North American economy,” said ITI president Jason Oxman.

The hill could give new meaning to broadband deployment.

Before heading out for its August recess, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow members of the armed services to terminate their cable, satellite or internet service when they are deployed without having to pay an early-termination fee.

Some states already have their own laws preventing the fees, and there are currently laws that let them get out of rental agreements, auto leases and cellphone contracts, but no national “get out of service free” card.

The bill (H.R. 2409) updates the cellphone contract portion of the Service Members Civil Relief Act to include pay TV and internet contracts.

Service members don’t have to pay an early termination fee if they are deployed or otherwise have to relocate for at least 90 days. They must return any provider-owned equipment within 10 days after their service, as in cable or internet service, is disconnected.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. It will have to move quickly to get a vote before the second week of August, as senators are expected to get a break the first week of the month for a home-state work period before returning.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) canceled the traditional August recess for that body, so they won’t be redeploying back to the districts beyond that work period.

The bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) and Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.).

“When service members and their families receive military orders to deploy or relocate, they should not have to face fees from internet, cable or other paid television service providers in their moving process,” Costello said.

A spokesperson for NCTA–The Internet & Television Association had no comment on the bill or whether any of its members already waive such fees, but a said number of operators provide job assistance and other help to veterans.

Media trade associations were praising the passage of tax reform legislation Wednesday that lowers the corporate tax rate but retains the ability of broadcasters to immediately write off ad expenses rather than having to amortize them.

The Senate had voted the bill Tuesday night (Dec. 19) after the House had voted it. But a few technical issues necessitated a re-vote in the House Wednesday (Dec. 20).

The corporate tax rate goes from 35% to 21%, 1% higher than the House bill originally planned, but that hardly dampened the enthusiasm.

“NAB congratulates Congress on the passage of comprehensive tax reform legislation that aims to further grow the U.S. economy," the National Association of Broadcasters said. "In particular, local TV and radio stations and our network broadcast partners salute leaders of Congress for recognizing the importance of advertising as a principal driver of commerce by preserving the full and immediate deductibility of advertising expenses. Advertising is an undeniable stimulus for robust growth that has helped America lead the world in the creation of high-paying jobs.”

Motion Picture Association of America chair Charles Rivkin said: “The MPAA congratulates Congress on the passage of comprehensive tax reform legislation. H.R. 1 will promote further economic growth across American industries, including the U.S. This legislation will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and encourage additional investment at home.”

Tech association ITI was also applauding.

“The 1980s were a great decade, but we are overdue for bringing our tax policy into the 21st Century,” said ITI president Dean Garfield. “We commend the House and the Senate for their work on this important legislation."

Among the things it liked most was lowering the corporate tax rate and retaining the R&D credit as a permanent credit.

While the government grapples with the latest tax reform bill, cable and telecom operators are waiting patiently for what could be a substantial windfall.

The bill is controversial among consumers — some have argued that it favors the wealthiest Americans. But for corporate America the benefits are simple: The new deal would slash the business tax rate from about 35% of profit to 20%. With more and more cable companies looking at a near future where they become full cash taxpayers, that could represent a substantial savings.

Profit vs. Spending
The cable business was founded on the premise of paying as little to the government as possible. And that was true during the early days of the industry, when operators borrowed heavily to build out networks, eschewing profits in favor of spending to build a network for the future.

Many operators still are not full cash taxpayers. Charter Communications for example, according to its 10-K annual report, has about $11.2 billion in net operating loss carry-forwards — an accounting method to reduce taxes — that expire between 2018 and 2035. But other operators have become taxpayers as capital expenditures have declined and profits have soared.

The House of Representatives voted to approve the bill last Thursday (Nov. 16) by a 222-205 margin, largely along party lines in the Republican-controlled body.

While that approval was largely expected, the next move may be trickier. The Senate has its own version of the bill — the main differences are centered on consumer, not business issues — which will be voted on in December. If that bill is passed — the Senate has a thin two-seat Republican majority — it will then need to be amended with the House bill and voted on again.

There is no guarantee that the bill will get passed — the House also passed health care reform, which has gone nowhere to date. Pivotal Research Group CEO and senior media & communications analyst Jeff Wlodarczak added that it continues to be a tough call, especially with the House and Senate offering different bills.

But as legislators hash out the vagaries of the bill, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are already closing in on become full cash taxpayers. The three companies paid 27%, 26% and 18%, respectively, of pre-tax income to the government in 2016, according to UBS research.

Comcast’s cash income tax rate was 35.7% in 2013, 21% in 2014, 29% in 2015 and 27% in 2016, Wlodarczak said. He estimated the rate will be about 30% in 2017.

President Donald Trump has pushed for the rate to fall to 15%, while House Speaker Paul Ryan has put forth a 20% rate. Still, even at that more conservative level, the savings could be substantial. UBS estimates that every 5% decline in the corporate tax rate translates to a $1 billion to $1.5 billion annual benefit, or a 5% to 10% increase in earnings per share and free cash flow at each of the three companies.

“In other words, a corporate tax rate of 20% (in line with Paul Ryan’s proposal) would drive accretion of 15%-plus,” UBS wrote.

Verizon declined comment, but according to UBS could see its taxes reduced from an estimated $8.7 billion in 2017 to $4.2 billion in 2018 if the bill is passed.

Another windfall could be the extension of bonus depreciation, which allows companies to deduct capital expenditures on an accelerated basis. Bonus depreciation is currently at 50% and would be bumped up to 100% for five years before returning to normal rates, according to the bill. Some estimates have put the bonus depreciation savings at between $1 billion and $2 billion annually for the three companies alone.

AT&T has already come out in favor of the bill, adding that a 20% corporate tax rate would allow the company to invest an additional $1 billion to stimulate job creation and economic growth.

AT&T Commits
“With a rate of 20%, combined with provisions for full expensing of capital expenditures for the next five years, we’re prepared to increase our investment in the United States,” AT&T chair and CEO Randall Stephenson said in a statement. “If the House bill is signed into law, we’d commit to increase our domestic investment by $1 billion in the first year in which the new rates are in place. And research tells us that every $1 billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the middle class.”

In a conference call with analysts in January to discuss fourth-quarter results, Comcast chair and CEO Brian Roberts said tax relief and/or regulatory reform — like a repeal of Title II — could lead to more investment.

“We’re looking forward to working with the new administration and the new regulatory leaders to try to frame something that’s good for consumers,” Roberts said in January. He added that such moves would create a more stable platform that should allow companies to accelerate business opportunities.

The House is scheduled to vote Monday evening (Feb. 6) on the Email Privacy Act, a bill that would protect data in the cloud.

A version of the bill, which would boost protections of information stored in the cloud, passed the House unanimously in the last session of Congress in April and supporters were hoping for clean passage in the Senate as well, but it was held over by the Senate Judiciary Committee after amendments were offered that could have undone a compromise approach.

The baseline bill updates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to require the government to get a probable cause criminal warrant to access emails, social media posts and other online content stored in the cloud by internet service providers and other email service providers, like Google. In a nod to the longevity of cloud storage, it eliminates the 180-day sunset on stored communications. Previously a warrant was not required for communications stored beyond 180 days.

Consumer technology companies were urging the House to pass the bill, which it said was crucial to boosting privacy protections.

"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, written before Congress, could imagine U.S. citizens' sharing and storing personal information on third-party servers, is woefully out of date," said Consumer Technology Association president Gary Shapiro. "Quick action is needed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and properly regulate government access to private communications stored by third parties. The House of Representatives has an opportunity to act now by passing the Email Privacy Act, requiring the federal government to acquire a warrant prior to accessing emails and other forms of digital communications -- the same standard applied to our physical mail.

.

"We applaud Reps. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Jared Polis (D-CO) for introducing the Email Privacy Act and urge his colleagues to advance this critical legislation," Shapiro added.

Legislators from both houses of Congress and both sides of the aisle have written to President Donald Trump asking him to include broadband in any infrastructure initiative.

Trump has pledged to spend a trillion dollars on an infrastructure effort, but has not yet fleshed out a proposal

Forty-eight senators have signed onto a letter that asks the President to address infrastructure needs for the "deployment of high-speed, reliable broadband for all Americans," the office of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has already promised to make closing the digital divide a priority of his chairmanship, Tuesday announcing the creation of an advisory committee to help with that effort by coming up with model codes to speed permitting and rights of way, and clearing away regulatory "red tape."

The senators said improving broadband access must be a priority of Congress, as well as the administration.

A similar letter, King's office said, was sent to Trump by the House Broadband Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio).

The Senate letter is reprinted in full below:

Dear Mr. President:

As you work with Congress to address the infrastructure needs of our country, we urge you to prioritize policies as part of any infrastructure initiative that will promote deployment of high-speed, reliable broadband for all Americans. Expanding access to broadband, both rural and urban, is the infrastructure challenge of our generation and we cannot afford to wait to make progress on this important goal. 

The internet has changed the way businesses reach their customers and workers do their jobs. From large companies that employ thousands to small businesses on Main Street, broadband access is not a luxury, it is a necessity. The internet expands opportunities for commerce and strengthens our economy. A broad agenda to promote broadband access will empower Americans living in every community – from urban city centers to rural towns – with economic opportunities that will jumpstart growth in jobs and wages. In fact, for every $5 billion invested in broadband infrastructure, 250,000 jobs are created and with every percentage point increase in new broadband distribution, employment expands by 300,000.

These benefits can only be fully realized when connections are fast, reliable, and affordable. That is why improving broadband access must be a priority in the 115th Congress and broadband must be part of any discussions regarding infrastructure investments to meet the demands of the 21st century economy. In addition, policies that reduce barriers to investment in communications infrastructure and streamline the deployment process will play a key role in expanding economic growth.

In order to maintain the United States’ position as a global leader for innovation, we must invest to expand our broadband infrastructure. This effort should include bringing broadband connections to locations where economic conditions or geography have made deployment difficult and improving the quality and affordability of existing broadband connections.

We look forward to working with you to expand broadband access to all Americans.

A resolution calling for "a national strategy for the Internet of Things to promote economic growth and consumer empowerment" was adopted almost unanimously last week by the House of Representatives.

H.Res. 847mirrors a Senate resolution (S. Res. 110) unanimously adopted in March, calling for the federal government to promote public-private initiatives to accelerate IoT development.

The bipartisan House resolution calls for federal policies to "prioritize accelerating the development and deployment of the Internet of Things in a way that recognizes its benefits, allows for future innovation, and responsibly protects against misuse."  Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who is vice chair of the House Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade subcommittee and sits on the Communications and Technology subcommittee, introduced theresolution, which was adopted just weeks after it was submitted. Co-sponsors are Reps. Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.), Robert Latta (R-Ohio) and Peter Welch (D-V.t). The earlier Senate resolution was backed by Sens. Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.,  Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and  Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Daniel Castro, director of the non-profit Center for Data Innovation,compared this Congressional attention to IoT with the Federal Communication Commission's National Broadband Plan of 2010, which he said "helped coordinate and accelerate the deployment of broadband Internet."

"A national strategy for the Internet of Things will ensure that the United States positions itself to capture the considerable economic and social benefits of this important technology," Castro said.  He commended the value of a federal plan "designed in concert with public and private sector stakeholders to accelerate deployment of the technology and overcome regulatory barriers that limit its growth.

"Now that Congress has formally expressed its support for a national strategy," Castro added, "the Obama administration, and its successor, should act quickly to launch an effort to develop one."

Rep. Lance, whose Congressional district includes tech firms such as Qualcomm, Nokia and Verizon that are involved in IoT activities, said "our role in Congress should be to help make the Internet of Things thrive, to facilitate a federal support system that empowers exciting new ideas."

"This is really at the heart of what we should be doing in Congress in a bipartisan capacity: getting ahead of the curve on the future of technology in the United States," Lance said.

A spokesman in Lance's office told Multichannel News that "the resolution raised a lot of awareness, which was the whole idea."  There is no indication that any further action will be taken in the waning days of the 114th Congress.

Rep. Michael Clifton Burgess (R-Texas), who chairs the  Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, called IoT a "kind of a novel concept" as he extolled it as a "significant opportunity for economic growth and for innovation" in remarks on the House floor.

"As a physician...I see great potential for the Internet of Things, particularly in the healthcare space," Burgess said. "Connected healthcare devices help reduce healthcare costs and other health-related expenses that have long been a drag on our economy and on consumers' wallets." He said a national strategy can encourage more effective and efficient IoT development and "will foster more consumer confidence, more consumer trust, and more consumer acceptance in the Internet of Things."

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), also a member of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, observed that "technology is moving at a rapid pace, and our laws need to keep pace."

"With passing this resolution, we are setting the table for future work to make sure that we encourage these developments," she said.

I am probably not breaking news here, but I rely on C-SPAN for a lot of my access to the workings — or more often dysfunctionings — of Congress.

That means I rely on cable operators around the country who fund the channel — make that channels and website.

It is, in a word, indispensable.

It is also often taken for granted, for which C-SPAN has only itself to blame. Because it is so pervasive and so professionally run, the access it provides to our sausage-makers has come to feel like an entitlement, or at least a constitutional right.

Last week, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) introduced what he called a “simple change” to House rules that would ensure the next congressional sit-in does not have to rely on Periscope or Facebook video streams to get out.

Actually, many were still relying on C-SPAN during the House sit-in last month, when the cameras were turned off, but social media lit up and the network was there to tap into it.

Bera said he figured most viewers assumed C-SPAN was part of the “public domain,” adding: “We ought to give control of those cameras back over to the media and the public, and have independent control.”

C-SPAN has long sought to be able to use its own cameras rather than have to take the feed from House cameras controlled by the Speaker. I agree, and this seems a good time for Congress to consider it.

Members of Congress will be going off to campaign for re-election in a week or so. When they get back, perhaps they can make that a parting gift to the nation.

But also noteworthy was Bera’s comment that most people probably thought C-SPAN was the public’s domain. Of course, that is just what it has become, thanks to the investment of the cable industry.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said Thursday (July 7) that he has been meeting with the House Rules Committee, parliamentarians and others about possible sanctions over Democrats' sit-in protest on the House floor two weeks ago over gun violence legislation.

Meanwhile, House Democrats continued to talk on the floor about gun violence after the House recessed following morning business Thursday.

Ryan called the protest a troubling trend and said that if the House floor became a partisan war zone there would be no chance of bipartisanship. Some House Democrats had live streamed the June 22-23 sit-in via Facebook and Periscope after Ryan ordered the House cameras turned off, a violation of House floor rules. C-SPAN aired the live streams throughout the protest.

Ryan signaled he would not allow the rule of law to be "thrown out the window," and opined that the House floor had become virtually the only place that he could get to know members of the other party.

Leaders of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and House Judiciary Committee have created an Encryption Working Group to look at the legal and policy ramifications of encryption.

The working group was created by House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), ranking member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.), who will serve as ex officio members.

It has set itself a high bar: "Members will work toward finding solutions that allow law enforcement agencies to fulfill their responsibility without harming the competitiveness of the U.S. technology sector or the privacy and security protections that encryption provides for U.S. citizens," the quartet of leaders said in a joint statement.

Members of the group will be: Reps. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y), Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.).

The Obama Administration has been pushing for creating ways for law enforcement to access encrypted information, an effort resisted by privacy groups.

The most recent flashpoint ws the FBI's request, then court order, to Apple to help it access information from the phone of an alleged terrorist, though the government Tuesday (March 21), signaling it might have a way into the phone without Apple, supported and got a stay of the court decision it had sought compelling Apple to help.

Former Little House on the Prairie star Melissa Gilbert is looking to move to the big House on Capitol Hill.

Gilbert announced a run for Congress as a Democrat in Michigan's 8th congressional district. Republican Rep. Mike Bishop currently holds the seat.

"I’m running for Congress to make life a little easier for all the families who feel they have fallen through the cracks in today’s economy," Gilbert said. "I believe building a new economy is a team effort, and we need to bring fresh voices to the table to get the job done."

The actress already has experience in high office. She is the former president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Gilbert lives in the district with her husband, actor Timothy Busfield, who has experience in the faux Washington world from his time playing a White House reporter on "West Wing."

Gilbert was elected to the SAG board in November 2000 and to the presidency the following November, the third woman to hold the post. In December 2001 she was elected VP of the AFL-CIO.