Big Tech and antitrust enforcement activists are squaring off over a couple of bipartisan bills in Congress meant to address the size and power of tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google.

They made their opposing views known in dueling letters to congressional leaders considering the new legislation.

The bills under discussion are the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which does not allow large online platforms to “preference to their own products on the platform, excluding or disadvantaging competing products from another business on the platform, or discriminating among similarly situated users;” and the Open App Markets Act, which would prevent affected companies from restricting the use of alternative in-app payments systems; from favoring their own terms of distribution, pricing or conditions of sale; or from penalizing developers for using different pricing terms or conditions via another in-app payment system. That bill would prevent Google or Apple, for example, from using information derived from a third-party app to compete with that app.

Among the groups backing both bills are Consumer Reports, the Main Street Alliance, the Center for American Progress and Public Citizen. They say the bills would be “prohibiting dominant Big Tech platforms from anti-competitive discrimination, self-preferencing and excluding competitors to protect their monopolies and leverage them into other lines of business.”

Taking an opposing stance are the Consumer Technology Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, TechNet and others. Their members include the large platforms targeted by the bills as well as smaller platforms that argue they would also be hurt. In a joint letter to lawmakers this week, those groups said the bills would cost the U.S. economy up to $319 billion, costs borne by consumers and businesses through higher costs and lost value of services. 

On the other side, the bills’ opponents said a study found “no quantifiable benefits” to the bills for either consumers or small business. “We urge lawmakers to fully consider the harmful effect of this legislation, and to oppose regulations that would harm consumers, undermine American innovation, and damage the U.S. economy,” they wrote.

Both Republicans and Democrats are concerned over Big Tech, and the measures have backers on both sides of the aisle. Generally, Democrats are more inclined to pass tougher antitrust laws and to boost enforcement as a way to prevent large platforms from buying up to monopoly or otherwise using their size anticompetitively. Republicans are more focused on ways to rein in the power of social media sites to moderate platforms in ways seen as censoring conservative content. Both agree on the need for some kind of governor on Big Tech conduct.

The legislative salvos against Big Tech come as the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are asking for input on whether and how they should change their merger guidelines to capture what they see as Big Tech's history of buying up to monopoly by gobbling up startups before they’re large enough to trigger antitrust scrutiny.

Deals below a certain dollar value can get early termination of their antitrust reviews, one of the matters Justice and the FTC are also revisiting.

Computer companies argue the current merger guidelines are “valuable and adequate.” ▪️

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."■

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.

A new bill, the Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act, is asking the Federal Communications Commission to look beyond the customers of declining landline phone service for the subsidies it will need to power universal broadband.

Currently, the FCC‘s Universal Service Fund support for broadband in rural and lower-income areas is primarily subsidized by fees on traditional landline service, in part because it was unclear whether the regulator had the authority to such fees on broadband providers.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), co-chair of the Senate Broadband Caucus, and John Thune (R-S.D.) have teamed up on a bill that charges the FCC with opening a rulemaking to “reform the contributions system, taking into account the fairness and the relative burden any changes in fees will have on consumers and businesses, as well as the impact the proposed changes to the contribution system will have on seniors.”

Also: FCC Tops $2 Billion in Emergency Broadband Funds for Schools, Libraries

USF fees are passed along to customers on their monthly bills.

“In 2021, we should be able to bring high-speed internet to every family in America — regardless of their zip code,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “This bill will help ensure we have the resources to keep the Universal Service Fund strong so we can continue to expand access to broadband."

Added Thune: “It is crucial that rural communities across South Dakota have access to reliable broadband services.” 

The senators pointed out that relying on landline subsidies for USF, which supports rural health care, service to low-income households and school and library broadband access, even as landline use declines in favor of wireless and VoIP, "places a disproportionate impact on seniors, who are significantly more likely to use a landline than younger adults."

The Biden administration is hardly relying on the USF alone to close the divide. In fact, it has been arguing that the $65 billion it has allocated for broadband buildout and adoption in the new infrastructure package that passed in Congress — plus earlier, COVID-19-related, emergency broadband funding — should be enough to get the job done, though it was unclear whether that presumed continued stable USF funding.

The House Energy & Commerce Committee plans to mark up two communications and technology bills this week.

Those would be H.R. 1281, the Data Mapping to Save Moms Act, and H.R. 2501, the Spectrum Coordination Act.

House E&C chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said Monday (Nov. 1) that the committee will mark up the bills — that is, consider amendments and potentially vote them out of committee — on Nov. 3.

The bipartisan Data Mapping Act “will use data mapping to identify areas of the country where poor maternal health rates overlap with a lack of broadband access in order to deploy telehealth services most effectively,” according to co-sponsor Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.). Other co-sponsors are Reps. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.).

The Spectrum Coordination Act, also from Bilirakis, “requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to update the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Spectrum Coordination to (1) improve the process for resolving frequency allocation disputes in shared or adjacent spectrum bands, and (2) ensure the efficient use or sharing of spectrum.”

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.).

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will join with some of his colleagues to introduce legislation to ban government use of facial recognition and other biometric technology.

The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act is in response to reports that law enforcement has been teaming up with tech companies, as well as some of those companies’ pledges to call their own moratorium on supplying such technology to law enforcement.

They are concerned about inaccuracy and bias, calling that a grave threat not only to privacy, but to the physical safety of Black Americans and other minorities. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present," Markey said.

Joining him in introducing the ban are Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Prammila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.).

The legislation, which is endorsed by the ACLU, Color of Change, Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on Privacy & Technology, and New America’s Open Technology Institute, among others, would:

1.) “Place a prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;

2.) “Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;

3.) “Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric technology;

4.) “Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;

5.) “Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act in any judicial proceedings;

6.) “Include a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; and

7.) “Allow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies."

Two weeks ago, Markey, a longtime advocate for consumer privacy, said Amazon's decision to suspend supplying facial recognition (branded "Rekognition") tech to police was good as far as it went, but suggests that was not nearly far enough, likening surveillance to the damaging government systems protesters are currently working to dismantle. 

"Facial recognition is the perfect technology for tyranny. It automates discriminatory policing and exacerbates existing injustices in our deeply racist criminal justice system," Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer said. "This legislation effectively bans law enforcement use of facial recognition in the United States. That’s exactly what we need right now. 

“We give this bill our full endorsement," she said. "Congress should pass this bill as soon as possible."

WASHINGTON — Could a return to Title II-based internet regulations give the current president even more power over the commonwealth?

That was one of several possibilities invoked last week as both sides of the debate over the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rule rollback talked about finding a way to protect both the openness of the Web, and the business model that drives investment in the networks that carry what has become an internet of everything.

Related: Why Do Democrats Want to Let Trump Violate Net Neutrality?

But that common ground will be hard to reclaim from the scorched-earth rhetoric that has characterized the fight.

Both of those sides came together last week on Capitol Hill, in a discussion hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus, to talk about possible approaches. Try as they might, though, the conversation proved to be as much about what still separates them.

Both sides can agree on rules preventing blocking and throttling of content, even restoring them to the FCC. However, Matthew Brill, a partner at Latham & Watkins — whose clients on the net neutrality front have included NCTA-The Internet & Television Association — said the new rules, with the Federal Trade Commission overseeing broadband practices and the FCC enforcing internet service provider transparency, should be sufficient.

In any event, Brill said, the toggling back and forth between net neutrality regimes as the political control changes is not the way to go.

While Brill and representatives of public interest non-profit Public Knowledge and INCOMPAS, whose members include major edge providers, said they were willing to talk, Public Knowledge continues to push for a Congressional Review Act resolution to nullify the FCC’s December rollback of the rules, something Brill said is not helpful.

Altered States
Public Knowledge and others also continue to back state efforts to reverse the FCC decision through their own neutrality bills or executive orders mandating neutrality in ISP contracts with governors, an effort that is gaining traction in blue states also taking aim at the rule rollback through lawsuits. Brill, by contrast, said those efforts are not constructive.

Net neutrality activists want the FCC to be able to regulate broadband rates if said rates are a barrier to deployment. Chris Lewis, at Public Knowledge, said the FCC “should be empowered to look at pricing and if that is hurting broadband access.” ISPs say the FCC should not be in the business of regulating broadband rates, either through proscriptive rules or through complaint-driven rate regulation.

Currently there are two legislative efforts prompted by the rule rollback: the Congressional Review Act measure and a Republican bill, courtesy of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who chairs the subcommittee on Communications and the Internet, that would prevent blocking and throttling, but not paid prioritization.

But again, those appear to be points of contention rather than possibilities for agreement. ISPs strongly oppose the CRA, while net neutrality activists are working feverishly to collect enough votes to pass it, which is the longest of long shots.

And while ISPs like the looks of the Blackburn bill, activists have blasted it.

Berin Szoka of think tank TechFreedom attempted to unite both sides last week against a return of Title II by invoking the fear of a too-powerful Donald Trump.

He said that a return to common carrier-based net-neutrality regulation, as the CRA would do, allows the president, rather than ISPs, to control access to the internet if he chose to exercise his war powers available on a rolling basis due to the never-ending war against terror.

The suggestion that it might take such a threat to get both sides to agree on legislation indicates that talk on the Hill and elsewhere of a bipartisan resolution to the network neutrality debate remains mostly that.

The FCC is being asked to set a national standard to determine whether mobile and broadband in rural areas is "reasonably comparable" to service in urban areas.

That request came in a bipartisan bill, the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Act of 2018, introduced Tuesday (Feb. 13) by Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

"While progress has been made, too many rural areas continue to fall behind," said Capito, chair of the Senate Broadband Caucus.

Related: President: We'll Spend 'Great Deal' on Rural Broadband

"The Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Act will help bridge this digital divide by helping to ensure that rural areas — like those in West Virginia — have the access to high-speed internet that many of our urban communities do."

FCC chair Ajit Pai has made rural broadband access a key policy priority.

A similar bill was introduced in the House last year by Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

"Correctly identifying areas still in need is very important to ensuring these locations are deemed eligible for critical Mobility Fund II support," said Competitive Carriers Association president Steven K. Berry. "Many competitive carriers serve remote and rural locations and depend on MF II support to expand their networks and provide the best service possible to their customers. All Americans, no matter where they live, work or travel, deserve access to robust mobile service."

In the wake of a tsunami of broadband infrastructure-related bills coming out of both the House, the Communications Subcommittee has scheduled a Jan. 30 hearing on "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions.

Representing cable broadband providers will be Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, whose members are the smaller and midsized operators on the front lines of deploying plant in rural areas.

The subcommittee lists almost two dozen bills and resolutions that will (or at least could) be the subject of the hearing, including two added Friday (Jan. 26), the Connecting Broadband Deserts Act (H.R. 4287), and the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act, which was also introduced in the House.

The bill referring to broadband "deserts" is from Democrats Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), is meant to target so-called digital red-lining by defining an urban area census block where less than a third of the residents have access to advanced telecommunications as a "desert" that the FCC must take immediate action to fix by removing barriers to infrastructure investment.

Also scheduled to testify are Brad Gillen of CTIA; Nancy White of North Central Telephone Cooperative, and Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, took to the Senate floor to say it was time to put the fear-mongering aside and protect the open internet with bipartisan legislation, the kind of legislation Thune said he had offered but then-chair Tom Wheeler rejected.

That came just before the FCC was to vote on the proposal to roll back Title II classification.

Thune said there are many upset about how FCC chair Ajit Pai is proceeding with the Title II rollback — just as Thune was when the FCC reclassified under Title II when he previously suggested legislation was the better route.

Thune said the vote to start the Title II rollback did not create certainty for the Internet and that there was more work to do. He said there was an opportunity for Congress to provide clear rules of the road for the Internet after talking with all stakeholders.

"My preference would be to begin bipartisan work on a bill without further delay," Thune said, adding that he would be happy to meet with any of his colleagues.

Hill Dems have signaled that such bipartisan legislation could be a tough sell, particularly given how they see Republicans dealing with issues like healthcare.

Related: Dems Take to Senate Floor to Slam Title II Vote

For example, House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said at a pro-Title II rally when asked if there were some legislative compromise on net-neutrality rules that there was no reason to believe the Republicans would support substantive protections.

"The well is already poisoned," Pallone said.

Thune’s entire statement is reprinted below:
Mr. President, The internet worked great in 2014 when there were no federal net neutrality rules.

Truth be told, even after the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission applied Depression-era phone monopoly regulations to broadband in 2015, most Americans likely saw little or no difference in their internet experience.

The internet still creates jobs, expands educational opportunities, keeps us in touch with loved ones, and – as a bonus – it’s often really entertaining.

This internet that we know and love isn’t going to fall apart anytime soon no matter what the FCC decides. But there are important policy questions that need to be answered about how the internet will grow and develop into the future.

So let’s put the apocalyptic rhetoric and fear mongering aside.

The internet doesn’t belong to just Republicans, Democrats, big Silicon Valley tech companies, internet service providers, small Silicon Prairie start-ups, or the federal government.

It belongs to everyone – it is global – and it is best when it is free and open.

Today, as the FCC reconsiders the flawed broadband regulations it issued only two years ago, Congress should look back at the path we could have taken but didn’t.

In November 2014, I offered former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to craft a permanent legislative solution banning controversial practices known as blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet traffic.

With colleagues in the House of Representatives, I even put forward a draft bill doing exactly that. It wasn’t a final offer, but rather an outreach to get the conversation started.

I thought the time and opportunity to protect the open internet on a bipartisan basis had arrived.

Through bipartisan legislation, I believed Congress should put into statute widely-accepted principles of network management, commonly called “net neutrality.”

Our idea for legislation was straightforward: combine protections ensuring that owners of broadband infrastructure can’t use their role to manipulate the user experience with those guaranteeing a continuation of the light-touch regulatory policies that helped the internet thrive for two decades.

But Chairman Wheeler rejected our idea for bipartisan legislation. Instead, he and his staff lobbied to block such discussions from happening in Congress.

He then, with only partisan support, issued an order that gave the FCC authority to regulate the internet under old laws designed for phone monopolies and simultaneously removed all authority the Federal Trade Commission had to police broadband providers.

I represent, South Dakota, a rural state that is home to some small, but still very innovative technology businesses. But in other parts of the state, communities lack access to high-speed broadband.

In the debate over the FCC regulating broadband with rules designed for phone monopolies, there were many concerns that Chairman Wheeler’s approach would create uncertainty that “chills investment.”

Chilling investment” is a term one often hears among the business community. To me, what it really means is that many Americans in rural communities will have to wait longer before they have an opportunity to select high-speed internet service.

Today, there are 34 million Americans who lack access to broadband services at home.

As innovation on the internet thrives, demand for data rises, and the stock market hits all-time highs, one would have expected broadband investment to continue growing as it had for two decades.

‘But according to one analysis, annual investment actually went down 5.5 percent in 2016 compared to 2014.

This is a troubling sign that private investment may be having second thoughts about the ability to turn capital expenditures into future profits under an excessive regulatory regime.

Chairman Wheeler assured the public that his FCC would not use new authority over the internet to aggressively restrict many regular online practices.

But he could not offer assurances that, as years pass and administrations change, such regulatory restraint would remain.

His order gives wide legal latitude for any future FCC – not bound by his commitments – to touch any and every corner of the internet.

After all, unless grounded in legislation, partisan policy changes through administrative action can be fleeting.

Today’s action at the FCC aptly underscores the concern that the FCC’s partisan approach to internet policy in 2015 did not put the internet on a solid foundation.

I know that many are upset about what the FCC is doing. I felt much the same way two years ago when the FCC voted to proceed after my bipartisan outreach had been rejected.

We should not, however, view the FCC’s action today as a final outcome. While I commend Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Mike O’Rielly for taking this necessary step, I fully recognize that today’s action alone does not create ideal certainty for the internet. There is more work yet to do.

In politics, it is rare to get a second chance at bipartisan compromise, yet right now we have an opportunity to accomplish what eluded us two years ago—clear and certain rules in statute to protect the open internet.

We have another chance to sit down, to discuss every stakeholder’s concerns, and to work toward the common goal of protecting the internet.

While the FCC’s 2015 order may soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, the last few months have shown that political winds can and often do shift suddenly.

To my colleagues in both the majority and minority, the only way to truly provide legal and political certainty for open internet protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation.

We need a statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and investment throughout the entire internet ecosystem.

In crafting rules, we need to listen to the concerns of all Americans who support an open internet but who may have differing opinions about the greatest threats to online freedom.

For some Americans, the greatest concern is meddling by internet service providers, and for others it is unelected bureaucrats attempting to “overprotect” Americans from products and services they actually like.

Online innovation is a virtuous circle—online companies need robust and widely available broadband networks to reach their customers, and internet service providers need the online experience to be compelling enough to drive subscriber demand.

We need to work together, collaboratively to find the right policies for the internet.

I firmly believe we can find common ground to protect the internet so long as we don’t fixate on the misguided notion that monopoly regulation is the only way to preserve it.

While some may wish to wait until the activities at the FCC and in the courts have completely run their course, my preference would be to begin bipartisan work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point-scoring. It is time for Congress to finally settle this matter. I am happy to meet at any time with any of my colleagues who are serious about discussing a path forward.

I would also welcome discussing any new open internet proposals from my colleagues that balance the need for both innovation and investment.

WASHINGTON — A divided and sometimes contentious House Communications Subcommittee has approved all seven Federal Communications Commission process-reform bills.

That came in a markup Wednesday (May 20) that featured some sparks between the chairman and ranking member, a passionate attack on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision on political campaign financing, and Democratic amendments defeated along party-line votes.

The summary of the markup is that all of the bills were favorably reported to the full committee, including all legislation proposed by both Democrats and Republicans.

But the story was far more complicated and contentious.

While the Democratic-backed bills — which directed the FCC to publicize how it made decisions and the status of items — were approved on voice votes without contention, the Republican bills were strongly opposed.

For example, ranking member Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to the formerly bipartisan FCC Process Reform Act, another of the seven bills being marked, that would have removed a one-year delay in implementation of the provision for allowing more than two commissioners to get together outside public meetings, something Eshoo has been pushing for years.

Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said he had been surprised by the amendment, given that when the same bill was introduced in the last Congress (and approved by the House), he and Eshoo had negotiated the one-year delay in exchange for Republicans removing cost-benefit test language from the bill.

Eshoo shot back that she had never negotiated away her opposition to the delay.

The amendment was defeated, as was one that would have added to the legislation language from a bill introduced last month by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) that would direct the FCC to require the on-air sponsorship identifications on TV and radio political ads from PACs and nonprofits to better identify who actually funded those ads.

Yarmuth and Eshoo spent some time speaking about the importance of requiring the enhanced disclosures, with Eshoo saying it was the most important item on the agenda and branding the Citizens United decision, which protects corporate and union political ad spending as a free-speech right, as one of the worst court decisions in history.

While both sides agreed on the need for FCC transparency, they were divided sharply over how to define it. Democrats suggested that their bills would provide transparency, while the Republican transparency bills could actually gum up the process by leading to endless merry-go-round comment cycles, throwing sand into the procedural gears rather than greasing them.

The Democratic bills approved would require the FCC to publish online its procedures for making decisions and any changes to those; report quarterly on the status of petitions and other items (an amendment was agreed to for an audit of the figures the FCC supplied); and to help increase small business access to the FCC and issues of importance to those businesses. Republicans had no problem with any of those, and they passed on voice votes.

The three Republican bills, which Democrats opposed, calling for roll-call votes which showed the partisan divide, would: 1) require the FCC to make public decisions being made on delegated authority 48 hours before the actions were taken (Republicans said that was so the public would know what was going on. Democrats said that could delay the process unnecessarily for relatively little benefit); 2) require the FCC to publish drafts of items when they are circulated to the other commissioners; and 3) require the FCC to publish the text of items within 24 hours of their being voted. (For a summary of the bills, click here.)

Eshoo suggested the publishing mandate stemmed from the network neutrality debate and the Republican request — which was denied — that chairman Tom Wheeler publish his draft of the new rules when it was circulated. Walden said that was not the case, and even chuckled at the suggestion, which did not amuse Eshoo.

Walden said the issue dated back several years, a notion was seconded by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) who authored the bill requiring draft publication.

WASHINGTON — The House Communications Subcommittee has scheduled a May 20 markup for seven bills intended to reform Federal Communications Commission processes, including a trio of Democratic-backed bills that were the subject of an abbreviated hearing last week.

The bills include a discussion draft of the bipartisan FCC Process Reform Act and three Republican-backed bills: a bill that would require the agency to publish a list of items that are decided on delegated authority; one that that would “require the FCC to publish the draft of a rulemaking, order, report or any other action when it is circulated to the commissioners for a vote;” and a bill that would require the FCC to publish the text of new rules on the same day they are voted.

The Democratic-backed draft bills would require the FCC to report quarterly to Congress and on its website the total number of pending decisions by category, type or request and how long they have been pending; require the chairman to post international procedures on the Web site; and mandate that the FCC to coordinate with the Small Business Administration to help improve small-business participation in FCC proceedings.

The Democrats are looking for their bills to supplant the Republican efforts, which they argue could lead to legal challenges. The Republicans have signaled they support the Democratic drafts, but as additional safeguards, not substitutes.

Not on the schedule is a draft bill that would require the FCC to boost disclosures of the funders of political ads. That bill was also absent from last week's hearing on the Democratic drafts, an omission lamented by Democratic committee leaders.