Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee, said that the internet is "broken" and that it is one of Congress' priorities to fix it. 

He said another priority is restoring network neutrality rules eliminated by the Republican FCC.

Pallone was speaking at the virtual INCOMPAS policy summit.

On the issue of Sec. 230, which provides social media and other Web sites immunity from civil liability for most third-party content, Pallone said that while many are arguing that amending the section with "break the internet," he said the internet is already broken--citing the Capitol--insurrection, and needs fixing. "We now know that not only were platforms hosting content that led to this insurrection, but they were promoting it in many instances," he said, adding: "That must stop."

Also Read: Senate Democrats Target Sec. 230

Pallone said Sec. 230 reform will need to be "thoughtful" to avoid unintended consequences, but that platforms must be incentivized to "reduce disinformation and conspiratorial content" as well as to promote online civil rights.

On net neutrality, he said restoring that was more than just the return of rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. It was about restoring the FCC's authority to regulate internet access.

"By repealing net neutrality, the Trump FCC abdicated the FCC’s authority over this essential service," he said. "That’s not good for consumers or small businesses, for economic production, or for free speech," he said, adding: "This wrong must be righted."

A bitterly divided FCC--current Democratic Acting chair Jessica Rosenworcel strongly dissented--voted in December 2017 to approve the Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) order. It eliminated network neutrality rules, including the internet conduct standard by which the FCC could review conduct not prohibited by those rules--like zero rating plans--but that might adversely affect internet openness and access to content.

The RIF order reclassified ISPs, wired and wireless, as non-common carriers (no longer subject to Title II-based regs), and deeded most of the internet policing functions to the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department. 

The item restored the FTC's authority over broadband regulation and adopted a transparency rule that requires ISPs to let the government and Web users know how they are managing their networks and what business practices they are using, which the FTC could enforce if those were unfair or deceptive or anticompetitive, and the Justice Department could enforce if they violated antitrust laws.

The FCC also asserted the ability to preempt state or local attempts to create their own net neutrality laws or regulations, an assertion currently being tested in court via ISPs challenge to a tough California net neutrality law that had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of that court test.

The Trump Administration had also challenged the California law, but the Biden Administration this week dropped that challenge, 

Both supporters and opponents of net neutrality rules have called on Congress to step in to clarify what the FCC's authority is over internet access to end the two-decade cycle of legal challenges and rules/no rules outcomes that has hinged on which party is in control of the White House and thus the FCC.

If Amazon didn't have enough trouble with this week's House Majority Report and its incendiary branding of the company and other tech giants as threats to democracy, it now faces the ire of Democrats' over allegations of exploding surge protectors and sparking USB cables.

Citing a CNN story, top House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats are asking Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to launch an investigation into the safety of its AmazonBasics product line (House Democrats are also pondering whether they should legislate Amazon out of the business of selling products against those of the users of its marketplace given its power over those sellers).

That came in a letter to Bezos Wednesday (Oct. 7) from Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). They also want Amazon to answer a bunch of questions related to product safety and its recall policies.

"Despite starkly worded reviews and even photographs posted by consumers warning of the grave safety dangers experienced while using AmazonBasics products, it appears that Amazon has turned a blind eye to these problems, prioritizing sales at the expense of safety," they said in the letter.

The CNN report found that some of Amazon's products had melted, exploded or burst into flames but continued to be sold.

“Concerns regarding Amazon’s own product line add to mounting questions about Amazon’s priorities and oversight of its sprawling platform," they said.

The House Communications and Consumer Protection Subcommittees will hold a joint hearing on "Disinformation Online and a Country in Crisis." 

The date is June 24, but other details are to be determined, or at least revealed. 

The hearing was announced Thursday (June 11) by Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Communications Subcommittee chair Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). 

Pai Raises Concern Over Edge Transparency 

The crisis is both COVID-19 and the current national reckoning, sometimes violent, over some police treatment of minorities. 

“Social media platforms have failed to take sufficient steps to address disinformation while the President is actively promoting dangerous falsehoods and conspiracies," said the legislators. "The country needs and deserves better, and we look forward to hearing from experts on what can be done to minimize, and ultimately end, the spread of dangerous disinformation and misinformation online.” 

While Facebook has declined to get into political speech, Twitter has labeled Tweets of President Donald Trump about absentee ballots, and shielded Trump's tweet about shooting looters. 

The House Energy & Commerce Committee Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing on "internet adoption and digital equity" Jan. 29. 

Congressional Democrats have been pushing to use the proceeds from a C-Band spectrum auction to fund rural broadband buildouts, which the Democratic leadership of the Committee referenced in announcing the hearing. 

"As the Subcommittee continues to consider revenue-raising spectrum auction legislation, a full appreciation of the issues posed by poor broadband adoption will be crucial to the discussion," said Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). 

Educating low-income residents about the value of adopting broadband once it is available is also part of the challenge. 

The House has passed three bipartisan 5G bills, which passed out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee in November. 

The bills are primarily about considering and strategizing and encouraging, rather than commanding, which helped them get that bipartisan support. They must still get Senate approval and the President's signature, but both are likely. 

H. Res. 575, "express[es] the sense of the House of Representatives that all stakeholders in the deployment of 5G communications infrastructure should carefully consider and adhere to the recommendations adopted at the Prague 5G security conferences.  

H.R. 2881, the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2019, directs the President to develop a "Secure Next Generation Mobile Communications Strategy” in consultation with the heads of FCC, NTIA, and Department of Homeland Security, as well as the DNI and Secretary of Defense."  

H.R. 4500, the Promoting United States Wireless Leadership Act of 2019, directs NTIA to "encourage participation by trusted American companies and other stakeholders in standards-setting bodies, and to offer technical assistance to stakeholders that do elect to participate, in the course of developing standards for 5G networks and future generations of communications networks."  

“The House continues to pass legislation that will help keep the American people safe. The whole-of-government approach of the Secure 5G and Beyond Act will force the Trump Administration to get serious about protecting Americans as 5G services are deployed," said E&C chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). " The timing is particularly important given the increased risk of cyberattacks arising from the conflict with Iran. All three of these bills are important for securing America’s wireless future, and we hope they won’t languish in the Senate.” 

“These bipartisan bills will help us achieve a national priority for the United States: winning the global race to 5G. This technology holds the key to the possibility of self-driving cars, the Internet of Things, telemedicine, rural broadband, and many other doors we have yet to open," said E&C ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio). Our legislation from the Energy and Commerce Committee will help develop a strategy to secure 5G wireless networks across the United States, solidify America’s position as a global 5G leader, and ensure our national security interests are upheld in international 5G standards. The future of connectivity in America relies on 5G and we urge swift action in the Senate to send these bipartisan measures to President Trump’s desk,” Walden and Latta said. 

The House Energy & Commerce Committee Tuesday (Nov. 19) did not get to mark up the Satellite Television Viewers Protection Act (STVPA), which renews the STELAR law for another five years.  

It was scheduled for debate and a vote at a 10 a.m. hearing, but the combination of an 18-bill agenda, interruptions for votes, and extended debate and amendments on bills dealing with vaping and asbestos and pipelines pushed the meeting to almost nine hours, with no broadband-related bills or STELAR making it into that window. 

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the E&C Committee, recessed the hearing until Wednesday--so, technically, it has still not ended--saying the committee would reconvene 30 minutes after the adjournment of a Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change hearing, which is scheduled for 10 a.m.

Still to be considered, in addition to STVPA, are bills on broadband mapping, spectrum, 5G, and network security.  

The bipartisan leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee have told the Trump Administration's trade negotiators not to "export" language mirroring the current Sec. 230 (Communications Decency Act) protection of websites from liability for third party content. 

The letter to United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer came from Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.). 

Both Democrats and Republicans are pondering whether that liability protection should still apply, and they don't want it to be boilerplate in trade agreements struck by the Administration, in particular its current appearance in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

Reps. Pallone and Walden said they took no view on the debate, but called it inappropriate for the U.S. to include the language "while such serious policy discussions are going on." Even the author of the provision in law has questioned whether the edge should continue to get that protection. 

Related: Tech Groups Warn Against Gutting Sec. 230 

Sec. 230 was adopted by Congress under the theory that web platforms were simply the online public square of ideas and that to make them liable would blow up their business model, or at the time (1996), nip it in the bud.  

Related: Sen. Cruz Says Big Tech Needs to Prove No Bias Or Lose Sec. 230 

But in an age where the edge is under fire for allegations of bias, allegations of discrimination, and proven missteps in how they protect and share the data they vacuum up for targeted content, the section is under intense scrutiny. 

In a little bipartisan pushback on the Administration, or at least a yellow flag for holding back info, Pallone and Walden chided the USTR for not keeping them in the loop.  

"Given that our committee closely oversees Sec. 230 and all portions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 we also hope in the future the Office of the United States Trade Representative will consult our Committee in advance of negotiating on these issues," they said. 

There was bipartisan praise from House Energy & Commerce Committee leadership Thursday (July 11) for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed rules banning caller ID spoofing of text messages and international calls.

That was no big surprise since the FCC was implementing a portion of the RAY BAUM's Act FCC reauthorization legislation on which the committee worked.

"Last Congress, we began legislating against fraudulent robocalls and spoofing with the RAY BAUM’S Act, arming the FCC with new tools to protect consumers," said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) in a joint statement. "We applaud the Commission’s proposal to implement these tools in an all-hands-on-deck approach that will help us stay one step ahead of the overseas scammers who seek to defraud Americans personally and professionally," they said. "In concert with our bipartisan Stopping Bad Robocalls Act, this action furthers our commitment to shield Americans from illegal robocalls that perpetuate fraud, threaten personal privacy, and undermine our telecommunications system."

The Stopping Bad Robocalls Act would require carriers to adopt call authentication, something the FCC has urged but did not mandate in its recent vote clarifying that carriers can block unwanted robocalls by default.

The House Communications Subcommittee has taken the first step toward trying to pass legislation restoring the 2015 Open Internet Order's net neutrality rules. 

It has scheduled a markup of the Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) for March 26 at 10 a.m., which is the committee's consideration of the legislation and possible amendments. 

Related: Walden Says It Is Time for Serious Debate about Regulating Edge 

The bill would restore the Title II-based rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, as well as a "general conduct standard" that subcommittee Democrats say empowers the FCC "to prohibit unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory practices." 

“The Save the Internet Act restores critical net neutrality protections and puts a cop back on the beat at the FCC to defend consumers against abusive and discriminatory practices by internet service providers,” said House Energy & Commerce Committee Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.). “We look forward to considering this legislation in the Subcommittee and bringing a free and open internet back to the American people.” 

Related: Net Neutrality Remain Fighting Words on Hill 

The likely course of the bill is that it will pass out of subcommittee and committee on a party line vote, then pass the House, perhaps with a Republican of three, then get caught up in the Republican-controlled Senate.  

The House Energy & Commerce Committee's Consumer Protection Subcommittee has unveiled the witnesses for its rescheduled hearing on diversity and inclusion--or the lack thereof--in tech.

The hearing is March 6 at 10:30 a.m.

Weighing in on the issue will be: Nicol Turner Lee, Center for Technology Innovation, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution; Mark Luckie, former manager at Facebook and Twitter; Jiny Kim, VP, policy and programs, Asian Americans Advancing Justice; David Lopez, counsel, Outten and Golden, and co-Dean, Rutgers Law School; Jill Houghton, president & CEO, Disability: In; Joan Ferrini-Mundy, president, University of Maine; Natalie Oliverio, Military Talent Partners.

Silicon Valley has long been under scrutiny over the dearth of various minority populations in its workforce and the impact of its algorithms on those populations.

“People of color, women, and older Americans are largely absent from the workforce of American technology companies,” House Energy & Commerce Committee chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Consumer Protection Subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said in a joint statement last week. “Tools like algorithms are being used to make decisions, like who gets a job or a loan, that deeply affect people’s lives. Yet designers of these technologies often don’t take into consideration the full diversity of America. As a result, their products often have biased results that lead to discriminatory outcomes. We look forward to exploring the effects of these biases and need for inclusion in the sector’s workforce.”

House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) has rescheduled a hearing on diversity and inclusion in tech, more to the point as far as they are concerned, the notable lack of it.

The new date for the hearing, “Inclusion in Tech: How Diversity Benefits All Americans," is Wednesday, March 6, at 10:30 a.m.Initially it had been scheduled for Feb. 14, but was postponed for the funeral of the late committee chairman, John Dingell (D-Mich.).

Silicon Valley has long been under scrutiny over the dearth of various minority populations in its workforce and the impact of its algorithms on those populations.

“People of color, women, and older Americans are largely absent from the workforce of American technology companies,” said Pallone and Schakowsky in a joint statement. “Tools like algorithms are being used to make decisions, like who gets a job or a loan, that deeply affect people’s lives. Yet designers of these technologies often don’t take into consideration the full diversity of America. As a result, their products often have biased results that lead to discriminatory outcomes. We look forward to exploring the effects of these biases and need for inclusion in the sector’s workforce.”

The ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee wants some answers from social media giants after reports of Russian-linked efforts to affect the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

In a letter to the CEOs of Google parent Alphabet, Facebook and Google, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) pointed to a report in The Washington Post about a Russian-linked Facebook account attempting to exploit the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh (“Confirm Judge Kavanaugh (Enough is enough)”) had previously focused on boycotting Nike and driving Republican voters to the polls.

He also pointed out that the German Marshall Fund’s project that tracks Russian influence said "Kavanaugh, Trump, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford" were the top four issues discussed on Russian-linked accounts.

Related: Ex-WJLA Weatherman Enters Kavanaugh Nomination Picture

By no later than Oct. 18, Pallone wants answers to the following questions.

1. "Have your companies discovered any foreign links to any anomalous behavior related to activities focusing on Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or Julie Swetnick, including the practice of co-opting unrelated social media groups?"

2. "Are your companies working with third-party researchers and firms to identify accounts or pages with foreign links focusing on Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey Ford, Ramirez or Swetnick?"

3. "Do your efforts to combat foreign influence include reviewing emerging divisive issues in American political and social life, such as the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh?"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called for a cloture vote Friday, which is a vote to end further debate and proceed to a floor vote on the nomination, which could happen as early as Saturday. Kavanaugh has already been confirmed by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote.

House Energy & Commerce Committee Democratic leaders are not happy with an FCC plan to modify the consumer complaint process.

The commission is scheduled to vote July 12 to finalize that proposal and "streamline and consolidate" the rules for formal complaints against common carriers, formal complaints about pole attachments, and formal complaints about advanced communications services and equipment.

The ends include conserving resources, resolving complaints in a timely manner, and eliminating "inconsistencies." The means include uniform filing deadlines, status conferences in pole attachment proceedings and shot clocks for pole attachment complaint decisions.

The FCC is trying to remove obstacles to deployment of broadband facilities.

In a letter to FCC chair Ajit Pai, House Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Communications Ranking Member Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said the report and order would roll back consumer protections.

“At a time when consumers are highly dissatisfied with their communications companies, this abrupt change in policy troubles us,” they wrote. “As the chief communications regulator, the FCC plays a critical role in ensuring consumers—including families, small businesses, and struggling Americans—get fair and honest treatment from their service providers....We worry that the proposed change signals that the FCC no longer intends to play this role, and will instead simply tell consumers with limited means and time that they need to start an expensive and complicated formal legal process."

They called on the commission to rethink the changes.

David Goldman, chief telecom counsel for the House Energy & Commerce Committee's Democrats, is exiting the committee to take a job in private industry.

E&C ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) announced Goldman's exit at a hearing on supply-chain integrity Wednesday (May 16).

Pallone called it a bittersweet announcement and said Goldman had been an invaluable part of the committee's team, citing his critical expertise and strategic guidance on efforts including helping speed through the RAY BAUM's Act, which among other things freed up more money for the broadcast incentive auction.

Committee chairman Marsha Blackburn also gave Goldman a shout-out for a job well done, and there was a round of applause from the committee, Republican and Democrat.

Goldman was the senior legal adviser to FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel when he exited the FCC in 2015 to join the committee.

Goldman joined Rosenworcel’s office from the Senate Commerce Committee, where he was communications, tech and internet counsel.

Before that he held various posts at the FCC, including a role in the office of former chairman Julius Genachowski and as a policy adviser to the chief of the Wireless Bureau.

Leading House Energy & Commerce Committee Democrats have called on the Office of Special Counsel to investigate all three Republican FCC commissioners (including chair Ajit Pai) for their participation in the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year.

Special Counsel Henry Kerner already concluded that Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly violated the Hatch Act  prohibitions on certain political activities by federal branch employees by calling for the re-election of President Trump at the conference. Kerner issued a warning to O'Rielly that there would be consequences for a future violation. O'Rielly said he still believes he did not violate any rules, but also said he took the warning seriously.

But Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), in a letter dated Monday (May 7) have asked the special counsel to look into what they say was all three Republican Commissioners'  refusal (Pai and Brendan Carr round out the trio) to cooperate with congressional oversight of their participation in the conference.

Pallone is ranking member of the Committee, while Doyle is ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee.

In response to Democratic concerns over the CPAC appearances, the FCC's general counsel, Tom Johnson, did respond to them, saying he thought the appearances were not Hatch Act violations--obviously the special counsel disagreed in the case of O'Rielly.

Related: FCC Says CPAC Appearances Were OK

"[T]heir participation was consistent with a long tradition of Commissioners contributing to robust debate on issues of importance to the agency and the nation," Johnson wrote to the Dems two weeks ago. "The Commissioners' ability to accept prominent speaking engagements like this one helps promote transparency and accountability and encourages public participation and interest in Commission rulemakings, without contravening applicable ethics obligations," he added.

Pallone and Doyle cited that response, but said it was "both non-responsive and appeared to misunderstand the Hatch Act.

“A recent letter from the FCC’s General Counsel demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of the Act, which may help explain a recent increase in political activity among the Republican FCC Commissioners,” the Democratic legislators wrote. “We therefore additionally request that your office consider conducting training sessions at the FCC to help employees better understand how to comply with the Hatch Act.”

They said they had at least three bones to pick with the general counsel's response:

1. "It was legally misleading because the General Counsel selectively quoted sections of the Special Counsel’s Hatch Act guidance, leaving out sections directly relevant to the Commissioners’ actions.
2. It was factually misleading in its failure to mention that Commissioner O’Rielly made prohibited partisan political remarks.
3. The letter was incomplete because it failed to address a number of the questions from Pallone and Doyle, and provided no documentary evidence supporting its assertions."

“The FCC’s career ethics officials determined that it was permissible for the three Republican Commissioners to speak at CPAC," said an FCC spokesperson. "Indeed, Cabinet members also spoke at CPAC, and the Democrats’ letter contains no explanation for why the Commissioners’ participation should be treated any differently.  Sadly, we are left to conclude that the Democrats are simply trying to stop FCC Commissioners from speaking to right-of-center organizations while they have no problem with Commissioners speaking to left-of-center groups.”   

The FCC's Inspector General late last year agreed to open an investigation into FCC chair Ajit Pai's handling of the Sinclair Broadcasting-Tribune Media merger and related media ownership deregulatory decisions.

That is according to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, who sought the IG investigation last fall.

Pallone was concerned that Pai had improperly pushed for various deregulatory moves, such as restoring the UHF discount and loosening local ownership restrictions, to benefit Sinclair, whose Tribune purchase was a big beneficiary. He said the IG is also investigating whether the dereg was "coordinated" with Sinclair.

Related | broadcastingcable.com: FCC Seeks More Evidence of Sinclair Deal Claims

Pai has said the review has been by the book, and he has long argued for deregulating broadcasting and that the UHF discount should be looked at in tandem with the 39% ownership cap, including whether an analog discount should replace it, though he has also suggested the UHF discount was an anachronism.

"For months I have been trying to get to the bottom of the allegations about chairman Pai’s relationship with Sinclair Broadcasting,” Pallone said in a statement and to The New York Times, which first reported of his confirmation of the investigation. “I am particularly concerned about reports that Chairman Pai may have coordinated with Sinclair to time a series of Commission actions to benefit the company. I am grateful to the FCC’s Inspector General that he has decided to take up this important investigation.”

Related: Demand Progress Wants FCC IG to Investigate Pai Over Sinclair Deal

FCC spokespeople were not available to comment on the status of that investigation or what the threshold for investigating a complaint is, though the FCC website outlines the factors the IG considers in agreeing to investigate.

Back in November, joined by Overnight and Government Reform Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Pallone asked FCC inspector general David Hunt to investigate whether Pai had "taken improper actions to benefit Sinclair Broadcast Group."

At the time, an FCC spokesperson called the request part of an effort by Democrats to target Sinclair over its perceived conservative political views, and branded the allegations a baseless attempt to distract from the merits of the deal.

It is something of a chicken and egg issue. Did Pai help Sinclair by deregulating as expected, or did Sinclair anticipate that deregulation and time its Tribune deal to capitalize on it?

Pai's spokesperson said back in November of the request for an investigation: “Unfortunately, this request appears to be part of many Democrats’ attempt to target one particular company because of its perceived political views, an effort that dates all the way back to 2004 when Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member Cummings, and other Democrats demanded that the FCC investigate Sinclair based solely on the content of a documentary they didn’t like and that hadn’t even aired. Any claim that chairman Pai is modifying the rules now to benefit one particular company is completely baseless. For many years, chairman Pai has called on the FCC to update its media ownership regulations -- one of which dates back to 1975. The Chairman is sticking to his long-held views, and given the strong case for modernizing these rules, it's not surprising that those who disagree with him would prefer to do whatever they can to distract from the merits of his proposals.”

Related: Wheeler Says FCC Bent Rules to Help Sinclair

Pai has rolled back a number of decisions of his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, that he opposed and criticized at the time they were approved, including 2014 guidance on how the FCC would treat joint sales agreements and sharing arrangements between noncommonly owned stations; restoring the FCC's UHF discount; and two proposals scheduled for a vote this week (Nov. 16) -- potentially eliminating or loosening some media ownership limits, and allowing for the rollout of ATSC 3.0 transmissions. The FCC also recently eliminated the main studio rule, which required broadcasters to maintain a studio in their community of license.

Pallone and Cummings pointed to the timing of decisions that impact Sinclair deals (such as its purchase of Bonten stations) and proposed deals (the Tribune acquisition), and said they wanted some answers.

Meanwhile, the FCC has stopped the informal shot clock on its vetting of the proposed Sinclair-Tribune merger while it awaits action by the Department of Justice. Sinclair has modified the deal in light of the FCC's deregulatory moves and in an effort to retain more stations. Likely if and when Justice signs off on that, or its modification of Sinclair's modification, it will need to be refiled with the FCC and put out for public comment.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats were not handing out laurels to President Donald Trump's infrastructure investment plan, which was fleshed out in a White House document Monday (Feb. 12).

Related: President Fleshes Out Infrastructure Plan

“I am deeply disappointed that the president failed to include dedicated broadband funding in his infrastructure proposal," Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), co-chair of the House Rural Broadband Caucus, said. "This glaring omission is a betrayal of the rural voters that supported him in his election, and a missed opportunity to close the digital divide that separates rural and urban America. A robust rural broadband network is essential to attract businesses, provide access to healthcare through telemedicine, help farmers become more efficient, and close the homework gap that hamstrings rural students.”

The president's plan includes $50 billion for rural infrastructure, including rural broadband, but also including bridges, rail airports, inland ports, public transit, drinking water, storm water, power, electric, flood management and more. That is part of $200 billion in direct funding that the White House said will drive $1.5 billion in infrastructure investment in public and private funds.

“President Trump’s infrastructure proposal is woefully inadequate for addressing the urgent needs of modernizing our nation’s infrastructure," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. "The proposal does not include any new funding, and it forces the majority of costs onto cash-strapped state and local governments."

The president proposed leveraging $200 billion in government funding into $1.5 trillion in infrastructure upgrades and deployment. "President Trump spared no expense and required no offsets for his tax scam benefitting corporations and the wealthiest few," said Pallone, "but he refuses to provide any new funding to repair our crumbling infrastructure."

That "tax scam" was a reference to the Republican-backed tax cut bill that, among other things, reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

A high-profile Democrat took aim at web content platforms Wednesday (Nov. 29) in a House hearing on how those platforms, such as social media and search sites, use complex algorithms to shape how news and advertising content gets to consumers.

In his opening statement for the Joint Communications and Digital Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said the national dialogue is being "curated" by web platforms "policing content," and that the sites have consolidated into a few key players.

The hearing also dealt with online privacy and security, and included much talk about net neutrality in advance of the FCC's planned Dec. 14 vote to reverse the Title II classification of ISPs and eliminate most of the net-neutrality rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.

"The aim of internet platforms is monetizing web traffic, not public policy," Pallone said. "Algorithms created for the purpose of increasing ad clicks is what ends up shaping what we see online, and too often this content is not an accurate reflection of the real world.

"Structural flaws built into the algorithms used to sort online content may result in racial and other bias in our news feeds," Pallone continued. "As diverse voices are squeezed out, bias increases even further. This is simply not acceptable."

But while Pallone was sounding a warning about websites that appeared to echo at least some of what FCC chair Ajit Pai had talked about in a speech the day before, Pallone also saw Pai's rollback of Title II net-neutrality regs as part of the problem.

"Even now, as we hold a hearing to talk about mitigating bias on the internet, FCC chairman Pai is planning to introduce more bias into the system," Pallone said. "The net-neutrality rules that he plans to destroy are the protections that ensure that we, the people, can decide for ourselves what we do and say online. Chairman Pai’s plan will fundamentally change the free and open internet as we know it.

"Independent voices—those outside the mainstream—may be most at risk simply because they don’t have an affiliation with the companies that run the internet," he added.

Other Democrats also invoked the Title II rollback as a threat to the open internet and the free flow of ideas. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), ranking member of he Digital Commerce Subcommittee, used the occasion to hammer the FCC over media ownership deregulation and the Sinclair-Tribune deal as well. Pallone also registered his concern with that deal.

WASHINGTON — Sinclair Broadcast Group is fighting for Capitol Hill support of its merger with Tribune Media. That, though, will be a mighty tough sell with Democrats in both the Senate and House, who are calling for an investigation of the FCC chair over what’s being criticized as a deregulatory aid package to the broadcasters in general, and Sinclair in particular.

According to a PowerPoint presentation slide deck obtained by Multichannel News, Sinclair has been positioning itself as being squeezed between two factions. On the one side, consolidated multichannel video programming distributors are disadvantaging broadcasters in key negotiations (read: retransmission consent). On the other, broadcast networks are chipping away at their bottom lines.

The American Cable Association, which represents smaller, independent cable MSOs, and satellite-TV provider Dish Network have been among those pushing back on the deal, saying it would give Sinclair undue leverage in retrans deals, particularly if the Federal Communications Commission allows it to own two of the top four stations in a market.

A Hill source confirmed that Sinclair had used the presentation to pitch the deal to Congress. Sinclair also took the unusual step of agreeing to debate its critics publicly on the Hill last week in a forum hosted by Georgetown Law, where the slide on relative market cap was very much in evidence (see chart).

Competitive, Regulatory Headwinds
Sinclair pitched the deal as “ensuring the future of free and local TV,” and counts the ways that MVPDs and media ownership rules pose a threat to that future:

● “Other media (cable, online, social) is taking local advertising dollars away from local TV stations.”
● “Unprecedented consolidation of content creators and distributors disadvantage broadcast in key negotiations.”
● “Outdated rules keep broadcasters artificially fragmented.”

It also made clear who it thinks is getting the short end of the retrans stick. “MVPDs seek to deny stations this important revenue stream by not paying fair value for our content,” it said in one slide. But it’s a safe bet Democrats on the Hill won’t quite see it all that way.

Even as Sinclair was pitching the deal to Democrats, the party leader on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), was viewing the meld rather differently.

Joined by Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Pallone called for FCC inspector general David Hunt to investigate whether chairman Ajit Pai has “taken improper actions” to benefit Sinclair in the deal.

Related: Dems Seek Investigation of FCC Chair Over Sinclair-Tribune

Pattern of Preferential Treatment
Specifically, Pallone and Cummings want Hunt to determine whether the chairman’s actions show a pattern of preferential treatment toward Sinclair and whether there was inappropriate coordination, which would likely be any coordination between the FCC and the White House and Sinclair, as well as whether the use of nongovernmental email or social media in a series of interactions complied with the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Those requests came in a letter to Hunt dated Nov. 13, followed days later by a similar request from Senate Democrats.

The legislators indicated they were referring to what they said was the chairman’s “repeated refusal to respond to congressional inquiries about recent reports that he may have timed a series of FCC actions over the past year to financially benefit Sinclair and to assist in its attempts to purchase Tribune Media Co.” Pai’s office essentially said, “move along, nothing to see here,” and suggested the request was politically motivated.

“Unfortunately, this request appears to be part of many Democrats’ attempt to target one particular company because of its perceived political views, an effort that dates all the way back to 2004 when ranking member Pallone, ranking member Cummings and other Democrats demanded that the FCC investigate Sinclair based solely on the content of a documentary they didn’t like and that hadn’t even aired,” said a spokesperson for Pai.

Pai has rolled back a number of past decisions of his predecessor that he opposed, including 2014 guidance on how the FCC would treat joint sales agreements and sharing arrangements between non-commonly owned stations and restoring the FCC’s UHF discount.

It is in one sense a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Did Sinclair see the deregulatory handwriting on the wall and, naturally, take the opportunity to heavy up, or did the chairman take all those deregulatory actions in service of Sinclair?

“Any claim that chairman Pai is codifying the rules now to benefit one particular company is completely baseless,” Pai press secretary Tina Pelko said.

WASHINGTON — Edge providers are beginning to take more heat in the nation’s capital.

The bigger edge providers — companies that provide online applications, content or services, such as Google, Facebook or Yahoo — are being branded as gatekeepers of information, and getting called out as non-neutral online content arbitrators. That was once the exclusive province of internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T and others, who have been branded as the snakes in the virtuous circle of content to network to consumer.

The doesn’t mean the pressure is off ISPs, particularly on the issue of Title II reclassification, but the vice is starting to twist more on Silicon Valley poster companies that pretty much got a pass in discussions about controlling the overall access to information.

The turning of that bitter worm was clear as one prominent House Democrat laid into edge providers, and at an Oct. 24 House hearing on political advertising saw newspaper publishers roll up their collective editions and spank Google and Facebook as peddlers of fake news for a buck.

Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee have been talking among themselves about the optics of leaving edge providers out of the speech debate, particularly given the rise of fake news — i.e., the real kind, rather than the accusations of President Donald Trump against mainstream media.

Related: Some Troubled by 'Trump TV'

That came to something of a head, or at least to a signal of changing political fortunes, when Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) requested a briefing with edge providers that he accused of shaping news content.

“With a goal of ad clicks or driving page views, these companies’ policies are not neutral; they actively shape content on the web,” said Pallone, who sent a letter to Google, Facebook and Twitter seeking a briefing on their policies for “moderating content and advertising” as social media’s role in fake news and Russian election meddling swirled inside the Beltway.

Pallone was also responding to reports of vague, confusing and inconsistently applied content guidelines.

A Hill source said Democrats on the Energy & Commerce Committee are clearly trying to include tech firms in conversations about their role in net neutrality and the First Amendment going forward.

“The influence of the internet over our national dialogue and our lives has skyrocketed over the past decade,” Pallone said. “At the same time, the number of websites handling this traffic has consolidated to a handful of key platforms. The combination of these trends has led to these few companies taking on a quasi-governmental role policing content.”

Page Views vs. Page Turns
Pallone suggested that inconsistent application may be tied to the desire to boost page views and ad clicks, foreshadowing the complaints of the News Media Alliance at a hearing on political advertising last week.

Only a day after Pallone’s letter was made public, the head of the News Media Alliance, which represents almost 2,000 newspapers, pressed the issue in a hearing with House members on political advertising and a bill, the Honest Ads Act, that would require broadcast-live disclosures on online political ads.

Related: NMA Says Google, Facebook Business Models Fuel Fake News

While ISPs have gotten used to being called internet gatekeepers on Capitol Hill, NMA president David Chavern said that Google, Facebook and other edge players are news gatekeepers that have fueled fake news and “harmed the integrity of content and advertising.”

That’s because the edge business model is based on “not exercising responsibility over the integrity of content of the advertising that sustains its foundation,” Chavern told the House Oversight Committee’s Information Technology Subcommittee.

Chavern said that the public “should no longer have to suffer from unreliable information because it is profitable, while producers of content [such as his newspaper members] continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who has long pushed Congress to hold viewers harmless in the post incentive auction repack, has introduced a bill to make sure the moving expenses of TV stations (and affected FM stations and MVPDs) are covered, given the initial broadcaster estimates of $2.1 billion in expenses and Congress' set-aside of only $1.75 billion.

The Viewer Protection Act would establish a $1 billion "emergency fund," if needed, to fund a $90 million viewer outreach effort, given that most of 1,000 stations are moving channels -- some likely twice -- in a 10-phase transition.

Any money left over could be used to help low-powers (including translators), which are not protected in the repack.

At his nomination hearing this week, FCC chair Ajit Pai said the FCC had estimated the $1.75 billion would not be enough, so that if Congress wants to hold TV stations harmless -- Pallone is more focused on viewers -- Congress would need to step in.

The bill would also give the FCC's Media Bureau the flexibility to modify the transition periods for the phased transition so stations would not go dark to viewers for reasons outside their control.

“The FCC’s incentive auction was the second largest auction in history, and the result of years of successful work,” Pallone said in a statement. “But with an anticipated shortfall of more than a quarter billion dollars for repacking, it’s time for Congress to step in to make sure that no viewers lose their signal. I understand how important it is to have access to local news and information — especially during an emergency. That’s why the Viewer Protection Act provides additional funding and ensures consumers will understand the coming changes, so that no consumer will be left in the dark when stations change channels. At the same time, our bill will ensure consumers of mobile broadband reap the benefits of the incentive auction as soon as possible.”

House Democrats used a hearing on emergency alerts to raise red flags on the FCC Republican majority's plan to roll back classification of ISPs as Title II common carriers, which is scheduled to be voted May 18.

The House Communications Subcommittee was looking into the future of alerts, both online and on-air, but in opening statements, some Dems diverged from the topic at hand to an issue much on the minds of legislators.

Ranking member Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said he was "concerned" about the timing of its hearing. "The FCC at its open meeting tomorrow will vote to advance an order that will roll back essential rules that protect and promote a free and open Internet. "

He pointed to over one million comments that have been filed and also pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on the proposal or an FCC oversight hearing. He said the committee should be discussing the  issue with the commission. "It is critical that they be held accountable by Congress," he said. "With the commission on the brink of considering an enormously unpopular and ill-advised proposal that could have far-reaching implications on the most innovative part of our economy, it seems irresponsible for Congress not to provide the much-needed oversight."

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the parent Energy & Commerce Committee, also talked about the FCC's effort to "strip away" network neutrality protections. "FCC Chairman Pai has proposed a plan that would kill net neutrality, he said, and "would have a chilling influence on our democracy, chip away at our connections with each other and limit opportunities for the future. He urged the FCC to "listen to the American people and reconsider this misguided approach.

Reps. Doyle and Pallone have also asked the FCC to extend the comment period on the Title II rollback notice of proposed rulemaking, a call Doyle renewed at the hearing.

Doyle also called on the committee to hold a hearing on the Sinclair/Tribune deal, something he called for in a letter to the FCC earlier this week.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) seconded the need for an FCC oversight hearing and Sinclair/Tribune hearing. She said the FCC was about to begin the effort to unravel net neutrality and called on Communications Subcommittee Chair Marsha Blackburn to hold an oversight hearing on the proposed merger.

The House Communications Subcommittee held a hearing on wireless spectrum and the economy, but it had to wait for Democrats and Republicans to air out their grievances over the passage last week of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution rolling back FCC broadband privacy regs.

The back-and-forth was particularly heated and even personal, illustrating the widening political divide on Capitol Hill.

Ranking member Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the parent Energy & Commerce Committee, used their opening statements to weigh into Republicans for "ramming" the CRA down the public's throat," as Doyle put it.

Doyle also called out CTIA (though not by name) -- a CTIA witness, the only association witness, was at the table -- for supporting the CRA, saying the industry association had acted in a "selfish and irresponsible way." He said he expected more from the organization and its members, and the American people did as well. Saying the CTIA's support for the CRA meant that there were no privacy protections, Doyle said, "Believe me, my constituents and your customers are not happy about this.

Doyle called the CRA a draconian instrument the Republicans had used to smash the FCC rules.

House Energy & Commerce Committee chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.) shot back that the issue had been "horribly spun" and that the FCC created the problem when it reclassified ISPs under Title II and took over regulation of broadband privacy from the Federal Trade Commission. Walden noted that the rules did not apply to data collection and sharing by Google (which has 85% market share of search, he said) or Facebook.

"How do you think they make their money?" he asked.

He also pointed out that the FCC rules had never been in effect. He said those companies had never been under the FCC rules "period," then repeated "period" even louder to put an exclamation point on the period. "That's where the searches are," he said, suggesting Doyle needed a little educating -- a comment that drew some groans.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) also defended the CRA rollback, saying that the reality was Congress made a great decision in rolling back the regs.

Pallone put the move in the context of other Republican/Trump Administration efforts on healthcare, energy and the environment. He said no one believes the Republican "mumbo jumbo" about still protecting privacy or clean air or affordable health care.

"Everyone understands when you go home that the Republicans are trying to do harm to every health, safety, privacy and environmental protection that exists in the federal government," Pallone said. "And that is what they are all about."

He said that through executive action and CRAs like the one on privacy, the Republicans are trying to unilaterally "tear down everything the American people care about."

Subcommittee chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) emphasized as she moved to witness testimony that it was going to be a hearing about "spectrum."

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), former ranking member of the subcommittee, brought the issue back to privacy during her questioning. She asked CTIA witness Scott Bergman whether the FTC could come up with new privacy rules given that they lack rulemaking authority.

Bergman said his companies are commited to their subs' privacy but that they also follow and support the FCC's and FTC's enforcement authority over privacy.

Eshoo said that there is a hue and cry from constituents and that his companies had damaged their brand with support of the CRA.

Bergman said his companies depend on the trust of their customers. Eshoo said if that is the case they had "more than chipped away at that. I think this is going to haunt the companies."

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) also talked privacy, saying he was worred that promises are all consumers have left to protect their privacy.

He asked Berman whether companies could now change those policies if they wanted to.

Bergman would only say that their policies were the same today as they were before. He said the FCC still has authority under sec. 222 of Title II to enforce broadband privacy and that his members were working with the relevant agencies on a path to make sure that the FTC has a consIstent and clear framework across the entire ecosystem.

WASHINGTON — Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler will face a House Communications Subcommittee FCC oversight hearing this week (July 12), and probably some grilling on the status of his controversial “unlock the box” proposal.

Rep. Frank Pallone (DN. J.), chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is one legislator likely to be looking for progress on a “ditch the box” compromise proposal from cable operators that could potentially reunite his fractured subcommittee. FCC staffers signaled last week there are points of agreement, but also sought many clarifications.

Cable operators and other stakeholders have been meeting with Wheeler’s office after it became clear that the chairman did not have a lock on three votes for his original proposal to make set-top data and programming available to third parties.

The set-top issue continued to draw a crowd last week, particularly after Comcast and Netflix announced that Netflix would be available on Comcast’s X1 platform.

Easier access to both traditional and online fare is one of the big drivers behind Wheeler’s proposal.

Read more about the FCC's proposed set-top rules.

Pallone has a particular interest in seeing movement on a proposal that both cable ops and the FCC could sign off on, and Wheeler has said he was looking forward to engaging in a “constructive dialogue” with stakeholders.

Pallone signaled to Multichannel News in an e-mailed statement that he likes the direction set-top box compromise talks are taking, so long as the final destination is consumer-friendly and protects content.

“One thing everyone can agree on is that our set-top boxes can be clunky, bad for the environment and expensive,” Pallone wrote. “The recent proposal from industry and the reaction from the FCC has brought us closer to a positive resolution.”

The FCC-industry talks followed the introduction of an apps-focused “ditch the box” compromise proposal by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and others, as well as the signal from Democratic commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, whose vote is needed to pass a final order, that the FCC needs to find another route to the shared goals of competition for leased set-tops and access to over-the-top content.

Pallone is said to be focused on a couple of things: first, protecting content, and second — as ranking member — reuniting committee Democrats split over the FCC’s set-top proposal.

New York Democrat Yvette Clarke, for example, has pushed back strongly on the FCC plan, while House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has tried to marshal her colleagues’ support for the proposal.

While Comcast’s agreement to add Netflix to its video navigation platform might suggest the marketplace is already wedding traditional and online content without the thumb of government on the scale — something cable ops have been arguing — backers of Wheeler’s original set-top proposal wanted to make sure that was not the takeaway.

“We think that in a competitive market, consumers shouldn’t have to look to special deals between large companies like this just to access video programming from multiple sources all in one place,” said John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney for Public Knowledge. “A competitive market will deliver lots of video apps on many different devices.”

The Consumer Video Choice Coalition, which has been pushing for the proposal, said: “Yay, Comcast customers can now watch Netflix! Now what’s wrong with unlocking the box and letting consumers watch the rest of the Internet as well?”

Pallone is looking to the July 12 oversight hearing for some encouraging words about compromise. “I look forward to continued discussion on this topic at the FCC Oversight hearing,” he told Multichannel News.

If the FCC can work out a compromise with industry, the hearing would be a good place for Wheeler to signal it is in the works — or that at least a compromise is a possibility.

The FCC may have already signaled that there is hope. Staffers have sought answers from cable operators on a host of key points in the ditch the box proposal, and signaled there are many general points of agreement, according to a copy of staff questions obtained by Multichannel News.

“FCC staff continues to meet with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss the industry’s proposal,” said a Wheeler spokesperson. “While conversations have been constructive, there is more work to do to fully understand the scope of the proposal and clarify important details. Our goal is to find the best path forward to ensure that consumers finally have the competition and choice they deserve.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Communications Subcommittee, has signaled she can accept an FCC reform bill with a delay on a provision letting more than two FCC commissioners meet outside of public meetings, but can't accept it if it includes Republican-backed amendments she has already said she opposes.

That message came in prepared text for her opening statement for a markup of H.R. 2583, the FCC Process Reform Act, in the House Energy & Commerce Committee Wednesday (June 3). Eshoo had been a co-sponsor of the bill, but wanted her name removed, said one committee source, to avoid having to vote against her own bill, which has the Republican votes to be amended to include their proposals.

Those include requiring the FCC to publish text of draft decisions when they are circulated (customarily three weeks before a vote), to publish its decisions within 24 hours of a vote, and to publish 48 hours beforehand decisions be granted on delegated authority.

Eshoo said while she continued to support the underlying bill, even with the delay on commissioners meeting, she also suggested the above requirements were essentially poison pills.

"What I cannot support are attempts to stack this bill with partisan amendments that have the effect of tying the FCC in knots," she said. "Proposed under the guise of improved agency transparency and accountability, what these bills actually do is prevent the FCC from being fast, efficient and transparent.

"After four years of debating FCC process reform, the Committee can take one of two routes," she added. "If the Majority wants to offer its partisan amendments, Democrats will oppose final passage and this bill will once again fail to become law. Alternatively, we can adopt the Democratic substitute amendment which incorporates the areas of bipartisan agreement into the underlying bill and join together in urging the Senate to expeditiously pass the FCC Process Reform Act."

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the full committee, concurred.

"While I support H.R. 2853 in its current form, I have been clear that I cannot support the other Republican drafts I anticipate will be added as amendments during markup," Pallone said. "Experts have said, quite simply, that it would result in confusion, litigation, and delay.  So I will oppose those bills and any final bill that includes its provisions."

The Republicans support the Democratic amendments, so on alternative would be for them to vote on the base bill without the Republicans amendments, which would be bipartisan, and then vote separately on the Republican proposals. They almost certainly have the votes to pass them.

Also look for the Democrats to try to amend the base bill legislation mandating that the FCC require more detailed on-air disclosures from the funders of political ads.

Congress continues to weigh in on the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to presume cable operators are subject to competition absent a showing to the contrary. Currently, the presumption is that a local market is not competitive.

A finding of effective competition by the FCC relieves operators of local basic-cable rate regulation.

The latest salvos came from both sides of the aisle and the issue as the FCC is expected any day now to circulate an order on the proposal.

In a letter dated Wednesday (May 13), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's Communication Subcommittee, joined with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to support the FCC's proposal to "update" the effective competition provision.

They pointed to legacy regulation as an impediment to enhanced flexibility and choice -- the presumption comes from the1992 Cable Act, which dates from a time when cable ops had a 95% MVPD market share, which is now down to a tad more than 50%.

Eshoo and Scalist also cited the time-consuming and costly requirement of the effective-competition provision and said it makes cable ops engage in long and costly proceedings to offer more flexible packaging options to consumers.

They also said saving FCC resources would be saving taxpayer dollars.

On the other side, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, in a letter also dated May 13, asked FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to think hard about the impact of reversing the presumption, pointing to a New Jersey franchising authority's concerns and the impact of the move on consumers.

Pallone said the FCC could simply streamline the petition process and leave the larger question about reversing the presumption for another day, basically inviting Wheeler to punt on the proposed reversal.

The FCC is under an early June congressional deadline to produce an order streamlining the process for smaller cable operators. It was that order the chairman proposed to use to streamline it for all operators by reversing the presumption.