Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill, the Broadcast Diversity in Leadership Act, to promote broadcast diversity by creating the incubator program the FCC tried to create as part of its broadcast dereg order that was remanded by a federal appeals court.

The difference is that while the FCC incubator program was radio only, Walden's is for TV as well.

Walden is the ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and a former broadcaster himself.

The incubator program puts established broadcasters together with minority new entrants with the idea of giving them an opportunity to own one or more of the broadcasters' stations, with the broadcaster providing training, access to resources, and more, but with limits on how much equity the established broadcaster can hold in the new entrant and the requirement that the emerging broadcaster have effective control of any incubated station.

Related: NAB: FCC Doesn't Need Diversity Impact Stats to Deregulate

"As a former radio station owner in rural Oregon, I know well that our local broadcasters are often Americans’ primary source of local news, particularly in rural areas," said Walden. "I understand the importance of ensuring broadcast owners and their content reflect the communities they serve."

“NAB thanks Rep. Walden for introducing legislation creating an incubator program that would help aspiring broadcasters realize their dream of owning a radio or TV station," said National Association of Broadcasters president Gordon Smith. "NAB strongly supports efforts to increase media ownership diversity by providing pathways to station ownership for new and diverse voices,” said Gordon Smith, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters."

"We are pleased that the proposed incubator program would include television," said James Winston, president of the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB). "NABOB has supported the creation of an incubator program for many years. We are very grateful to Congressman Walden for taking this next step toward its implementation."

House Republicans have fleshed out their framework for closing the digital divide with more than two dozen broadband bills, including ones speeding cable franchising decisions, zoning decisions, and making it easier to deploy infrastructure on federal lands. 

D.C. is putting on a full court press to get folks connected, including wireless deployment streamlining championed by FCC commissioner Brendan Carr. 

Related: FCC Clarifies Wireless Buildout Streaming Rules 

While it is unclear how long the pandemic will last given the time it takes to develop a vaccine and the spikes in cases have some states contemplating re-sheltering in place, what is clear is that broadband has been indispensable in keeping people working and getting healthcare and studying, a point the Republicans made in introducing the suite of new bills. 

"We must do all that we can to expand access to broadband, bridge the digital divide, and close the homework gap," said House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio). 

The bills are grouped under three headings, with a big focus on deregulation in order to speed deployment by clearing away "red tape." But as with other deregulatory moves by Republicans promoted as COVID-19 necessities--including by the chief Republican, President Donald Trump--Democrats are likely to look at many of them as opportunities to capitalize on the pandemic to drive further deregulation. 

Related: Court Vacates FCC Dereg of Cell Tower Site Reviews 

For example, one of the bills is The Communities Overregulating Networks Need Economic Competition Today (CONNECT) Act. Another has been christened The Barriers and Regulatory Obstacles Avoids Deployment of Broadband Access and Needs Deregulatory Leadership (BROADBAND Leadership). 

But one Republican's overregulation is another Democrat's protection of history or the environment--there is a bill in the package about that, too--and with Democrats controlling the House, the likelihood of many of the bills making it to the President's desk is slim. 

The bills are:  

Promote New Infrastructure Deployment 

1. "The Winning the International Race for Economic Leadership and Expanding Service to Support Leadership (WIRELESS Leadership) Act, led by Rep. Latta (R-Ohio), would streamline permitting processes for wireless providers by preserving State and local zoning authority subject to reasonable limitations, like shot clocks and cost-based fees, to ensure providers receive an answer on their applications in a reasonable amount of time; 

2. "The Barriers and Regulatory Obstacles Avoids Deployment of Broadband Access and Needs Deregulatory Leadership (BROADBAND Leadership) Act, led by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), streamlines permitting processes for telecommunications service providers by preserving State and local zoning authority subject to reasonable limitations, like shot clocks and cost-based fees, to ensure providers receive an answer on their application in a reasonable amount of time; 

3. "The Cable Access for Broadband and Local Economic Leadership (CABLE Leadership) Act, led by Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.), would place shot clocks on a cable franchising authority to act on a request for a new franchise to speed up deployment; 

4. "The Communities Overregulating Networks Need Economic Competition Today (CONNECT) Act, also led by Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.), would promote competition by limiting government-run broadband networks throughout the country; 

Incentivize Competition and Consumer Choice by Promoting Collocation and Modifications to Existing Infrastructure 

5. "The Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure (SPEED) Act (H.R. 6488), led by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), would reduce federal red tape by exempting broadband facilities from environmental and historic preservation reviews on federal property where a communications facility has already been approved; 

6. "The Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, led by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), would remove the requirement to prepare an environmental or historic preservation review for collocations of wireless facilities; 

7. "The Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act, led by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), would expand eligible facilities requests to include facilities that would improve the resiliency of the communications network and provide a direct benefit to public safety, such as backup power, hardening the tower or structure, or providing more reliable connection capabilities; 

8. "The Consumer Access to Broadband for Local Economies and Competition Act (CABLE Competition Act), led by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), would streamline the transfer of a franchise from a franchise authority to a cable operator; 

9. "The Cable Transparency Act, led by Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), would clarify and make more transparent the terms for a cable franchise; 

10. "The Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act, led by Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), would establish a penalty of a 2-year prison term for anyone who willfully or maliciously destroys a communications facility; 

Remove Unnecessary or Duplicative Barriers from Environmental and Historical Reviews 

11. "The Tribal Interest Maintained for Infrastructure Needing Greater Certainty Act (TIMING Certainty Act), led by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), would provide clarity and certainty for providers to comply with historical regulations and speed up the deployment of wireless infrastructure; 

12. "The Brownfields Broadband Deployment Act, led by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), would ensure the deployment of a broadband project entirely within a brownfields site is a category of activities to be excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental or historic preservation review; 

13. "The Coastal Broadband Deployment Act, led by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), would accelerate the deployment of broadband projects entirely within a floodplain; 

14. "The Timely Replacement Under Secure and Trusted for Early and Dependable Broadband Networks Act (TRUSTED Broadband Networks Act), led by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), would accelerate the replacement of projects subject to reimbursement under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019; 

15. "The Proportional Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act, led by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), would speed up the deployment of eligible facilities requests, which modify an existing wireless tower or base station that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station that involves the collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment; 

16. "The Wildfire Wireless Resiliency Act, led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would speed up the deployment of projects to replace or improve communications facilities after a wildfire; 

Allow Broadband Deployment on Federal Lands 

17. "The Standard Fees to Expedite Evaluation and Streamlining Act (Standard FEES Act), led by Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.), would establish a common fee for processing applications to deploy communications facilities on Federal property; 

18. "The Broadband Deployment Streamlining Act, led by Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), would streamline the process to place or modify communications facilities on land under the control of the Department of Interior; 

19. "The Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act, led by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.), would create a study on barriers within the bureaucracy to reviewing communications use authorization requests to deploy on Federal land; 

20. "The Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews Act, led by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), would direct NTIA to lead an interagency strike force to help prioritize reviews for communications use authorization requests to deploy on Federal land; 

21. 'The Federal Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas Act, led by Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), would allow the Department of Interior to view FCC broadband mapping data to show Federal real property that can support communications facilities in unserved areas; 

22. "The Deploying Infrastructure with Greater Internet Transactions And Legacy Applications (DIGITAL Applications) Act, led by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), would establish an online portal to accept, process, and dispose of the common form application to deploy a communications facility on Federal real property; 

23. The Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure with Greater Internet Transactions And Legacy Applications (Facilitating DIGITAL Applications) Act, led by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would require the NTIA to update Congress on whether the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have established an online portal for the acceptance, processing, and disposal of the common form application to deploy a communications facility on Federal real property; 

24. "The Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act, led by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), would require NTIA to submit a plan to Congress on tracking the acceptance, processing, and disposal of requests for communications use authorizations on Federal real property; 

25. "The Connecting Communities Post Disasters Act, led by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.), would accelerate replacing and improving communications facilities in Presidentially-declared disaster areas; 

26. "The Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act of 2019, led by Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), would allow Federal departments to delegate Federal environmental compliance for broadband projects to States and Indian Tribes." 

House Energy & Commerce Committee Republican says it is time to move on after the FCC voted unanimously to allow Ligado to launch a terrestrial broadband network in spectrum adjacent to GPS, saying it was appropriate to defer to the FCC's subject matter expertise on the issue. 

“After hearing from many stakeholders, the FCC made its decision to grant Ligado’s application," they said in a statement released Tuesday (May 19). "This application has been tested, reviewed, revised, and tested again. The FCC is required by law to determine if technology proposals are in the public interest, and we must trust that in making this decision, the FCC took every position into consideration to come to this conclusion." 

Releasing the statement were Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio), and Consumer Protection Subcommittee ranking member Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), joined by Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus (R-Ill.). 

The Department of Defense and GPS industry execs have continued to push back on the decision, saying they do not trust that Ligado can operate without threatening to interference with crucial guidance and navigation systems. 

FCC: Senate Ligado-Related Attacks Are 'Baseless Fearmongering' 

"These decisions will only get more difficult as technologies develop, but we need to trust the expert agencies who make spectrum decisions," they said. "The Energy and Commerce Committee takes seriously its authority and responsibility to oversee spectrum management activities of all agencies." 

Shimkus cited both his military background and the fact that he has been engaged in the debate between tech and defense for almost a decade, Ligado (formerly LightSquared) has been trying to get access to the satellite spectrum for that long. "[T]he reality is after extensive testing by engineers and unanimous approval by the FCC, the defense community’s claim that a land-based, low-power transmission with guard bands would render the GPS unusable strains credibility. Allocating finite spectrum while preventing interference is a delicate task, but it’s one that must continue to be carried out by the appropriately specialized agency with oversight by the committees of jurisdiction," he said.   

Related: FCC, Ligado Draw Major Fire in Armed Services Committee 

But there is plenty of division in Congress over the issue.  

The FCC got letters from members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Commitees, and from both sides of the aisle, asking it to stay the decision and/or rethink it.  

The House members said their committee is pushing DOD to share as much spectrum for 5G as possible, but not if it is a national security threat.   

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, James Inhofe (R-Okla.) held a hearing on the decision and was clearly unhappy with it. He said the issue boiled down to risk and that that risk should not come at the benefit of one company and its investors. He appeared convinced that Ligado's service would interfere with GPS, including military guidance systems. He said such interference with GPS would hurt the entire economy. At the end of the day, economic security is national security," he said. 

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said wireless broadband providers need to do more to help families connect to broadband during the coronavirus pandemic. 

While he praised the efforts to date, including waiving overage fees and encouraged "all providers [to] temporarily make as much data available as possible, as quick as possible."  

But he also called on them to provide more data for mobile hot spots during the COVID-19 crisis. 

"This is an unprecedented time, and wireless providers have already stepped up to the plate in a big way," he said. “But more can be done. Increasing data caps for hot spots is the fastest way to connect Americans temporarily who do not have WiFi at home." 

He said that was in the short term, but in the long term. "We must not lose sight of the bigger problem: the need to deploy broadband in the long-term," he said.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) used an informational hearing on deep fakes and other online manipulation to hammer Big Tech in general and Facebook in particular, while Republicans found more to like on the edge. 

The hearing, "Americans at Risk: Manipulation and Deception in the Digital Age," in the House Consumer Protection Subcommittee that Schakowsky chair, exhibited the current political split over how to address a problem both sides concede, the rise of online deception. 

Generally, Democrats who used to treat the edge as plucky upstarts to the big content and distribution companies have come around to seeing them as even bigger, now entrenched, companies in need of minding. Republicans are promoting self-regulation by The Edge as they traditionally have Big Media, though both sides of the aisle agree that there needs to be some governor, whether self-regulation or government regulation or a mix of both, on companies with net worth exceeding that of some countries' GNP and with huge stakes in arguably the most pervasive and transformative technology in human history.

Related: Slaughter Tells CES 2020 That Tech Is Not Doing Enough on Privacy

Schakowsky said that "Big Tech" had failed to respond to the "grave threat" of deep fakes, dark patterns, bots, and other technologies that are hurting the public in direct and indirect ways.   

While Facebook this week to steps to try and weed out deep fakes, Schakowsky was not assuaged. She said Facebook had scrambled to announce a new policy this week that struck her as "wholly inadequate" since ti would not have weeded out the "cheap fake" video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that was slowed to make her appear drunk, a video that amassed millions of views but prompted no action from Facebook.  

Schakowsky said that for too long, Big Tech has argued that their e-commerce and digital  platforms deserve special treatment and a light regulatory touch, but she said the subcommittee is finding that consumers can be harmed as easily online as in the physical world, and in some cases the online dangers are greater.  She said the subcommittee must make it clear that protections that apply in the physical world apply in the virtual world. 

But Schakowsky did not confine her criticism to Big Tech. She said Congress had taken a laissez faire approach to online deception over the past decade, while the Federal Trade Commission has lacked the resources, authority and lack of will that together has left people feeling helpless. 

She raised the spectre of removing the Sec. 230 liability carveout for Facebook and other edge platforms from liability for third-party content, a shield which she said many have argued has led to inadequate policing of things like piracy and extremist speech. She said Big Tech appeared "wholly unprepared to tackle the challenges we face." 

She said Big Tech has failed to regulate itself, pointing to Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg apology tour, and saying Facebook's deep fake actions this week left a lot to be desired.  

Schakowsky asked witness Monika Bickert, VP of global policy management, at Facebook, why the new deep fakes policy only covers AI-manipulated video, rather than "cheap fake" human-doctored content, and why it only applies to making people appear to say things they didn't, and not edited images, like the slowed-down Pelosi video. 

Bickert said that there were other ways such videos could or would be flagged, like a label identifying it as false information.  

House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) cited the manipulation of video to create nonconsensual porn. Bickert pointed out that would already violate its policy against nudity and porn in general. 

Bickert said that Facebook was always improving its policies and enforcement to meet the moving targets of new tech, but that it welcomed collaboration with other stakeholders, including lawmakers, to "develop a consistent industry approach." 

Ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) argued that more regulation was not the answer and that manipulating of the public was nothing new. She cited the "yellow journalism" of the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pullitzer of over 100 years ago. 

She said the lack of trust in those sensational headline and stories had forced those outlets to clean up their act, with the name Pulitzer, for example, ultimately meaning something quite different.  

Rodgers signaled that the country was at a similar inflection point, but that the answer to rebuilding online trust was not more regulatory mandates and government action, but giving the public more information to make their own decisions, and allowing tech companies to innovate. She warned that if regulations put a crimp in such innovation, other countries, like China, could become the leader in AI. 

Echoing the Trump Administration's new AI regulatory guidelines, Rodgers said that U.S. tech companies must continue to be free to innovate in AI and facial recognition and other technologies that that U.S. values of freedom and independence, not those of authoritarian regimes, undergird the technology. 

Related: White House Unveils AI Regulatory Principles 

House E&C ranking member and former chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) pointed out that the committee had already grilled Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey last year and suggested that had prompted improvements in "questionable practices" in a "critically important ecosystem." 

He said that shining a light on issues, as the hearing was doing, could often lead to swifter actions than government can get done.  

He said there was proof some companies were cleaning up their platforms, and said he appreciated the work they were doing, including what he said were significant changes by Facebook after their hearing with Zuckerberg last year, including reforming privacy settings, taking down malicious entities, and investing in legitimate local news operations. 

Walden said Facebook, Twitter and YouTube had been working together to tackle terrorist content. He thanked them for that as well.  

Walden said that the online ecosystem was far from perfect and companies could "of course" be doing more to clean up their platforms. But he said he expected them to and they seemed to be working on that.  

He also suggested that edge providers were between something of a rock and a hard place on the issue of Sec. 230 liability and how they should or shouldn't police their platforms. 

"This is tough stuff," he said. " I have a degree in journalism. I'm a big advocate of the First Amendment and it can be messy business to on the one hand take down things we don't like and still stay on the right side of the First Amendment because vigorous speech, even when it is inaccurate, is still protected." 

"If you go too far, then we yell at you for taking things down that we liked. And if you don't take down things we don't like then we yell at your for that, so you are kind of in a bit of a box, and yet we know Sec. 230 is an issue we need to revise and take a look at." 

The House has scheduled a vote on suspension Tuesday (Dec. 10) on compromise STELAR-related legislation, H.R. 5035, the Television Viewer Protection Act (TVPA), that would make permanent the FCC's mandate that broadcasters and MVPDs negotiate in good faith. 

Suspension is a procedure for fast-tracking noncontroversial bills, so the bill is expected to pass.

Currently, the mandate sunsets every five years unless Congress renews it. But the TVPA does not renew the compulsory satellite license at the heart of STELAR, which was delegated to the House Judiciary but which also sunsets Dec. 31. 

The license allows satellite operators to import distant network-affiliated TV station signals to markets that lack them. 

Related: ACA Has Issues with TVPA 

The bill is expected to pass, but what happens next is unclear.  

House Energy & Commerce Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) reached the agreement on the TVPA. 

If it makes it to the President's desk--and Judiciary does indeed add the license renewal part--the bill would allow MVPD buying groups the same good faith guarantee in negotiations as individual companies, as ACA Connects had lobbied for, and still requires fee disclosures by MVPDs and prohibits MVPDs from charging consumers for some equipment.  

But where it goes next is unclear. The House Judiciary has been busy with impeachment hearings and an industry source said there did not seem to be any movement on its re-upping of the license, which broadcasters would be happy to see go. 

The Congress could punt on the issue for a couple of months in a couple of ways, passing a bill extending the license and good faith provisions until early in the New Year, as happened a decade ago. Or it could be slipped in as an extension into the continuing resolution--CR--Congress will need to pass soon to keep the government open past Dec. 20. 

No word on how the Senate is proceeding with STELAR bills on that side of the aisle, though the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has signaled he wants the compulsory license to sunset, while Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) has said he thinks it is important to renew it, and has introduced a straight renewal bill and pitched it on the Senate floor.  

The House Energy & Commerce Committee Wednesday (Nov. 20) approved a compromise STELAR reauthorization bill that would make permanent the FCC's mandate the broadcasters and MVPDs negotiate in good faith. Currently, the mandate sunsets every five years unless Congress renews it. 

That came on vote Wednesday (Nov. 20) after bipartisan Communications Subcommittee leadership came to agreement on a compromise version of the bill, principally the addition of that permanent provision. 

Related: House E&C Strikes STELAR Renewal Deal 

The committee technically favorably reported the bill to the full House, and did so by a voice vote with no nays recorded. The vote was swift and uneventful.  

The latest version of the bill, introduced by Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) also allows MVPD buying groups the same good faith guarantee in negotiations as individual cable operators, as ACA Connects had lobbied for, though with limits on the scope of those buying groups, and still requires fee disclosures by MVPDs, more complete e-billing, and prohibits MVPDs from charging consumers for some equipment.  

Walden said he would have preferred a more open process on the bill, but said it ended up in a fairly good place. He still said he was not sure STELAR should be reauthorized, or necessarily would be since the Judiciary Committee must still renew the satellite compulsory license portion of the bill. 

But he said the permanent good faith renewal meant the days of using the legislation for targeted media reforms was over and that should mean Congress looked at those changes separately and through regular order--one of his complaints about the Doyle bill is that it was marked up in subcommittee without a hearing on the substance. 

He praised the inclusion of the MVPD buying groups provision, which both allows those groups to negotiate with broadcasters but also holds them to good faith requirements. 

He called the bill "not perfect," but said it was sound public policy that did not give everyone what they wanted.  

Doyle said he was glad to include making the good faith provision permanent, which was not part of his original bill. 

House E&C chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) called the bill pro-consumer and pro-competition.

The National Association of Broadcasters, in seeking the sunset of STELAR, has said the good faith mandate is unnecessary since it is in broadcasters' best interest to get deals done, but praised it as a better alternative.

"NAB applauds a key provision in the House Commerce Committee-passed STELAR bill today that makes permanent legislation requiring broadcasters and pay TV companies to conduct carriage negotiations in 'good faith'," said NAB president Gordon Smith. "While we continue to question the need for STELAR legislation, a 'permanent good faith' requirement is far preferable to the current five-year STELAR renewal cycle that has incentivized pay TV companies to force broadcast TV programming disruptions that harm consumers."

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.

Congressional action to update the Telecommunications Act will be incremental, according to Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

"We're looking at it piece by piece," Walden said at the 2018 State of the Net conference on Monday, Jan. 29. He added that Congress also "needs to look at the FCC operation" overall, acknowledging that "we live in a different era" than when the 1996 Telecom law was enacted. Walden said he expects a "program-by-program" evaluation, but did not suggest any timetable or urgency for the review.

More From SOTN: Rosenworcel Seeks Wider Investigation of Fake Comments

Walden's outlook on piecemeal telecom reform legislation echoes the view of his Senate counterpart Sen. John Thune, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. At the SOTN conference last year, Thune also avoided any expectation that an omnibus revision of the Telecommunications Act is likely.

Walden also addressed net neutrality and broadcast spectrum issues in his remarks. He blamed the FCC's 2015 Open Internet ruling for creating an unnecessary barrier, but stopped short of promising any Congressional lawmaking on the topic either, as others have suggested.

"We ought to be able to find common ground to prevent bad behavior," such as paid prioritization, Walden said. But he contended that the issues are "not fully understood," saying, "We need to get certainty on what will drive more investment."

Related: Walden Says House E&C Will Hold Hearing on Paid Prioritization

Walden said he believes that lawsuits about the issue "will force America further back" in Internet development. He did promise that his committee will hold hearings on the topic, but did not specify a schedule.

In addition to his vow to find more money for the broadcast channel repack, required after last year's incentive spectrum auction, Walden vowed "a continuing effort to find more spectrum" and indicated that he expects that the FCC will "proceed with more spectrum auctions."

Related | broadcastingcable.com: Walden Says $3B Needed for Auction Repack

Asked about white space uses in the broadcast spectrum, Walden said he'd like to "maximize spectrum use but not interfere" with current operations.

"I'm not opposed so long as there is no interference," he explained.

A subsequent SOTN session on "The Fragmentation of Communications Policy" focused on privacy. Former Federal Trade Commission chair Jon Leibowitz, now in private practice at Davis Polk and Wardell law firm, said that the FTC is a "muscular agency" in this category and warned that state oversight of the issue is unacceptable.

"A federal solution - not a patchwork of state rules" is needed, Leibowitz said.

Another panelist, former National Telecommunications and Information Administration Director Larry Irving, now a telecom consultant, responded that the "FTC is not the right agency to regulate privacy over the Internet." At that, Chris Lewis, VP at Public Knowledge, insisted, "There is no reason why you can't have multiple cops on the beat," saying such an arrangement would provide "robust power" for enforcement.

Irving characterized the "likelihood of legislation in the near term is de minimis."

DOJ's Views of Security
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein focused on security in his remarks at the final SOTN session. Attendees were cautioned that he would not talk about or respond to questions about that day's revelations relating to the Russia allegations involving White House and Congressional activities.

Nonetheless, Rosenstein plunged into the fray, warning that, "We'll probably have more [cyber attacks] in the future with people protecting themselves" against such incursions.

He also said the DOJ is seeking "responsible encryption."

"We favor encryption but not to the exclusion of legitimate law enforcement concerns," he said. "We need to continue to improve our cyber defenses so we can help private sector protect themselves.”

He urged that "federal agencies work with industry to combat threats."

"We need to improve our cyber defenses to help protect the sector," he said.

In response to a question about intellectual property protection, Rosenstein said it was a "top priority for us," citing global coordination of efforts to fight piracy.

Public Dismay/Confusion
Earlier in the day, Sally Shipman Wentworth, vice president of Global Policy Development at the Internet Society, described an ISOC study which found that the user-centric vision of the Internet "has been lost." Commercial providers and government involvement now is dominant in Internet operations, factors that users don't understand, she said.

Wentworth also noted the "enormous explosion of threat vectors," singling out the massive role that government agencies will play in the Internet of Things, such as sensors for traffic, local security and other public services. She said that such activities will involves organizations that "have not necessarily been part of the Internet discussion so far," suggesting potential problems as new ventures and services emerge.

Her concerns were reinforced by findings from another new research report, unveiled at the SOTN conference.

Eighty-five percent of Americans said that the Internet has had a positive impact on their lives, but 56 percent said they believe it has weakened American democracy, according to the study by the Internet Education Foundation www.neted.org , which produces the SOTN conference. The "Society Under Strain" report found that Americans are "skeptical about the ability to secure the Internet" and about financial innovations that many don’t understand.

“Americans have high hopes for what the Internet can mean to their lives, but as technology advances it creates new concerns that ultimately end up before Congress and regulators,” said Tim Lordan, executive director of the Internet Education Foundation.

"Americans look to policymakers for answers," he added. "A majority (53%) believe that the laws and regulations that we have today aren’t working to deal with the issues that arise due to the Internet."

The study, conducted by Vrge Strategies, found that Americans are mixed on whether artificial intelligence and virtual assistants enabled by it will be beneficial or harmful. Thirty-seven percent said it will benefit them by making their life and work easier; nearly the same amount (36%) said it will be harmful by creating security and privacy issues.

According to the report's analysis, Americans overwhelmingly expect Internet companies to protect customers from cyberattacks: 52% cited Internet companies, 19% said the government and 18% expect consumers themselves to be responsible for protecting their Internet uses.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) said that while some incidents can be prevented, the “Internet cannot be protected from most cyber attacks.”

Pictured: Rep. Greg Walden speaking at the 2018 State of the Net conference.

WASHINGTON — If opponents of the recent rollback of network neutrality rules were hoping for Congress to step in with legislation to restore the previous Internet regulations, here’s the big, open secret on Capitol Hill: It’s DOA.

There was much talk immediately following the Federal Communications Commission’s Dec. 14 vote to undo the 2015 rules, which classified broadband internet service as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act, about finding compromise legislation to fill the regulatory void. The move by FCC chair Ajit Pai reclassified internet service providers, leaving them unregulated by Title II provisions.

But talk of passing strict new Internet rules will remain talk — and perhaps not much of that — rather than legislative action, according to one highly placed Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill, reflecting the general sentiment on that side of the aisle.

Related:Markey Says GOP's Sen. Collins Joins CRA Effort| Markey Gets 40 Net Neutrality Rollback CRA Cosponsors

The new net neutrality-lite approach adopted by the Republicans last month in a bitterly divided vote won’t go into effect until early this year.

Little Bipartisan Will
Theoretically, at least, Congress has time to act, but scant bipartisan political will exists — despite both sides professing the need for some legislative certainty.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has unveiled a bill that would legislate prohibitions on blocking and throttling the Internet. That was the easy lift since Republicans, Democrats and ISPs all agree those practices should be off limits, and as all of the major internet service providers represented by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association and USTelecom have pledged to put that ban in writing, enforceable by the newly empowered, or at least authorized, Federal Trade Commission. There is some dispute over how much power that agency has, though, given its lack of rulemaking authority.

Related: Blackburn Introduces Open Internet Preservation Act

That was likely on purpose, with Republicans starting with what they thought both sides could agree on. A bill is not out of the question, particularly if edge providers such as Facebook and Google might be next up in the regulatory sights of a Congress increasingly concerned about their power over online content.

But one Democratic staffer familiar with the bill’s introduction suggested it was a nonstarter with their side — from the start.

Republicans involved with the bill never sent the measure to Democrats, even after it was released to the press, the source said. Congressional Democrats learned about it from a press release sent by an advocacy group reacting to it.

Related: Net Neutrality Group Targets Congress

Republicans did talk with the other side during the process of coming up with the bill, at least according to Republican public statements from last August, and the measure was similar to a 2015 incarnation both sides were familiar with.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said the bill was meant to “kick off” the conversation, but also said Democrats should rethink their “litigate not legislate” strategy.

Democrats see the bill, or at least are positioning it, as more like another partisan shot across the bow.

Dems See Poison Pills
The Blackburn version of new Internet regulations includes what Dems see as poison pills, including pre-empting states from adopting their own net neutrality regulations and confining the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory authority to just what the bill covers and nothing more. Though, again, that was said to be an effort by Republicans at coming up with a narrow bill that would produce the vaunted certainty obviously lacking in an issue that has been kicking around the courts, Congress and the FCC for more than a decade.

“This was a play to say, ‘We [Republicans] don’t hate net neutrality,’ ” the Democratic source countered, and then outlined why it is a nonstarter with their side.

Related: Net Neutrality by the Numbers

The FCC already had net neutrality rules that it could enforce, and that the Democrats backed, and they skeptically predicted anything Congress does will be less than that. Title II remains a powerful draw for Democrats, who will not give it up without a fight.

Moreover, Congress can restore network neutrality rules, but the key to their effectiveness is in enforcement.

Eyes on the Midterms
Democrats may not be in any hurry to negotiate, given what they see as brightening chances to regain the House in the 2018 elections and restore Title II via legislation. They may also want to let an effort to nullify the rules rollback through the Congressional Review Act play out first.

Saving net neutrality by restoring the FCC’s 2015 rules is an issue that plays well with millennials back in the home districts of Democrats. Younger voters have been showing up to rallies and events geared around the FCC net neutrality vote, the source said.

Reaction was pouring in from Capitol Hill Tuesday (Nov. 20) after FCC chair Ajit Pai circulated an order rolling back the 2015 Open Internet order -- a proposal scheduled for a Dec. 14 vote -- including word from powerful Republicans that they support Congress stepping in to ensure permanent net-neutrality rules.

Related: Pai Circulates Order Unwinding Title II Classification of ISPs

Energy & Commerce Committee chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Communications Subcommittee chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) praised Pai's rollback of common-carrier-based internet regulations. (Blackburn helped lead the successful congressional effort to nullify the FCC's rules on broadband privacy).

Related: Quinn Says AT&T Is Big Backer of Blackburn Privacy Bill

“Today’s announcement demonstrates that the FCC, under the leadership of Ajit Pai, understands the importance of making sure the internet continues to flourish under a light-touch regulatory regime," they said in a joint statement. "The past two years of heavy-handed regulation will be only a blip on the screen of a decades-long bipartisan equilibrium that successfully supported innovation and growth."

They pledged to work for legislation establishing net-neutrality rules. "We remain committed to ensuring clear, permanent net-neutrality rules through the legislative process, encouraging investment in broadband buildout, and closing the digital divide across America,” they said.

“I commend the current FCC for its commitment to a free and open Internet with a lighter regulatory touch, and today’s announcement is a major step in that pursuit," said Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio). "The Internet has been a powerful tool for private enterprise and economic growth since its inception thanks to a relatively hands-off government approach. I’m a staunch believer in net neutrality principles such as no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. However, top-down regulation of the Internet is not the best way to ensure user access to content — in fact, it’s counterproductive."

He, too, said Congress should be the ultimate arbiter. "Ultimately, the most effective path to providing certainty for consumers, providers, and businesses that rely on the Internet is to find common ground in Congress and pass legislation.

Related: House Antitrust Tackles Network Neutrality

That effort has born little fruit so far given that Democrats wanted that legislation to be based in Title II, while that was a nonstarter for Republicans.

In announcing Tuesday that the order had been circulated, Pai signaled that the FCC would stop micromanaging the 'net and "simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices," a deregulatory mantra that had Democrats booing and Republicans cheering.

Democrats saw it quite differently.

Calling it an effort to "gut" the rules, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) one of the Hill's biggest Title II fans, promised a "firestorm" of opposition.

"Startups on the verge of discovering a new job-creating innovation could be shut down in favor of bigger companies willing to pay more to rig the market," Markey said. "All because Chairman Pai is listening to a few broadband barons that want to serve as all powerful gatekeepers to the internet despite millions of Americans writing into the Commission in defense of net neutrality. Consumers, start-ups, and innovation will lose. Internet service providers will win. I urge all of those who rely on a free and open internet – whether it’s for commerce, education, healthcare, or entertainment – to join me in creating a firestorm of opposition to this assault on net neutrality.”

“Net neutrality is essential for protecting free speech online and allowing small businesses to flourish, and that’s why the American people spoke out by the millions in defense of these important protections," said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. "In making this announcement today, the Trump FCC is choosing to ignore the public and push forward with a harmful plan to kill net neutrality and destroy the internet as we know it. But the fight is not over—we will keep fighting to keep net neutrality and protect the free and open internet.”

WASHINGTON — It’s been like rush hour inside the Beltway as internet service providers get in what they hope are their parting shots at Title II classification, and defenders of the common carrier-based rules try to warn of impending doom if the reclassification is reclassified back to Title I.

Meanwhile, Hill Republicans continue to try to push for bipartisan legislation, which is the only kind that will fly in the Senate, where the real action is likely to take place. Here are five key takeaways from that rush of activity.

Closing Time: The Federal Communications Commission’s deadline for filing comments passed Aug. 30, with almost 22 million comments filed since the docket opened July 3. The FCC’s unwillingness to expurgate the comments led to more four-letter words being offered for public consumption by the FCC than would be found in a decade’s worth of indecency complaints against broadcasters.

And while the docket is officially closed, the FCC will continue to accept input. It is just that the late comments will not be included in the official record upon which the FCC is supposed to base its decision.

Numbers Game: A new analysis filed with the FCC last week found that of those almost 22 million comments, the vast majority were either duplicates or of dubious origin. The analysis, which was conducted by analytics company Emprata for the ISP-backed group Broadband for America, found that of the 21.766 million comments assessed, more than 20.684 million “appear to be artificial, international filings, form letters and duplicative submissions.”

Apple Backs Core ’Net Protections: In Apple’s first public position on the issue — it has kept its net-neutrality cards close to the vest — the company signaled it was open to considering a non-Title II path as long as it was a legally sustainable route to the same protections the current rules provide.

“Apple remains open to alternative sources of legal authority, but only if they provide for strong, enforceable and legally sustainable protections, like those in place today,” the company said, according to a copy of the filing, billed as its first FCC filing in the proceeding.

Those protections currently in place are no blocking, throttling or paid prioritization, which some ISPs have argued can be legally sustained using non-Title II authority, and Maureen Ohlhausen, the Federal Trade Commission’s acting chair, argued can be enforced by the agency on a case-by-case basis. Net-neutrality activists say no way. Apple’s support of no paid “fast lanes” coincides with its heavying up in the online video business.

FTC to the Rescue: Ohlhausen said last week that the agency has the muscle to protect against harmful online conduct. In an op-ed in The Hill newspaper, Ohlhausen said that if the FCC repeals what she called heavy-handed net-neutrality regulation, the FTC would be there to pursue harmful conduct on a case-by-case basis, along with state attorneys general and private plaintiffs — the FTC’s power is to file suit against companies it concludes have broken their pledges.

She said a case-by-case approach “better protects consumers and promotes innovation because it focuses agency resources on actual consumer injury and doesn’t require regulators to predict the future.”

View From the Hill: The House Energy & Commerce Committee postponed its planned Sept. 7 hearing on net neutrality — “indefinitely,” suggested one source — and the prospects for congressional action remain cloudy at best.

Republicans are trying to get both sides together on a bill, but sources said Democrats have not been part of those talks and aren’t feeling the bipartisan love. A bipartisan House bill is needed to avoid being stymied in the Senate, where a single senator — like, say, Title II cheerleader Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — could hold it up.

The House hearing is said to have been postponed because neither ISPs nor edge providers wanted to send their CEOs, which had been the request from committee chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.), instead sending their association heads to make their respective pitches.

House Energy & Commerce Committee chair Greg Walden (R-Ore.) celebrated the Internet Day of Action Wednesday (July 12) by calling for bipartisan net-neutrality legislation.

ISPs have also focused on a bill to clarify that the FCC can enforce net-neutrality rules of the road without imposing Title II.

Related > NCTA: Title II, Net Neutrality Not Remotely the Same

“Today’s Day of Action highlights the need for Congress to work together to protect consumers and ensure a free and open internet," Walden said.

"The internet and the new technologies it unleashed have revolutionized the world in just a few short decades, and done so with little or no federal regulation," Walden said, also echoing ISPs' take on the regulatory history. "I again call on my Democratic colleagues, edge providers and ISPs, and all those who make up the diverse internet ecosystem that has flourished under light-touch regulation to come to the table and work with us on bipartisan legislation that preserves an open internet while not discouraging the investments necessary to fully connect all Americans. Too much is at stake to have this issue ping-pong between different FCC commissions and various courts over the next decade."

Related > Dems Add Their Voices to Internet Advocacy Day

Hill watchers are not hopeful that Congress can find common ground given the deep divisions between parties on a host of issues. With some Democrats feeling steamrolled on healthcare, and in the wake of the Republican Congressional Review Act nullification of the Title II-related FCC broadband privacy framework, a bipartisan FCC broadband regulatory authority clarification bill that does not include Title II -- as it cannot from the Republican side -- will be a tough ask.

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.

AT&T has been awarded the multi-billion-dollar, 25-year contract to build and maintain FirstNet, the interoperable first responder public safety network proposed by the 911 Commission well over a decade ago following first responder communication failures during the attack's tragic aftermath.

Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross made the announcement Thursday at a signing ceremony. The network is a $46.5 billion public/private partnership with Commerce. Ross said the network will create 10,000 jobs initially and thousands more down the line.

Essentially, FirstNet will have priority use of spectrum whenever it is needed for emergency communications. It was funded through the FCC's AWS-3 wireless spectrum auction. If the AWS-3 auction had not covered it, the money would have had to come out of the broadcast incentive auction.

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said AT&T was honored to build the network for first responders that he said would be "second to none."

He said AT&T would spend $40 billion on the network beginning this fall, creating those 10,000 jobs over the next two years. "We're ready to get started," he said, and thanked Ross for the opportunity. At the contract signing, Stephenson turned to Ross and emphasized AT&T's $40 billion. Ross responded: "$46.5 billion." That $6.5 is the government's contribution via the spectrum auction proceeds.

AT&T also said in a statement on the contract that it will give first responders access to its existing network assets, which the company valued at more than $180 million.

In addition to Ross and Stephenson, among those on hand for the announcement were FCC chairman Ajit Pai and House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.). Walden was a prime mover behind the spectrum auction legislation of which FirstNet was an important part. Ross called him "the godfather" of the FirstNet project, along with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), former chair of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Walden thanked staffers David Redl and Ray Baum for their work on the project, and gave shout outs to Communications Subcommittee Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Democrats Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and former House E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who was in the audience, for their work as well.

Walden commended the FirstNet board and execs. He pointed out that as a former small market radio owner, he knew the value of having instant communications. "This is a huge step forward," he said. He also thanked the FCC, particularly under the "able leadership" of Pai.

Blackburn thanked first responders. She said FirstNet would bring safety "to our communities and our streets." She said she was pleased AT&T would be part of the process of building out the network, and showing that government and the private sector can get together to solve problems. She said her subcommittee will be a part of the proces as well.

Pai said the first task of any nation is to keep its people safe, which is difficult in a digital age.

He said he was honored to congratulate FirstNet, calling the signing ceremony a capstone of years of work. He thanked all those in Congress who helped push FirstNet across the finish line. He said FCC was committed to the network, pointing out the FCC had freed up the 20 MHz of spectrum in the 700 M

The announcement followed the FirstNet board's unanimous authorization for FirstNet CEO Mike Poth—or someone he designated—to finalize awarding of the contract, a move that drew the praise of the Competitive Carriers Association, whose members are ready to team up with the winner to help reach the rural areas they serve.

In August, the board approved $6.5 billion in support of the contract—though the network could ultimately cost much more—and in December unveiled a plan for the first three months after the award is granted, which should be kicking in Thursday. 

FirstNet also earlier this month resolved a complaint about the contract-awarding process, paving the way for the award.

"FirstNet today took a major leap forward in delivering a dedicated national network that will give first responders the bandwidth, speed, security, and reliability they clearly need," said Telecommunications Industry Association senior VP Cinnamon Rogers. "We applaud FirstNet for its expeditious work to finalize this decision, and we believe AT&T understands the challenges of this project and has the experience and leadership needed to drive it forward. The two organizations will now begin the vital work of building a network that leads to more efficient public safety communications—and ultimately, saves lives."

House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) outlined a broad agenda for the committee and its Communications Subcommittee on Tuesday (Feb. 14), with items ranging from legislative action on Title II to a comprehensive examination of FCC and NTIA "reauthorization" to accelerated rural broadband deployment to increased oversight of federal cybersecurity initiatives.

At the monthly luncheon of the Media Institute, Walden (pictured) endorsed the "process reforms" that FCC chairman Ajit Pai (who was in the audience) has already introduced. Walden complimented Pai for successfully doing administratively "what Congress has been trying to do legislatively." He singled out Pai's decisions to revoke recent regulations over broadcast joint-sales and shared-service agreements and to rescind certain requirements for noncommercial TV ownership reports.

"We want this business to be vibrant and competitive," Walden said, noting that he expects to "see additional deregulation."

"We don't need antiquated rules like cross-ownership," Walden said.

As for the Open Internet rules, the Commerce chairman said, "Republicans are open to legislative solutions" and that net-neutrality decisions "should be done legislatively." But he acknowledged "it will take time" to develop new procedures, saying, "We have draft legislation" in the works.  

Walden did not respond to queries about a timetable for the congressional review. He chastised the previous FCC leadership's "over-reach" in the Open Internet process.

Although he glazed over his agenda for what he called a long-overdue comprehensive reauthorization of both the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Walden said he believes the FCC should be restored to its five-member level (currently the agency has only three Commissioners).

"The Commission should be filled out, the sooner the better," Walden insisted.

On the broader issue of a comprehensive update to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Walden said he "resists the notion that it will be one bill," preferring to "look at this in modules" affecting various industries, he said, emphasizing that Communications Subcommittee chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) will lead the group's decisions on a rewrite.

"If the marketplace can handle [conditions], it should," Walden said. 

Walden called deployment of rural broadband a top priority on the Committee's communications agenda, pulling in examples of the need for wireless broadband. In particular, he emphasized the need to "lower the cost of broadband development."

He told a homespun tale of the need for such capabilities coming up this summer, on Aug. 27: the date of a total solar eclipse where a prime viewing area will be in small towns within his central Oregon district. Walden said there is almost no wireless capability for a stretch of nearly 30 miles around the eclipse epicenter. Then he wondered aloud, looking directly at Pai,  if he "only knew someone who had administrative authority to require coverage in that region." (At that point, Pai jokingly stood up and started to walk away from his table, to the gleeful laughter of the audience.)

Regarding cybersecurity, Walden indicated that the Commerce Committee will examine the ways in which various agencies monitor activities within their sectors to avoid duplication. Citing the threats to power utilities as well as commercial and communications facilities, Walden vowed to work with industry and to "incentivize" the entire ecosystem to prepare for possible digital assaults.

"We don't need every agency to grab a piece of cybersecurity," he added.  "The goals should be how to share information and avoid cyberattacks."

New FCC chairman Ajit Pai is a long and strong opponent of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal to revamp the set-top box marketplace to boost online video competition, and would be unlikely to exhume that push, but the Republican leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee want him to put a nail in the coffin.

In a letter to Pai Wednesday (Jan. 25), Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Communications Subcommittee chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Energy and Commerce Committee vice chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), and every Republican member of the Communications Subcommittee asked him to officially close the docket on the proceeding.

"The regulatory overhang of the set-top box regulation has cast a shadow over investment and innovation in traditional video programming delivery," they said. "[w]e urge you to close the proceeding and permit the industry to innovate and serve consumers free from the restrictions of a government-chosen platform."

They said it would generally be a good idea to close all inactive dockets. and that in this particular case it should be closed as an "unnecessary regulatory threat to content creation and distribution industries" and to signal to video program distributors "that they can bring technological advances to set-top boxes and video delivery without fear that the Commission overturn them by regulation."

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed requiring MVPDs to make data and program info available to third parties, first devices, then apps, to allow a better co-mingling of traditional and online video. But there was pushback from Republicans and Democrats over issues of copyright protection and the FCC's role in approving an app-based approach to accessing the MVPD content, so Wheeler could not get three votes for the item before time ran out on his tenure.

Chairman Pai’s office said it was reviewing the letter.

New House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and new Communications Subcommittee Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) are in agreement that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler should have kept the just-released zero rating report to himself.

It was actually members of Congress--Senate Democrats--who urged him to look into the sponsored data plans. The Wireless Bureau issued a report this week finding that while there was nothing wrong with the plans, per se, they had issues with specific plans of AT&T and Verizon.

"We are disappointed to see the FCC moving controversial items like the recent staff report on zero-rating in the waning hours of Chairman Wheeler’s tenure,:" they said in a statement, a sentiment shared by FCC senior Republican Ajit Pai.

"Chairman Wheeler’s decision to move forward with this report is a rare trifecta of anti-consumer policy, inappropriate use of delegated authority, and directly contradicting a request of Congress,” said Walden and Blackburn of the report. “Ultimately, if taken at face-value the findings in the report threaten to reduce consumer choice and drive up monthly bills. Our regulatory agencies should aim to foster innovation and competitive service offerings that benefit consumers, not squelch innovative business plans in their infancy. We remain hopeful that the agency will refrain from taking action on controversial items in the remaining days of this administration, and we’re looking forward to working with the next commission to encourage robust technological innovation for consumers across the country.”

Pai, who is likely to be the interim chair at least, signaled the report would not have an impact on his view of the issue.

Related: Zero Rating Report Gets Zero From Industry Groups

The House took a serious, and mostly bipartisan, look Wednesday (Nov. 16) at the cybersecurity threat posed by the Internet of Things.

A joint hearing, "Understanding the Role of Connected Devices in Recent Cyber Attacks," was held in the Communications Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, chaired by Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas).

The hearing was held in the wake of the distributed denial of service attack on Oct. 21 that restricted access to some major websites.

Apparently, the attack only employed 150,000 of about 1.5 million IoT devices still infected with the botnet that allows them to be commandeered to deliver similar or larger attacks in the future.

The seriousness of the issue was highlighted by the fact that the witnesses agreed that that the DDOS attack, which affected Netflix, Twitter and others -- was relatively benign compared to, say, an attack on critical systems that could cost lives.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.), a former Navy aviator, said the biggest threat to security is not bombs and missiles but ones and zeros and that, in the current environment, the government has to be proactive.

In fact, Republicans and Democrats were both using the R word (regulation) to talk about addressing the threat, as were all of the witnesses to some degree, though Dale Drew, SVP and chief security officer at Level 3 Communications, focused on standards and existing regs rather than new ones.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, also suggested that approach. When one witness said a new government agency might be needed to deal with IoT cybersecutiry, she said that would not happen in the new administration. Walden joked that for every new agency created, they could eliminate two, a reference to President-elect Donald Trump's proposed requirement that two regulations be scrapped for every one added.

But Walden got serious, saying that the IoT cybersecurity issue was bipartisan and the Republican leadership would continue to address it.

Walden told the witnesses he was concerned about the government stepping into the marketplace, but primarily because he had heard cybersecurity witnesses before warn government to "first do not harm" and to be careful not to lock things into statute.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, pointed out that some have argued that regulating devices will constrain innovation.

Witness Bruce Schneier, adjunct Lecturer, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, conceded the point, but said the government would definitely need to step in because the risk was too great. He said there's "a fundamental difference between your spreadsheet crashing and losing your data, and a connected car crashing and losing your life."

He emphasized that it was a catastrophic risk, crashing all connected cars, for example.

"It is an arms race, and the current edge is to the attacker," Schneier said, adding that given the scale of the Web and the ability to affect physical objects via IoT, "it might be that the Internet of fun and games is over."

WASHINGTON — With control of the Senate possibly passing to the Democrats and the House perhaps losing a dozen to two dozen seats, there could be some big changes in the principal Federal Communications Commission oversight committees.

After the Nov. 8 election, the second campaign season gets in gear as legislators angle for those plum posts in a new Congress.

Even though the House is unlikely to change hands — Republicans have the biggest majority (59 seats) in almost 100 years — most of the potential post-election action in the lame-duck Congress on the communications oversight front is in that chamber.

House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (D-Mich.) and Communications Subcommittee chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) are term-limited and will have to give up their respective seats. Walden is looking to take over Upton’s chair, but has competition from John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who has seniority.

Walden is well-liked and, as head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, raises money and strategizes to help elect and re-elect Republicans to Congress. There were differing opinions on that race from sources both on and off the Hill, who asked not to be identified. One source believed seniority would win out and Shimkus would get the big chair. But another said Walden’s fundraising counted for a lot and predicted he would get the full committee chairmanship.

While Republicans will almost certainly lose seats, Walden reportedly has been advising them to run local races for a year now, a wise strategy given the questionable coattails of the eventual Republican presidential nominee.

If Walden does not get it, there might be a way for him to remain atop Communications despite his term limits. There have been talks about moving oversight of the Federal Trade Commission from the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee to Communications, which would reconstitute Communications and allow Walden to chair that newly reconstituted committee.

That would make sense now that the FCC and FTC are having to team on overseeing online privacy.

If the FTC move doesn’t happen, vice chair Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would be in line for the chairmanship of the Communications Subcommittee given that she is currently vice chair.

Republican leaders in Congress are dropping broad hints that it's time (once again) to try to overhaul the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which has been increasingly burdened by legal challenges to FCC decisions (most recently and notably, net neutrality) as well as by dramatic  issues such as privacy and cybersecurity.

Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said, "It’s time for Congress to be heard from again,” according to a report this week in the congressional newspaper, The Hill.

“There are way more moving parts now than there were back then,” Thune told the newspaper.

President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecom Act into law on Feb. 8 of that year (see photo).

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and  Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), both of whom are considering a bid to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year, agree that a telecom rewrite is overdue. Walden now chairs the E&C Communications and Technology subcommittee; Shimkus chairs its Environment and the Economy subcommittee and is a member of the Communications and Technology group.  

“You want to do a blank slate," Shimkus told The Hill.  He envisions starting the process by assuming "there’s no FCC, but we have the communication devices" and legislators have to create a regulatory ecosystem. Shimkus contended that the '96 law is not suited to today’s technology, calling that tech/law gap an incentive to update the Act.

“I’ve got to believe that’s compelling,” he said. “It shouldn’t be threatening. In fact, you should encourage the FCC to be involved.”

All speculation about Telecom Act reform in the 115th Congress is, of course, uncertain in today's volatile political environment. Control of the Senate may change, and the balance of power in the House may narrow.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House communications subcommittee, told The Hill that the process may depend on who chairs the full Commerce committee and "what kind of leadership and ...  vision [about] what needs to be done across the communications and technology sectors."

Telecom reform legislation has been bruited around Capitol Hill for nearly a decade, with prior Commerce Committee chairs acknowledging the need for updates in the volatile tech/telecom environment. Efforts to seek agreement between the legacy communications providers, including cable as well as telephone companies, and Silicon Valley upstarts have foiled many of the plans. Turf wars are also likely, as the FCC and Federal Trade Commission jurisdictions overlap on issues such as privacy and security. Not to mention the role of military/security concerns in the evolving spectrum wars.

An ambitious effort for a rewrite by House Republican three years ago floundered, and the next attempt will have to delve into the unchartered worlds of the Internet of Things and other applications that were barely in the lexicon early in the Obama administration.

As Thune acknowledged in The Hill report, the term "Internet" barely appears in the 1996 Act, even though the World Wide Web was well underway at that time.

"It’s a whole different world" now, Thune said. "We think that the policies, the regulations, that apply to the industry today need to be updated, need to be modernized.”

Yet finding consensus may be much more challenging than in prior years. Many analysts have pointed to the wider-than-ever range of organizations now touched by FCC rules, making it harder to find agreement. There has been considerable talk about separate updates of the telecom and media portions of the law, but that approach is increasingly difficult as the convergence of the two worlds (Comcast-NBCU and AT&T-DirecTV exemplify the situation) expands and rules affect all sectors of the telecom arena.

Not to mention the roles of non-traditional media providers such as Google and Amazon.

While the next leadership of pertinent Congressional units is unknown, the issue of telecom reform -- complex as it is -- is being positioned as a priority objective for the 115th Congress. It's just not clear how "high" a priority it will become.

The House Communications Subcommittee will try to revive an effort through a new bill, H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act, that would prevent the FCC from using its new Open Internet rules to impose rate regulations on ISPs.

That is one of four bills the subcommittee will consider at a just-announced Jan. 12 hearing to kick off the new year. Another would be a boon to smaller cable operators, making their FCC waiver of enhanced disclosure rules under new net regs permanent.

A similar provision was initially targeted to ride the omnibus spending bill into law, but did not make it as a rider on the final bill that passed at the 11th hour last month.

The bill is essentially only one paragraph, as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service."

Reviving the bill is sponsor Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). "The FCC’s Open Internet Order reclassified broadband under Title II, giving the FCC the ability to regulate rates in two distinct ways: tariffing and through declarations of what are “reasonable” rates," Republican subcommittee leadership said in announcing the legislative hearing.

And while they conceded FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has assured them that is not his plan for the Open Internet order, they argue he could still regulate rates through the FCC's enforcement authority. Republicans on the subcommittee are already not particularly pleased with the way the FCC has asserted its enforcement authority in other areas.

The bill would make sure that the FCC couldn’t' regulate broadband rates--as it does some cable rates--by enshrining the prohibition in statute.

Also on the docket for the meeting are the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, from Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, which would make permanent the FCC's waiver of enhanced Open Internet disclosure rules for small businesses, and define a small business as one with fewer than 1,500 employees and 500,000 subs or fewer (currently the FCC cut-off is 100,000 or fewer).

The FCC recently extended the waiver for a year while it nails down what those triggers should be and whether it should make the waiver permanent. Walden wants to press the issue after Repbulicans were not pleased with what they say as the FCC punting a decision.

In addition, the Subcommittee will consider a bill extending the Truth in Caller ID act to texting and the Amateur Radio Parity Act, which would require the FCC to adopt regs protecting amateur radio equipment similar to existing regs on other communications equipment.