In an effort highly unlikely to succeed, Congressional Republicans are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to stand down from its proposed new digital equity rules.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and 27 colleagues said the FCC should rescind its draft order on digital discrimination, which they say is tantamount to government control over virtually all aspects of the Internet. Cruz is ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

They argued in a letter to FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel that the rules would also open internet service providers up to “expansive, indeterminate and crippling” liability under a “disparate impact” standard.

The FCC is scheduled to vote November 15 on proposed rules implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which the Republicans acknowledge directed the FCC to “prevent digital discrimination of broadband access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin."

Also Read: FCC’s Geoffrey Starks Says The Time for Digital Equity Is Now

But they also say the way the Democrat-led commission has chosen to try and do that is “untenably” broad and even inconsistent with the law the rules are implementing because they would “undermine Congress’s objective of promoting broadband access for all Americans.”

The Biden administration has told the FCC it should adopt a broad definition of digital discrimination, including in pricing, as it comes up with rules for handing out tens of billions of dollars in broadband buildout subsidies intended to achieve universal deployment by decade's end.

The FCC is planning to adopt such a broad definition, one that includes both intentional and, more problematic for Republicans, unintentional negative effects from facially neutral policies that have disparate impacts on minorities.

Disparate impact tests have long been a tool used in civil rights legislation.

ISPs have said that unintentional impacts should not be part of the definition. ISPs have asserted that a definition that included impacts would divert needed investment from maintaining and improving their networks, but the Biden administration advised the FCC that those claims should be “resisted.”

Also Read: Internet Providers Face Dual Regulatory Campaign

In the Republican letter, a copy of which was supplied to Multichannel News, Republican senators suggested a disparate impacts standard is an existential business threat because it would punish “the practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system.”

Signing on to the letter were Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Katie Boyd Britt (R-Ala.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.).

Among the major broadcast and cable news outlets, only Fox News Channel gave live coverage Wednesday (May 10) to a press conference called by Republican leadership of the House Oversight Committee to allege that President Joe Biden’s family enriched themselves via an influence-peddling scheme when Biden was vice president and which they say the vice president must have known about.

The White House has branded that House Committee probe “investigation-free” and filled with “absurd innuendo.”

Fox covered the press conference as breaking news, with live coverage of the entire conference and some preconference reporting on the issue and post-conference analysis.

Also Read: Former President Trump Lined Up for CNN Town Hall

CNN and MSNBC provided no live coverage of the conference, instead reporting on the aftermath of former President Donald Trump’s conviction of battery and defamation in a civil suit and the charges of wire fraud and more filed Tuesday by the Justice Department against Republican Rep. George Santos.

Oversight Committee chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said that no one watching the press conference on C-SPAN or other networks would believe that the President did not know about the alleged money funneling.

In fact, while the Republican reps asserted that it was “a very, very important issue to the country” and “Pulitzer” material for reporters in the audience if they just followed the facts in the bank records the committee has received, none of C-SPAN’s three TV channels covered the press conference live, nor did any of the broadcast network news operations, instead sticking with their usual lineups of local or national morning shows.

Comer accused media outlets of not doing their jobs as investigative reporters by not pressing the president on the issue of his family receiving money from foreign interests, an allegation Biden has repeatedly denied.

DirecTV is getting more pressure — this time from a group of Senate Republicans — over its decision to drop the conservative Newsmax network after a carriage agreement expired.

DirecTV had said dropping Newsmax was a business decision, but Newsmax accused it of political discrimination and censorship. That’s something congressional Republicans have their antennas up for on multiple fronts, most prominently with social media platforms but also traditional TV.

DirecTV is free to drop channels for legitimate business reasons, just not to discriminate in channel carriage for other reasons, which would run afoul of Federal Communications Commission rules.

In response to the DirecTV move and Newsmax complaints, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee; Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Mike Lee (R-Utah); and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote the CEOs of DirecTV and parents AT&T and TPG Capital, voicing concerns and “demanding” answers.

Also: DirecTV Drops Bloomberg TV After More Than 25 Years

The legislators said the move looked like “the latest example of big business suppressing politically disfavored speech at the behest of liberal Democrats.”

DirecTV also dropped conservative channel One America News Network, which Cruz and company cited as another possible decision pressured by Democrats, who had called on it to drop OANN.

The senators want answers to a raft of questions — for example: “Why did DirecTV decide to drop Newsmax while it continued to carry and pay the liberal news and information channel Vice, which reportedly has much lower ratings than Newsmax?” — as well as any documents related to the dropping of both channels as well as “any communications they have had with the White House, Democrat members of Congress, or Democrat campaign committees relating to Newsmax or OANN.”

Since Republicans do not control the Senate or committee chairmanships and their investigative authority, the best they can do is ask for the info and hope. ■

The House Energy & Commerce Committee voted 28-23 along party lines not to recommend a Republican-backed resolution of inquiry to the full House. The resolution called out the Biden administration for alleged coordination with social media companies to censor speech and sought documents related to that alleged effort.

But while the resolution failed, it signaled what Republicans could be focusing on when they take over House chairmanships next month.

In what was likely the last committee gathering and action in this Congress, and before Republicans take over with pledges of vigorous oversight and investigation of the administration and Big Tech, committee chairman Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) called it an out-of-touch, frivolous and partisan inquiry that was in contrast to the committee’s productive work that preceded it.

The resolution was driven in part by new Twitter owner Elon Musk’s release of internal documents he claims support allegations of shadow-banning conservatives.

Committee ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) countered that the inquiry was necessary and about “putting people before politics.” She said for years Big Tech had been flagging, suppressing and “outright banning conservatives on their platforms.”

She said Big Tech had denied accusations of such conduct, including before the committee. “Now, thanks to the recent Twitter files, we know that they were not being honest.” She said the documents showed that Twitter executives were shadow-banning conservatives despite then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s claims to the contrary.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) called the effort misguided and a poor use of the committee's time. ▪️

Latino voters still prefer Democrats over Republicans to control Congress, and by a wide margin — 54% to 33% — but that is down significantly over the last few polls conducted by NBC News and co-owned Telemundo.

Another troubling sign for Democrats is that the top issue facing the country according to those Latino voters is the cost of living, while the poll found that a majority of Latino voters — 54% — disapprove of the way the top Democrat — President Joe Biden — is handling the economy, with 38% saying they thought Republicans in general did a better job of handling the economy than Democrats.

While Latino voters preferred Democratic control by 21 percentage points, that was down from 26 points in 2020, 34 points in 2018 and 38 points in 2016.

Following the economy, the issues most important to Latino voters polled were "threats to democracy" and jobs.

Latino voters gave Democrats higher marks than Republicans promoting tolerance and respect, handling the abortion issue and having the right approach to gun laws. ■

A pair of Congressional Republican leaders has asked the Biden administration's chief telecom policy adviser to streamline the permitting process for some of the broadband buildouts being subsidized with billions of taxpayer dollars.

That request came in a letter to Alan Davidson, head of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, from House Energy & Commerce ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Senate Commerce ranking member Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

The NTIA is overseeing the allocation of most of the $65 billion in broadband subsidy money through the Biden-led infrastructure act, most of that outlay going to states to fund their broadband projects.

Also: White House Isssues State Guide to Broadband Billions

Rogers and McMorris were particularly focused on the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which comprises more than $42 billion to states.

“With inflation already raising costs, we cannot afford to waste time and resources on needless bureaucracy when we should be building networks,” they wrote. “Without action, we worry that deployments will take longer and be more expensive, leaving more Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide.”  

They want the states to work with local governments to reduce buildout barriers by reducing red tape, promoting the use of existing infrastructure — rather than, say, on new municipal overbuilds — and promoting dig-once policies and “cost-effective” access to poles, conduits, easements and rights of way.

But they want it to go beyond encouragement. They said states should be required to adopt such streamlining policies as a condition of getting their share of the billions in subsidies, and have a high bar when justifying when streamlining is not appropriate. ▪️

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. “Please summarize your investment in the PRC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also: ISPs Team to Track Biden's Broadband Billions

The legislators want answers by Jan. 14.

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

A pair of House Energy & Commerce Committee Republicans on Tuesday (Nov. 3) unveiled a discussion draft of national privacy legislation, the Control Our Data Act, which would establish a “national privacy standard,” and they are drafting every GOP member of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee to work on it.

Also read: New Federal Data Privacy Bill Introduced

For the legislation to go anywhere, they will have to get buy-in from Democrats who control the committee and the House, though given how long it would take for a comprehensive bill to make it to a vote in either House or Senate, the Republicans may be hoping that by that time the 2022 midterms voters may have given them the upper hand and control of committees.

House E&C ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Consumer Protection ranking member Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), who teamed on the draft, said that, guided by four main principles, the bill will set clear rules for consumer privacy and data security, hot button issues in Washington as both sides of the aisle hammer Big Tech over its handling, or mishandling, of both.

The principles:

1.) “The internet does not stop at state lines, so why should one state set the standard for the rest of the country? Creating arbitrary barriers to the internet may result in different options, opportunities, and experiences online based on where you live.

2.) “A lack of transparency has led to where we are today and any federal bill must ensure people understand how their information is collected, used, and shared. We must also ensure that companies who misuse personal information must be held sufficiently accountable.

3.)”Any federal bill must ensure companies are implementing reasonable measures to protect people’s personal information.

4.) “We must also protect small businesses and innovation. We know that in Europe, investments in startups are down more than 40% since their data protection and privacy law — the General Data Protection Regulation — went into effect. We must guard against a similar situation here. We want small businesses hiring coders and engineers, not lawyers. 

The GOP member marching orders are as follows:

• Bilirakis will focus on creating a Bureau of Consumer Privacy and Data Security within the Federal Trade Commission;

• Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan will focus on how to define the legitimate purpose is defined for the use and retention of consumer data is handled so as not to become a cybersecurity target;

• Rep. Bob Latta of Ohio will focus on the need for a standard that avoids conflicting regulations and allows for proper third-party data sharing;

• Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky will handle risk assessment and mitigation techniques like blockchain to protect consumer data;

• Rep. Larry Bucshon of Indiana will deal with privacy by design, that design being reasonable policies for collecting, using and sharing data;

• Rep. Neal Dunn of Florida will focus on data security;

• Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona will handle categories of sensitive information and anti-discrimination policies;

• Rep. Greg Pence of Indiana will work on the definition of small and midsized entities as well as the definition of personal information, which has been a huge sticking point between Republicans and Democrats;

• Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota will focus on the proper use of the FTC's enforcement authority, collaboration with state attorneys general, self regulatory guidelines and safe harbors.

“Today’s announcement from Reps. McMorris Rodgers and Bilirakis is the latest reminder that there is broad support to enact comprehensive data privacy legislation in Congress,” said Privacy for America, a coalition of advertising industry groups pushing for federal privacy legislation. “We note that there are significant areas of agreement in proposals advanced by members of both parties on the core principles to protect all Americans. We encourage members of Congress to come together to reach agreement on a framework that will lead to real privacy protections for consumers — no matter where they live — and establish clear rules of the road that allow for the responsible use of data.”