Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are introducing a bill that would reclassify internet service providers under Title II of the Communications Act’s mandatory access regulations and pave the way for a possible return of network neutrality rules.

That is according to someone who has seen the bill, which was reported on by The Washington Post.

The bill is unlikely to get much traction, given how complicated and divisive the issue of net neutrality is and due to the relative handful of legislative days before the midterm elections, in which Republicans, who strongly oppose Title II for the internet, are likely to regain control of the House.

Both sides of the net neutrality debate would like to get some closure on the issue rather than see the FCC classifying and reclassifying ISPs as the political majority changes. The FCC, though, is currently at a 2-2 political tie, so there will be no move to reclassify ISPs there anytime soon. 

While Republicans have signaled they can accept some version of net neutrality rules — such as prohibitions against blocking, throttling or anti-competitive paid prioritization — they don't want a return of the Title II common carrier-lite regime and even the hint of possible rate regulation.

Democrats like Markey argue Title II is needed for a truly “open” internet.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has made it more clear than ever that broadband Internet is a necessity, not a luxury,” Evan Greer, director of the nonprofit advocacy group and Title II proponent Fight for the Future, said. “The FCC is supposed to ensure everyone has affordable access to broadband and prevent telecom companies from abusing their monopoly power or charging an unfair fee. But because of the Trump administration’s disastrous repeal of Title II protections, the agency is currently unable to do any of that. 

“This bill would fix that by restoring the FCC's ability to protect the public,” she said. “It will give the agency the authority it needs to restore net neutrality and address the digital divide.”

The US Telecom trade association said telecom providers already adhere to net neutrality practices, which it said consumers should expect Congress to "codify." "But let’s be clear: any such legislation cannot and must not be a backdoor for government to regulate prices and degrade the consumer internet experience," the group said, attributing the sentiment to CEO Jonathan Spalter. ■

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have called on Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan to take enforcement actions against abusive practices by virtual private networks (VPNs).

VPNs are billed as secure (encrypted) private networks that use the public internet.

The legislators tied that call for action to concerns, in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, about protecting the personal information of women seeking abortions. They said they were particularly concerned about "deceptive advertising and data collection practices."

The FTC has authority over deceptive ads and practices via its Sec. 5 authority.

Eshoo and Wyden said that among the VPNs’ abusive practices are promoting false claims about their service, selling data or providing user activity logs to law enforcement despite promises of “total anonymity.”

“As the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has amplified concerns about digital reproductive privacy, people seeking abortion are increasingly told that installing a VPN is an important step for protecting themselves when seeking information on abortion in states that have outlawed and criminalized abortion,“ the lawmakers said. But they said there are no practical tools or independent research to identify VPNs that are secure.

In addition to taking enforcement actions against bad actors, they want the FTC to develop a handbook for “abortion-seekers” on protecting their data, including the benefits and risks of VPNs. ■

Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are introducing a bill that would give some low-power television (LPTV) stations the opportunity to apply for Class A television service status and its additional interference protections. 

LPTVs haven’t been able to apply to the Federal Communications Commission for such status since 1999.

(Editor's Note: The story initially said it would also provide limited must-carry rights, but those are confined to a small subset of rural LPTV stations and would only apply to those).

Blunt signaled in written questions to FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel after her nomination hearing that he was looking to give low-power stations a new window on Class A status, saying: “Years ago, Congress enacted a law which allowed certain low power television stations to apply for and receive enhanced rights to their spectrum licenses, giving them certainty to invest in their stations and grow their audiences in mainly small and rural markets. I’m working on legislation to open another, similar window to allow for additional low power stations to once again apply for these ‘Class A’ rights. Can I have your commitment that you will work with me and this Committee in enacting that law so that we can help expand and protect television stations in small markets and the viewers that they serve?”

Rosenworcel’s answer was a succinct “yes.”

“The primary benefits of Class A are to protect broadcast coverage area, encourage investment and secure small business financing which is not available to most LPTV facilities,” said the LPTV Broadcasters Association, which enthusiastically endorsed the bill.

"Simply stated, this bill allows LPTV stations to grow to the next level in serving the public interest with both protection of broadcast coverage area and the ability to secure crucial small business financing, the LPTV Broadcasters Association executive director Michael Lee said.

“NAB applauds the introduction of the Low Power Protection Act, which would offer some community-oriented low power television stations a long-overdue opportunity to gain important interference protections,” the National Association of Broadcasters said. “Millions of viewers across the country rely on LPTVs for local news, weather, community affairs and emergency information, particularly in rural areas and smaller markets. This legislation would ensure Americans’ access to these vital stations and provide assurance that their signals can remain on the air.” ■

Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill that would help pay for keeping low-income families connected to broadband during the ongoing pandemic, which appears to be getting a second wind. 

Internet service providers' pledge to the FCC to do that -- all the majors and many smaller ISPs signed up -- expires June 30 and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has asked Congress to take up the financial mantle if possible, while asking ISPs to continue to help through deferred payment plans past June 30. 

FCC's Pai Says Congress Needs to Take Up Keep Americans Connected Pledge

The bill, the Emergency Broadband Connections Act, would also boost the FCC's existing low-income subsidy, which is a tad under $10 per month, and other things. 

Specifically, the bill would:  

● "Entitle households in which a member has been laid off or furloughed to a $50 benefit (or $75 on tribal lands) to put toward the monthly price of internet service and require ISPs to serve eligible households at a price reduced by an amount up to the emergency benefit; 

● "Trigger eligibility based on qualification for the Lifeline program, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), or Federal Pell Grants; 

● "Provide devices such as laptop or desktop computers or tablets to eligible households to ensure these families have the devices they need to look for a job, complete online homework assignments, or receive telehealth service;  

● "Require Lifeline service providers to make unlimited minutes and data available to those that currently rely on the Lifeline program to stay connected to phone or internet service, and provide additional support; and 

● "Provide funding to states to facilitate the linking of their SNAP databases with the FCC’s National Lifeline Verifier database, which will allow recipients of that program to automatically qualify for Lifeline." 

Key provisions of the legislation are included in the HEROES Act, which passed the House of Representatives in May, Wyden noted. Rep. Marc Veasey, a Texas Democrat,  (TX-33) has introduced companion legislation in the House, Wyden said.

Broadband access advocates were lining up to back the effort. 

“Consumer Reports strongly supports the Emergency Broadband Connections Act authored and introduced bySenator Wyden today," said Jonathan Schwantes, senior policy counsel at Consumer Reports. "This bill represents a direct, meaningful and effective way to help our most vulnerable Americans affected by the COVID-19 pandemic stay connected to the internet."  

“The Emergency Broadband Connections Act will provide needed access to broadband services for many students, older adults, people with low incomes, and those that have been impacted by the financial crisis," said American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane.  

"The flexible supports in the Emergency Broadband Connections Act of 2020 would increase the choices people have to get and stay online, providing a true lifeline during this time of social distancing and deepened economic hardship," said Matt Wood, VP of policy for Free Press Action. 

“For months, millions of Americans have suffered through the COVID-19 pandemic without internet connectivity," said Joshua Stager, senior counsel for New America's Open Technology Institute. "It’s unconscionable that Congress hasn’t passed any laws to help these people get access to the internet. We applaud Senator Wyden for stepping up and introducing this bill. We are especially grateful that he added Pell Grant recipients to the bill, ensuring that low-income college students—many of whom have lost their housing and work-study jobs—don’t fall through the cracks.”

Two legislators familiar to media execs have introduced House and Senate versions of a bill to combat online child exploitation, saying it would reverse "a decade of underfunding key enforcement and prevention efforts."

The Invest in Child Safety Act, from Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would provide $5 billion in "mandatory funding" to investigate online pedophiles who create and share child pornography online and to fund programs to keep children from becoming victims.

Related: Senate Mulls Sec. 230 Limits

It would create an Office to Enforce and Protect Against Child Sexual Exploitation, within the White House Executive Office of the President to coordinate efforts across federal agencies. They said that is needed after the Department of Justice declined to do such coordination and reporting as directed in a 2008 law.

They say the DOJ has cut more than $60 million from child exploitation prevention programs while trying to create encryption backdoors that could weaken online security for everyone.

“Dogged reporting put a spotlight on the failures of the executive branch and Congress to respond to disgusting crimes against children that are shared online,” Wyden said in a statement. “Our bill will finally provide agencies with enough investigators and prosecutors to confront this menace, fund the organizations who help protect at-risk kids from becoming victims, and provide aid to survivors.”

The bill would:

1. "Quadruple the number of prosecutors and agents in DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section from 30 FTEs to 120 FTEs;

2. "Add 100 new agents and investigators for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Innocent Images National Initiative, Crimes Against Children Unit, Child Abduction Rapid Deployment Teams, and Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Forces;

3. "Fund 65 new NCMEC analysts, engineers, and mental health counselors, as well as a major upgrade to NCMEC’s technology platform to enable the organization to more effectively evaluate and process CSAM reports from tech companies;

4. "Double funding for the state Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces;

5. "Double funding for the National Criminal Justice Training Center, to administer crucial Internet Crimes Against Children and Missing and Exploited Children training programs;

6. "Increase funding for evidence-based programs, local governments and non-federal entities to detect, prevent and support victims of child sexual abuse, including school-based mental health services and prevention programs like the Children’s Advocacy Centers and the HHS’ Street Outreach Program;

7. "Require tech companies to increase the time that they hold evidence of CSAM, in a secure database, to enable law enforcement agencies to prosecute older cases;

8. "Establish an Office to Enforce and Protect Against Child Sexual Exploitation, within the Executive Office of the President, to direct and streamline the federal government’s efforts to prevent, investigate and prosecute the scourge of child exploitation;

9. "Require the Office to develop an enforcement and protection strategy, in coordination with HHS and GAO; and

10. "Require the Office to submit annual monitoring reports, subject to mandatory Congressional testimony to ensure timely execution."

“The technology industry is committed to working together with law enforcement to protect children online,” said Jason Oxman, president of tech association ITI. “The Invest in Child Safety Act is another welcome step to strengthen our ability to prevent and prosecute online child sexual abuse. This measure would take meaningful and focused action to address these vile criminal acts by providing additional resources for law enforcement, thereby enabling more robust response to the millions of reports of abusive material technology companies make to authorities every day.”

More Democrats weighed in Thursday (March 19) to raise caution flags over the Trump Administration's discussions with tech companies about using smart phone location data to help combat the coronavirus by tracking its movement. 

Phone companies have to collect location data to provide the underlying service, so users don't have the option of blocking that collection. 

Related: Sen. Markey Concerned About Coronavirus Geolocation Tracking 

While Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios to register his concerns about the data collection, Reps. Suzan DelBene (Wash.) and Anna Eshoo (Calif.), joined by Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), aimed higher.  

In a letter to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the legislators said they supported bold moves to stem the crisis, but that "prohibiting government intrusion into the private lives of Americans is, and has always been part of the DNA of our country." 

The trio called on the White House to protect personal location and health data by adopting various privacy principles, including 1) data minimization and anonymization, 2) preventing the data from any other uses--behavioral targeting, for example, or by law enforcement or immigration agencies--and 3) destroying data after the pandemic is over.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai takes issue with the characterization by Democrats that he “refused” to brief House Energy & Commerce Committee staff on a Motherboard story that wireless carriers were not disclosing real-time location data.

Pai told The Wire that while he did not brief them during the government shutdown, once the government was un-shut, he immediately offered “the FCC’s career staff” to provide such a briefing, an offer that was accepted. “That briefing has been given and we are committed to working with Congress and any other interested stakeholders on the committee or the Senate to provide them the information that we can, consistent with the obvious rules on pending enforcement investigations,” Pai said during an interview. One Democratic staffer familiar with the meeting confirmed it had taken place, but suggested there was not a lot of meat on the bone.

Democrats in the House are ramping up their oversight of the FCC, along with virtually every other agency under the Trump regime. But Democratic senators aren’t wallflowers either, although they remain in the minority.

Sens. Ed Markey, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden called on Pai to investigate if carriers were throttling and prioritizing traffic and not being transparent about it. That would violate the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order, which relies on disclosure of conduct the Federal Trade Commission can decide is or is not anticompetitive, false or deceptive. Pai was not briefing the senators or anyone else about that. “I can’t comment on any investigations that may arise or may in fact be underway,” he told The Wire.

With the FCC's vote on "unlocking the apps" set-top proposal a day away, Hill fans of the plan are doing some last-minute pushing.

Following Tuesday's press conference with plan backers Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-calif.), Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) issued statements in support.

"It is long past time to break the stranglehold Big Cable has over their customers through forced set-top box rental fees," said Wyden. "Cable providers should not double dip on customers who are already paying monthly subscription fees for their content. The FCC should act, as directed by Congress, on its authority to create a competitive marketplace that will save consumers money and promote innovation in the industry. Oregonians and Americans should not be held captive by Big Cable’s price gouging. At this Thursday’s FCC Commission meeting I urge the Commissioners to pass Chairman Wheeler’s proposal and unlock the box.”

Franken took to Facebook to try to convince his followers to support FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal.

"The Federal Communications Commission—or FCC—has said that it’s time to 'unlock the box' and give consumers a meaningful choice in how they access the content they pay for," Franken said. "Instead of renting one of those dust gatherers, consumers would be able to access the full content of their cable subscription via an app—just like Netflix, Hulu, or HBO GO—at no additional charge. That means you’d use the app with your smartphone, tablet, smart TV, or on a device like the Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast, or Amazon Fire Stick. Can you imagine how much easier that would be than the outdated way we’re doing things now? The FCC is voting on the proposal tomorrow, and I really hope they’ll side with consumers and vote to unlock the box."

Wheeler is proposing an app-based approach to unlocking that box, with MVPDs supplying an app to make their content available and searchable alongside over-the-top content.

While ISPs suggested an app-based approach, the FCC's creation of an app standards body and its assertion of authority to modify agreements that are not reasonable or competitive has prompted concerns not only from ISPs and the programmers with which they have contracts, but legislators on both sides of the aisle, as well as app developers and unions and diversity groups.