A bipartisan, bicameral effort in Congress is looking to help the Federal Communications Commission reinstate a new rule requiring broadcasters to do more due diligence when identifying foreign-sponsored programming and FCC Democrats are on board with the effort.

Not only would it restore a mandate to check two government databases, but broadcasters would have to check anywhere else the FCC thinks they should go to establish the identity of foreign programming.

After the FCC unanimously passed a new rule saying broadcasters had to check two government databases (the Department of Justice’s Foreign Agents Registration Act website and the FCC’s U.S.-based foreign media outlets reports) to ensure that such programming was identified to viewers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated that new rule, saying the agency didn't have the authority to require that extra step.

The FCC had said broadcasters needed to check the two federal sources to determine a sponsor's identity, which went beyond the 1934 Communications Act requirement to ask employees and advertisers for the information necessary to establish sponsorship.

Also: Court Nixes FCC Double Verification Mandate

Just last week FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel circulated a new proposal to toughen the foreign-sponsorship identification rules without the mandatory database check, hoping that will pass muster with the courts.

But Monday (Oct. 17), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced House and Senate versions of a bill, the Identifying Propaganda on Our Airwaves Act, that would give the FCC the statutory backing to require broadcasters to check those databases or, for that matter, “any additional source of information the Commission designates that may enable the licensee to verify whether the matter broadcast by the radio station was paid for or furnished by a foreign governmental entity.”

“By giving the FCC the authority to require disclosure of this foreign propaganda, our bipartisan bill will help stop this practice and improve programming transparency on TV and the radio,” Schatz said.

“The legislation grants the FCC the authority to require broadcasters to check sources that actually identify foreign agents and their shell companies when entering into and renewing airtime lease agreements for sponsored programming on the radio,” Blackburn said.

“The principle that the public has a right to know the identity of those who solicit their support is a fundamental and long-standing tenet of broadcasting,” Rosenworcel said. "Consumers deserve to trust that public airwaves aren't being leased without their knowledge to foreign governments. I appreciate the leadership of Senators Schatz and Blackburn and Representative Eshoo for their efforts to increase transparency and ensure consumers know who is behind the information transmitted over public airwaves."

Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said: “The fact that foreign governmental entities are covertly broadcasting on our television and radio stations is alarming. The American people have a right to know the identity of those using the public airwaves in order to be informed and make their own decisions in separating truth from disinformation.”

The FCC had argued that double verification fell within reasonable diligence and its general authority to prescribe appropriate rules and regulations. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) had argued broadcasters had told the court that the FCC’s decision to make broadcasters affirmatively investigate whether programming — including ads and infomercials — was being paid for by foreign entities was an arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional response to a “phantom” problem, pointing to a past court decision that statutory language imposes no burden of “independent investigation” by licensees.

The new bill includes that statutory language does impose the “burden” of independent investigation.

“We are closely reviewing this legislation," said NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano. "NAB and several other broadcast organizations have worked to ensure the rules are focused on the handful of broadcasters that air foreign government-sponsored programming, without creating burdens for the vast majority of broadcasters that do not air this content. As we have made clear from the beginning, we share the goal of ensuring that the public understands when it is watching or listening to foreign propaganda.” ■

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, signaled Wednesday that he and a Democratic colleague are introducing a bill aimed at Sec. 230, which is the surviving section of the Communications Decency Act that exempts web sites from civil liability over their handling of third-party speech on their platforms. 

At an FCC oversight hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee, Thune, former chairman of the committee, said he would be teaming up with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to introduce the Platform Accountability  and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act that he said would provide more accountability and transparency about how large tech platforms treat their content and make their content moderation decisions. 

At that same hearing, where Sec. 230 was prominently featured, all the FCC commissioners agreed Big Tech had transparency issues that need addressing, while Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said securing such transparency would be "transformative." 

Thune said the act drew from Sec. 230 reforms offered up by the Justice Department and Attorney General Bill Barr last week. 

More than a dozen Democratic senators have sponsored a bill, the Data Care Act, that would force edge providers and others to "stop the misuse of users' data."

The senators want edge providers to join doctors, lawyers, and financial institutions, which are all expected, and required, to protect personal info. “People have a basic expectation that the personal information they provide to websites and apps is well-protected and won’t be used against them," said Sen. Brian Schatz, the ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee.

Survey: Edge Needs to Better Protect Privacy

The bill makes no secret of the senator's point that websites, apps, and "other online providers" have a "duty" take "responsible steps to safeguard personal information."

The legislation would establish the following duties, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission with new authority it would get in the bill.

Duty of Care – Must reasonably secure individual identifying data and promptly inform users of data breaches that involve sensitive information;

• "Duty of Loyalty – May not use individual identifying data in ways that harm users;

• "Duty of Confidentiality – Must ensure that the duties of care and loyalty extend to third parties when disclosing, selling, or sharing individual identifying data;

• "Federal and State Enforcement – A violation of the duties will be treated as a violation of an FTC rule with fine authority. States may also bring civil enforcement actions, but the FTC can intervene.

• "Rulemaking Authority – FTC is granted rulemaking authority to implement the Act."

The FCC currently has very limited fining authority. It is generally limited to recovering money consumers have lost rather than imposing civil penalties and enforces through suits and settlements rather than rulemakings.

FTC Chair: We Need Rulemaking Authority

In addition to Schatz, signing on to the bill were Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Public Knowledge welcomed the bill as a conversation starter, but had some issues.

“We’re excited to see this innovative addition to the federal privacy debate and hope that Mr. Schatz’s legislation spurs a much needed conversation about the appropriate responsibilities for custodians of our personal information," said policy counsel Allie Bohm. “However, the bill leaves room for improvement. For example, the bill would only stop companies from using personal data for their own benefit at consumers’ expense when it will result in reasonably foreseeable, material physical or financial harm. This list of harms is woefully incomplete.“Similarly, the bill only requires companies to notify end users of a data breach when ‘sensitive’ data are breached -- this list is too limited to be effective. In fact, under the bill, Facebook would not have had to notify end users about Cambridge Analytica. Furthermore, the bill does not address how to handle conflicts between companies’ duties to their end users and their duties to their shareholders."

Sen. Democrats Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have introduced a resolution condemning the President's attacks on the press, even as the President was launching more attacks in the wake of journalists' pushback.

Schumer is Senate minority leader and Schatz the ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee.

That resolution comes the same day that journalists were joining together, led by the Boston Globe, to repudiate the President's characterization of them as enemies of the people and fake news.

“Every member of Congress has sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the right to the free press. This bill is an opportunity for us to uphold our oath and make clear that we support liberty and free speech,” said Schatz. “It also sends the message that the legislative branch is capable of functioning as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

“Throughout history, the free press has always kept our government in check when it has gone astray, perhaps more than anywhere else around the world, and the Congress has a duty protect the press’s first amendment right,” said Schumer."

That congressional effort also came as the President took aim at that effort in a series of tweets, calling the news media the "opposition party."

[embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030094399362007040[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030091812495654912[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030074380397752320[/embed]

A bipartisan, bicameral bill has been introduced to insure there is enough money to fund efforts to get federal spectrum users to give up spectrum or share spectrum with commercial users.

Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in the Senate, and Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) in the House have introduced the Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The Resources for Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless (SPECTRUM NOW) Act. It "would allow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to use existing Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) funding (approximately $8 billion) to support research-related activities that examine the feasibility of federal spectrum users relocating or sharing spectrum with non-federal users as long as those monies are not already obligated to support federal agencies."

The SRF was created in 2004, but in 2015, the Spectrum Pipeline Act broadened the expenses that could be covered by the fund and, while it also authorized $500 million specifically to exploring spectrum re-purposing, that money is running out, say the Senators.

But the bill also says the SRF research money can only be spent if 1) "a research and development (R&D) plan by the incumbent federal spectrum user to explore relocating of sharing spectrum has been submitted and approved by the Technical Panel, which was established by Congress and is composed of three members representing the NTIA, OMB, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC); 2) as of the date of certification to Congress by NTIA and OMB that the R&D plan is approved, Spectrum Pipeline Act funds are insufficient to support that R&D plan; and 3) R&D payments will leave sufficient amounts in the SRF to complete ongoing transition plans from previous auctions."

“The ultimate success of next generation communications networks will depend on the United States using finite wireless spectrum more efficiently,” Wicker said in a statement. “It is important for Congress to consider ways to support innovation in this crucial sector and to free up existing resources accordingly.”

“As demand for licensed and unlicensed spectrum continues to grow, we need to find new ways to maximize our country’s spectrum resources,” said Schatz of the new bill. “By freeing up more licensed spectrum, we can give innovators a strong foundation for building new technologies and help grow an industry that fuels our national economy.”

“This bill makes it possible for federal agencies to more efficiently and innovatively use spectrum and, in turn, provide new opportunities for spectrum to be re-purposed for commercial use," said Matsui.

Related: House Joins Senate in Trying to Free Up More Spectrum

“Freeing up spectrum is key to furthering innovation and increasing high-speed internet access across the country,” said Guthrie.

“The AWS-3 spectrum auction proved that providing additional funds for spectrum research is money well spent, and reforms included in the SPECTRUM NOW Act have the potential to produce positive results," said Competitive Carriers Association President Steven K. Berry. “The SPECTRUM NOW Act will allow additional funds for spectrum research, including identifying best practices, which will greatly benefit the industry, the economy, and ultimately consumers."

"WISPA members across the country stand ready to deploy and innovate in rural areas to ensure reliable broadband is available in the communities that need it most," said WISPA President Claude Aiken. "We look forward to working alongside Congress to close the broadband gap and bring affordable service to the millions who lack access and choice.”

The first returns from Capitol Hill on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's response to President Trump's tweeted attacks on the press were not promising.

Pai told a Mercatus Center audience in Washington Tuesday, after being asked for comment, that he supports the First Amendment and that the FCC "doesn't have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast."

The President, apparently angered by an NBC News story, had suggested someone "must" challenge the licenses of media outlets and the FCC revoke them if necessary.

Any member of the public can challenge a license, as could the FCC on its own initiative, but the FCC would have to conclude a broadcaster was not operating in the public interest, which is a high bar that has rarely been met.

Pai said Tuesday (Oct. 17) he was just reiterating what he has said before--though not publicly since the President's twitter storm last week--which was part of the problem.

“This statement is better than nothing," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). "but it is merely a reiteration of the FCC’s authorities under the law. What we needed is a full-throated defense of the independence of the FCC against political interference. When the president announced his intent to retaliate against a broadcaster based on content, the FCC should have rejected it.”

Schatz is ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction over the FCC.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee agreed.

“Chairman Pai was right to assure the public that the FCC cannot revoke any broadcast licenses based on the content of a specific newscast," he said, "but I am disappointed that the Chairman continues to remain silent on the President’s ongoing efforts to intimidate and threaten news outlets.  The Chairman should therefore be prepared to commit—under oath, if necessary—that he will take no actions whatsoever to retaliate against news outlets in response to the President’s pressure.”

The Energy & Commerce Committee Communications Subcommitee has scheduled an FCC oversight hearing with Pai and the other commissioners for Oct. 25.

“Chairman Pai’s remarks do not sufficiently address my concerns – shared by newsrooms and journalists across the country – about a President who seems intent on curtailing their Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who sought Pai's public disavowal of the President's attacks (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blumenthal-joins-call-f.... "The President’s comments were chilling and intimidating. What’s needed from the Chairman of the FCC is not just a restatement of the blackletter law, but a clear rejection and repudiation of the President’s suggestion, including a pledge to protect the free press from political interference.”

Free Press, which joined Schatz and other Democrats in calling for that full-throated, direct repudiation of the President, saw it as progress but also wanted more.

"I'm not sure why it took Ajit Pai almost a week to say anything about President Trump's dangerous comments, but I'm glad he is at least willing to acknowledge that the First Amendment still applies at the FCC," said Tim Karr, senior director of strategy.

"This isn't the first time Pai had to respond to a Trump attack against journalists; and it likely won't be the last. Trump's assault on press freedom will continue until enough people -- including those like Pai who have been carrying out his agenda -- renounce the president in stronger and more direct terms."

The Senate Communications Subcommittee Tuesday (June 20) took a deep dive into the FCC's Universal Service Fund, with a focus on rural broadband deployment and telehealth.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the subcommittee, signaled that he and ranking member Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) were reintroducing the Reaching Underserved Rural Areas to Lead [RURAL] on Telehealth Act, which would qualify some rural healthcare providers for USF funds. He said robust broadband connections are vital to the adoption of "lifesaving technology."

Wicker, who previously has introduced a bill requiring the FCC to improve broadband data collection, said, "[E]nsuring broadband deployment to rural healthcare providers is a critical component of the USF program."

He also said the importance of delivering broadband to rural areas -- Mississippi has a lot of them -- cannot be understated, citing economic and digital innovation.

FCC chair Ajit Pai has promised that closing the digital divide, particularly the rural divide, is a priority.

Sen. Schatz said all Americans need the essential connection to broadband to fully participate in society, from applying for a job todoing homework to accessing government services. He said the FCC's yearly broadband report demonstrates that millions of Americans (north of 30 million) lack access to high-speed broadband. "We can't close that divide without USF," he said.

He said the FCC should remain "vigilant" against waste fraud and abuse.

That was one of the reasons Pai cited in suspending the designation of nine telecoms as eligible for Lifeline USF subsidies, which are the subsidies for basic connectivity for low-income residents.

Related: O'Rielly, Clyburn Seek Comments on Broadband Subsidies

Schatz said the FCC needs to take into account unique geographical and topographical challenges--like those in his home state of Hawaii, that make broadband deployment particularly difficult and costly.

Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, told the legislators that the USF program's "viability and effectiveness" were "in peril" due to a flat budget.

She said that lack of money is leading to cancelled buildouts and layoffs. She then brought it home for committee chair Wicker. "In Mississippi, instead of upgrades in Fulton, the only investments will be to remain operational."

She said the FCC should tap USF fund reserves if necessary, to meet the shortfall, or increase the contribution factor, by only the cost of a Starbucks coffee a year, she added. She said another option would be for Congress to direct some infrastructure money to the program.

A pair of Democratic senators has asked FCC chair Ajit Pai for more information on what the FCC has said were multiple DDoS attacks on its website that affected comments being posted there.

Related: FCC CIO Says Agency Hit by DDoS Attack

FCC chief information officer David Bray said the attacks "made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."

The key docket in terms of activity that could have been interrupted is net neutrality, where the FCC still managed to post more than a half a million comments since last week, attack or no. Among the senators' questions was whether any comments were prevented from being submitted and, if so, how many.

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, the latter ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, sent a letter to Pai about the May 8 attack (which came in the wee hours of the morning following the May 7 airing of John Oliver's call, during HBO's Last Week Tonight, for a flood of comments in support of net neutrality.

Related: John Oliver Takes On Pai, Net Neutrality, Take II

They asked about the FCC's defenses against such an attack should it be repeated and wanted Pai to ensure the FCC provides other ways to comment as a workaround, such as a dedicated e-mail account.

“Any potentially hostile cyber activities that prevents Americans from being able to participate in a fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue,” the senators said.

Specifically, they requested the following information by June 8:

1. “Please provide details as to the nature of the DDoS attacks, including when the attacks began, when they ended, the amount of malicious traffic your network received, and an estimate of the number of devices that were sending malicious traffic to the FCC. To the extent that the FCC already has evidence suggesting which actor(s) may have been responsible for the attacks, please provide that in your response.
2. “Has the FCC sought assistance from other federal agencies in investigating and responding to these attacks? Which agencies have you sought assistance from? Have you received all of the help you have requested?
3. “Several federal agencies utilize commercial services to protect their websites from DDoS attacks. Does the FCC use a commercial DDoS protection service? If not, why not? To the extent that the FCC utilizes commercial DDoS protection products, did these work as expected? If not, why not?
4. “How many concurrent visitors is the FCC’s website designed to be able to handle? Has the FCC performed stress testing of its own website to ensure that it can cope as intended? Has the FCC identified which elements of its website are performance bottlenecks that limit the number of maximum concurrent visitors? Has the FCC sought to mitigate these bottlenecks? If not, why not?
5. “Did the DDoS attacks prevent the public from being able to submit comments through the FCC’s website? If so, do you have an estimate of how many individuals were unable to access the FCC website or submit comments during the attacks? Were any comments lost or otherwise affected?
6. “Will commenters who successfully submitted a comment — but did not receive a response, as your press release indicates — receive a response once your staff have addressed the DDoS and related technical issues?

While the letter did not question whether such an attack had happened, others have, including activist group Fight for the Future. 

"We think it's more than just coincidence that the FCC would cite a DDoS attack at the same time that John Oliver's call to make public comment on the FCC website in favor of net neutrality went viral," said Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color Of Change, a big Title II fan. "That said, we certainly hope to see a full investigation into what happened in order to ensure the integrity and full transparency of a key federal agency. But the unfortunate reality is that, after everything this administration has done to steal our rights as Americans, we wouldn't be surprised if this was merely an attempt to label the democratic exercise of free speech as a cyberattack.”

Late Tuesday it was looking more and more like FCC chairman Ajit Pai might indeed be outlining his strategy for reversing Title II classification of ISPs in a speech Wednesday.

One sign was that Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), ranking member on the Senate Communications Subcommittee, met with representatives of NCTA: The Internet & Television Association, CTIA and USTelecom as well as public interest groups Free Press, Public Knowledge, Demand Progress and the ACLU.

Schatz's office said that the meetings came "ahead of FCC chairman Ajit Pai's announcement on reversing net-neutrality rules."

Pai has also met with NCTA and other telecom associations, seeking input on the best way to preserve net neutrality while reversing the common carrier designation for ISPs.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai said Wednesday (March 8) during a Senate Commerce Committee FCC oversight hearing that he would get an agency staff legal analysis confirming his belief that, based on the way the AT&T-Time Warner merger is being structured, the FCC has no authority to conduct a public interest review of the deal.

The Justice Department is currently reviewing the proposed merger for antitrust issues, but the deal was not submitted to the FCC for a public interest review, which looks beyond preventing competitive harms to weighing the benefits to consumers and the marketplace.

Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), ranking member of the Communications Subcommittee, whether the FCC would be reviewing the deal, Pai said that since no license was changing hands -- the "jurisdictional hook" for the FCC's review -- the agency would not have a role.

"In so far as that remains the case, it is my belief the FCC would not have the legal authority to review that transaction," Pai said.

Schatz asked whether Pai had asked his staff for a legal analysis confirming it would have no role. Pai said no, but agreed when pressed by Schatz that he would do so and share the findings with the committee.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked if Pai would do a public interest review analysis of the deal anyway. The chairman said if the deal is not filed with the FCC, it would have no fact set on which to review it. But he did say he would take that request back to the General Counsel's office.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), in early comments at Monday's annual State of the Net conference in Washington, presaged a discussion later in the day about whether and how federal support to build broadband facilities should be part of the Trump administration's proposals for upgrading the nation's infrastructure of roads and bridges.

That dialog sparked an examination, suitable to the venue and referred to throughout the day as part of the "kinetic versus cyber" ecosystem, of telecommunications' importance vis-à-vis tangible products.

"The more we can do in the broadband space, the  better," Schatz said in his remarks at the conference. "We can get bipartisan support," but he proposed that "we should do little things" rather than go for sweeping telecom reform.

Schatz also addressed the continuing controversy about net neutrality, insisting that, "reversing the Open Internet order is not so easy." He said that "right now it is just too polarized" to legislate on that issue, although he thinks Congress should do so.

"I'm open to legislating but only if it's not a Trojan horse for undermining the authority that is already in place," said Schatz, who sits on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

He also said he "believes Jessica should be back on the FCC," a reference to former Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, whose term ended after an ill-fated, politically laced attempt to reappoint her in late December.

Schatz's remarks included his views on privacy and the Internet of Things, which were major topics throughout the SOTN annual conference.

"IoT is one of the spaces where we need rules of the road; also artificial intelligence as it relates to law enforcement," Schatz said. "I don't think this is apocryphal sci-fi stuff. We have to have this conversation, ideally private-sector driven." 

He did not offer any suggestions on how Congress would become involved in these rapidly developing tech/telecom sectors.

At a subsequent session on IoT, Dr. Ron Ross, a fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, characterized cybersecurity intrusions as "the greatest national security problem," emphasizing that communications and utility operators are not adequately prepared for attacks, such as "exfiltration" of customer information. He said building the infrastructure to defend against cyberattacks "is incredibly complex."

The panel also addressed looming issues such as liability and how IoT systems can be built that enable consumers to keep control over their own data.

Reassigning Spectrum, Funding Broadband Deployment
A session on "Rethinking the Future of Communications Policy" spanned a terrain from spectrum allocation to FCC staffing.

After declaring the current broadcast incentive auction a success (despite its lower-than-expected revenue results), the panel said it expects further efforts to retrieve airwaves for new digital applications. In particular, the panel focused on government agency controlled airwaves, which it called "the low hanging fruit for more spectrum."

Larry Downes, project director of the Georgetown University Center for Business and Public Policy, cited the opportunity for the new administration "to incentivize federal agencies with underused spectrum to give it up or share it for commercial use.   

Although the Defense Department is unlikely to relinquish its massive spectrum holdings, according to panelists, airwaves controlled by aviation and other agencies may be diverted to commercial use.  No one offered specifics regarding timetable or how the transfer would be accomplished.

Broadband will be part of the Trump administration's national infrastructure construction plan, said Markham Erickson, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson law firm, who represents telecom and internet clients. He expects the primary federal actions will be created by providing tax incentives and subsidies for private investment, "some mechanism to get broadband out to rural places."

Erickson also said he expects that the FCC will retain "extensive regulations" over some telecom sectors, although he did not cite specific topics.

With FCC transition team member Mark Jamison (pictured above) on the panel, discussion also touched on the extent of the FCC reorganization agenda. Jamison, who is director of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida, was a member of the Trump transition team working on the FCC.

Jamison said that the "basic goal" was to "elevate the role of technical analysis."

"It's easier to hire lawyers than economists or engineers," he said. "I think the commissioners and public will be better served" with more technical expertise.

Gigi Sohn, a former advisor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, concurred, noting that it was "very frustrating to bring engineers and economists" from telecom and media companies and count on their information. "As a result, we're reliant on industry input," Sohn said, lapsing, as she frequently did on the panel, to using "we" when discussing a job she left three weeks ago, a very common gaffe among recently quondam public servants. She joked about the ex post facto “we” that crept into her comments.

The panel agreed that FCC reorganization should reflect greater overlap of activities that affect multiple bureaus.

"The FCC should recognize the convergence of all kinds of Internet Protocol technologies," said Downes. "There is no need to separate bureaus based on [legacy] structures."

Sohn also used the platform to predict that Trump appointees will adopt the mantra "Consolidation, consolidation, consolidation," in counterpoint to Wheeler's "Competition" mantra. She predicted that the FCC will have no role in upcoming merger considerations, with those functions going to the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department.

Erickson pointed out that there are similar rules at various bureaus and agencies, noting as an example that the Justice Department may be better equipped to take "a bigger view of intermodal and intramodal competition."  

In his closing keynote,  Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) avoided any indication that an omnibus Telecommunications Act reform is in the works.

Comcast was the only "Platinum Sponsor" of the annual event;  AT&T, Verizon and Google were among the "Gold Sponsors."

The bipartisan congressional Internet of Things working group comprising Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) has reintroduced the Developing and Growing the Internet of Things (DIGIT) Act.

The bill was introduced in the last Congress, following up on a resolution that passed the Senate last March that called for a national strategy on IoT.

The bill would "convene a working group of federal entities that would consult with private sector stakeholders to provide recommendations to Congress." Those would include how to encourage the growth of IoT, seeking input from the private sector to help prevent "regulatory silos."

It would also direct the FCC to launch a proceeding on the spectrum needs of IoT.

Congress has estimated that more than 50 billion devices will be connected by 2020 generating billions of dollars in economic opportunity.

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to convene a working group of federal stakeholders to advise Congress on how to plan and encourage IoT, including spectrum needs and the appropriate regulatory environment for things like consumer protection, privacy and security.

The working group will have to consult with industry stakeholders.

The FCC, in consultation with the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, will have to conduct a study to evaluate what spectrum will be necessary to accommodate that explosion in connected devices, including whether adequate licensed and unlicensed spectrum is available, what role each agency should play in the growth of IoT and what regulatory "barriers" exist.

Daniel Castro, director of the Center for Data Innovation, said the bill puts the country on track to be a global IoT leader.

"By bringing together a broad cross-section of stakeholders in government and industry to shape a national strategy for the Internet of Things, the bipartisan DIGIT Act would put the United States on track to secure the enormous potential benefits this technology has to offer for both the private sector and the public," Castro said. "To make the United States more competitive and seize on all the opportunities from the Internet of Things, this working group should focus broadly on all challenges and opportunities the technology presents."

Competitive Carriers Association president/CEO Steven K. Berry said: “I thank Senators Fischer, Booker, Gardner and Schatz for the bipartisan reintroduction of the DIGIT Act. IoT already plays a major role in the mobile industry, and demand – by consumers and businesses – for these unique services will only continue to increase.  Competitive carriers must have access to 5G technologies to ensure their customers have access to IoT services and to effectively compete with the largest national carriers.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) says blocking the U.S. handoff of oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which deals with domain names, to a multistakeholder model is "shocking" and an attempt to "restrict the freedom of the Internet."

Fellow senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has major issues with the transition, has backed a bill to block it absent congressional approval and is holding a hearing on the issue Wednesday (Sept. 14) in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Oversight Subcommittee--Cruz is chairman of the subcommittee.

In advance of the hearing, Schatz released a statement saying that Cruz's effort to "delay or stop" the transition -- the U.S. contract is set to expire at the end of this month --"flies in the face of the U.S. business and tech communities, our international partners and those who created the Internet, who all are united in supporting concluding this transition in order to preserve the Internet as we know it – an open and global platform for free speech, innovation and commerce."

Tech companies and ISPs generally support the transition so long as that does not mean ceding control to countries like China or Russia, which the Obama Administration says isn't going to happen.

While Cruz has suggested Congress has to sign off on the transition, the Government Accountability Office said this week that that was not the case.

Two ranking members of Senate committees, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) of the Commerce Committee and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) of the Communications Subcommittee, Wednesday called again for a vote on the nomination of Democratic FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to a new term.

They were joined by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

While the Commerce Committee unanimously recommended her for a new term, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to schedule a floor vote.

During what proved to be a bipartisan vote on an FCC reauthorization bill, Schatz said that was a fly in that bipartisan ointment. He said the Senate needs to do its job, and Nelson echoed that.

He pointed out, as had Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in a floor statement two weeks ago, that McConnell had promised a vote when Democrats agreed to vote out Republican Mike O'Rielly last year. In a tradition that dates back to the Clinton Administration, Republican congressional leaders essentially get to pick Republican commissioners and Democratic leaders the Democrats.

Markey said he had planned to put a hold on O'Rielly's nomination but got "complete" assurances from Reid, who had gotten assurances from McConnell, that Rosenworcel would get a vote. Here we are now in April and no vote, he said, adding that he never would have relinquished his hold without the assurances from Republicans. He called on them to expedite the process and give her the "honor" of  being reconfirmed.

Rosenworcel's term has already expired, but she can serve until December.

Republican Commerce Committee chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said the committee had done its job by reporting her out favorably for a vote, and that it was now up to the two Senate leaders. "We have done our part at this level to move it forward," he said.