Nelson Hammers Home Openness to Bipartisan Net Neutrality Legislation, Possible New Statute
Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla., touted his concept of a “Title X” addition to the Communications Act in Florida Monday before Comptel members. He defended bipartisan negotiation on net neutrality legislation just as House Republicans introduced what is widely seen as an aggressive and partisan resolution to trample the FCC’s net neutrality order, a move that some have said runs counter to any potential bipartisan net neutrality legislative negotiating in the Commerce committees. When considering net neutrality and any rewrite of the act, Nelson has invoked the concept of this hypothetical section of telecom law since November.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“I have spoken about the possibility of Congress considering a new title to the Communications Act -- what I call ‘Title X,’” Nelson said at Comptel’s meeting in Orlando, according to his prepared remarks. “I use that term as a way to think beyond the rhetoric surrounding Title II and Section 706 that has seemed to consume this entire debate. Congress has the luxury of looking at this issue anew without being constrained by the limits of the current statute. I am not yet sure exactly what Title X might contain.”
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., introduced his one-page Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, as expected this week (see 1504020053), which, if approved, would nullify the FCC’s February net neutrality order and prevent the agency from reinstating similar rules. The resolution could advance through Congress in an expedited process but still faces a possible White House veto. “Resources that could go to broadband deployment will go to federal taxes and fees,” Collins said in a statement. “We’ll all be paying more for less.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is among the 13 original GOP co-sponsors of the Collins CRA resolution. Another co-sponsor is, as expected, Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio. Other backers include Reps. Rick Allen of Georgia; Vern Buchanan of Florida; Buddy Carter of Georgia; Steve Chabot of Ohio; Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin; Sam Johnson of Texas; Barry Loudermilk of Georgia; Bill Posey of Florida; Dennis Ross of Florida; Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia; and Ryan Zinke of Montana.
The backers include three members of Judiciary, including Collins, with Latta as the one Commerce member. In February, Goodlatte joined with 20 colleagues including Collins to write a letter to the FCC favoring the CRA approach. Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., a Judiciary member who signed the letter, didn't back the resolution but told us last week he believes it’s an appropriate approach. An earlier failed CRA resolution attacking the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality order was introduced with more co-sponsors -- 23 upon introduction, and with 58 GOP backers by the time it passed the House. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., introduced that CRA resolution. This year Walden has said he wants to work with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., and Commerce Democrats on bipartisan legislation. Spokespeople for Collins, Walden and Goodlatte didn’t comment by our deadline Monday on whether the CRA resolution was referred to Commerce or Judiciary but Marino told us he believes it won’t pass through Judiciary. "As highlighted in the Committee’s recent hearing, the FCC’s net neutrality rule is a burden on the American people, and antithetical to a free and open internet," Goodlatte told us in a statement. "I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important Congressional Review Act resolution, and restore the Internet to a free, competitive, and dynamic marketplace unfettered by needless government intervention.”
Net neutrality legislation must lay “the foundation for strong net neutrality protections like those in the FCC’s recent order,” Nelson said, criticizing blocking, discrimination and paid prioritization deals. The legislation can't leave a regulator “frozen in time,” Nelson said: “The FCC must have authority that is flexible enough that it can respond to a changing world,” he told Comptel. “If we put a straightjacket on the commission, we may very well miss the future and leave the agency powerless -- and American consumers defenseless -- to deal with emerging problems.”
Nelson praised Thune, calling him “very responsible" when speaking with Comptel CEO Chip Pickering, a former Republican lawmaker from Mississippi. Nelson and Thune have discussed possible net neutrality legislation for months, both have said. “I’m trying to keep things bipartisan, and in this highly charged partisan ideological atmosphere that we have in Washington, that’s a lot more difficult to do but I think if it can be done, it can be done in a partnership with John Thune and me,” Nelson told Pickering. He again mentioned Title X: “Now the question is, on the issue of net neutrality, that there’s this big divide over Title II, will we be able to get to what I call a ‘Title X,’ which is a yet-to-be-defined part of keeping the FCC involved, and be able to protect consumers?”
In his speech, Nelson defended the need for giving the FCC “flexible, forward-looking authority to respond to changes in the dynamic broadband marketplace,” as he said. “The key question policymakers must ask now is how to take what the FCC has done and provide the certainty, predictability, and permanency that only legislation can provide.” Nelson hasn't backed Thune’s draft net neutrality bill, which would limit FCC authority while codifying net neutrality protections. Nelson and Thune partnered last month for a symbolic net neutrality budget resolution, which passed the Senate (see 1503260050).
The FCC defended its order in submitting the rules to Congress last week. The order “incorporates the continuation of longstanding open Internet principles that are generally in line with current industry practices,” the FCC told Congress in a two-page document it submitted. “In so doing, it ensures that the Internet remains fast, fair and open today and into the future.” The agency cited the “economic growth and investment unleashed by the open Internet to date” in arguing the order “is likely to result in growth to the economy of $100,000,000 or more annually.” It attributes this growth to “the virtuous circle, whereby an open Internet fosters innovations at the edges of the network, driving increased consumer demand for broadband, which, in turn, fuels broadband investment.”
Free Press slammed the latest House CRA resolution. "Once again, some members of Congress have sided with the phone and cable lobby and against Internet users,” said Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood. “But their campaign against the open Internet is all bluster.” Wood said their arguments are “recycled” and “thoroughly debunked,” pointing to broad public support for net neutrality rules. Free Press is emailing supporters to voice opposition to the resolution and donate money to Free Press. Public Knowledge also opposes the resolution and asked people to share concerns with Congress.