House Commerce Subcommittees Invoke Net Neutrality During Data Privacy Hearing
House Communications and Digital Commerce subcommittees members interspersed expected questions and concerns Wednesday about the tech sector's data privacy policies (see 1711280059) with a debate on the extent to which the sector's activities represented another front in the battle over net neutrality rules. The joint hearing came amid rancor on and off Capitol Hill over the FCC's draft order to rescind 2015 net neutrality rules and expectations the commission will need to defend the decision in court (see 1711290032, 1711210020, 1711210041, 1711270042 and 1711270054). Lawmakers' concerns about data practices included the Equifax and Uber data breaches and content filtering.
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.
Lawmakers in both parties invoked the simmering net neutrality debate, though from diametrically opposed angles. House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., and other Republicans compared the ISP-centric concerns invoked in discussions about a shift in the FCC rules and what they saw as actual problems with paid prioritization within the tech sector. “We know that there is in effect paid prioritization on some of these platforms” because of advertising sales, Walden said. He urged all stakeholders in the debate to “condemn” harassment of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and his family over the Thanksgiving holiday over the draft order, saying such attacks are “completely unacceptable and have no place in this debate.”
The net neutrality rules “only apply to ISPs, not social media or search platforms,” said House Communications Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. “In some very concrete ways, the open internet is being threatened by certain content management practices. These 2-year-old FCC rules have not and cannot address these threats, so it is disheartening to see [Communications Act Title II] regulatory advocates happily conflating the two to divert attention from who is actually blocking content.” That mirrored criticisms of the tech sector that Pai made this week (see 1711280024 and 1711290048). Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., invoked paid prioritization concerns, asking “would I rather have life-saving telemedicine go fast versus a Three Stooges video? The answer is 'yes.'”
House Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and other Democrats hammered Pai on the draft, which Pallone said would "fundamentally change the free and open internet as we know it.” The change would mean “nothing stops those in power from pushing broadband companies to censor dissenting voices or unpopular opinions or to promote views they support,” he said. House Communications ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., said the proposal will mean there will be “no law of the land” governing paid prioritization and other issues, with the FCC becoming a “toothless tiger.” House Digital Commerce ranking member Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., said the agency is proposing to cede a “disturbing amount of power” to ISPs on content distribution. “Americans are watching the FCC's next move,” she said.
Lawmakers in both parties raised concerns about tech firms' data policies, but again differed on a legislative solution. “We don't … as a committee really know how to get socks on the octopus, so to speak, here because it's complicated," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. "Free speech is central to us. But we also know that there are bad actors that have used the best of what we have invented to divide us, and something needs to be done.” Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, said lawmakers and regulators “typically move way behind the speed of technological change, so what I'm trying to figure out is how we get in front of" companies' practices for collecting and using consumers' data collection, “or do we need to even worry about it?” Rep. Ryan Costello, R-Pa., noted concerns about how to grapple with handling different uses of consumers' data.
Blackburn touted her Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly Act (HR-2520), which would make the FTC the privacy regulator for ISPs and edge companies and would require opt-in consent even for web browsing data. Blackburn later told us she believes Capitol Hill's recent scrutiny of tech firms' practices provides an opening for further advancement of HR-2520. “In the next few months, I think you'll see us revisit” HR-2520 because “there's beginning to be a consensus around doing something on privacy, data security and breach notification,” she said.
Commerce Democrats noted continued frustration at Blackburn and other Republicans for the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval effort that in March abolished ISP privacy rules. Democrats cited that as a major reason they refused to co-sponsor HR-2520. It has one co-sponsor from the caucus -- Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill. (see 1706070050, 1706210059, 1706280058 and 1707280048).
“Instead of focusing on parts of the Internet ecosystem historically uncompetitive and unpopular with consumers, too many policymakers are being misdirected by the biggest internet service providers to instead look at dynamic Internet companies that are innovative, pro-consumer and increasingly deliver better quality for less cost,” said Computer and Communications Industry Association President Ed Black in a statement. “It is absurd to support massive deregulation of the former, while seeking to shackle the latter.”