Divergent Views of Paid Prioritization on Display at House Communications Hearing
Debate during a House Communications Subcommittee hearing centered on divergent visions of the effect of instituting a new ban on paid prioritization of internet transmissions instead of movement toward consensus. Restriction supporters and opponents have said an agreement on the issue is necessary for compromise net neutrality legislation to advance (see 1804160058). Republicans argued against including an outright ban on the grounds it would harm emerging technologies and specialized services. Democrats favored reinstituting the type of ban included in the now-rescinded 2015 net neutrality rules, arguing the restriction included sufficient exemptions to protect a range of stakeholders. Also Tuesday, California and Colorado lawmakers advanced net neutrality state legislation (see 1804170057), while paid prioritization was discussed at a panel event (see 1804170046).
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.
House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., and House Communications Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said they saw the discussion as necessary to reach a compromise on net neutrality. Walden cited his 2015 work with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., and then-House Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., on a potential compromise bill that “would establish rules of the road to ensure the internet remains open to all.” He omitted that the draft legislation included a paid prioritization ban (see 1506040046 and 1702130044).
Blackburn urged a “more nuanced approach," saying “we need a better understanding of what specific harmful conduct we are trying to address and a better understanding of how to leave the door open for the beneficial prioritization that's necessary to keep the internet as we know it working.” Blackburn omitted language on paid prioritization in her Open Internet Preservation Act (HR-4682) because there wasn't accord (see 1712190062 and 1712200057).
Democrats partially used the hearing as another opportunity to highlight their Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval aimed at repealing FCC rescission of net neutrality rules. House Communications ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., promoted the measure, which he's sponsoring. Doyle argued restoration of the 2015 rules and the accompanying paid prioritization ban is needed because otherwise, consumers don't get to choose “which data packets get to them first.” ISPs effectively “get to pick who wins and who loses” online sans a ban, he said. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who's sponsoring the CRA resolution in the Senate, tweeted Monday to promote his bid for senators to sign his petition to discharge the Senate Commerce Committee's jurisdiction over the measure, which would mean any senator could then make a motion to proceed to final vote. Only Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Elizabeth Warren., D-Mass., publicly said they have signed the petition, but Markey's effort is likely to be successful since the resolution has the support of 50 senators. At least 30 senators must sign a discharge petition for it to take effect.
Blackburn and other Republicans sought to illustrate what they viewed as widespread use of prioritization, including among edge providers. Even “if you define paid prioritization as simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are the basis of many business models online,” Blackburn said. House Digital Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, suggested IoT innovation would be curtailed “in a world without” the practice. Rysavy Research President Peter Rysavy responded that the emerging technology would become a “partial reality” but paid prioritization “would be essential” to ensuring maximum growth.
Reps. John Shimkus, R-Ill., and Gus Bilirakis, R-Florida, were among those who noted the importance of prioritization for specialized services like Aira Tech, which provides visual environmental information to people who are visually impaired. A partnership with AT&T lets Aira use dynamic traffic management to ensure its service encounters “low latency and robust connectivity,” said Aira Director-Public Policy and Strategic Alliance Paul Schroeder. Without that relationship, Aira would have trouble getting “instant video feedback,” he said. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, cited concerns about first responders not being able to have access to prioritized service.
House Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and other Democrats countered Republicans' praise of prioritization. “We want everyone to have a faster internet, not the chosen few who can afford to pay extra,” Pallone said. ISPs are arguing “that somehow allowing broadband providers to charge small companies extra for internet fast lanes is good for small business. This makes no sense and no one is buying it.” Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., questioned Rysavy and other witnesses about their support for the practice, saying “I haven't heard any of you clearly address why you think” it's “a good idea.” Eshoo wished she'd heard a “very clear” explanation of “why paid prioritization is a very good thing for anyone. And I haven't heard that.” Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif, countered Republicans' arguments about the effect on specialized services, saying the 2015 rules safeguarded hospitals' traffic management practices.