Slim Chances Seen for Proposed House Net Neutrality Working Group

“We're done on net neutrality” since HR-1644 “passed the House,” said House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., the bill's lead sponsor, just before Congress' weeklong Memorial Day recess. HR-1644 and Senate companion S-682 would reverse the FCC order rescinding 2015 net neutrality rules and restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077). It passed on an almost uniformly party-line vote in which no Democrats defected, though four didn't vote (see 1904100062). The Gottheimer-Peters proposal is “not anything I would worry about,” Doyle said.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., believes the Save the Internet Act would likely pass the Senate if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would “simply allow this bill … to be debated and voted on” in that chamber. McConnell pronounced the measure “dead on arrival” in the Senate (see 1904090045). Senators will “have to go home and tell their constituents, if they voted no on net neutrality, why they did,” Eshoo said Thursday at a Stanford Center for Internet & Society event. “All of these people that support it, they’ll weigh in on them. And those that vote ‘aye,’ then they should be showered with gratitude.”

The working group plan is unlikely to get support from Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California or other House Democratic leaders, either, since it already drew private ire of some leaders who saw passage of HR-1644 as an important part of the policy agenda for the party's first 100 days back in the chamber's majority (see 1903180068), lobbyists said. Leadership support for the group would be crucial because that would allow Democrats to draw on the majority's resources, including telecom-focused aides, to draft a bill, lobbyists said.

“Let's give the Democratic leadership a chance to look at [the working group] letter” and respond rather than “anticipate the hypotheticals,” said Internet Innovation Alliance honorary Chairman Rick Boucher. IIA opposes reinstating Title II as the legal basis for net neutrality and believes legislation needs to instead classify broadband as a Communications Act Title I service. The Save the Internet Act “is not going anywhere,” so “the initiative launched by these Democrats is timely and very welcome” in the push to reach a bipartisan compromise, said Boucher, former Democratic House Communications chairman. The net neutrality issue “takes all of the oxygen out of the room” and “raises its head” every time Capitol Hill tries to address another telecom policy issue.

“Nothing [the group] could come up with is going to be nearly as good” at addressing net neutrality as HR-1644, said Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy's Gigi Sohn, a backer of the bill. “My belief is a lot of the signatories didn't know what they were signing” on to support, since the proposal is effectively “a retreat” from the Democrats' strong support for HR-1644 less than two months ago. The Gottheimer-Peters letter only served to “give aid and comfort” to Republicans who aimed to torpedo the bill's chances in the Senate, Sohn said. She, like Gottheimer, used to work at the FCC under Democrats.

Leadership

The main obstacle is getting top House Democrats on board, many said.

House Democratic leaders are almost certainly going to be a “firm no” on allowing any party backing for a compromise working group, said Public Knowledge Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Phillip Berenbroick, a HR-1644 supporter: The proposal is “an unfortunate sideshow” that takes attention away from the “real question” of whether Senate GOP leadership will allow a vote on the Save the Internet Act. “I don't think what McConnell says one day has much bearing on what he does the next,” as shown by his recent change in position on allowing confirmation votes on Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year, Berenbroick said.

“I don't think [the working group plan] is going anywhere,” said New America's Open Technology Institute Senior Policy Counsel Josh Stager. It “doesn't sound like Gottheimer even tried to get much of a response” on it given House Commerce Republicans were the ones who released it and the lawmakers sent it to House leadership just days before the Memorial Day recess, he added. “The larger question is what would this working group be doing?” Stager said. “There already is a working group and it's called the House Commerce Committee. They already did their work” by securing House passage of HR-1644.

Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders appear to be “not exactly convinced” by the push for a bipartisan compromise, said American Action Forum Director-Technology and Innovation Policy Will Rinehart. This plan reveals an “interesting split” between the leaders and “ranking-and-file Democratic members who are far more willing” to reach a deal with Republicans. Rinehart noted similar bids for bipartisan Hill negotiation, such as the yearslong talks between then-Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., and then-ranking member Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Berenbroick and others said it's unlikely Democratic lawmakers will try to form the collaboration without the blessing of party leaders. “That would appear to be counterproductive to the caucus' position on the Save the Internet Act,” which had universal support from Democratic members, Berenbroick said. Democratic lawmakers “don't have the staffing” and other resources to craft a net neutrality compromise without the majority's resources, said one communications sector lobbyist who follows them. The coalition will want those resources rather than relying on GOP aides because they will want “Democrats doing the negotiations,” especially because the net neutrality issue “is so intricate, with a lot of landmines and traps,” the lobbyist said.

The Gottheimer-Peters proposal isn't the only recent net neutrality compromise bid. The Internet Society's Net Neutrality Experts Roundtable last week reported on principles for compromise net neutrality legislation, though ISOC noted it acted only as a “convener and facilitator” for the group's discussions. “Any legislation should make clear that no party, including edge providers, shall be permitted to intentionally block or throttle consumer access to any lawful content based on the [broadband internet access service (BIAS)] provider used by the consumer, subject to reasonable network management, nor should any party be permitted to block or throttle access to any lawful content that harms competition in the transmission of BIAS,” the report said. The group “also spent considerable time discussing which agency should be tasked with enforcing any net neutrality legislation” but “was unable to reach consensus” on whether it should be the FCC, FTC or a new agency.