LAS VEGAS -- Tech companies -- from Facebook to Mozilla and Google to Microsoft -- universally support strong net neutrality rules, including reclassifying broadband as a Title II Communications Act service, said Chris Riley, Mozilla senior policy engineer. The company made a hybrid net neutrality proposal last year but later supported reclassification (see 1411050042). “A lot of big companies” agree “half measures” under Title I and “soft rules” wouldn't adequately protect the Internet, Riley said Monday.

LAS VEGAS -- Tech companies -- from Facebook to Mozilla and Google to Microsoft -- universally support strong net neutrality rules, including reclassifying broadband as a Title II Communications Act service, said Chris Riley, Mozilla senior policy engineer. The company made a hybrid net neutrality proposal last year but later supported reclassification (see 1411050042). “A lot of big companies” agree “half measures” under Title I and “soft rules” wouldn't adequately protect the Internet, Riley said Monday.

The 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015 is an opportunity to examine how “the FCC, and communications law and policy … should be reformed in ways that are consistent with rule of law norms [laid out in that historic document],” Free State Foundation President Randolph May wrote in a blog post Friday. “And there will be plenty of such reform and rule of law-oriented work on which to focus,” he wrote. May said Chairman Tom Wheeler “appears intent, especially after President [Barack] Obama’s intervention, on forcing adoption of new public utility-like net neutrality mandates applicable to Internet service providers -- once again relying on questionable legal authority.” It’s “likely,” May wrote, “the agency will abuse its merger review authority by imposing, or inducing merger applicants to ‘volunteer,’ conditions unrelated to any competitive concerns directly raised by the proposed transactions.” It’s also “likely the FCC will continue to try to micromanage competition in ways that favor certain parties over others without sufficient regard to reliance or proprietary interests or due process concerns,” May wrote. Wheeler also “increasingly has evidenced a tendency to diminish his colleagues’ ability to participate in FCC decision-making processes, for example, by directing the agency staff to act on ‘delegated authority’ on significant matters or acting alone,” May wrote. The agency didn't respond. May also cited a recently published book by Columbia University Law professor Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?. May said he doesn't go as far as Hamburger’s conclusion “that most, if not all, of the actions of our administrative agencies are unlawful,” but Hamburger’s arguments should “impact the way we think about the lawfulness of various FCC actions and the way the courts consider these actions on review.”

The FCC is seeing some of its deepest divisions ever under Chairman Tom Wheeler, said longtime FCC observers and former agency officials. By one count, in the 14 months Wheeler has been chairman there have been 11 party line votes at meetings, which is more than during the previous 106 months before he took office.

The FCC is seeing some of its deepest divisions ever under Chairman Tom Wheeler, said longtime FCC observers and former agency officials. By one count, in the 14 months Wheeler has been chairman there have been 11 party line votes at meetings, which is more than during the previous 106 months before he took office.

The FCC can't legally reclassify mobile broadband as a Title II service, Verizon said in a letter filed at the FCC last week, just before the start of the two-day federal Christmas holiday. CTIA made similar arguments in a white paper also released last week (see 1412230048). Verizon brought the initial challenge that led to parts of the 2010 net neutrality rules being scrapped by a federal court in January and the current FCC push to rewrite the rules (see 1401150062).

The FCC can't legally reclassify mobile broadband as a Title II service, Verizon said in a letter filed at the FCC last week, just before the start of the two-day federal Christmas holiday. CTIA made similar arguments in a white paper also released last week (see 1412230048). Verizon brought the initial challenge that led to parts of the 2010 net neutrality rules being scrapped by a federal court in January and the current FCC push to rewrite the rules (see 1401150062).

House Republicans may change how major legislation is scored in the 114th Congress ahead of possible big-ticket telecom items slated for consideration for coming sessions. GOP lawmakers released a draft version Tuesday of a resolution that would establish rules for the next Congress. Cost estimates for legislation deemed major would have to “incorporate macroeconomic effects,” it said: “An estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.” Lawmakers in the next Congress have said they want to overhaul the 1996 Telecom Act and may also seek to address net neutrality through legislation. Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released several documents Tuesday defending macroeconomic scoring, a concept that was controversial when raised in the past. “The rule defines ‘major legislation’ as any revenue or direct-spending bill that causes a gross increase or decrease in revenues, outlays, or deficits of more than 0.25 percent of GDP in any year covered by the budget resolution,” Ryan said in one section. “The chair of the House Budget Committee and, for purely revenue legislation, the highest-ranking House member on the Joint Committee on Taxation (either chair or vice chair) can designate legislation as 'major' for purposes of this rule if a bill is likely to have a significant economic impact, but does not meet the numerical threshold.” Based on 2014 data, the threshold would have been $43 billion, likely to grow over time, Ryan said. It does not apply to appropriations bills, and in the 113th Congress, only three pieces of legislation would have been subject: the Jobs for America Act (HR-4); the Permanent Bonus Depreciation Act (HR-4718), which addressed a tax issue that the telecom and media industry heavily lobbied on; and the Tax Increase Prevention Act (HR-5771). Macroeconomic scoring will “give members of Congress a better understanding of how their decisions affect the economy,” Ryan said in a document backing such scoring.

House Republicans may change how major legislation is scored in the 114th Congress ahead of possible big-ticket telecom items slated for consideration for coming sessions. GOP lawmakers released a draft version Tuesday of a resolution that would establish rules for the next Congress. Cost estimates for legislation deemed major would have to “incorporate macroeconomic effects,” it said: “An estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.” Lawmakers in the next Congress have said they want to overhaul the 1996 Telecom Act and may also seek to address net neutrality through legislation. Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released several documents Tuesday defending macroeconomic scoring, a concept that was controversial when raised in the past. “The rule defines ‘major legislation’ as any revenue or direct-spending bill that causes a gross increase or decrease in revenues, outlays, or deficits of more than 0.25 percent of GDP in any year covered by the budget resolution,” Ryan said in one section. “The chair of the House Budget Committee and, for purely revenue legislation, the highest-ranking House member on the Joint Committee on Taxation (either chair or vice chair) can designate legislation as 'major' for purposes of this rule if a bill is likely to have a significant economic impact, but does not meet the numerical threshold.” Based on 2014 data, the threshold would have been $43 billion, likely to grow over time, Ryan said. It does not apply to appropriations bills, and in the 113th Congress, only three pieces of legislation would have been subject: the Jobs for America Act (HR-4); the Permanent Bonus Depreciation Act (HR-4718), which addressed a tax issue that the telecom and media industry heavily lobbied on; and the Tax Increase Prevention Act (HR-5771). Macroeconomic scoring will “give members of Congress a better understanding of how their decisions affect the economy,” Ryan said in a document backing such scoring.

In the Dec. 24 issue of the CBP Customs Bulletin (Vol. 48, No. 51), CBP published notices that propose to modify rulings and similar treatment of DR-CAFTA and knit to shape garments. (here). CBP also said it is in the process of updating agency regulation in 19 CFR Section 102.21 that spell out the country of origin provisions.