House Internet Governance Bill Reignites Net Neutrality Fight

Subcommittee members met for opening statements on legislation to codify U.S. policy regarding Internet governance. The three-page bill aimed to clarify that it is the “policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet,” according to a revised draft (http://1.usa.gov/10FeUsK). The committee plans to mark up the legislation Thursday beginning at 2:15 p.m. in Rayburn 2123.

The bill echoes language in House and Senate resolutions passed last year opposing the revised International Telecommunication Regulations adopted at the World Conference on International Telecommunications. The non-binding resolutions sought to preserve “the multi-stakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived” (CD Dec 6 p16). Earlier this year House lawmakers said the U.S. must redouble its efforts to combat any further restrictions on the Internet (CD Feb 6 p9). The international community will again take up the debate over Internet regulations this year when the ITU hosts the World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum, the World Summit on the Information Society Forum, and the Internet Governance Forum.

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., said the Internet “is too important to the world to be run by governments,” in his opening remarks (http://1.usa.gov/1544OZs). Therefore lawmakers must “walk the walk” by taking last year’s resolution “defending a global Internet free from government control” and making it official U.S. policy, he said. “By elevating the legislation to the official policy of the United States instead of just a resolution urging the U.S. delegation to oppose a particular treaty proposal, Congress will demonstrate its commitment to Internet freedom and push back on those nations that might subvert the Internet for their own purposes.”

House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., described the bill as “an important step in showing our nation’s resolve” that will “send an important signal to the international community,” according to his prepared remarks (http://1.usa.gov/10Mn4kn). “If we really meant what we said last year, there’s no reason not to enshrine it in law.”

House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he could not support the bill, which he called a “backdoor attempt to undermine the FCC’s open Internet rules.” Waxman said majority members had previously “rebuffed” Democrats who urged them to revise the language of the bill and insert a “simple savings clause.” It’s an “overly broad bill” Waxman said, and urged his Republican colleagues to reconsider the legislation in order to “avoid moving forward on a partisan basis.”

Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said she opposed the bill due to its broad definition of “government control,” which she said could “unintentionally impact ongoing or future agency litigation, or undermine Administration flexibility in conducting foreign policy,” in her opening remarks: “One diplomat suggested that the use of this term might actually undermine existing Internet governance institutions such as ICANN because of its close relationship with the U.S. government. Foreign countries frequently cite the close coordination between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce as an example of U.S. ‘control’ over the Internet.” Eshoo said she planned to offer an undisclosed number of amendments “aimed at addressing the concerns raised by our expert agencies.”

Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., voiced her “strong opposition” to the bill and urged colleagues to reject it, according to her opening remarks. “This bill has nothing to do with ITU, but is about questioning the FCC’s net neutrality rules and authority to implement [the] IP transition,” she said. “By changing a sense of congress resolution into an official policy statement of the United States, this bill will have many unintended consequences on domestic telecom policy, including undermining the laudable efforts of the FCC to transition and reform the Universal Service Fund from telephone service to broadband, among others,” she said. “The bill is about rehashing the debates of the past. We all know that each time net neutrality comes up it takes the oxygen out of our subcommittee.”

The bill, as currently written, would “have widespread negative impact on U.S. domestic and foreign policy,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., who urged Walden to amend it in a way that can pass on a bipartisan basis, according to his opening remarks. “This draft language could significantly affect the FCC’s regulatory authority, the State Department’s ability to conduct diplomacy, and the Department of Justice’s ability to pursue criminals,” he said.

Democrats previously said they were concerned the bill could have unintended effects on U.S. Internet policy and efforts to address intellectual property theft, cybersecurity and privacy, among other potential issues, according to a minority memo released before the meeting. Though the bill’s language closely resembles the language of last year’s resolution, adoption of the legislation would “create a statutory directive regarding Internet governance,” the memo said. In particular the uncertainty of the legislation’s definition of government control could undermine the FCC’s open Internet rules and the agency’s ability to manage the IP transition, it said. Other unintended consequences include potential complications with existing multi-stakeholder institutions like ICANN, and other international negotiations, the memo said.

Computer and Communications Industry Association CEO Ed Black said the group was concerned about the “broad” and “undefined” language of the legislation, in a letter sent to Republican and Democratic leaders on the panel. He said the bill “may be vulnerable to misuse and misinterpretation in the domestic context, and potentially counterproductive to our united front and constructive approach in international debates.” Such legislation “is unnecessary for strong continued American support of the traditional multi-stakeholder model for global Internet governance and the rejection of inter-governmental Internet regulations,” the letter said.

The Center for Democracy and Technology and the New America Foundation urged lawmakers to reject the bill, in a joint news release before Wednesday’s meeting. “The bill’s broad language about a ‘global Internet free from government control’ could inadvertently weaken the existing legal and regulatory framework that protects users’ rights,” the groups said. Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld said House Republicans are trying to “score cheap domestic policy points,” in a blog post Wednesday (http://bit.ly/153usxA). “It looks like some folks want to hijack what should be a show of unity to promote their own partisan domestic agenda,” he said. Feld circulated a letter this week urging groups to oppose the bill or amend it to make it clear that nothing in legislation “in any way effects [sic] domestic policy or authority.” Google Vice President-Public Policy and Government Relations Susan Molinari said the company was “glad” House lawmakers are seeking to address the threat posed by international attempts to regulate the Internet, in a separate blog post (http://bit.ly/ZmZMz6). “We look forward to supporting policy makers’ efforts to ensure the web keeps fueling economic growth, innovation, and the vibrant exchange of information,” she wrote.

AT&T supported the legislation as a means to “maintain the resounding success of the multi-stakeholder governance model for the global Internet,” said a statement from Executive Vice President-Federal Relations Tim McKone. “For the Internet to continue to prosper, it is essential that the current multi-stakeholder model for the governance of the global Internet is protected,” he said. “We look forward to working with the committee, members of Congress and the administration to preserve and promote the values of openness and opportunity, free of government control, for the global Internet.”

The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) said lawmakers need to seek a “narrowly-tailored” approach that maintains the authority of the FCC to “ensure that the benefits of the efficient flow of information among networks and affordable Internet access can reach all Americans,” according to a letter sent to subcommittee leaders from CCA President Steven Berry. “Any policy positions supported by Congress must be careful not to undermine, whether intentionally or inadvertently, FCC authority affirming interconnection obligations and fostering competition,” he wrote.