Democrats Introduce Bill to Restore FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules

The three primary authors of the legislation are House Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman and House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, both California Democrats, and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The bill’s impetus is the Jan. 14 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Verizon v. FCC decision, which struck down the agency’s 2010 net neutrality order.

The bill itself is two pages long and would “provide that the rules of the Federal Communications Commission relating to preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices shall be restored to effect until the date when the Commission takes final action in the proceedings on such rules that were remanded to the Commission by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,” the text said (http://bit.ly/1gHjSD9).

Last week, President Barack Obama affirmed that he remains “a strong supporter of net neutrality” and wants such rules back at the FCC (CD Feb 3 p21). The issue has become hotly debated in Congress, with Republicans slamming the rules as unnecessary and hurting experimentation. That divide was apparent in statements from members of Congress following the January court decision. Members of Republican leadership of the House Commerce Committee all oppose net neutrality rules.

"This proposal will certainly be a part of the discussion as we work toward a #CommActUpdate,” House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., said in a statement. “However, we remain vigorously opposed to any attempt to install the FCC as the traffic cop of the Internet. Innovation, job creation, and consumer choice have all flourished without so-called Net Neutrality rules, and a departure from that framework would certainly put American leadership in communications and technology in jeopardy.”

The Democrats’ legislation has seven co-sponsors in addition to Waxman and Eshoo in the House and five co-sponsors in addition to Markey in the Senate -- all Democrats. In the House, they are Frank Pallone, N.J.; Doris Matsui, Calif.; Mike Doyle, Pa.; Zoe Lofgren, Calif.; Jan Schakowsky, Ill.; Michael Capuano, Mass.; and Suzan DelBene, Wash. Senate cosponsors are Richard Blumenthal, Conn.; Al Franken, Minn.; Tom Udall, N.M.; Ron Wyden, Ore.; and Jeff Merkley, Ore. Following the court ruling, several Democrats had slammed the decision but said they were waiting on the agency to act. Some Democrats took solace in the court affirming the FCC’s Communications Act Section 706 authority over broadband.

"The FCC can and must quickly exercise the authorities the D.C. Circuit recognized to reinstate the Open Internet rules” but the bill “makes clear that consumers and innovators will be protected in the interim,” Waxman said (http://1.usa.gov/1aX8osS). Eshoo called “the free and open Internet” a “pillar of our country’s growing economy, unparalleled technological innovation, and even global social movements,” that she will fight to maintain. Franken said the bill is “an important part” of his pressure that the FCC take “swift action” in restoring its ability to preserve “open and equal access to the Internet.” Matsui called the bill “a stepping stone to making” a free and open Internet a reality.

"I share with Senator Markey and Representatives Waxman and Eshoo a commitment to a free and open Internet,” Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said in a statement. “Last month, after the court’s ruling on net neutrality, I urged the FCC to consider all viable options to make sure that consumers and competition are protected. At its core, the FCC’s fundamental responsibility is the regulation of communications networks for the public interest and consumers everywhere."

Congressional politics of advancing the bill may be complicated but the bill should send a strong message to the FCC, a Hill aide told us. The aide described fast turnaround in pulling together co-sponsors, citing meetings late last week.

Free Press lauded the bill but used its introduction to press the FCC to reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier service -- “the only way the FCC can implement these critical protections,” said Associate Policy Director Chancellor Williams in a statement. Public Knowledge called the bill “a strong statement of support for open Internet rules,” in a statement from Vice President-Government Affairs Chris Lewis. “The bill ensures that consumers and businesses are protected during this period of uncertainty between the Court’s decision and the FCC’s action in response to the court’s remand,” Lewis said. Consumers Union also praised the bill and urged the FCC to reclassify broadband as telecom.

TechFreedom head Berin Szoka slammed the bill, calling net neutrality regulations “unnecessary” and said it fails “to protect the Internet from the real threat: the FCC’s vast new powers to regulate the Internet,” recognized by the recent court decision in Section 706. “This interpretation opened the Pandora’s Box of Internet regulation by both the FCC and state regulators. This bill would do nothing to close that box, leaving the FCC free to require anything from copyright filtering to micromanagement of smart home devices.” Szoka said the bill had no chance of passing Congress in any case but could have at least begun dialog on Section 706.

The bill “does not alter the FCC’s authorities themselves or dictate the new rules the FCC must adopt,” the House Commerce Democratic staff said in a one-page fact sheet about the legislation. “The Open Internet Preservation Act sends a strong message to the FCC that Congress expects the Agency to have robust open Internet protections on the books.”