Amendment attempts abounded Tuesday on the draft legislation of the House Communications Subcommittee’s Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (http://1.usa.gov/1rrPHlS), though most amendments failed to make it into the draft bill that cleared the panel on a voice vote. Democrats succeeded at modifying provisions of the controversial set-top box integration ban, which demands cable operators use CableCARDs instead of built-in security in set-top boxes, in the one bipartisan amendment put to a vote and attached to the draft.
House Communications Subcommittee Democrats refrained from backing draft legislation of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, reacting to a draft STELA updated text that subcommittee Republicans released last week and that earned support from both U.S. DBS companies, NAB and NCTA. Two major provisions have proven thorny, however, as witnesses and members stressed at a subcommittee STELA hearing Wednesday: The draft bill’s integration ban provision and language that would limit FCC actions on broadcaster sharing agreements until the agency completes its quadrennial review.
The FCC’s E-rate NPRM netted more than 1,500 comments and ex parte filings offering suggestions; now the Wireline Bureau wants more “focused comment,” it said in a public notice Thursday (http://fcc.us/1mZPkiX). Comments are due April 7 in docket 13-184 on how best to meet the agency’s proposed goals for the E-rate program. “Based on the extensive input the Commission has received, it appears that meeting the Commission’s proposed goals for the E-rate program will require that, in the near term, the program focus on providing the support necessary to ensure schools and libraries can afford high-speed connectivity to and within schools and libraries, even as the Commission develops a long-term approach that allows applicants to scale up capacity while driving down costs,” the bureau said. The bureau is seeking comments on three specific areas: (1) How best to focus E-rate funds on high-capacity broadband, especially high-speed Wi-Fi and internal connections; (2) how the agency might phase out support for traditional voice services in order to focus more funding on broadband; and (3) whether the commission should authorize “demonstration projects or experiments” to help the agency “test new, innovative ways to maximize cost-effective purchasing in the E-rate program.” The bureau asked for comments on a pilot program proposed by the American Library Association “aimed at temporarily increasing the discount level for targeted libraries, prioritizing based on public-private partnerships, and providing technical assistance in order to ‘catalyze innovation’ in advancing library services.” Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, who now represents the Urban Libraries Council, thinks the bureau is taking a “very innovative” approach to funding. Hundt suggests libraries measure the bandwidth per user at peak hours and “specifically suggest very efficient mechanisms to raise the bandwidth per user at peak hours.” It’s important to test Wi-Fi connectivity throughout the building, and determining whether slow bandwidth is due to a wall, a bad router or the need for more fiber, he said. “You don’t have to do it for all 9,000 systems or all 100,000 buildings; you do it for a statistically significant sample,” he said. Libraries should also “suggest model administrative practices” such as model contracts, model bidding and model applications, he said. “Ensuring that our nation’s schools and libraries have access to high-speed, high-capacity broadband connections is a national priority,” said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., in a statement. “I am pleased that the FCC has released a Public Notice today charting the next course on the path to modernize the E-Rate program."
Two House members announced the creation of a spectrum caucus Thursday. Reps. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and Doris Matsui, D-Calif., will be co-chairs. They have headed the House Communications Subcommittee’s spectrum working group and introduced spectrum legislation together before. Matsui said it will be an “important mechanism for our colleagues and congressional staff to engage on the spectrum policies, both licensed and unlicensed, facing our economy.” CTIA Vice President-Government Affairs Jot Carpenter lauded the move in a statement. Matsui and Guthrie “know that spectrum isn’t just what drives the wireless industry, it’s increasingly what drives the economy,” he said.
The “inconsistent patchwork” of state telehealth laws “hinders the natural deployment of telehealth,” said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., at an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event Wednesday. Matsui and Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, introduced the Telehealth Modernization Act in December (http://1.usa.gov/1mCyJy4) in the hopes of bringing clarity by creating a federal definition of telehealth. “By establishing a workable federal definition of federal health, I'm hopeful states will look to this legislation for guidance in developing clear and consistent telehealth principles that benefit the nation as a whole,” Johnson said. Telehealth has received increased attention, with consumer advocates expressing concern about the practice’s privacy protections and about what they call a lack of government oversight. Matsui and Johnson’s bill would not address either issue, but Johnson stressed “privacy needs to be central” to any telehealth policy that states develop. “We've got hackers who hack into our databases; what’s to keep intruders from hacking into a telehealth session?” he said. But the first step is laying out a telehealth definition and principles “using a highest common denominator approach,” Matsui said. In the last year, more than 40 states have considered varying types of telehealth legislation, she said, creating market confusion that hinders telehealth for minorities, seniors and the disabled, which telehealth benefits. “Telehealth is, and will continue to be, invaluable in helping to resolve some of our nation’s most pressing health disparities,” she said.
Chairman Tom Wheeler made clear Wednesday the FCC would take what is essentially a middle ground following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s Jan. 14 decision (CD Jan 15 p1) largely rejecting the agency’s 2010 net neutrality rules. The FCC won’t appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Instead, Wheeler said he would propose net neutrality rules aimed at enforcing and enhancing the order’s transparency rule, upheld by the court, and also preventing blocking and assuring nondiscrimination. Wheeler indicated if all else fails, the FCC could still reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier service as a last resort. Wheeler’s approach accomplishes some key objectives of net neutrality while giving him wiggle room on how to proceed, former FCC officials said in interviews Wednesday.
The White House wants comments on a House spectrum bill that proposes to incent federal spectrum holders to give up their spectrum. The administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a request for information about the legislation and other spectrum matters, said a Friday filing in the Federal Register (http://1.usa.gov/1c6ZbfJ). HR-3674 “would expand the allowable usage of auction proceeds shared with agencies who voluntarily relinquish spectrum to include appropriations accounts reduced by sequestration, up to the level of reduction induced by sequestration,” the administration said. “OSTP welcomes comments on the approach proposed in this legislation and any modifications that could improve its efficacy.” Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., one of the bill’s authors, said she was pleased that the administration is seeking additional public comments on incentives for federal spectrum holders. The bipartisan legislation was announced in December and easily cleared the House Commerce Committee in a voice vote. Responses to OSTP are due within 30 days of the notice’s publication. The administration asked several questions that it says are to inform the development of spectrum policy. “With respect to a spectrum fund, what are alternative means to fund agency planning, research, and development?” it asked. “If the funding is to come from subsequent auctions of the spectrum band in question, how would agencies assess the potential risk of not being reimbursed for planning costs given that the plans may not be approved or implemented as expected?” It also seeks information about spectrum property rights and coordination among agencies.
Top Democrats in both chambers of Congress introduced net neutrality legislation Monday, as expected, to restore the court-blocked FCC net neutrality rules. The Open Internet Preservation Act, HR-3982 in the House, has several original co-sponsors, the bill’s authors said. Several lobbyists representing varying industries -- some in favor of the net neutrality regulations and some not -- told us last week that any bill involving net neutrality would have little chance to make it through Congress due to the intense partisanship surrounding the issue (CD Feb 3 p5).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s net neutrality decision loomed large as the House Communications Subcommittee held its first hearing on updating the Communications Act 24 hours after the decision’s delivery. The Wednesday hearing focused on former FCC chairmen: Dick Wiley, Reed Hundt, Michael Powell and Michael Copps. It quickly turned into scrutiny of the Tuesday Verizon v. FCC court decision, which vacated the agency’s 2010 rules (CD Jan 15 p1), and what the FCC’s role over broadband should be.
For the second time in four years, the FCC failed to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that it had authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband ISPs. The anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules in the agency’s December 2010 net neutrality order were indistinguishable from prohibited common carrier restrictions, said the decision (http://1.usa.gov/1m0UQPi). Chairman Tom Wheeler’s FCC has already faced renewed calls to reclassify broadband Internet as a Title II service.