Several Amendments to Save the Internet Act Seen Getting Floor Attention

The House Rules Committee appears likely to clear at least some of 17 amendments to the Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill for floor consideration this week, said communications sector lobbyists and officials in interviews. A final vote on HR-1644 is expected Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning.

The White House Office of Management and Budget threw cold water on the HR-1644 push Monday afternoon, saying President Donald Trump's advisers “would recommend that he veto it” if passed by both chambers. HR-1644 would “undermine” improvements to broadband speeds since the FCC rescinded the 2015 rules, OMB said. The bill would “instead return to the heavy-handed regulatory approach of the previous administration and undo the FCC’s action that restored the [FTC's] authority to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair, deceptive, or anti-competitive acts or practices committed by broadband providers.”

The House is expected to pass HR-1644 on a largely party-line vote on the strength of Democrats' support, though a handful of defections on both sides remains possible. HR-1644 and Senate companion S-682 would add a new title to the Communications Act that reverses the FCC order rescinding its 2015 net neutrality rules and restores reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077). HR-1644 supporters and opponents cited the House Commerce Committee's 30-22 party-line vote to advance the bill as a likely sign a similar result will happen on the floor (see 1904040063). It had at least 207 co-sponsors Monday, nearly enough members to “pass the bill outright,” one lobbyist noted.

Republicans are expected to oppose HR-1644 (see 1904040063), with several lobbyists noting a Sunday blog post by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as an opening salvo for the coming debate. The bill would mean the FCC “would be in charge of setting prices, sanctioning new investments, and dictating how all Americans use the Internet,” McCarthy said. “This sort of centralized control and overregulation would stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and ultimately put the United States at a global disadvantage.”

Amendments by Democrats are the most likely to get Rules Committee approval, though one GOP-sought proposal could get clearance and at least one from a Democrat is likely to be rejected, lobbyists said. House Rules was set to have met later Monday.

GOP Opposition

Republicans filed seven amendments, all but one of which they unsuccessfully proposed last week during the House Commerce markup (see 1904030077).

House Commerce ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., proposed language to bar the FCC from using HR-1644 to “direct, control, or seize any portion of investment, contracts, or infrastructure relating to the Internet” or “control the contents … of communications on the Internet.” It would prevent the agency from using HR-1644 to “modify, impair, supersede, or authorize the modification, impairment, or supersession” of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Bob Latta, R-Ohio, refiled an amendment to require the FCC within three days of enactment a report to the House and Senate Commerce committees listing "the 27 provisions” of Title II “and the over 700 rules and regulations” the FCC forbore from in the 2015 rules.

Latta also refiled the text of Walden's Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. The bill, first filed in 2017, would exempt ISPs with 250,000 subscribers or fewer from the 2015 rules. House Commerce last week voted to include a more-limited small ISP exemption in HR-1644 that would cover only providers with 100,000 or fewer subscribers for a period of one year. Latta's amendment would sunset the exemption after five years.

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, resurrected an amendment for the FCC to “initiate a proceeding to examine the influence of all entities on the virtuous circle of the internet ecosystem and protecting the access of consumers.” Walden withdrew the language during the House Commerce markup. It reflects Republicans' concerns about net neutrality proposals not applying equally to edge providers, an issue Walden recently cited in his push to use the net neutrality debate to also re-examine online platforms’ content liability protections under Communications Decency Act Section 230 (see 1903080032).

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., again proposed language from his No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act. That bill passed the House in 2016 but was opposed by Barack Obama's administration and many Capitol Hill Democrats (see 1604120071). Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., brought back an amendment to bar the FCC from using Title II to regulate 5G “and related emerging technologies.”

One GOP-led amendment, from Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, has some chance of clearing House Rules, lobbyists said. The proposal would make it “the sense of Congress that the provision of misleading or inaccurate caller identification information,” commonly called “caller ID spoofing,” is “unacceptable and that the prohibitions against caller ID spoofing should be strengthened.” There's bipartisan opposition to spoofing and related illegal robocall practices, which could bolster its prospects. But it's unrelated to HR-1644's underlying intent, lobbyists said.

Democrats' Amendments

One Democratic proposal, from Rep. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, appears likely to be rejected by House Rules, lobbyists said. It calls for GAO to report within a year of enactment on edge providers “that have data transported across the network of a rural broadband provider in high cost areas.” Public schools, libraries, hospital, individual citizens and “any small business concern” would be exempted.

Horn's amendment essentially mirrors and expands on the Burgess amendment, which House Commerce likely would have rejected had Walden not withdrawn it during the markup, lobbyists said. House Rules is most likely to summarily reject the Horn amendment because it was filed after Monday morning's deadline, lobbyists said.

Most other Democratic amendments seek GAO or FCC reports on net neutrality or broadband issues. Proposals from Reps. Katie Porter and Maxine Waters, both of California, appear to be the most germane to HR-1644. Porter seeks an FCC report within one year on “all enforcement actions taken by” the FCC under the legislation, “including the amount of each fine imposed or settlement agreed to, the actions taken by the Commission to collect such fines and settlements, and the amounts of such fines and settlements collected.” Waters seeks a GAO report within a year on the importance of the 2015 rules on “vulnerable communities,” including “ethnic and racial minorities,” “socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,” people in rural areas, “individuals with disabilities” and the elderly.

Several proposals would seek to improve FCC broadband coverage data collection practices and its process for building the annual Telecom Act Section 706 broadband deployment report. Congress has repeatedly criticized the FCC's broadband mapping practices (see 1904030067). The Senate Commerce Committee plans a Wednesday hearing on broadband mapping (see 1904030068).

Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va., proposed the FCC report within 30 days on its plan for evaluating and addressing “problems with the collection” of Form 477 data on broadband coverage. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., wants GAO to report within one year on “accuracy and granularity” of the FCC's broadband coverage maps and make recommendations on how the agency can “produce more accurate, reliable, and granular maps.” A late amendment from Rep, David Trone, D-Md., would bar the FCC from issuing a Communications Act Section 706 report “based on broadband deployment data that the Commission knows to be inaccurate” and would require it to “use its best efforts to accurately detail” coverage data and “correct inaccuracies in statements made by the Commission prior to a final report's release.

Amendments from Reps. Anthony Brindisi and Antonio Delgado, both D-N.Y.; Sharice Davids, D-Kan.; and Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., address other broadband deployment and competition issues. Delgado wants GAO to assess the “benefits to consumers of broadband internet access service being offered on a standalone basis” by ISPs and make “recommendations for legislation to increase the availability of standalone” broadband, especially in rural areas. Brindisi seeks a GAO report on “ways the Federal Government can promote the buildout of commercial infrastructure” for broadband, especially “to rural areas and areas without access to high-speed broadband.”

Davids proposes a GAO study of FCC efforts to “assess competition” in the broadband ISP marketplace, including recommendations on how the agency can “better assess competition” and any steps it can “take to better increase competition” among ISPs. Stanton's amendment would require the FCC to within three months “engage and obtain feedback” from tribal stakeholders and ISPs on the “effectiveness of the Commission's obligation to consult with Indian Tribes” in a bid to determine whether the FCC needs to “clarify” its tribal engagement statement and ensure affordable broadband access on tribal lands.