For an event that took place nearly a month after the FCC’s “final” vote on net neutrality, the issue seems not to have quieted down in the least. A fiery speech from Congresswoman Martha Blackburn promised a “Congressional hurricane” in response to the FCC’s perceived ultra vires decision to regulate where Congress has refused to give it authority, a view supported by House and Senate counsel who spoke later in the day.
There seemed to be agreement from Republicans and Democrats that undoing the Open Internet Report and Order was the Republicans’ top priority on the tech agenda. Blackburn has already introduced a bill, with at least one Democratic co-sponsor, to make clear (clearer?) that the FCC has no authority to regulate any Internet activity. And everyone agreed that the Republicans would move forward with a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, and that the resolution would pass the House and probably the Senate. (Such resolutions are filibuster-proof, so Senate Republicans would need only a few Democrats.)
House Energy and Commerce senior counsel Neil Fried had mentioned the CRA resolution at CES a few weeks ago. But now it’s been upgraded from a possibility to a likelihood.
The disagreement comes over whether President Obama would veto the resolution. Speculating in a vacuum, as many participants did, doesn’t really help. The answer will ultimately depend on what other horse trading is in progress at the time. (See: tax cuts, health care, etc.) Much as those of us who follow net neutrality may think it’s the center of the political universe, the reality is that it could easily become a bargaining chip.
That’s especially so given that almost no one was happy with the rules as they were finally approved. Among advocates, opponents, and even among the five FCC Commissioners, only Chairman Genachowski had any enthusiasm for Order. (He may be the only enthusiast, full stop. On a panel on which I participated on the second day, advocates for net neutrality were tepid in their support of the Order or its prospects in court. I think tepid is being generous.)
And everyone agreed that there would be legal challenges based on the FCC’s dubious statutory authority. Amy Schatz of the Wall Street Journal said she knew of several lawyers in town shopping for friendly courts, and that pro-regulation advocates may themselves challenge the rule. Timing could be important, or not.
Beyond net neutrality, which seems likely to dominate the tech agenda for the first six months of the new Congress, bi-partisan words were flung over the need to resolve the imminent (arrived?) “spectrum crisis,” and to reform the bloated and creaky Universal Service Fund. These, it’s worth remembering, were two of the top priorities from last year’s National Broadband Plan, which sadly disappeared into the memory hole soon after publication.
Other possible agenda items I heard over the course of the two day event, but much farther down the list: revival of COICA (giving DHS new powers to seize domains used for trademark and copyright violations), privacy, cloud computing, cybersecurity, ECPA reform, retransmission, inter-carrier compensation, and Comcast/NBC merger. I missed a few panels, so I’m sure there was more.
What are the chances any of these conversations will actually generate new law? Anybody?