Nelson Sees 'Slim' Prospects for Small Business Broadband Deployment Act

Nelson’s biggest concern, he told us, is the bill’s “expansion to 250,000 customers that you don’t have to give all of the disclosures instead of current 100,000."

S-2283 would exempt ISPs with 250,000 or fewer customers from the FCC net neutrality order’s enhanced transparency requirements. The legislation originally would have exempted ISPs with 500,000 or fewer customers, but as expected (see 1606130036), Sens. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., offered a substitute amendment to change the number to 250,000, reflecting a compromise that House Republicans and Democrats reached in passing the companion HR-4596 in a 411-0 vote. Daines is the bill’s sponsor and worked with Manchin for months privately on the compromise. The FCC currently has a temporary exemption for ISPs with 100,000 or fewer, the number Nelson cited.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., also was involved in negotiations and succeeded at including an amendment to change the sunset period for the exemption. The House version exempts ISPs for five years but her amendment changed the exemption sunset to a period of three years. An aide to House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., the sponsor of HR-4596, didn’t comment on the modified sunset period.

Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., didn’t share Nelson’s outlook for the legislation. “It was expected,” Thune said in an interview about the Democratic concerns. “We did expect some pushback and we think we’ll be able to resolve those differences eventually on the floor.”

One additional unknown is whether any telecom legislation will be able to clear the Senate floor in an expedited fashion while the renomination of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is pending. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., placed a hold on a bipartisan spectrum bill this month and Democratic holds are rumored to be in the works for other telecom legislation (see 1606070063).

“While I respect the goals of this legislation, the bill, if passed, would mean that approximately three million more consumers -- for a total of nine million consumers -- will lose access to important information about how their broadband provider operates its network,” Nelson said in his opening statement. “All consumers, irrespective of the size of their broadband providers, deserve information about the fees associated with their service, along with how their monthly broadband usage can affect their rates.”

Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked to be recorded as opposing S-2283. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., cited concerns about consumers lacking “simple straightforward information” about business models and rising rates and long privacy agreements full of "gobbledygook.” She complained of fees privately hiked and doesn’t want “two standards for urban and rural customers,” she said. McCaskill wants to keep exploring the issue with Daines and Manchin, she added. “This is one area where this whole sector has really fallen down on the job.”

Daines told McCaskill the exemption involves “technical packet loss information, latency and so forth” and there’s “nothing here in terms of commercial transparency, the issue you brought up.” He touted the broad backing of the bill. “Not a single member of the House opposed the exemption,” Daines said. “The administration does not oppose this exemption.” He cited businesses required to invest in new equipment to provide the information required by the net neutrality order. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, wants the Commerce Committee to be “focusing on economic growth, job growth” and what he considers to be too much regulation The Daines bill is an important way to tackle issues that could hurt small firms, said Sullivan, a co-sponsor.

“When you have a 411-0 vote, there’s only so much leverage you have,” Manchin told colleagues concerned about the bill.

Thune, late in the markup, called S-2283 an “honest and reasonable compromise” and wants to work with Nelson’s concerns to “figure out a way to get to a point where we can move it through the Senate.”

New America Open Technology Institute counsel Josh Stager sided with Markey and Blumenthal. “Ultimately, this bill is a solution in search of a problem,” said Stager. “Small ISPs are already exempt from these rules through the end of the year and the FCC can grant an extension if necessary. The bill’s sponsors haven’t explained why congressional action is needed. They also haven’t demonstrated how being transparent with customers is a burden for any ISP.”

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association backs the overall bill but is “disappointed that the committee pulled back from the Daines-Manchin effort to mirror the House language,” said President Alex Phillips. “A three-year sunset on the exemption creates regulatory uncertainty that could inhibit small, rural ISPs from investing in their networks and creating rural jobs. We hope the Senate will come around to the House position.” NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield, Competitive Carriers Association President Steve Berry and American Cable Association President Matt Polka lauded the committee’s approval without complaining of the sunset period change.

Senate Commerce also cleared the bipartisan Seniors Fraud Prevention Act (S-1490) without contention. The bill would create an advisory office within the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau that would monitor the market for TV, Internet, telemarketing and robocall fraud targeting seniors. Its consumer education duties would include maintaining “a website to serve as a resource for information for seniors and families and caregivers of seniors regarding mail, television, Internet, telemarketing, robocall, and other identified fraud targeting seniors” and ensuring procedures for the receipt of such complaints.

Thune said Wednesday’s markup is the “first of two committee markups we’ll have this month,” with the agenda “not set” for the second. Earlier this month, June 29 was the tentative date circulating for the expected second markup (see 1606070051). Thune said the Kelsey Smith Act (S-2770) and the Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Act should be on deck for that markup. Other legislation under discussion for potential markup over the last month includes the Spectrum Relocation Fund Act (S-2211), the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act (S-827) and an unintroduced bill addressing the Lifeline program budget. Thune asked committee members to let him know about the desire to mark up any bills “before we break for our August state work period.”