Communications & Technology

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) requested all communications between the agency and state broadband offices related to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Initial Proposals. The letter comes amid concerns that NTIA is unlawfully pressuring states to rate regulate low-cost broadband plans required by the BEAD Program and following a May 15, 2024, hearing at which Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson committed to being more transparent about BEAD funding decision making.  KEY EXCERPT :  “Based on anecdotal evidence from different entities involved in the process, it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law. Several Members of Congress have directly raised to you that the NTIA, through its review of initial proposals, is unlawfully regulating the rate of broadband through BEAD’s low-cost service option in direct conflict with the IIJA, which states: ‘Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.’9 During Senate floor debate on the IIJA, Members of Congress agreed that this language meant that ‘no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by the NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA as part of the state broadband grant program.’” “States have reported that the NTIA is directing them to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so. This undoubtedly constitutes rate regulation by the NTIA. Indeed, one state publicly posted the NTIA’s feedback that the agency would not approve their initial proposal without ’an exact price or formula’ for the state’s low-cost option. Without visibility into the approval process, Congress in unable to determine how widespread this practice is. When asked about this at oversight hearings, your responses have failed to provide clarity.”  BACKGROUND:  Congress appropriated an unprecedented $42.45 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the NTIA to administer the BEAD program.   The program was intended to ensure that all Americans, specifically those in unserved or underserved areas, have access to broadband.   The NTIA is responsible for managing and distributing this money to the states and territories.  The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from rate regulation.  The IIJA established a process for how states receive money from the NTIA for this program.   First, each of the 56 individual states and territories (state entities) were required to submit an Initial Proposal explaining their proposed process for awarding the funds.   The NTIA was then tasked with reviewing and approving each individual states entities’ proposal, after which funds would be allocated to the state to award.   Some states report that the NTIA is conditioning approval of their Initial Proposals on setting a specific price for low-cost broadband plans despite the prohibition on rate regulation.  Despite every state entity having submitted their initial proposals by the December 27, 2023, deadline, the NTIA has only approved 16 initial proposals as of the date of this letter.   Due to the opaque nature of the NTIA’s review and approval process, the Committee lacks the information necessary to assess whether NTIA is pressuring states to rate regulate and to understand why so few state entities initial proposals have been approved to move forward.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Assistant Secretary Davidson. 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “The Fiscal Year 2025 Federal Communications Commission Agency Budget.”  “This is the third time we’ve had the FCC before us this Congress, and I am pleased that we are maintaining a cadence of consistent oversight hearings. “I want to start by offering the Committee’s condolences to Chairwoman Rosenworcel on the passing of her father. We hope that your memories of him have helped you cope during this difficult time. Although we disagree on policy, we can come together to share each other’s grief.” BIDEN’S BROADBAND TAKEOVER “The last time the FCC was before us, we discussed its role in President Biden’s broadband takeover and its overregulation of the communications industry. “Unfortunately, the agency has only continued down this path. “Earlier this year, the FCC voted to reclassify broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act. “Under the guise of ‘net neutrality,' this action expands the FCC’s authority over broadband, allowing the agency to impose burdensome regulations that will make it harder for providers to deploy broadband. “As I have stated before, this action is absolutely unnecessary. In 2017, after the FCC reversed the Obama FCC’s reclassification of broadband, the Democrats told the world that we would get the internet one-word-at-a-time and that the internet as we knew it would end. “As we all know, none of those fears came true. “I asked my office to keep track of how many of my constituents called in after the repeal to say they lost their internet—and I received zero calls. “Instead, broadband networks thrived because of increased investment by private companies that has led to higher speeds and lower prices. “Indeed, our networks survived the ultimate stress test when they withstood increased usage as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, when almost every aspect of everyday life went online.” BURDENSOME REGULATIONS LIMIT INTERNET ACCESS “Contrast what happened in the United States to what happened in Europe, where regulators had to ask websites like YouTube and Netflix to throttle and degrade service to withstand the increased demand. “At our last hearing, Chairwoman Rosenworcel attributed our success to states enacting their own net neutrality policies but that couldn’t be further from the truth. “The internet continued to function normally between the repeal and states enacting their laws, only a few states acted, and none enacted anything close to the utility-style regulations that the FCC repealed and is now reimposing. “The true source of success for our networks was the light-touch regulatory framework that the FCC just moved away from. “This action is just one of many taken by this FCC to hinder United States leadership in technology. The effect of these decisions is that deploying broadband and providing service will be more challenging for providers. “These actions could not come at a worse time. Congress provided $42.5 billion to close the digital divide. The Commission is undermining that effort by imposing regulations that will make it more expensive and more burdensome to deploy, when they should be doing the opposite. “I urge the FCC to reverse course and restore the light-touch regulatory environment that allowed broadband investment to thrive. “I have many questions about the direction the Commission is taking, and I thank the Commissioners for being here today. I look forward to discussing these and other important issues before the Commission.”

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing titled “The Fiscal Year 2025 Federal Communications Commission Agency Budget.”  FCC REGULATIONS WILL HARM DEPLOYMENT “Bridging the digital divide is one of this Committee’s top priorities, and it is the FCC’s statutory responsibility to assist us in this effort. “But unfortunately, the FCC has been failing in its mission. “The Commission’s recent action to reclassify broadband Internet access as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act, as well as the agency’s broad rules on digital discrimination, have undermined our efforts to ensure every American has access to broadband. “This could not have come at a worse time. “We are on the verge of closing the digital divide. “Congress has dedicated billions of dollars to achieve this effort, including $42 billion dollars for Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. “Those efforts are undercut when the Commission then places heavy-handed regulations and micromanages providers, making it harder to encourage participation in these programs, to deploy and operate new networks, and get more people connected." HISTORY HAS PROVEN TITLE II IS UNNECESSARY “As has already been proven once, Title II is a solution in search of a problem. “It’s a century old framework designed to address telephone monopolies, whereas today’s broadband marketplace is incredibly competitive. “These regulations will hurt consumers most, resulting in higher prices and slower internet speeds. “The FCC has failed to learn from previous efforts and has no legitimate justification for these heavy-handed regulations. “The talking points that these regulations protect consumers from harmful ISP practices are not rooted in fact and have already been disproven once by the incredible performance of our networks, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The facts are that speeds are up, investment in broadband networks is up, and prices for consumers are down. “The fast lanes, blocking, and throttling of traffic that Democrats warned about never transpired. “Our light-touch regulatory environment works and turning away from this success with unnecessary regulations is the wrong action.” UNLAWFUL ACTIONS BY THIS FCC “Reclassifying broadband under Title II is not only bad policy, it is also unlawful. “As the Republicans on both this Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee wrote to the Commission before its decision, the FCC has no authority to reclassify broadband. “That is Congress’ job, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed. “The FCC doesn't get to just claim something is necessary for American national security in order to do whatever they want. “That is for Congress to decide, as it has in numerous instances recently with things like our TikTok legislation, establishing the rip-and-replace program, and passing the Secure Equipment Act. “The decision on how to regulate broadband can have significant economic and political consequences, and requires the FCC have clear authorization from Congress in order to act. “When it comes to Title II, we have given the Commission no such authority. “This is not the first time this FCC has exceeded their authority. “Last December, the agency approved rules on data breach notifications that mirror the rules that Congress disapproved of in 2017 through the Congressional Review Act procedures. “The CRA forbids the FCC from enacting rules that are 'substantially the same' as those Congress rejected. “And now the FCC is circulating an order that would regulate the use of artificial intelligence in political ads—a task that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the commission, and which drew condemnation from the Federal Election Commission, the independent agency who does hold that authority. “This pattern of the FCC abusing its authority and ignoring Congressional direction is just another example of the Biden Administration’s efforts to assert more federal control over the American people’s lives. “This must end, and I look forward to the courts stepping in to overturn these unlawful power grabs. “This agency is pursuing a partisan agenda that ignores Congress and fails to solve the actual problems impacting Americans like illegal robocalls, or permitting reform to help deploy broadband faster, or additional ways to secure our networks from the threats posed by our adversaries. “Today’s hearing presents an opportunity to hold the FCC accountable for its actions. “I look forward to our discussion today.” 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) requested all communications between the agency and state broadband offices related to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Initial Proposals. The letter comes amid concerns that NTIA is unlawfully pressuring states to rate regulate low-cost broadband plans required by the BEAD Program and following a May 15, 2024, hearing at which Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson committed to being more transparent about BEAD funding decision making.  KEY EXCERPT :  “Based on anecdotal evidence from different entities involved in the process, it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law. Several Members of Congress have directly raised to you that the NTIA, through its review of initial proposals, is unlawfully regulating the rate of broadband through BEAD’s low-cost service option in direct conflict with the IIJA, which states: ‘Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.’9 During Senate floor debate on the IIJA, Members of Congress agreed that this language meant that ‘no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by the NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA as part of the state broadband grant program.’” “States have reported that the NTIA is directing them to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so. This undoubtedly constitutes rate regulation by the NTIA. Indeed, one state publicly posted the NTIA’s feedback that the agency would not approve their initial proposal without ’an exact price or formula’ for the state’s low-cost option. Without visibility into the approval process, Congress in unable to determine how widespread this practice is. When asked about this at oversight hearings, your responses have failed to provide clarity.”  BACKGROUND:  Congress appropriated an unprecedented $42.45 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the NTIA to administer the BEAD program.   The program was intended to ensure that all Americans, specifically those in unserved or underserved areas, have access to broadband.   The NTIA is responsible for managing and distributing this money to the states and territories.  The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from rate regulation.  The IIJA established a process for how states receive money from the NTIA for this program.   First, each of the 56 individual states and territories (state entities) were required to submit an Initial Proposal explaining their proposed process for awarding the funds.   The NTIA was then tasked with reviewing and approving each individual states entities’ proposal, after which funds would be allocated to the state to award.   Some states report that the NTIA is conditioning approval of their Initial Proposals on setting a specific price for low-cost broadband plans despite the prohibition on rate regulation.  Despite every state entity having submitted their initial proposals by the December 27, 2023, deadline, the NTIA has only approved 16 initial proposals as of the date of this letter.   Due to the opaque nature of the NTIA’s review and approval process, the Committee lacks the information necessary to assess whether NTIA is pressuring states to rate regulate and to understand why so few state entities initial proposals have been approved to move forward.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Assistant Secretary Davidson. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) wrote to NPR CEO Katherine Maher regarding reports of political and ideological bias at the taxpayer-funded public radio organization. In addition to requesting answers to questions, the letter requests Ms. Maher appear before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for a hearing on May 8, 2024. "The Committee has concerns about the direction in which NPR may be headed under past and present leadership. As a taxpayer funded, public radio organization, NPR should focus on fair and objective news reporting that both considers and reflects the views of the larger U.S. population and not just a niche audience," the Chairs wrote.   They continued , "We also find it disconcerting that NPR’s coverage of major news in recent years has been so polarized as to preclude any need to uncover the truth. These have included news stories on matters of national security and importance, such as the Mueller report, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the COVID-19 origins investigation. On each of these issues, NPR has been accused of approaching its news reporting with an extreme left-leaning lens." “In light of the recent, disturbing revelations about National Public Radio (NPR) and its leadership, I’ve directed Chair McMorris Rodgers and the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct an investigation of NPR and determine what actions should be taken to hold the organization accountable for its ideological bias and contempt for facts. The American people support the free press but will not be made to fund a left-leaning political agenda with taxpayer funds.” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) regarding the effort. CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Letter argues agency lacks legal authority to reinstate burdensome rules that will hurt consumers Washington, D.C. – U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) led a bicameral coalition of their committee colleagues in calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reverse course and abandon its so-called “net neutrality” draft order—an illegal power grab that would expose the broadband industry to an oppressive regulatory regime under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC is set to vote on the draft order on Thursday. The members argue that the FCC’s draft order ignores the text of the Communications Act of 1934, which explicitly precludes the FCC from treating broadband as a public utility. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine confirms that the only body that can authorize public utility regulation of broadband is Congress. Resurrecting this failed Obama-era policy, which will inevitably be struck down by the courts, is a waste of time and re sources and will punish American consumers by choking off investment, innovation, and competition. In a letter to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the members write: “Congress’s decision to treat broadband Internet access as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, was a deliberate policy choice. Congress recognized that ‘[t]he Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation,’ and accordingly decreed that it ‘is the policy of the United States... to promote the continued development of the internet and other interactive computer services... [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’   “Your proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service does the exact opposite. It would give the Commission largely unfettered power to impose (and allow states to impose) rate regulation, tariffing requirements, unbundling obligations, entry and exit regulation, and taxation of broadband—the antithesis of leaving broadband ‘unfettered’ by regulation as the law requires. Congress has had many opportunities to give the FCC such power, yet it has never done so in any of its ample legislative enactments regarding broadband over the past two decades. Rather, legislators have repeatedly considered but ultimately rejected efforts to replace the longstanding light-touch framework with common carrier regulation. And for good reason: Title II will inflict significant damage on consumers by chilling investment and innovation.   “Finally, recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court confirms that the Commission has no power to impose Title II on the broadband industry. As the Commission’s record demonstrates, the question of whether broadband should be subject to public utility regulation is an issue of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ such that the Commission must identify ‘clear authorization from Congress’ to justify such a decision. Our review of the relevant statutory provisions leaves no doubt that, far from possessing the type of ‘clear’ statutory authority required under Supreme Court precedent, the Commission lacks any authority to subject broadband services to common-carrier regulation.” The full list of Senators joining Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Cruz in sending the letter include: Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (Re-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.). Also signing the letter were Reps. Bob Latta (OH-5), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Brett Guthrie (KY-2), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Richard Hudson (NC-9), Tim Walberg (MI-5), Buddy Carter (GA-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Gary Palmer (AL-6), Neal Dunn (FL-2), John Curtis (UT-3), Debbie Lesko (AZ-8), Greg Pence (IN-6), Dan Crenshaw (TX-2), John Joyce (PA-13), Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-large), Randy Weber (TX-14), Rick Allen (GA-12), Troy Balderson (OH-12), Russ Fulcher (ID-1), August Pfluger (TX-11), Diana Harshbarger (TN-1), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-1), Kat Cammack (FL-3), Jay Obernolte (CA-23), and John James (MI-10). The full text of the letter is available HERE .