Kate Forscey at Public Knowledge recently wrote “To paraphrase John Oliver, if you want to do something questionable, hide it in something boring.” A vote coming as a windstorm in House Majority Leader’s SCHEDULE: FRIDAY, APRIL 15TH when House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business —last votes expected no later than 3:00 p.m.— will be on H.R. 2666 the “No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act” (Subject to a Rule) Sponsor: Adam Kinzinger [IL-16th , Energy and Commerce Committee] written as “A BILL To Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband Internet access service.”
Last week Kate said “We pointed out a variety of options to mitigate the consequences of the broad sweeping language.” Ms. Forscey wrote:
We pointed out a variety of options to mitigate the consequences of the broad sweeping language. Consequences which we allowed were perhaps unintended.
It turns out we can now see they are very much intended. House Rules Committee just announced they will be bringing an amended version of the bill to the floor as soon as next week. Boiled down: the effect of this bill as it is currently written authorizes a variety of consumer rip-offs. If that is not what its authors intend, then it must be defeated or amended.
Committee on Energy and Commerce REPORT together with DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2666] on page 15 includes:
“Democratic dissenting views offer the minority’s explanation of its opposition to the passage of H.R. 2666—the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access (No Rate Regulation Act). Proponents claim this bill is merely an attempt to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) from using its 2015 reclassification of broadband Internet access service under Title II of the Communications Act to engage in rate regulation. Democratic members of the Committee have publicly stated our agreement with the intent behind the bill. We have noted, however, that as drafted and reported out of Committee, H.R. 2666 goes far beyond its stated goal.”
Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld cited [11]Daniel B. Kline, “Why Does Comcast Have More FCC Complaints Than AT&T, Verizon and TWC Put Together,” The Motley Fool (January 2, 2016) in his “Concerns With NRRBIAS Act” section of Feld’s testimony on H.R. 2666 stating:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service. This language gives no limit to what is meant by “regulate the rates.” The use of the even broader language “notwithstanding any other provision of law” lends itself to an interpretation that would include enforcement of the rules supposedly left untouched as indirectly “regulating” rates.
For example, thousands of consumers have complained that Comcast has consistently provided them with inaccurate information about their data consumption, billing them for broadband data they did not use.11 Would FCC investigation into these complaints count as “rate regulation” prohibited by the statute?
Previously in his testimony (p. 2), Feld raised these objections:
Public Knowledge cannot support the two broadband-related bills. For reasons I shall elaborate on below, we believe that the question of what statutory limits Congress should impose on the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) broadband authority should be addressed in a comprehensive manner – preferably in the context of a re-write of the Communications Act as a whole. In addition to this general objection, the proposed legislative language in H.R. 2666 raises specific concerns. While general discussion of “rate regulation” assumes traditional rate-of-return regulation as contemplated by Sections 203, 204 and 205 of the Communications Act, the broad language of H.R. 2666 would permit broadband providers to raise arguments against uncontroversial enforcement of traditional consumer protections, such as fraudulent billing practices. Arguments over the scope of the statutory prohibition could undermine efforts to deploy rural broadband by complicating the already difficult process of updating the FCC’s rules governing the Universal Service Fund.
If you have experienced what the FCC calls “Cramming” or trouble with truth in billing, device rental fees, and fraudulent, inaccurate, or contested charges, then you may appreciate even more Mr. Feld’s opposition to H.R. 2666 and my hope you will act by visiting, phoning or e-mailing your U.S. Representative before the Friday, April 15th vote with the message to oppose this bad legislation which will only further open our wallets to anti-consumer protection forces.