IPI Calls Net Neutrality CRA Resolution Process 'Abuse'; ITIF Issues 'Bipartisan Compromise' Plan
Two groups that favor FCC rescission of 2015 net neutrality rules spoke out Monday against a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval aimed at reversing the order. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is expected to file a petition Wednesday to discharge…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
the resolution (Senate Joint Resolution-52) from Senate Commerce Committee jurisdiction, setting up a bid to force a floor vote (see 1804260030 and 1804300033). House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., is spearheading the measure in the House (House Joint Resolution-129). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation advocated Monday for “bipartisan compromise” legislation that mirrors elements of its earlier 2015 “grand bargain” proposal as a contrast to the CRA approach (see 1510290040). The Institute for Policy Innovation said the resolution “is an abuse of the CRA process.” It “is clear from the legislative history of the CRA that the intent of the law was to give Congress an opportunity to overturn ‘new rules,’ not to restore” rules as lawmakers intend with the net neutrality measure, IPI President Tom Giovanetti said. “Such misuse of the CRA would be contrary to the spirit of the law, because the FCC’s 2017 action was itself a review and repeal” of the 2015 rules. “It would be contrary to the letter of the law, in that the CRA can only be used to overturn rules, not orders," the group said: “Courts would likely find that the Order itself would survive a CRA challenge” but could overturn an accompanying transparency rule that supporters of the 2015 net neutrality rule back. “Instead of relying on near-impossible mechanisms (or risky political bets) to restore deeply flawed rules, policymakers should be negotiating in earnest to end the debate on net neutrality,” said ITIF Director-Telecom Policy Doug Brake. “Instead of focusing narrowly on net neutrality issues, expand the scope of legislation to include funding for broadband adoption and digital-literacy programs, while at the same time establishing baseline rules to protect and promote the open Internet.” It “is in both parties’ interest to end the national nightmare that is the net neutrality wars, particularly given only a small number of hardcore” advocates of Communications Act Title II-backed net neutrality rules “vociferously resist such a bipartisan legislative solution,” the proposal said.