Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., is no longer running for re-election this November, his campaign said Thursday. Speculation had surrounded Walsh’s run since reports of a thesis plagiarism scandal surfaced last month, and Walsh’s team confirmed to Montana media Thursday that he’s dropping out of the race. Walsh assumed his Senate seat earlier this year to replace Max Baucus and is a member of the Communications Subcommittee.

Net neutrality advocates have been too generous in how they interpret a net neutrality letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Information Technology and Innovation Foundation telecom analyst Doug Brake in an op-ed Wednesday, posted at ITIF’s The Innovation Files. The central debate concerns which statutory authority the FCC should rely on in creating new net neutrality rules -- Communications Act Section 706 or Title II. “Being the Majority Leader in the Senate, Reid’s voice carries some weight,” Brake said (http://bit.ly/1r2gW4r). “It is understandable that Title II radicals would want to read his letter in the best light for their quixotic cause, but a plain reading of his words make[s] clear this is no win for Title II.” Reid last month wrote to progressive groups offering his support for “any Open Internet Rules” that ban “priority arrangements that harm consumers” (CD July 31 p11). He did not explicitly refer to the authority rules should rely on, but Demand Progress and some others told us they believed Reid was sanctioning reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service, as some net neutrality proponents have urged. Brake compared all the recent spin on the issue to the 1950s Japanese film Rashomon, which features multiple points of view telling the same story. “If anything, Reid is giving [FCC Chairman Tom] Wheeler the cover for moving forward with section 706 as the jurisdictional hook for open Internet rules,” Brake said. “Explicitly declining to support Title II regulations but instead supporting any net neutrality rules seems much more like ‘cover’ for relying on Section 706 than anything else.”

Senate Democrats asked the Patent and Trademark Office to more strictly examine patent applications and boost public access to patents online, in a letter sent Wednesday to the PTO (http://1.usa.gov/1oHTMSc). Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall, both D-N.M., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Mark Warner, D-Va., signed on. “One of the best ways to address abusive legal actions that stem from overly broad assertions of low-quality patents is to ensure patents are high-quality from the start,” they wrote. A broad bill to revamp the patent litigation process passed the House, but is indefinitely stalled in the Senate (CD May 23 p3). A more piecemeal bill to curb vague patent infringement demand letters moved to the full House Commerce Committee over Democratic opposition (CD July 11 p14). The senators said PTO “possesses additional tools” to thwart companies alleging patent infringement on “low-quality, vague patents.” It can update its patent examiner standards to favor clear terms and documentation in patent applications, they said. It can also “expand the use of crowdsourcing and data analysis to identify” which patents “give rise to ambiguity and produce litigation risk,” said the letter. PTO Deputy Director Michelle Lee, currently running the agency while the director position is vacant, recently told the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet that the office was working to update examiner guidelines (CD July 31 p9).

Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., is “working diligently” to preserve a strong net neutrality rule that keeps “the hallmark of the Internet -- by treating all data and content equally,” she said Wednesday at a Facebook small-business event in Sacramento, Calif., according to her prepared remarks. “This concept would preserve the ability of all small businesses to compete on a level playing field to sell their goods and services online.” She praised the power of social media marketing. It can “increase exposure and traffic to your company, help you develop loyal fans, improve your search ranking and improve sales,” Matsui said.

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told a California crowd Tuesday that she'll battle for net neutrality rules. “As we meet here today to discuss the merits and methods of networking your businesses with the global marketplace, I want you to know that I'm fighting in Washington to ensure that the rug isn’t pulled out from under you,” Eshoo said at the Facebook Fit Small Business Workshop in Menlo Park, according to prepared remarks. “To compete and grow your small business, the free and open Internet must remain just that -- free and open.” She praised the role of small businesses and the “serious mojo” of Silicon Valley in that regard. “It’s hard to believe that it was just a few short years ago that Facebook was a small business,” Eshoo said. “But thanks in part to the power of a free and open Internet, Facebook has thrived.” The Internet is the “backbone of what will help your business flourish” and “knocks down barriers that have traditionally made it difficult to compete,” she said.

Daniel Lyons, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy, pushed back against the “rhetoric” of House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., in attacking usage-based pricing last week (CD July 30 p13). Eshoo had focused on the preliminary findings of a GAO study she requested and criticized the data caps practice, associating it with net neutrality violations. “It is worthwhile to review what the GAO actually said, and to set the record straight on the issue of usage-based pricing,” Lyons said in an AEI blog post Monday (http://bit.ly/1otNqpt). “There is nothing inherently anticompetitive about usage-based broadband pricing. Rather, it is one of many potential pricing strategies by which a broadband provider can distribute its fixed costs across its customer base.” The GAO preliminary findings offered no definitive look at the practice either way, he said, parsing the results.

President Barack Obama signed a cellphone unlocking bill into law Friday, at a signing ceremony for the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (S-517) in the Oval Office, according to his schedule. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel tweeted that the bill was signed shortly after the scheduled event was to have begun and said it “proves the power of public petition.” The House and Senate approved the final version of the legislation in July. “The most important part of this joint effort is that it will have a real impact,” said a White House blog post Friday (http://1.usa.gov/1sazX6H), written by bill author Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients. “As long as their phone is compatible and they have complied with their contracts, consumers will now be able to enjoy the freedom of taking their mobile service -- and a phone they already own -- to the carrier that best fits their needs.” They said this is the first law directly emanating from a We the People petition to the White House. CTIA applauded the signing. “Even though the vast majority of Americans enjoy upgrading to new devices once their contract terms are fulfilled, we recognize that some consumers may want to unlock their devices to move to another carrier,” CTIA Vice President-Government Affairs Jot Carpenter said in a statement. “Like the voluntary commitment CTIA’s carriers entered into last December, this bill enables that process. Users should keep in mind unlocked does not necessarily mean interoperable, as carrier platforms and spectrum holdings vary.” Public Knowledge staff attorney Laura Moy also praised the signing: “As a result, competition in the wireless market will improve,” she said in a statement. “In addition, there will be more free and low-cost secondhand phones available on the secondary market. This is also an important first step toward reforming the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the overreaching copyright law that made it difficult for consumers to unlock their phones in the first place.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, lampooned the Marketplace Fairness Act (HR-684) as merely a tool to “hold hostage” a vote on the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (ITFFA) (S-1431), which would permanently ban taxes on Internet access, on the Senate floor Thursday (http://bit.ly/1m5Y6Xc). The MFA would allow states to tax remote sellers with revenue exceeding $1 million. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked the Senate to consider S-2735 (http://1.usa.gov/1AI37ii), which would extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes (due to expire Nov. 1) another two months through 2014 (http://1.usa.gov/1qQ5DRw) (CD Aug 1 p9). Wyden is the original sponsor of ITFFA, which has 52 Senate co-sponsors (http://1.usa.gov/1jRXTeE). Cruz and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., objected to S-2735. The two-month extension would allow the Internet access tax moratorium to expire in a “lame duck” session of Congress, said Cruz: “We shouldn’t be holding the Internet hostage to the rapacious desire of tax collectors.” TechAmerica, state tech councils and industry groups expressed support for S-1431, in a Thursday letter (http://bit.ly/WRIL7e) to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The FCC’s sports blackout rule is “obsolete,” said Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y. The FCC will “vote finally at the end of this year” on the issue, but the National Football League has the final say, Higgins said on an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators slated for telecast Saturday. He was one of three House lawmakers pressing for changes to communications law in separate interviews. Congress has “leverage,” however, with Higgins’ legislation (HR-3452) removing the NFL’s antitrust exemption for blackouts. “The economics all point to the elimination of the blackout rule,” Higgins said. Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, criticized the set-top box integration ban and said he hopes the Senate includes a provision repealing it in its version of legislation reauthorizing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, as the House did in July. He also slammed the possibility of Title II reclassification of broadband: “All of a sudden innovation’s going to slow up,” Latta mused of the scenario. “We don’t want that to happen.” Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., made the case for less regulation in various instances, such as in the video space and at the FCC. He emphasized that traditional TV service is different from watching a Netflix movie on a phone. “The FCC will ultimately have to side with the consumers who do not want regulation of the Internet,” Gardner said of net neutrality. The proposed overhaul of the Communications Act “needs to be done,” Gardner added, stressing a focus on less regulation.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., introduced a bill Thursday “to prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service and commercial mobile data service through the Lifeline program,” according to the longer title for HR-5376. The bill text is not yet online nor has Scott issued a news release on the legislation. It was referred to the Commerce Committee, where Scott is not a member. A spokeswoman for Scott was unable to provide the text or further details by our deadline.