The House Judiciary Committee will mark up the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, HR-3086, at 10 a.m. Wednesday in 2141 Rayburn, said a committee news release (http://1.usa.gov/1kHa87B) Monday. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is the bill’s lead co-sponsor (CD Sept 13 p18). The legislation has another 213 House co-sponsors. The bill would “make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce,” according to a Congressional Research Service summary (http://1.usa.gov/1q5cbrJ). “NetChoice absolutely supports a permanent ITFA, and not just to prevent new taxes on every smartphone and household internet access bill,” said Executive Director Steve DelBianco by email. The bill “also prohibits discriminatory taxes on our online activities, like a tax on free email or video streaming,” he said. HR-3086 “would at the very least prevent targeted taxes on Internet access, and disproportionate sales or other taxes on e-commerce,” said Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist and ATR Digital Liberty project Executive Director Katie McAuliffe in a letter (http://bit.ly/1q5nlN9) Monday urging the bill’s passage. The letter was sent to Goodlatte, House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and House Commerce Committee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

CEA hailed Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for introducing the Wireless Innovation Act (http://1.usa.gov/1p1SEa4) as a “forward-looking approach” that will help ensure “our commercial spectrum supply can meet consumer demand.” S-2473 would reallocate 200 MHz of government spectrum for commercial use (CD June 12 p15). “Federal regulation and policies governing the allocation of spectrum must reflect our current, widespread use of this invaluable resource,” said CEA President Gary Shapiro in a news release Thursday (http://bit.ly/1vazLFQ). “By reallocating government spectrum for commercial use, establishing an auction pipeline with deadlines and incentivizing federal agencies to reallocate spectrum, this legislation works to advance a 21st-century spectrum policy that helps us find new ways to meet our ever-growing demand for wireless access.” CTIA and PCIA are among other groups that also have hailed the bill’s introduction.

Comments began coming in to Congress Friday on competition policy. House Republicans asked stakeholders to weigh in by that deadline, in a white paper issued last month as part of their effort to overhaul the Communications Act. The committee hasn’t publicly released any comments, but some stakeholders made theirs available. Competition “should be based on the existence of market power, not tied to the use of a particular technology, protocol, business model, or class of service provider,” Sprint told Congress. One key principle is “nondiscriminatory interconnection and access to bottleneck facilities at just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions,” Sprint said. “The current regulatory paradigm” of the act “has significant value” for small- to mid-sized cable companies, despite regular review and revision required of the 1992 Cable Act, said the American Cable Association. “The Commission needs to consider the aggregate effect of its regulations, which can inhibit competition, on small firms.” ACA warned against reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecom service and the uncertainty that would cause. Broadband for America also slammed that possibility and warned against regulations designed for monopoly (http://bit.ly/1qc4hiC). The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance urged Congress to be careful in considering what competition really is, suggesting it shouldn’t be based on number of service providers alone. Take into account level and quality of service, it recommended. The FCC needs to account for “facilities-based, cross-platform intermodal competition, enabled by the rise of digital and Internet Protocol-based services,” said the Free State Foundation (http://bit.ly/1sciwFW), calling for the end of the “indeterminate” public interest standard. There should be “carefully delineated authority to address interconnection practices that might pose significant consumer harm if the agency finds that marketplace competition is not adequately protecting consumers,” Free State said of a potential exception.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., filed cloture Thursday on the motion to proceed to consider the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015 (HR-4660). That House version of the legislation became embroiled in various debates over Internet governance and reduced funding to NTIA, given concerns from House Republicans (CD June 2 p8). The item is expected to be considered this week, with the Senate back in session Monday.

The House Judiciary Antirust Subcommittee plans a net neutrality hearing Friday at 9 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn, as expected (CD June 11 p16), said the committee in a news release. It said Friday that witnesses will include Robert McDowell, a former Republican FCC commissioner and now visiting fellow with the Hudson Institute; Bruce Owen, a senior fellow with the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research; FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright; and Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up S-2454, the Satellite Television Access Reauthorization Act of 2014, next Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in 226 Dirksen. Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced the clean, two-page STELA bill on Tuesday. It’s the only piece of legislation Judiciary will consider at this executive business meeting, alongside several nominations.

The Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committee heads discussed on Thursday cooperating on a single surveillance overhaul bill, speaking at an executive session of the Judiciary Committee. The Senate has been considering HR-3361, the modified USA Freedom Act, which the House passed earlier this year. Senate Intelligence leadership is open to trying “to work from the House bill,” said Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of Judiciary. Intelligence ranking member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has “concerns” with the USA Freedom Act, but “I think we can take care of them,” Feinstein said. Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who sponsored the original USA Freedom Act in the Senate, said there are “some problems” with the House-passed version of the legislation but he’s “committed to moving forward with surveillance reform legislation in the Senate,” he said. The bill would have to “effectively” ban bulk collection of metadata, he said. Feinstein outlined a need to work closely with Leahy, with one surveillance bill on the floor rather than two. Feinstein noted the significance of moving metadata storage away from the government and to companies, a system in which the “telecoms would receive immunity.”

The Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee scheduled its expected oversight hearing on AT&T’s proposed DirecTV purchase for June 24, it said in a notice Thursday. It will be at 2:30 p.m. in 226 Dirksen. The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee plans its oversight hearing on the deal the morning of that same day, with AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and DirecTV CEO Michael White to testify at that first hearing. Witnesses weren’t announced for the Senate hearing.

Sixty House Republicans attacked the FCC for its planned move to pre-empt state laws restricting municipal broadband networks. House Commerce Committee Vice Chairwoman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., led the letter, along with Reps. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, and Mike Pompeo, R-Kan. “Unfortunately, it appears the Commission has determined it will move forward without Congress’ approval and despite states’ determination to protect their taxpayers,” the Republicans said, calling state governments more attentive to the needs of state residents. The FCC would set “a dangerous precedent” and violate “state sovereignty” by preempting the laws, they said. The letter included eight questions and a request for answers by June 30. They asked the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler whether, if the courts struck down the action, it would weaken the agency’s credibility and the level of deference the agency must pay local lawmakers. “How does the FCC believe [Communications Act] Section 706 authority trumps the states’ rights in the Constitution?” they asked, also wondering if the FCC would “bailout” municipalities or states upon municipal broadband failure. Other signers included Communications Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, and Reps. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif. But the FCC is, without prejudgment, proceeding in a fact-based manner, potentially looking at conducting a case-by-case evaluation of petitions that municipalities would file asking the agency to pre-empt state laws, a spokesman told us. The January U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision upheld the Section 706 authority that would allow for this process, with the dissent explicitly naming such state laws as a barrier to infrastructure investment, the spokesman said.

The Competitive Carriers Association late Wednesday praised Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for laying out plans earlier in the day for spectrum legislation (CD June 12 p15). “I completely agree that we must find ways to free up as much spectrum as possible by working collaboratively with federal users to support competitive carriers, and we must maximize the use of this limited resource,” CCA President Steve Berry said. “Having a pipeline of future spectrum auctions will only help open up secondary markets for competitive carriers and will provide additional opportunities for carriers to gain access to this much needed resource.” CTIA and PCIA also backed Rubio’s agenda.