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.

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.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Thursday he’s “extremely optimistic” that the Senate will pass its own long-delayed version of cybersecurity information sharing legislation this year. The Senate Intelligence Committee is now finalizing its information sharing bill, named in a discussion draft as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which tracks with many aspects of the House-passed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (HR-624). Rogers said at an American Enterprise Institute event that he met with Senate Intelligence leaders Wednesday. “That was one of the most productive meetings I thought we had this year on this issue,” he said. “I am very, very encouraged by this meeting yesterday.” Former NSA Director Keith Alexander said Congress needs to pass cybersecurity legislation that improves information sharing between the government and private sector. That legislation should also include liability protections for companies acting on government-supplied information, Alexander said. “We need to push that through,” he said.

Two more House members signed on as co-sponsors to the Local Radio Freedom Act (H. Con. Res. 16), giving the measure 224 co-sponsors in the House, said an NAB news release Thursday (http://bit.ly/1oYp5GD). The resolution has 15 co-sponsors in the Senate, it said. Reps. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., are the most recent co-sponsors, it said. The resolution would oppose “'any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge’ on local broadcast radio stations,” said the release.

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.

Police should need a warrant to acquire cellphone location data from a service provider, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (http://bit.ly/SRkbR8). “The exposure of the cell site location information can convert what would otherwise be a private event into a public one,” said the ruling. “When one’s whereabouts are not public, then one may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those whereabouts.” The decision is a boon to those arguing for an expectation of privacy regarding electronic communications, American Civil Liberties Union privacy and technology lawyer Nathan Freed Wessler told us. Wessler argued the case before the 11th Circuit. “It bolsters the case for Congress to adopt legislation requiring a warrant for electronic location tracking by law enforcement,” he said. Location tracking has been a recent issue on the Hill -- Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., recently held a hearing on his Location Privacy Protection Act (CD June 5 p12), and other lawmakers like Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, have introduced bills (HR-983 and HR-1312) to limit commercial and governmental collection and access to location data. “I think this ruling will help spur legislative reform,” Wessler said. These bills “will both help police by setting clear rules and safeguard American’s privacy by requiring a warrant."

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.

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.

Three top House Democrats want the Communications Subcommittee to hold a hearing on industry consolidation, focusing on Comcast’s proposed purchase of Time Warner Cable, AT&T’s proposed purchased of DirecTV and the possibility of a SoftBank/T-Mobile deal. “If approved, these mergers could have a lasting impact on the wireless and broadband marketplace as well as how video programming is produced, distributed, and consumed across multiple platforms, including broadband-delivered video services,” said Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., in a letter to Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. (http://1.usa.gov/1q1xEEe). “The Communications and Technology Subcommittee with its oversight jurisdiction over the media and communications sector has a responsibility to ensure these proposals meet the public interest test and truly benefit American consumers.” A GOP aide has previously stressed to us that Walden prefers to watch these deals and let the expert agencies review the transactions, only intervening with a hearing if there are any problematic issues.