House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., slammed FCC processes Monday, echoing recent concerns of Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly. “Commissioner O'Rielly’s call for increased transparency and better process at the commission could not be more timely,” Walden said in a statement. “The commission’s last few open meetings have been marred by bad process and insufficient sharing of information among the commissioners -- underscoring the need for reform.” He touted the FCC Process Reform Act (HR-3675), a bill that passed the House but has not moved in the Senate.

TVFreedom opposes the Local Choice legislation, which Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., circulated Friday (CD Aug 11 p12). The initial proposal said the legislation could end the problem of TV blackouts, and a senior Commerce aide told us Rockefeller and Thune “think this proposal could end some of the most troubling aspects of the retransmission consent system for consumers and should be seriously considered as part of the [Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act] reauthorization process.” NAB said Friday it opposes hitching the proposal to STELA. TVFreedom, a coalition of broadcast interests including NAB, attacked the proposal as well, dismissing it as a “last minute” effort. Local Choice “curiously targets America’s most-watched programming -- broadcast TV -- as the culprit for rising cable bills even though these channels collectively amount to a pittance on the price of a monthly pay-TV bill,” a TVFreedom spokesman said in a statement. “This approach fails to offer consumers real programming choices or serious economic relief, yet forces them to continue overpaying for rarely watched cable channels such as Spike TV and TruTV.” The American Television Alliance, a coalition of pay-TV companies and other groups like Public Knowledge that want to overhaul retrans rules, praised the legislation, calling it “a solid bipartisan compromise and a real win for consumers,” according to a statement it issued. “It would provide consumers with great choice and transparency and would end retrans blackouts once and for all.” Guggenheim Partners analyst Paul Gallant predicted the proposal faces an uphill battle but may have more long-term potential, in a research note he sent to investors. “If Republicans take the Senate this fall, Sen. Thune would chair the Commerce Committee,” Gallant said. “Should his LOCAL CHOICE proposal fail in 2014, we could well see Congress try to update the 1992 Cable Act -- including the retrans provisions -- starting in January 2015.” Gallant suspects the legislation would face obstacles due to the uncertainty it creates for broadcasters, how late in the STELA reauthorization it already is and the mixed reactions other stakeholders may have. “We anticipate that content companies (Time Warner, Disney, Fox, Viacom, Discovery) also would oppose the LOCAL CHOICE proposal because a positive public response to broadcast channel a la carte could lead to discussion of cable channel a la carte, which we assume content companies don’t want,” Gallant said.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., circulated a two-page fact sheet about legislation known as LOCAL CHOICE, capitalized but without saying if it stands for anything, according to industry officials. “LOCAL CHOICE gets rid of blackouts, makes sure that broadcasters are fairly paid, and puts viewers in control by giving them meaningful choice over their programming options and offering more opportunity to control the cost of their pay-TV subscriptions,” said the sheet describing the legislation. American Cable Association President Matthew Polka lauded the proposal. ACA “believes that Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Thune, acting in a bipartisan fashion on an important consumer welfare issue, deserve the highest praise for offering a legislative proposal designed to advance the public interest in the receipt of over-the-air local broadcast stations from pay-TV providers,” Polka said in a statement. “The approach taken by Sens. Rockefeller and Thune is to put consumers first. It will permanently remove consumers from retransmission consent disputes and provide consumers with more choice in the selection of TV station programming than they have seen in decades.” Polka called the proposal “bold and necessary” and hopes it becomes law this year. The proposal “is very pro-consumer and would mark a huge improvement for all parties compared to today’s broken retransmission consent system,” said New America Foundation Wireless Future Project Director Michael Calabrese by email. “We would prefer to see Congress simply eliminate the must carry rules for commercial broadcast programming, but for now the Rockefeller/Thune concept is an elegant compromise that will at least stop broadcasters from holding viewers hostage during blackouts for undeserved retransmission payments.” Rockefeller and Thune have been collaborating on Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization legislation and plan to unveil and consider it in September, they've said. NAB opposed attaching such legislation to STELA. It’s “a significant rewrite of the Communications Act,” NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton said in a statement. “Given the shortness of time between now and the end of the Congressional session, we question whether there is sufficient time for key committees in Congress to give this proposal the thorough review that is warranted.” The proposal “ends some of the most troubling aspects of the present retransmission consent system for consumers,” the fact sheet said. “Importantly, (1) it ends blackouts associated with contentious retransmission consent negotiations; (2) it requires every local broadcast TV station to be made available to [multichannel video programming distributors] MVPD subscribers; (3) it guarantees viewers have transparency on retransmission prices; and (4) it gives viewers more control over their MVPD subscription. At the same time, it preserves fair compensation for broadcasters -- in fact, it allows them to freely, fairly, and transparently value their programming.” Rockefeller’s and Thune’s offices did not immediately offer further comment on the proposal.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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.