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.

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.”

A Senate vote on the Internet Tax Freedom Forever Act (S-1431), which would make permanent the ban on Internet access taxes, isn’t yet a “political reality,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman and ITFFA original sponsor Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in prepared remarks (http://1.usa.gov/1nX8zdc) on the Senate floor Thursday. Wyden recommended a temporary moratorium on Internet access taxes through the end of 2014 “while we work out the issues raised by those who believe that allowing localities to collect taxes across the country is more important than a ban on discriminatory taxation,” referring to a portion of the Marketplace and Internet Tax Fairness Act. MITFA (S-2609), introduced by Senate Finance Committee member Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., combines the principles of the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA) (HR-684), which would let states tax remote sellers with annual revenue exceeding $1 million, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which would extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes through Nov. 1, 2024. Wyden voted against the MFA last year (http://1.usa.gov/1qHJcvn). ITFFA has 52 Senate co-sponsors (http://1.usa.gov/1jRXTeE); MITFA has 13 Senate co-sponsors (http://1.usa.gov/1mWMgTw).

More than 40 groups asked Senate and House leaders not to modify the latest version of the USA Freedom Act (S-2685). Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., introduced the version last year, widely seen as a stronger surveillance overhaul than the one the House passed earlier this year. “The version of the USA FREEDOM Act introduced Tuesday is a substantial improvement upon the House-passed bill, and addresses many of our most significant concerns,” the Wednesday letter said (http://bit.ly/1o6gSSr). “While this bill does not include all of the necessary reforms to the government’s surveillance authorities, it is a good first step.” Signatories include the American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and TechFreedom.

NCTA pushed back against TiVo in the battle over the set-top box integration ban and Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization. NCTA CEO Michael Powell sent a letter Thursday to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and ranking member John Thune, R-S.D., who are crafting their own STELA reauthorization bill to be considered in September. The House has included in its reauthorization bill (HR-4572), passed in July (CD July 23 p1), a provision that would repeal the integration ban. The integration ban rule “currently forces cable operators -- and cable operators alone -- to include a CableCard in all leased set top boxes even though this separate security module is completely unnecessary,” Powell said. He slammed “old arguments” and “spurious claims” that TiVo CEO Tom Rogers made in a letter to Senate Commerce leaders sent last week, the same day the House passed its STELA reauthorization bill. TiVo strongly opposes the repeal of the integration ban. Senate Commerce should include the House provision, which is narrow and focused and has bipartisan backers, Powell insisted. TiVo General Counsel Matt Zinn fired back in a lengthy statement. “Once again, NCTA twists the facts to suit its own narrative to continue to undermine the competitive retail environment,” Zinn declared. “TiVo remains confident that the Senate will recognize the damage that will be done to consumer choice and competition if the House language is allowed to become law.” Congress has no reason to intervene in this space of the market, which is moving forward as intended, he said. “If NCTA truly believes that ending the integration ban would save consumers money, why then in testimony before a House committee did Michael Powell say point-blank that consumers would not see any savings?"

All broadband access providers clearly provide a Title II telecom service, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told the FCC in a long ex parte filing from mid-July, released this week (http://bit.ly/1pqCjx7). He pushed for strong net neutrality rules that ban both blocking and paid prioritization and urged the agency to rely on Title II, with forbearance to keep unnecessary regulation light. “The red herring arguments about the legal risks of ‘reclassification’ of broadband access as a telecommunication service are simply distractions from the clear statutory framework set forth by Congress,” Wyden said.

The House Commerce Committee approved three communications bills by voice vote Wednesday during a markup session: the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013 (HR-3670), the E-LABEL (Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses) Act (HR-5161) and the Kelsey Smith Act (HR-1575). Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute (http://1.usa.gov/1ldL6OU) to the Anti-Spoofing Act, as he has previously said he would, to address some stakeholder concerns about the language, and it was approved. Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., successfully tweaked (http://1.usa.gov/1obNjdG) the Kelsey Smith Act to address some possible privacy concerns. Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., backed the changes but reiterated the concerns he aired during opening statements, saying the committee process could have been better. Sprint applauded the lawmakers for advancing the Kelsey Smith Act. “We support Congressional efforts to establish a national framework that will enable law enforcement and wireless carriers to better assist families to obtain access to GPS information promptly in times of crisis,” Sprint Vice President-Government Affairs Bill Barloon said in a statement. The American Civil Liberties Union “believes that the Kelsey Smith bill needs to be strengthened ... so that it has a strong definition of emergency and people have a remedy when their location information is revealed illegally,” ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Calabrese said. “We have not yet taken a final position on the bill.” The ACLU sent Commerce leaders a letter Tuesday outlining “continuing concern” with the amended bill. “The more significant problem is that the legislation as drafted does not create any penalty if the court finds a violation of the law,” ACLU said in the letter. “There is no penalty for police misconduct, nor is there any remedy allowing a criminal or civil defendant to suppress evidence gathered from this illegal data collection. The result is that a defendant could be harmed by clearly illegal conduct, but have no remedy -- a gross injustice and at odds with criminal procedural remedies in other contexts."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., backs net neutrality rules that ban “priority arrangements that harm consumers,” he told Demand Progress Executive Director David Segal in a letter dated Monday. Segal asked Reid if he would tell the FCC “to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934,” as Reid recounted. “Let me assure you that I will lead the fight to protect any Open Internet Rules promulgated by the FCC against the inevitable Republican attack against such rules.” Reid referred to himself as a strong backer of such rules since 2006. Reid’s letter “takes away a crucial talking point that some folks have been saying that the Senate won’t defend Title II reclassification,” Nathan White, who is registered as the primary lobbyist for Demand Progress, told us, giving cover for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler “to do the right thing. Secondly, Senator Reid writes that no matter what, there will be a fight over this in Congress. That removes another crucial talking point that [Communications Act Section] 706 is somehow the politically easy way out.” Marvin Ammori, a New America Foundation fellow and longtime net neutrality advocate, dubbed this letter a “game changer” and said Title II reclassification “is now politically feasible,” writing in a blog post (http://bit.ly/1s2TerC). Wheeler “has few reasons left for inaction,” White remarked. Segal told us Reid’s letter speaks to the different possible legal authorities the FCC could use to reinstate net neutrality rules, despite its lack of explicit references to such authorities. “This letter is meant to make it clear that Reid would back Title II if that’s where the FCC goes,” Segal said, saying the letter also casts doubt on the notion that basing rules on Section 706 is “politically easy.” The merits of the situation point to Title II reclassification, Segal said.

Rural electric cooperatives excel at providing broadband access and need funding, Robert Hance, CEO of Midwest Energy Cooperative, testifying on behalf the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, told House lawmakers Tuesday. The FCC must be “inclusive” with its Connect America Fund money, Hance said during a House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Rural Development and Credit, telling Congress that rural electric cooperatives “need your support to compete for the billions of dollars available to provide broadband in high cost areas.” The FCC is still struggling when it comes to providing USF for rate-of-return companies, USTelecom Vice President-Policy David Cohen testified, praising the agency’s retreat from quantile regression analysis and urging “serious consideration” of the proposal put forth by the rural telecom industry. Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Administrator John Padalino touted the government’s efforts to finance rural telecom and the relevance of RUS in the 21st century. “While the focus of this hearing is on the deployment of broadband through Rural Utilit[ies] Service programs, these programs are not operated in a vacuum,” Subcommittee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said in his opening statement. “It will be helpful to review those changes in the recent Farm Bill in light of the FCC’s changes to how rural telecommunication companies receive assistance. The efforts by the FCC to reform the USF have a direct impact on smaller rate-of-return carriers who both rely on USF support to provide service, and RUS loans to expand their coverage areas.” Officials representing CTIA and NTCA also testified (CD July 29 p12).