The House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet plans a hearing Thursday on the Patent and Trademark Office and the America Invents Act (AIA), said its website (http://1.usa.gov/1t4Yfl8). Congress has been trying to update AIA, despite its having become law fewer than three years ago. However, the Innovation Act (HR-3309) stalled in the Senate after passing the House, and is not seen likely to move this Congress (CD May 23 p3). Thursday’s hearing will be at 3 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn. Witnesses weren’t announced.

A key House Democrat plans to make data caps a priority this week. House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., plans a briefing Tuesday at 10:15 a.m. in room H-137 of the Capitol to highlight the findings of a GAO study on the topic she requested. GAO staff will also attend the briefing. “The GAO will outline their preliminary findings from consumer focus groups conducted nationwide and interviews with key stakeholders, including broadband providers, Internet companies and consumer groups,” Eshoo said in a statement. “As the FCC continues to seek comment on its proposed net neutrality rules, it’s more important than ever that policymakers understand data caps and how they might enable broadband providers to circumvent open Internet rules that ensure consumers have uninhibited access to the Internet.” Eight focus groups were held across four U.S. cities, an Eshoo aide told us Friday. Eshoo intends to submit these findings to the FCC as part of its net neutrality proceeding, the aide said. He emphasized that the concerns about data caps are really not so different from those for paid prioritization deals -- and more importantly, aren’t hypothetical, with major companies moving forward with plans that feature sponsored data and caps. The overall attention on net neutrality makes this issue especially relevant, the aide said.

The House Small Business Committee may hold an oversight hearing on various telecom and media issues after the August congressional recess, one House aide told us. He said a variety of issues may come up, including net neutrality, broadband deployment, media consolidation and universal service policy. No hearing is currently scheduled. The committee has invited FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to testify in September, industry officials told us, and one official said the topic is net neutrality.

Reps. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, and Gene Green, D-Texas, urged Senate Commerce Committee leaders to retain in the Senate version of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization legislation the House language on the set-top box integration ban. In a letter sent Friday, they asked the Senate to swiftly approve the House legislation (HR-4572), which the House passed last week (CD July 23 p1). Latta and Green authored the integration provision that became part of the House STELA bill. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to unveil STELA reauthorization legislation in September.

Mediacom tore into the arguments of TVFreedom, a coalition of broadcast interests including NAB, in a Friday letter (http://bit.ly/1ph5SB9) to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. McCaskill has attacked the billing practices of pay-TV providers and begun investigating them, eyeing eventual legislation, which has earned great praise from TVFreedom. Mediacom dismissed TVFreedom’s minimization of broadcast blackouts and argued they far exceed what a TVFreedom spokesman has touted. Broadcasters fear bringing transparency to wholesale billing practices of local TV stations, which could “shine a light” on all the money broadcasters receive from retransmission consent negotiation, Mediacom said, suggesting that Missouri broadcasters disclose what rates they charge pay-TV providers. In response to Mediacom’s letter, a TVFreedom spokesman reiterated the problems he sees with “deceptive billing practices” of pay-TV companies. “Cable and satellite TV providers should be holding themselves accountable for billing errors and more fully examining the negative impact that high equipment rental fees and unnecessary or inflated charges are having on their customers,” the spokesman said. “This is a real market failure that needs to be addressed."

Cellphone unlocking legislation is heading to the White House for presidential signature. The House unanimously approved the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (S-517) Friday, which the Senate approved earlier this month. “Once the President signs this bill into law, consumers will be able to more easily use their existing cell phones on the wireless carrier of their choice,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. Leahy had introduced a bipartisan compromise version of this bill earlier this year. The Competitive Carriers Association issued a statement praising the House vote. President Barack Obama plans to sign the bill, he said in a statement. “The bill Congress passed today is another step toward giving ordinary Americans more flexibility and choice, so that they can find a cell phone carrier that meets their needs and their budget,” Obama said. CTIA, Consumers Union and Public Knowledge offered praise, as did Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. “Contract law -- not copyright or criminal law -- should govern the relationship between consumers and wireless carriers,” Pai said. “This measure will help the free market for wireless phones and services flourish -- freedom that I hope will soon extend to tablets and other wireless devices.”

Stakeholders aired ongoing concerns following Thursday’s House Communications Subcommittee legislative hearing on a proposed low-power TV bill. During the hearing, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, defended his draft version of the LPTV and Translator Preservation Act, which proposes to help those entities amid the FCC’s broadcast TV incentive auction (CD July 25 p8). “The spectacle we saw today in this Hearing, having a witness who is funded by the full power broadcast industry, and is from an organization which does not disclose how many LPTV members it has, creates for the industry a very bad taste and raw emotions,” said Mike Gravino, director of the LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition, in a statement. “Then, to erroneously attempt to blame the FCC for how the Incentive Spectrum Act legislation was written, and to do it while the LPTV industry is facing a collective $1 billion unfunded mandate for channel relocations, creates real and direct harm for these small and diverse businesses.” Gravino was referring to Advanced Broadcasting TV Alliance Executive Director Louis Libin, who last week blasted Gravino’s concerns as “silly” and defended to us his alliance’s majority funding from Sinclair (CD July 24 p6). Jim McDonald, who heads the National Translator Association, also issued a long statement noting that “surprisingly” the subcommittee had refused testimony from his group and that “an important historical and consequential perspective of this matter was left undiscussed” due to its absence. “While the NTA would like to believe that the bill discussed today will have a favorable effect on TV translators and LPTV stations in the anticipated spectrum auction, the FCC’s history with our service is all too well documented,” McDonald said, laying out the history of TV translator struggles. National Religious Broadcasters President Jerry Johnson issued a statement following the hearing urging “Congress to ascertain what steps the FCC will be taking to keep low-power stations from simply being forced off the air.”

Congress must set limits on copyright infringement rewards, encourage voluntary rights-protection systems and classify unauthorized Internet streaming as a felony, witnesses said in testimony prepared for a Thursday hearing by the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. High statutory damages in copyright infringement cases have had “two unintended consequences,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association Vice President for Law and Policy Matt Schruers. “They empower copyright trolls and create extraordinary liability risks that discourage tech innovation, particularly by start-ups,” he said. To ameliorate these consequences, Congress should encourage more investment in “robust voluntary rights-protection systems for right-holders,” he said. “Congress already encourages the use of such systems via Section 512, limiting relief against compliant services.” But it could go further by specifying which remedies “are made available to plaintiffs who do not take advantage of these voluntary systems designed to reduce litigation.” Congress can also reduce the incentives to pursue litigation by ensuring “statutory damages be limited to a reasonable multiplier of actual harm,” said Sherwin Siy, vice president-legal affairs at Public Knowledge. “Congress could also adjust the existing minimum and maximum awards amounts, or set caps on awards,” he said. “These adjustments could be tied to particular fact patterns, such as cases involving personal, noncommercial uses of works, or scenarios like secondary liability.” Congress must also be wary of those committing copyright infringement, said David Bitkower, acting deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division. The newest problem is infringement through Internet streaming, Bitkower said. Congress has previously updated copyright law to address new copyright infringement techniques, he said, pointing to the Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005. “Internet streaming, however, generally implicates a different right -- the right to public performance, violations of which currently correspond only to misdemeanor charges,” he said. Bitkower said the administration supports Congress’ passing legislation to classify Internet streaming copyright violations as a felony.

The House Homeland Security Committee reported to the House Wednesday an amended version of the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (HR-3696) after the House Oversight and Science committees agreed to waive their jurisdiction over the bill (http://1.usa.gov/1rebvQx). Neither the Oversight nor Science committees had taken action on the bill, while House Homeland Security cleared it in February (CD Feb 6 p7). The bill would codify the Department of Homeland Security’s existing role in dealing with cybersecurity issues, but would not extend the department’s powers. HR-3696’s supporters have been pushing behind the scenes for the bill to get a House vote before the upcoming recess, an industry lobbyist said. The version of HR-3696 reported to the House Wednesday included the removal of a section that would have dealt with federal civilian networks, which sponsors agreed to remove because of a “jurisdictional issue” with House Oversight, along with other minor changes, a House Homeland Security aide told us. House leaders are considering the bill for floor action “in the near future,” the aide said.

The Senate Commerce Committee scheduled a hearing on wireless cramming for 2:30 p.m. Wednesday in 253 Russell, it announced. Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has dug into the practice of cramming for years. “In light of increasing consumer use of mobile phones and emerging evidence of cramming in this context, Chairman Rockefeller in 2012 opened an inquiry to examine the scope of wireless cramming and industry practices to protect consumers against unauthorized charges on their wireless bills,” the committee said (http://1.usa.gov/1ujtFWx). “The hearing will review findings of the Chairman’s wireless cramming inquiry and examine consumer protections as carrier billing technologies and practices continue to evolve.” Witnesses weren’t announced.