"I appreciate NETmundial’s statement endorsing” NTIA’s transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions “to the multi-stakeholder community,” said House Communications Subcommittee member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., by email Monday. Scholars and lawmakers are divided on the political implications for NTIA’s transition at NETmundial, last week’s Internet governance conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil (CD April 29 p9). “The opposition of certain countries to this course of action provides proof, if any were needed,” that the transition is an “important step in maintaining the Internet as a platform for free expression and innovation,” said Doyle. A few autocratic regimes, including Russia, expressed concern over NETmundial’s final outcome document (http://bit.ly/1nLhMBC), which endorsed NTIA’s transition and the multistakeholder model.

Four more House members signed on as co-sponsors to the Local Radio Freedom Act (H. Con. Res. 16), giving the measure a majority of support in the House, with 219 co-sponsors, said an NAB news release Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1lv7Wo7). Reps. William Keating, D-Mass., Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., John Culberson, R-Texas, and David McKinley, R-W.Va., 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. “Signing onto a commemorative resolution, most commonly used to honor sports teams and name post offices, is an empty gesture and hardly a reliable barometer of support,” said Ted Kalo, executive director of the musicFIRST Coalition, in response to the NAB release. “This is particularly true when the resolution itself hides its position in the fine print,” he said. “We are confident many of these ‘cosponsors’ also support performance rights,” said Kalo.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s proposed cybersecurity information sharing bill is currently called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, according to a discussion draft leaked to The Washington Post (http://bit.ly/1rBOGFa). Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and committee ranking member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., have been leading development of the bill. Spokesmen for both senators did not respond to requests for confirmation of the draft’s authenticity. The committee had been seeking industry comment on the bill before the leak, an industry official told us. The draft includes liability protections that would prohibit lawsuits against entities sharing cyberthreat information with “any other entity or the federal government.” Several observers told us the draft closely resembles the House-passed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), albeit with an expected increase in privacy protections (CD April 23 p7). The bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General to develop and execute procedures that would allow the “timely sharing” of classified and declassified cyberthreat information between the federal government and “appropriate entities,” along with the public release of some declassified threat information. The bill contains several privacy protections, including requiring any shared cyberthreat information be stripped of “any information contained within such indicators that is known to be personal information of or identifying a United States person, not directly related to a cybersecurity threat.” The bill would only allow law enforcement agencies to use shared information with the written consent of entities involved, but allows for oral consent when “the need for immediate use prevents obtaining written consent.” The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board would be required to issue a report every two years assessing the privacy and civil liberties impacts of cyberinformation sharing and assess current protections. Involved federal agencies and their inspectors general would also be required to issue biennial reports on implementation of the bill. The leak of the Senate Intelligence draft, whether authorized or not, likely indicates the committee is “getting close” to formally introducing the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, said James Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Technology and Public Policy program. Several observers have said they're skeptical that Senate Intelligence can clear a cyberinformation sharing bill in time to get it through the full Senate and conference with the House, particularly given the fallout over controversial National Security Agency surveillance programs. The draft bill is “one of the most vanilla” cyber bills possible, and has more support from the White House than CISPA (HR-624) because of the enhanced privacy protections, Lewis said. But Senate Intelligence likely only has about five or six weeks to “see if they can get this one moved,” he said. “The issue is, starting at about the end of May, people will begin to think more about re-election and less about legislation.”

The House Homeland Security Committee scheduled a markup of several bills including the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act for Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. in 311 Cannon. HR-3283 aims to “modernize and implement the national integrated public alert and warning system to disseminate homeland security information” according to its text.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will go it alone May 20 before the House Communications Subcommittee. Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., announced the hearing Monday and said it will focus on net neutrality, the agency’s broadcast TV incentive auction, broadcast sharing agreements, FCC process revamp and the proposed update to the Communications Act that Walden is leading. “This will be our first opportunity to directly discuss issues important to our technology economy, including recent proposals regarding the incentive auctions, the latest iteration of the administration’s ill advised net neutrality policies, and the broadcast joint sharing agreements and media ownership proceedings at the commission,” Walden said in a statement. He called process revamp a “top priority for the committee.” In the Communications Act overhaul, Walden mentioned “the opportunity to find areas of common ground.” Wheeler last testified before the subcommittee in December.

Lawmakers in both parties object to what they are hearing about the FCC’s proposal for net neutrality rules that would allow for so-called Internet fast lanes, following initial outrage Thursday (CD April 25 p7). Democrats, who typically back net neutrality rules, have torn into the proposal as too weak and possibly endangering the open Internet. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., slammed the proposed rules, saying they “raise serious concerns that the Internet might soon lose the core of what it is -- an open space for innovation, entrepreneurship, connection and communication.” Pelosi urged people to contact the FCC to demand strong net neutrality rules. “We must not allow broadband providers to relegate competing ideas, products, and services to slow, congested speeds,” Pelosi said. House Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., talked with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Thursday “and he assured me that he is committed to ensuring an open internet and banning any arrangements that hinder innovation and competition or impinge on consumer choice,” said Waxman, often a strong net neutrality proponent, in a statement. “These are the right goals, and I want to work with him to make sure they are achieved in the final rule.” Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., pointed to “serious concerns” he has about the FCC proposals and said the FCC has a responsibility “to adopt strong regulations to protect the open Internet.” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., tweeted on the issue: “Monopolist interests cannot be allowed to pick winners & losers on what must be a level playing field.” Republicans have typically objected to any reinstated net neutrality rules and slammed this proposal accordingly. House Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., sent a letter to the FCC Thursday (http://1.usa.gov/1ilcyaA). “Before the Administration takes any reckless steps that could jeopardize the explosive growth and innovation of the Internet, it is important the FCC is able to explain the potential costs and its impact on jobs to the American people,” Blackburn said. “That is why I am calling on Chairman Wheeler to follow Executive Order 13563 initiated by President Obama and conduct a cost benefit analysis before any rule goes into effect."

The House Commerce Health Subcommittee plans a hearing May 1 on telehealth, said a committee announcement (http://1.usa.gov/1f8gzoo). “Advances in technology present tremendous opportunities to improve the access to and quality of health care in areas all across the country,” said Chairman Joe Pitts, R-Pa. The hearing will examine “How can technology help patients, particularly in rural communities, gain access to doctors or specialists?” Pitts said. Witnesses haven’t been announced. The hearing will be at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wants “to take the opportunity to clear up some continued misperceptions” on the canceled Critical Information Needs (CIN) study, he told every Senate Republican in a letter released Friday (http://bit.ly/1rrLewY). Republicans in both the Senate and House had slammed the study, which was canceled after their criticism that it violated U.S. free speech principles by interfering with newsrooms (CD March 3 p1). Wheeler doesn’t intend to reestablish the fairness doctrine or interfere with the First Amendment in any way, he said. Wheeler said he had his own concerns when he heard details of the proposed CIN study. The final spending on the study is still being determined, but there was never more than $500,000 allocated for the first phase, he added. The FCC still plans to fulfill its Communications Act Section 257 obligations but in the “proper manner,” with public input welcomed, Wheeler said.

The Consumer Electronics Association will financially back the Log Cabin Republicans, it said in a news release Monday. “Our visible announcement proves that trade associations want lawmakers and policies that recognize the economic value of hiring the best and brightest minds, regardless of sexual orientation,” CEO Gary Shapiro said in a statement (http://bit.ly/RFXzDn), calling the support “groundbreaking.” CEA said it’s the first tech group to financially support the Log Cabin Republicans, which counts as members “gay conservatives and allies who support fairness, freedom, and equality for all Americans."

Spending on Capitol Hill lobbying is on the rise, based on Q1 disclosure forms submitted Monday. The deadline for Q1 filings was Monday, and several companies and trade associations had not filed by our deadline. AT&T did spend less, however: $3.67 million in Q1, down from the $4.26 million it spent in 2013’s Q1. Sprint noted spending of $784,707, a jump from the $666,558 it spent in the same time period last year. Cox Enterprises spent far more this Q1 compared with last year’s -- $910,000 compared with $790,000, lobbying heavily on media issues such as retransmission consent, media ownership and unlicensed spectrum. Clear Channel Communications spent $1.21 million, slightly up from the $1.17 million it spent during the same period last year. It lobbied on patent overhaul as well as FCC structure and oversight issues and video concerns like broadcast indecency enforcement. Harris Corp. spent $786,436, also up slightly from the $768,570 it spent during that quarter in 2013. Harris focused on the IP transition and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers spent $289,639 in Q1, up from last year’s $255,763, and lobbied against changes to retransmission consent rules. Writers Guild of America-West spent $120,000, up by $20,000 from what it spent this time last year. It focused on satellite reauthorization, net neutrality, the FCC’s spectrum auction, retransmission consent and the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger. Qualcomm paid Covington & Burling $690,000 for Q1 lobbying on patent overhaul and communications issues generally, although its own filing -- which in the past involves quarterly spending upwards of a million -- was not submitted by our deadline. In 2013’s Q1, Qualcomm paid Covington & Burling $300,000.