Democrats slam GOP anti-net-neutrality provision

Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) slammed Republicans on Thursday for including a controversial anti-net-neutrality provision in a popular spectrum bill.

"That shouldn't be in the bill," Eshoo told The Hill. "It's ludicrous."

Markey called the provision "very problematic."

The House will likely roll the spectrum bill into an end-of-the-year spending package that would extend a payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits.

The spectrum legislation, which could raise as much as $15 billion through government auctions of airwaves, could help offset the costs of other provisions in the omnibus spending package.

Eshoo said at this point Republicans "are not going to" put the spectrum bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Although Democrats support the broad outline of the spectrum legislation, they are adamantly opposed to an amendment from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) that would restrict the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) ability to impose net-neutrality conditions on wireless companies that purchase spectrum leases at auction. The FCC adopted net-neutrality rules last year that prohibit Internet providers from slowing down or blocking access to legitimate websites.

Democrats say the rules protect consumers and promote competition, but Republicans say they are an unnecessary burden on businesses and amount to government control of the Internet.

At a markup last week, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called the amendment "poison," and warned it could sink the whole spectrum bill. 

Republicans argue the amendment is not an attempt to repeal the FCC's rules but would prevent the agency from including unnecessary conditions on spectrum leases.

"Would Congressman Waxman and these Democrats support Chairman Walden’s bipartisan spectrum legislation if the Blackburn amendment wasn’t included? I doubt it – and we’ll work to keep it in place," Blackburn said. "The last thing we need is for the FCC to impose more restrictions on businesses when the agency has no explicit legal authority to do so. The necessity of the amendment is obvious – so-called open access obligations have historically resulted in billions of dollars lost in auction receipts and it’s just bad policy."

But Markey argued Congress should not try to hamstring the FCC.

"The FCC needs flexibility to ensure that there's not excessive concentration in the market," Markey said. "For me, it goes right to the heart of what made the Internet special over the last 15 years."

The underlying spectrum legislation contains many provisions with broad bipartisan support. The bill would incentivize television broadcasters to give up their spectrum for the government to auction to mobile broadband companies and would establish a nationwide public-safety wireless network. Lawmakers say the bill would create jobs, cut the deficit and protect public safety.

A Senate version of the legislation passed the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in June on a vote of 21 to 4, and is strongly backed by committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). The measure is still awaiting a vote in the full Senate. 

Eshoo emphasized the importance of passing the spectrum bill.

"Congress is not going to return to reallocating and dealing with spectrum for at least another decade or more," she said. "This is not something that we revisit very often."

--Updated at 6:45 p.m.

---