Congress

If you thought the sparring between AT&T and Sprint ended with the demise late last year of AT&T's bid to buy T-Mobile, think again.

AT&T is once again on opposite sides of a major telecom issue with Sprint, a fierce critic of the AT&T-T-Mobile merger, and several other smaller rivals. The issue this time is over legislation aimed at freeing up more spectrum to meet the public's growing demand for wireless technologies.

Sprint, along with T-Mobile, C-Spire Wireless, Cricket and other smaller wireless operators want members of Congress to give the Federal Communications Commission discretion to design future spectrum auctions as it sees fit. They called on lawmakers Wednesday to strip a provision from House spectrum legislation that would bar the FCC from imposing restrictions on who can bid for spectrum given up for auction by broadcasters.

"The proposed provision would substantially limit the FCC's ability to promote competition and a competitive wireless marketplace for consumers throughout America. It would facilitate spectrum warehousing, inefficient use of scarce spectrum resources, and reduce spectrum auction revenues to the U.S. Treasury," they wrote in a letter to the House and Senate payroll tax conference committee.

The payroll tax cut package could include the spectrum legislation.

The provision in the House spectrum bill is aimed at ensuring the FCC can't keep the nation's two biggest wireless providers ,Verizon Wireless and AT&T, from participating in future spectrum auctions. Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., who drafted the House spectrum legislation, said last month that he doesn't think it's good public policy to exclude any market players from participating in spectrum auctions.

AT&T has echoed Walden's view on the issue. "Auctions should be open, not closed. Any qualified carrier, including those on today's letter, should have a chance to bid on any spectrum available in an auction," AT&T Senior Executive Vice President Jim Cicconi said in a statement. "This group, however, wants the FCC to stack the deck in its favor. Congress is right to resist this notion."

The spectrum language is just one of many thorny issues lawmakers are trying to resolve as part of the negotiations over the payroll tax deal. One of the biggest issues is how to pay for the cost of the payroll tax package.

Two key lawmakers said Tuesday that despite some differences between the House and Senate approaches to the issue, they are still hopeful spectrum legislation will be included in a package to extend a payroll tax cut.

House and Senate lawmakers on the payroll tax cut conference committee met again Tuesday to try and hammer out differences between the two chambers' versions of the legislation but did not discuss spectrum.

Still, House Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman of California, one of the House Democratic conferees, told Tech Daily Dose that staffers are meeting and making slow progress on ways to narrow differences between the House-GOP passed spectrum legislation, which was included in a one-year extension of the payroll tax bill, and a stand-alone bipartisan spectrum bill approved last summer by the Senate Commerce Committee.

Both bills focus on freeing up more spectrum to meet the nation's growing demand for wireless technologies and providing public safety officials with spectrum and funding to help build a national wireless broadband network. They also would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to conduct incentive auctions of spectrum voluntarily relinquished by broadcasters.

The major sticking points continue to be over how much flexibility the FCC should be given to set aside spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi, who should be allowed to participate in the incentive auctions, and the governance structure of the public safety network, Waxman said.

"If we can work out the policy, we want to move it ... The differences on this bill have never been so great that we couldn't resolve it in the House," Waxman said. He and most of the other Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee did not support the House GOP spectrum measure when it was approved by the Communications and Technology Subcommittee late last year because of their concerns over the restrictions on unlicensed spectrum and the public safety governance structure.

House Republicans may have the upper hand in the negotiations given that their spectrum legislation is in the House payroll measure and the Senate Commerce bill is not. In addition, the authors of the House spectrum bill, Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., are among the House payroll-tax negotiators, while no one from the Senate Commerce Committee is on the conference committee.

"We have to work to accommodate the positions of both the House and the Senate," Waxman said. "The House bill was only a partisan bill -- never voted on in full committee, went right to the floor and the Senate's not going to take it as is."

Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Tuesday he believes differences over how to structure the public safety network, which is his top priority, could be resolved by having the National Telecommunications and Information Administration oversee its development. "I'm hopeful," Rockefeller said about finally getting spectrum legislation enacted. "The problem is always on the House side."

Too many tax-payer funded technologies are being taken by China or other countries, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., says, and on Friday he reintroduced a bill to stop the flow.

In order to operate in China, for example, American companies are often forced to hand over their intellectual property and proprietary. Many of those technologies are developed using taxpayer money through grant, loans, or other incentives, Webb said in a statement.

"If taxpayers supported the development of the technology, they own a piece of it and it can't just be given away," Webb said. "Federal dollars that go toward R&D funding, loan guarantees, and public-private partnerships in order to help develop the next generation of technologies here are supposed to be making American businesses competitive and generate American jobs -- not to help develop other industries, such as those in China."

Webb's bill would prohibit companies from transferring technology to countries that require such transfers as a cost of doing business.

"The transfer of publicly supported proprietary technologies by American firms to China -- and potentially other countries -- clearly and unequivocally places the competitive advantage of the American economy at risk," Webb said.

No matter how hard it tries, it appears Google has yet to convince members of Congress that its proposed privacy changes are not as troubling as they appear to some on the surface.

Google Deputy General Counsel Mike Yang and Public Policy Director Pablo Chavez met Thursday with about 10 members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, which has jurisdiction over consumer privacy, to address concerns over the changes the company plans to make to its privacy policies on March 1.

Last week, the company said it plans to consolidate its numerous privacy policies but also will track users and collect data about them as they move from one Google product to another. In addition to the briefing, Google issued yet another blog post Wednesday about the privacy changes in which it tried to debunk what it described as myths about its approach to privacy.

Subcommittee Chairwoman Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., who organized the closed-door briefing, told reporters that while Google did a thorough job of explaining the changes and the tools available to consumers to control the level of privacy they want, she and other members were not satisfied with everything they heard.

"At the end of the day, ultimately, I don't think that their answers to us were very forthcoming necessarily in what this really means for the safety of our families and our children and ourselves," she said. "At the same time, they did a thorough walk through of the technology that exists and explained how they feel they can still protect privacy to whatever level the consumer wants. I think the concern in Congress is how much active participation does a user have to do to protect their privacy."

She said that when members asked about why Google wasn't offering consumers a clear opt-out of having data collected about them, the Google officials pointed to the various privacy control tools such as Google Dashboard. Bono Mack said she and other committee members continue to worry that these tools are "too complicated to find, too complicated to do."

Despite such concerns, Bono Mack gave little indication that the committee plans to do much more at this point other than hold more hearings this year on consumer privacy and continue to press Google for better answers.

A Bono Mack aide noted that Google officials have said they do not think the privacy changes violate the privacy settlement it reached last year with the Federal Trade Commission over the roll out of its now-defunct social networking service Buzz. He noted that panel, however, plans to reach out to the FTC itself for clarification on the issue. So far, the FTC has declined to comment on the issue.

The controversial advocacy group Demand Progress can't get enough of Lamar Smith.

After working to torpedo the Texas Republican's Stop Online Piracy Act, Demand Progress is taking aim at another of Smith's bills.

The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act (HR 1981), which cleared Smith's House Judiciary Committee 19-10 last year after a hotly contested markup, would require Internet service providers to keep some user information on file to help track pedophiles and child pornographers. The bill's supporters say it does not require the collection of content and most ISPs already retain the data.

Still, the measure drew attention from critics who see a potential to undermine privacy and civil liberties.

House aides say the bill is effectively dead for now, but that hasn't stopped opponents from reigniting the debate after SOPA and its Senate companion bill were shelved. The issue also resurfaced on the link-sharing website Reddit, where users organized opposition to SOPA.

Demand Progress, which claims a following of more than one million, is asking supporters to send letters to Congress opposing the bill.

"We taught Congress a lesson last month: We need to do to HR 1981 what we did to SOPA, and make it clear to Lamar Smith and the rest of Congress that they can't run roughshod over Internet freedom," the group's executive director, David Segal, said in a statement.

Smith's spokeswoman, Kim Hicks, said child pornography is one of the fastest growing crimes in the U.S. "The Internet can be a force for good or bad," she said. "But it should not be used to facilitate crimes against our children."

During the fight over anti-piracy legislation the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Demand Progress of using scare tactics to distort the issue.

A House subcommittee kicked off this year's cybersecurity agenda by approving a bill designed to protect "critical infrastructure" from cyberattacks, even as a Senate bill waits in the wings.

Leaders in both the Senate and the House, as well as President Obama, have said they want to pass broad cybersecurity legislation this year. Senate leaders had been expected to introduce their version as soon as this week, but a Senate aide now say that's unlikely.

Senate staffers are working to forge agreement on a comprehensive bill, while the House is pursuing, smaller, separate pieces of legislation.

On Wednesday the House Homeland Security Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies Subcommittee approved H.R. 3674, the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011 (The PrECISE Act), with a voice vote.

The bill would task the Homeland Security Department with determining what "critical infrastructure" like the power grid or financial systems, need federal oversight from existing agencies. The bill would also would establish a National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to coordinate federal cybersecurity efforts.

"Government should enable and facilitate the private sector in this effort by providing threat information, standards and best practices," said the bill's sponsor, subcommittee chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif. "In this way, we ensure that owners and operators are in the strongest position to protect their critical infrastructure."

More on the House bill can be found on our Tech page.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says he's working with other supporters to attract more Republican co-sponsors for legislation that would require online retailers to collect sales taxes in states where they have no store or other facility.

Durbin told Tech Daily Dose Wednesday that he would like to see more GOP backers for the bill to help attract the 60 votes needed on the Senate floor to overcome a likely filibuster of the legislation. Durbin is the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the legislation offered with Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

The bill aims to close a loophole left by a 1992 Supreme Court decision that found states cannot require retailers to collect sales taxes from customers in states where the companies do not have a physical presence. At the time, the case applied to catalog retailers but has since been exploited by Internet retailers.

"We're trying to get some more Republican cosponsors and when we reach the critical number that I think gives us assurance of passage, we'll bring this up in the Senate," Durbin said. When asked what that critical number is, he said he would like to have "perhaps" 10 Republicans sign on in support of the bill. So far, the bill has five Republican and seven Democratic co-sponsors.

The Enzi-Durbin-Alexander bill would authorize states to require Internet retailers to collect out-of--state sales taxes as long as the states either sign on to a tax-simplification project or comply with tax-simplification principles in the bill. Supporters note that the legislation does not introduce a new tax but instead makes it easier for states to collect sales taxes that are already owed.

Still, the bill will likely require consumers to pay more for some products or services they buy online. When asked if this is a difficult sell in an election year, Durbin said the bill "does make it clear that it's no new tax obligation."

The measure is supported by a growing list of companies that sell goods and services, including Amazon, which came out in support of the measure late last year despite fighting individual state efforts to address the issue.

Perhaps in an effort to help Durbin and other congressional supporters attract more backing for the bill, a large coalition of companies and groups wrote Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., on Tuesday to urge his support. The bill has been referred to his committee.

The bill "would level the playing field between brick-and-mortar and e-commerce retail businesses while assisting the states in collecting approximately $23 billion in uncollected state sales taxes that are currently due on Internet and other remote sales," according to the letter signed by such groups as the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association and companies such as Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart.

A similar bill has been introduced in the House. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the issue last year but it is unclear if any additional action is planned.

Google is defending its proposed changes to its privacy policies against bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill, saying that it still gives consumers control and many tools to manage their privacy.

Google said last week that while it is streamlining privacy policies, it also will track and collect data about users as they move from one Google service to another.

"We believe that the relevant issue is whether users have choices about how their data is collected and used," Google Public Policy Director Pablo Chavez wrote in a letter Monday to lawmakers.

House lawmakers from both parties, however, have raised concerns about the changes, including why Google is not offering users an opportunity to opt out of being tracked while using all of Google's services.

Google argued in its letter that the company is not collecting any new information and still provides users with many tools to manage the level of privacy they want to have while using Google products. Chavez noted, for example, that if users have chosen to opt out of receiving targeted ads, that preference will not change.

"We give users choice and control over how they use our products. People can use many of our services, including Search, Maps, Google News, YouTube and more, without logging into their Google Account, or creating one in the first place," Chavez said.

Some of the lawmakers who wrote Google last week say they are not satisfied with the company's explanation. "Google did a little tap dancing in the letter, and Chairman Bono Mack intends to aggressively pursue the 'opt out' question in our briefing with the company later this week," said Ken Johnson, a spokesman for Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif. She chairs the Energy and Commerce subcommittee with jurisdiction over consumer privacy issues and plans to meet privately later this week with Google representatives to discuss its privacy changes.

And Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a senior Energy and Commerce member, said Google has yet to satisfy his concerns. "Sharing users' personal information across its products may make good business sense for Google, but it undermines privacy safeguards for consumers," Markey said in a statement. "Despite Google's recent response, it still appears that consumers will not be able to completely opt-out of data collection and information sharing among Google's services. Congress and consumers need more details, and I look forward to meeting with Google to get clarification about what the options are for consumers who wish to say no to these new changes."

A bipartisan group of House Energy and Commerce members asked Google on Thursday to explain why it plans to start tracking users and collecting information about them across all the company's products.

"As an Internet giant, Google has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its users," the eight lawmakers wrote Google CEO Larry Page. "Therefore, we are writing to learn why Google feels that these changes are necessary, and what steps are being taken to ensure protection of consumers' privacy rights."

The letter was signed by Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., as well as Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., Diana DeGette, D-Colo., Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif., who is the only signer who doesn't sit on Energy and Commerce.

Even before announcing its proposed privacy changes on Tuesday, Google was already under scrutiny after reaching a settlement last year with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that the company deceived its Gmail users in the rollout of its now-defunct social networking service Buzz. Google is also the subject of an antitrust probe by the FTC.

The lawmakers questioned why users are not allowed to opt out of Google's privacy changes. "Consumers should have the ability to opt out of data collection when they are not comfortable with a company's terms of service and that the ability to exercise that choice should be simple and straightforward," they added.

The representatives asked Google to answer by Feb. 16 a long list of questions about the changes, including what information it now collects and will collect after the changes go into effect on March 1, whether it shares such data with anyone else, how the privacy changes affect users of its Android mobile phone operating system, and what protections will be provided to children and teens.

In a new blog post Thursday, Google responded to some of the concerns raised about its privacy changes. It noted that users don't have to be logged into Google to use services such as search or YouTube. And for those who do log in and therefore would be tracked, the company says it offers a variety of privacy controls. "We're making things simpler and we're trying to be upfront about it. Period," Google Policy Manager Betsy Masiello wrote.

Google, meanwhile, now says that the privacy changes will not apply to government workers who use its Google Apps for Government enterprise email system. Google made the comments after Karen Evans, the former director of electronic government in the administration of former President George W. Bush, said the proposed changes would have a "serious impact" on government users.

The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee said Wednesday he is confident that House and Senate negotiators will include his version of spectrum legislation in a payroll tax package given that it would generate more cash to pay down the deficit than the Senate Commerce Committee's version.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., outlined an aggressive agenda for his panel for this year, including pushing for legislation to free up more spectrum for wireless broadband and to help build a national broadband public safety network.

Walden and Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., are among the House conferees picked to help negotiate the differences between the House and Senate versions of legislation that would extend a payroll tax holiday and other tax breaks. The House's payroll tax bill, passed last month, included the spectrum legislation authored by Walden that was approved by his subcommittee in November.

The Senate Commerce Committee approved its own version of spectrum legislation last summer. Both the Walden and Commerce bills would authorize auctions to entice broadcasters to voluntarily give up some of their spectrum for a share of the money generated. Among the notable differences between Walden's measure and the Senate Commerce bill is that his would generate about $10 billion more for deficit reduction, Walden said.

Another provision that has emerged as a point of contention in recent weeks is language in the House bill that would bar the FCC from limiting which companies could participate in incentive auctions. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski earlier this month urged lawmakers not to limit the commission's flexibility to structure the auctions as it sees fit.

Following his speech, AT&T voiced concern that the FCC may try to keep it and other large wireless operators from bidding for the spectrum that broadcasters give up at auction. Walden said the language included in his bill would ensure the FCC can't pick winners and losers. He added that the commission would still have authority to address concerns over market concentration even after an auction is conducted.

"The only reason the chairman is upset about the provision is that he wants to exclude one of two market participants," Walden said, referring to the nation's two biggest wireless firms: AT&T and Verizon Wireless. "I don't think it's good public policy."

Walden said he believes it's likely that some version of the spectrum legislation will be included in the payroll tax package the House and Senate negotiators are trying to hammer out. The conference committee met for the first time Tuesday. "I would think given the need to pay for the various components of the [payroll] legislation...it would cause a problem if it dropped out," he said. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Walden's spectrum legislation would generate $16.7 billion for deficit reduction compared with just $6.5 billion for the Senate bill, authored by Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Walden also said the full Energy and Commerce committee plans to mark up FCC reform legislation on Feb. 7. While praising Genachowski for making some progress in overhauling how the FCC conducts its business, Walden said changes promoting transparency need to be codified into law.

Democrats, however, have been critical of a provision that would limit the FCC's ability to demand conditions from merging companies in the name of the public interest. "All we're saying is that you can't use leverage on mergers...to achieve effects in the marketplace that you don't statutorily have the right to do," Walden said.