The office of Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., questioned as “legal hair-splitting” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s reasoning on Wheeler’s lack of obligation to consult with Congress on forming any new net neutrality rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the FCC’s net neutrality rules in a mid-January decision but affirmed the agency’s authority over broadband. At issue was a commitment Wheeler made to Thune, ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, during Wheeler’s confirmation process last year. Thune had asked Wheeler, in a question for the record (http://1.usa.gov/1eRqgVg): “Please answer yes or no -- if you are confirmed and if the FCC’s Open Internet order is struck down in the courts, will you come to Congress for more direction before attempting another iteration of network neutrality rules?” Wheeler replied yes. But Wheeler told The New York Times in an interview last week that he felt no obligation to return to Congress because the court decision affirmed the FCC’s Communications Act Section 706 authority over broadband, despite vacating the net neutrality rules. “What I said was if the Open Internet Order was thrown out by the court, of course I would talk to Congress,” Wheeler told the newspaper (http://nyti.ms/1bSpdDg). “But the Open Internet Order was not thrown out by the court. In fact, the court affirmed our authority.” The FCC confirmed to us the accuracy of the quote in the newspaper. But Thune’s office did not buy the argument, saying the question was never one of authority but one of new rules. “Senator Thune certainly believes the Chairman needs to abide by his commitment to return to Congress for more direction before trying to impose net neutrality restrictions again,” a spokeswoman for Thune told us this week. “Considering The New York Times itself has reported that the court ’threw out’ and ‘invalidated’ the net neutrality parts of the Open Internet Order, as has nearly every media outlet and commentator who has written about the case, the Chairman’s parsing of the decision sounds like legal hair-splitting. Senator Thune hopes the Chairman will avail himself of this opportunity to work with Congress and key stakeholders, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past on this issue.” Senate and House Democrats introduced legislation last month to restore net neutrality rules, and the bill, while not seen as likely to move, is seen as a signal pushing the FCC to act. “We would really like to see Chairman Wheeler come consult with Congress before engaging in any action in regard to this court order,” said Jason Van Beek, Senate Commerce Republican deputy general counsel, Tuesday during a NARUC panel. The FCC has an Office of Legislative Affairs and regularly interacts with Congress with varying levels of formality.

Five House members signed on as co-sponsors to the Local Radio Freedom Act, which opposes new performance royalties, said an NAB news release Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1nscqts). Reps. Susan Brooks, R-Ind.; Andy Harris, R-Md.; Steven Horsford, D-Nev.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; and Steve Scalise, R-La., are the most recent sponsors of the bill, which now claims 193 House and 12 Senate sponsors, it said.

House Republicans intend to move the FCC Process Reform Act for a full vote before the House “probably toward the end of the month,” Ray Baum, senior policy director to Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., told NARUC during a Tuesday panel. “We expect pretty bipartisan support, perhaps unanimous support, across the House,” Baum said, saying he hopes the Senate takes up the bill as well. The House Commerce Committee cleared the bill in December. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced a version of the bill in the Senate this month. The FCC “needs a legislative backstop” despite FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s own move toward process reform, Baum said. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., prefers to wait for the FCC’s process reforms before legislative action, said committee Democratic Senior Counsel John Branscome during the NARUC panel. “It really becomes ‘what reforms will actually help the FCC actually protect consumers and competition?'” Branscome said. He commended the bipartisan nature of the House bill, which he said has “significant improvements” and positive aspects.

The House Transportation Committee easily cleared by voice vote a bill that would ban in-flight cellphone conversation. Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., authored HR-3676 and introduced it Dec. 10 after the FCC said it would begin a proceeding to examine whether it was technically wise to allow cellphone voice use on planes aloft. The bill has 29 cosponsors, 18 Republicans and 11 Democrats. “It’s not the FCC’s place,” Shuster said during the Tuesday markup. “Tap, don’t talk.” Such in-flight conversation “would have a negative impact on social discourse,” Shuster said, though said his bill exempts the flight crew and law enforcement from the talking prohibition. Shuster said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler expressed a desire to avoid such calls and also cited polls showing popular concern with allowing them. Committee ranking member Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., backs the bill, he said, though he’s not listed as a cosponsor. Rahall said a “chill went through the flying public” when the prospect of in-flight cellphone conversation rose up last year.

The House Transportation Committee will mark up a bill to outlaw in-flight conversation on cellphones. The markup is scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday in 2167 Rayburn. The bill is HR-3676, the Prohibiting In-Flight Voice Communications on Mobile Wireless Devices Act.

The House Small Business Committee plans a hearing on wireless issues Tuesday, at 1 p.m. in 2360 Rayburn. The hearing is “to examine the rapid growth in innovative wireless technologies being developed or utilized by small firms, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) technology,” said a notice the committee issued. “The hearing will focus on the development of wireless products, the economic benefits and capabilities of these technologies, and potential barriers that could constrain the further growth and development of the wireless economy.” Witnesses are Darrell West, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Tech Innovation; Leo McCloskey, the Intelligent Transportation Society’s senior vice president-technical programs; Brian Marshall, owner of Marshall Farms, testifying on behalf of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farm Bureau Federation; and Michael Feldman, BigBelly Solar vice president-engineering. West plans to outline the many virtues of the wireless industry but focus on “obstacles that make it difficult for small businesses to take advantage of the mobile revolution,” according to his written testimony. These obstacles include financing, regulation, spectrum availability, infrastructure and access, he will say. West will advocate for “a research credit for new firms that earn less than $5 million” to help get them off the ground, and more-flexible government rules. Speaking of the proposed broadcast incentive spectrum auction, West will say, “Legislators should make sure that small businesses have a fair shot at competing for unused spectrum and that entrepreneurs from diverse walks of life have an opportunity to bid on spectrum.” He will criticize those entities he says hold spectrum but do not pay for it -- “military forces, broadcast television, and government agencies” -- and will suggest they be made to pay fees. Local communities should also “streamline the approval process for building new cell towers and laying fiber optic lines,” West will say.

A Republican lawmaker again called for updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to better protect U.S. citizens’ privacy. “Today we find ourselves in a fight of epic proportion as it relates to our individual liberties and their preservation,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said Monday at Heritage Action’s 2014 Conservative Policy Summit, lamenting an “out-of-control surveillance state,” the many leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and secret courts with secret roles. He cited a bill he introduced last summer, HR-1847, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act, which would require the government to have a warrant or written consent before reading email or text messages. That bill has 24 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations in mid-June. Salmon is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he chairs the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Omnibus legislation “probably wouldn’t stand a very good chance of passage,” Salmon said, saying he backs multiple pieces of legislation on the topic and the need for a step-by-step approach. Other issues remain on the table in terms of commercial tracking, Salmon said. “I hate the cookies,” he said, saying “that should be addressed as well.”

Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pryor, D-Ark., plans to talk to NARUC about broadband deployment, the consumer protection implications of data breaches and 911 wireless location accuracy issues pegged to public safety, a spokeswoman for the senator told us. Pryor is scheduled to speak Tuesday morning at NARUC’s winter meeting in Washington at about 8:35 a.m., according to a NARUC spokesman. Pryor recently held a hearing on 911 wireless location issues, where he pushed the FCC to develop standards.

It’s time for “the next level” of E-rate, said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in a Sunday op-ed for The Metro West Daily News (http://bit.ly/1fZq5Yn). As a member of the House during the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, Markey helped create E-rate. He praised President Barack Obama’s proposed expansion of E-rate, in an initiative known as ConnectED, and said there’s a “need to focus on wireless access in schools and libraries and enabling students to learn using the latest technologies.”

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai highlighted problems with multiline telephone systems and emergency communications, speaking Friday before the Congressional Next-Gen 911 Caucus, citing a recent situation in which a caller failed to successfully dial 911 from a hotel. Multiline telephone systems operate in “hotels, motels, office buildings, and schools,” Pai said, and “the truth of the matter is that we don’t know the extent of the problem. That’s why I launched an inquiry last month to gather the facts.” He sent a letter to the CEOs of the 10 largest hotel chains in the U.S., with responses due Feb. 14, he said. Pai said there’s a question of who should be picking up the other end of the line in an emergency call as well as the question of location. “In large office buildings or complexes, on college campuses, and in hotels, it’s not enough for first responders to show up at the front door, if one even exists,” Pai said. “Bringing accurate location information to these emergency personnel is critical."