During both recent House Communications Subcommittee hearings regarding network neutrality, Republican lawmakers have railed against Title II, rules that have been in place since 1934. On March 26, during the bill’s markup hearing, House Commerce Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) called the inclusion of Title II “not necessary” for any net neutrality bill, and argued that it “could provide the federal government with near unlimited and unchecked authority for bureaucrats in Washington that oversee the internet.” However, Democratic lawmakers have argued that such predictions are unfounded given the nature of the Save The Internet Act, and how it agrees to not impose those rules Republicans are fearmongering about. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA) said, "“By codifying the order this legislation also permanently prevents the FCC from applying 27 sections of the Communications Act, as well as over 700 regulations–the majority of Title II. In doing so, the bill permanently prohibits the FCC from engaging in rate setting, requiring that broadband providers unbundle their network, or levying additional taxes or fees on broadband access… This bill removes much of the regulatory overhang that Title II that internet service providers and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have long complained about.”

Public Knowledge opposes capping the Universal Servcie Fund because it may hinder the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to fulfill its universal service mandate. The following can be attributed to Alisa Valentin, Communications Justice Fellow at Public Knowledge:

“The reported proposal to cap USF funding directly contradicts Chairman Pai’s oft-repeated mantra that his primary focus is to close the digital divide. Congress has long directed the Commission to ensure that every American has access to essential communications services, and this proposal directly contradicts Congress’ intent. This proposal may impede the FCC from making broadband affordable and accessible for all Americans, and those impacts will be felt most directly by our country’s most vulnerable communities, jeopardizing families who most need assistance connecting, students and low-income individuals who rely on internet access at schools and libraries, and families living in the most rural parts of the US.The Commission is obligated to ensure that digitally redlined communities, tribal communities, rural communities, and low-income consumers have the resources necessary for equitable access to education, telehealth services, and economic opportunities. The proposal to cap the USF program is just another signal that the Commission’s current leadership has chosen to severely weaken the FCC’s long standing universal service mission.”

America’s telecommunications watchdogs have levied hefty financial penalties against illegal robocallers and demanded that bad actors repay millions to their victims. But years later, little money has been collected. Since 2015, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered violators of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law governing telemarketing and robodialing, to pay $208.4 million. That sum includes so-called forfeiture orders in cases involving robocalling, Do Not Call Registry and telephone solicitation violations. So far, the government has collected $6,790 of that amount.  The total amount of money secured by the Federal Trade Commission through court judgments in cases involving civil penalties for robocalls or National Do Not Call Registry-related violations, plus the sum requested for consumer redress in fraud-related cases, is $1.5 billion since 2004. It has collected $121 million of that total, said Ian Barlow, coordinator of the agency’s Do Not Call program, or about 8%. An FCC spokesman said his agency lacks the authority to enforce the forfeiture orders it issues and has passed all unpaid penalties to the Justice Department, which has the power to collect the fines. Many of the spoofers and robocallers the agency tries to punish are individuals and small operations, he added, which means they are at times unable to pay the full penalties.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development alerted Twitter and Google in 2018 that it is scrutinizing their practices for possible housing discrimination, a sign that more technology companies could be ensnared in a government probe of their lucrative demographic ad targeting tools. HUD on March 28 charged Facebook with housing discrimination, alleging its targeted advertising platform violates the Fair Housing Act by “encouraging, enabling, and causing” unlawful discrimination by restricting who can view housing ads. "They want to make sure that other companies aren’t getting away with something that one company is investigated for,” said someone with direct knowledge of HUD’s outreach to other tech companies.