COPE Day

BARTON-RUSH BILL ENCOURAGES NEW VIDEO SERVICES, LOWER PRICES FOR CONSUMERS
[SOURCE: House of Representatives Commerce Committee press release]
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made the following statement Tuesday during the full committee markup of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. "The primary focus of this legislation is to create a streamlined cable franchising process in order to increase the number of facilities-based providers of video, voice, and data services in our nation. Today, there are thousands of local franchising authorities, and each may impose disparate restrictions on the provision of cable service in its locality. The requirement to negotiate each local franchises, and the patchwork of obligations local franchising entails, are hindering the deployment of advanced broadband networks that will bring increasingly innovative and competitive services to consumers. The committee print seeks to address this concern and strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight. It continues to allow negotiation of local franchises, but also makes available an alternative national franchise process. The national franchise preserves local franchise fees, municipal control over local rights-of-way, and support for public, educational and governmental channels and governmental networks. The committee print also seeks to strike the right balance between ensuring that the public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace and ensuring that Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet services, an action that I believe would have a chilling effect on broadband deployment and, especially, broadband innovation. Finally, the committee print addresses rules for VoIP services to ensure that Internet services become a vibrant competitor to plain old telephone service."
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/04252006_1851.htm

RUSH'S MILLION-DOLLAR CONFLICT?
[SOURCE: Chicago Sun-Times, AUTHOR: Lynn Sweet]
A Chicago community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-II), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies. Sheila Krumholz, the acting executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, says Rep Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the House Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Today, the Commerce Committee, on which Rep Rush sits, is set to vote on a controversial rewrite of telecommunications law co-sponsored by Rep Rush and backed by major phone companies eager to compete with cable television companies. "People can disagree about where to draw the line on contributions and abstaining from votes, but $1 million is definitely over that line," Krumholz said. Rep Rush is the only Democrat to sponsor the "Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006." He has been working with committee chair Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) to promote the "Barton-Rush" bill. The SBC charity made the first of a series of payments totaling $1 million in 2001 to the Englewood group to create the still unbuilt "Bobby L. Rush Center for Community Technology." The final check was written in 2004, with the SBC Foundation delaying the last payment for a year over concerns that the project was not moving forward. The Rush center is now expected to open within the next 12 months.
http://chicagosuntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sweet25.html

'NET NEUTRALITY' IN HIGH GEAR
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The "Net Neutrality" debate raged in Washington Tuesday, the subject of a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee and of countless letters to and from legislators on the issue as lobbyists geared up for a markup on a video franchising bill Wednesday. A House Commerce Committee bill allowing national video franchises also promotes telco provision of Internet access. And there's the rub. Because telcos want to be able to offer enhanced services over their networks, and charge content providers for those services, those who see one company's enhancement as another's degradation are concerned that those network providers will discriminate in Internet access provision., discouraging innovation and requiring Internet content providers to pay "protection" money not to have their service degraded. On the telco side, Walter McCormick, promised legislators that the companies he represents would not "block, impair, or degrade" access. He also told the committee that antitrust laws, as they already exist, guard against restraint of trade and should be able to insure that so-called "network neutrality." McCormick says that companies like Disney have approached them about setting up virtual private networks--where they could securely distribute video content, for example--and that those companies should bear the cost of that enhanced services. Proponents of stronger network neutrality rules counter that that scenario means that others service will be, de facto, degraded, since the bigger pipe will go to the company willing or able to pay for it
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6328084?display=Breaking+News
* McCormick: Telcos Won't Block Web Content
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6328086.html?display=Breaking+News
* Network neutrality = open
[SOURCE: TPM cafe, AUTHOR: Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt]
[Commentary] Since someone asked, there are four categories of meaning to the term "open networks," and the current debate falls quickly into terminological confusion as a result. Networks can be (1) open to all content [like the Web is designed to be, and TV and newspapers are not], (2) open to connection with all other networks [like the Internet is designed to be, and the telephone network is ordered to be by the regulators], (3) open to all people [like free over the air broadcast TV, and not like cable TV], (4) and open to all designs.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29182
* The Neutrality Non-Debate
[SOURCE: American Prospect, AUTHOR: Matthew Yglesias]
[Commentary] “Network neutrality” regulation is complicated. Potential changes deserve real scrutiny, not a quiet congressional pass on behalf of the telecom industry. The issue has been languishing in an obscurity all out of proportion to its objective importance. Most people have no idea what network neutrality is, and most of the ones who do know probably heard about it in the past two weeks. At a minimum, the status quo seems to work fine, while there are credible arguments that making the change would be a giant mistake. If this change really is a good idea, surely it could withstand some public scrutiny and debate. Instead, telecom companies seem determined to push it through under cover of night and, so far, Congress is happy to help.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11447

MARKEY INTRODUCING NET NEUTRALITY AMENDMENT
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Ranking House Telecommunications Subcommittee Member Ed Markey (D-MA) says he will introduce a "network neutrality" amendment to a national video franchise bill. Rep Markey announced the amendment during opening statements on a video franchise bill that will be marked up in the committee Wednesday. Rep Markey and several co-sponsors including Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) are concerned that the current bill does not sufficiently protect against network discrimination in the provision of Internet access. The network neutrality issue has surpassed red-lining and the lack of build-out requirements as the hottest video franchise bill-related issue in Washington. See Rep Markey's statement at the URL below.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6328119?display=Breaking+News
* Opening Statement at the "COPE" Markup on Network Neutrality
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1461&Itemid=138
* Congress must protect free access to Web sites, services
[SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: Rep Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA)]
[Commentary] The "battle for 'net neutrality' will determine the future of the Internet and the continued innovation and technological development the Internet has produced.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14431191.htm
* Democrats pledge fight over Net neutrality
http://news.com.com/Democrats+pledge+fight+over+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6065062.html?tag=html.alert

TAKING AIM AT TELECOM REFORM
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Gun Owners of America's Craig Fields acknowledged Monday on a conference call to launch savetheinternet.com, that he was far to the right of the others in the coalition, but said it was necessary to stop the telcos from controlling the Internet. Their target is a telecommunications reform bill that would pave the way for a national media franchise that would include high-speed Internet service. The House version of the bill -- the only one marked up so far -- allows the FCC to determine when network neutrality has been violated, then punish it. But the commission would not have the authority to write rules of network neutrality. Without that express authority, bill critics including the new coalition argue, there would be too much room for abuse. Fields suggested part of the reason for Washington support for a video franchising bill that does not have tough network neutrality protections is that some politicians don't want groups like his to have the increased flexibility to respond to issues that the Internet has made possible. While he called his group "pretty much free market guys," he also said that, ironically, "we have the necessity of government intervention to assure a free marketplace of ideas."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6327773?display=Breaking+News

COPE AND MUNICIPAL BROADBAND
[SOURCE: Tales from the Sausage Factory, AUTHOR: Harold Feld]
[Commentary] Today, the House Commerce Committee will hold a “mark up” on COPE and vote whether to report the bill out of Committee. I am informed that Representative Steve Buyer from the state of Indiana will introduce an amendment tomorrow seeking to eliminate the good language on muni broadband with language similar to that in the Ensign Telecom rewrite bill that requires local governments to get permission from private industry before building a network (aka the “Pennsylvania Plan”). Why would Mr. Buyer do such a thing, you ask? Especially when his own great state of Indiana has rejected such a proposal in 2005 and then rejected the same proposal again in 2006? Good question, one which I hope Mr. Buyer's constituents will ask him when he campaigns for reelection later in the year. I have lots of problems with COPE generally, but I fear that with all the focus network neutrality and local franchising, that people will lose track of one of the few good things in the bill and let it slip away.
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/489

HOUSE AIDE: BUSH UNLIKELY TO SIGN FRANCHISE LAW
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Due to complications in the Senate and a short legislative calendar, an aide to House Commerce Committee Member Paul Gillmor (R-OH) predicted Monday that cable-franchise-reform legislation will not reach the White House this year -- even though one month ago, Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) was willing to bet that President Bush would sign a bill in the fall. "My handicap is that it passes through the House but it won't be signed into law and we'll have to continue it in the 110th Congress," said Ryan Walker, Gillmor's senior legislative assistant. On Wednesday, Chairman Barton's committee is expected to approve legislation that would allow phone companies to offer cable-TV service without permission from local governments. By allowing the Federal Communications Commission to award national cable franchises, Barton's bill would eliminate a cornerstone of cable regulation that Congress established in 1984. Walker, speaking at the National Association of Broadcasters convention here, said Barton's bill would encounter problems in the Senate, where aides to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) are drafting a more wide-ranging telecommunications bill. "We have a great bill, but Sen. Stevens has a really comprehensive bill. Working with [the Senate], there's always a possibility that we could get something signed into law this year," Walker said. "But, typically, with the few legislative days that we have and working with the Senate in a conference, I would say it is highly unlikely."
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6327819.html?display=Breaking+News