H.R._ House Commerce Comittee Draft of Telecom Reform Bill

On November 16, 2005, House Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) said he was still seeking a date in December for a subcommittee vote on draft legislation that would make broad revisions in the nation's telecommunications laws. That would lead to a full committee vote next year "as soon as possible -- which would be in March," Rep Barton told a telecommunications policy forum sponsored by Congressional Quarterly . He added, “We do want to get a bill that we can send to the President in this Congress."

The November 9 hearing saw House Commerce Committee Republicans promising to push forward with telecommunications policy reform over the objections of Democrats who say they have been left out of the process. The broadcast TV and cable industry as well as a representative of local governments expressed displeasure with the bill.

On November 9, the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet is holding a hearing on a staff discussion draft of legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services. The bill addresses broadband Internet transmission services (dubbed BITS) and since the Committee is now discussing a second draft of the legislation it is being called "BITS II." Congress Daily reported earlier this week that the legislation 1) waters down earlier language on network neutrality to allow providers of broadband-based television services to control the Internet content available to customers over such platforms; 2) calculates video franchise fees in a way that is more favorable to the Bells -- meaning less revenue in the coffers of localities; 3) includes provisions requiring the FCC to review its broadband video regulations every four years and eliminate any that are "no longer necessary as the result of meaningful economic competition; and 4) does NOT mandate that the Bells make their television services available to all citizens in communities where they offer it. The bill still has not been introduced.

The hearing is available at the following URL.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11092005hearing1706/hearing.htm

As of Sept 22, 2005, this bill has not yet been introduced.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation hosted a panel that discussed the draft bill on September 21. Industry press highlighted Verizon's Tom Tauke critical statements about the bill, arguing that the measure does not do enough to facilitate his company’s entry into subscriber video services.

Congress Daily reported that Tauke also criticized the presence of the phrase "build out—to be determined" in the House draft. "The good news is that nothing is in there," he said. "The bad news is that someone believes there should be something there." So-called build out language is aimed at addressing the failure by a given company to provide service in the poorer sections of a metropolitan area. The fact that this section of the bill was left blank appears to reflect partisan disagreements between Republicans and Democrats on the Commerce Committee.

Communications Daily reported that Tauke’s vision of telecom reform reflects an understanding that "this wired and wireless broadband space is an interstate market, a national market, subject to jurisdiction of the FCC." The FCC role in broadband
would be to address market failures, and its guide for action on complaints would be the High Tech Broadband Coalition’s connectivity principles. An FTC model might work because FTC doesn’t try to set rules shaping a market’s development, Tauke said. "Just as big change is usually hard for us as individuals, it’s also difficult for the body politic," Tauke said. "We know that the game where ‘government rules’ and consumers are passive beneficiaries won’t work in the real world."

Dan Brenner of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said franchising method is far from perfect but isn’t the barrier to entry some allege. He accused Verizon of advocating a "no rules" environment with ad hoc jurisprudence where "everything is subject to complaint." Mr. Brenner said this model for reform would eliminate program access and eliminate the 5% franchise fee compromise.
The system Tauke and allies urge would mean "every single kind of commercial dispute" would have to come before the FCC, Brenner argued.

Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge was also on the panel. She called for a firm "net neutrality" principle in proposed telecom legislation. Network neutrality, the notion that service providers not be permitted to discriminate against high-speed Internet applications like Voice-over-Internet protocol, is expected to be a political hot potato in the forthcoming telecom debate. It is aggressively supported by public advocacy groups and by regional Bell telephone competitors, particularly VoIP companies. "The notion that consumers should be able to go where they want to go, and attach devices without restriction, is a principle so core" to broadband that it must be included in legislation, Sohn said. "You prohibit bit discrimination."

Meanwhile, local regulators are in Washington Sept 22-25 urging Congress to "recognize the importance of local franchising authority." Reps from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and National League of Cities’ Information & Technology Communications Committee apparently are willing to consider streamlining the franchising process, but want a seat at the table as Congress considers a telecom act rewrite. They are concerned that impending legislation will affect cities’ ability to attract business and ensure competition and fair prices for services.