Stevens Modifies Telecom Bill

Phone companies could enter cable markets within 90 days under streamlined franchising rules and cable incumbents could opt in to the new licensing regime when existing agreements expire or when phone companies arrive in the market, according to new telecommunications draft legislation from Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). He altered his position some in response to concerns by local officials. His original bill would have allowed AT&T and Verizon Communications to begin offering video service within 30 days. Local governments won another change: Sen Stevens modified his bill so that a video provider using the new franchising process would have to pay franchise fees based on a definition of gross revenue that includes commissions paid by home shopping channels. Cities argued that the original bill would have cut franchise fees by up to 20%. While Sen Stevens would not impose video-buildout requirements on phone companies, he would expose them to penalties for denial of service based on a group's income, race or religion. But phone companies could cite commercial infeasibility to defend against red-lining charges. Under the Stevens bill, local governments would be required to use a simplified franchising procedure crafted by the FCC, in a concession to phone-company concerns that current local franchising system is long, tedious and a barrier to competition. On network neutrality, the new 151-page bill is no different from the original (S. 2686) released May 1. It would require the Federal Communications Commission to study the Internet market and file annual reports to Congress over a five-year period. Sen Stevens is holding a hearing Tuesday on his Communications, Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. He hopes to vote it out of committee June 20 despite strong opposition by Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) -- the panel's top Democrat -- to the net-neutrality language.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342816.html?display=Breaking+News
For more on the bill, see: http://www.benton.org/node/2173