Net Neutrality Splits Commerce, Stevens Tells CompTel
SAN DIEGO -- Net neutrality stirs more Commerce Committee disagreements than any other issue, Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) said Mon. in his keynote address at the CompTel spring show here. Briefing CompTel members on issues the committee is tackling, Stevens praised the ‘96 Act but said any rewrite must address the extent to which courts struck down the original. He said he and Co-Chmn. Inouye (D-Hawaii) expect to have a bill before the committee right after the Easter recess.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Panel members have proposed bills “across the spectrum” on net neutrality, motivated by fear of a massive carrier controlling Internet traffic, Stevens said. This resembles many key communications industry issues, such as the franchising debate, because “our main goal is to ensure a level playing field,” he said. There are actually many different levels, he said, and the rules differ at each; the key is to find which level each company is on.
The Commerce Committee should have draft language in time for a March 30 telecom hearing, Stevens said. He favors a “Communications Act” rather than a more specific focus, he said. Connecting rural areas is the highest cost to the U.S., but those areas’ engagement in communication is key to linking them to the world economy, he said. USF will be a key part of any bill that clears committee, he said, for just this reason.
A major goal of the rewrite is to have a communications plan courts won’t perforate, Stevens said. He quoted former FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth’s book A Tough Act to Follow, noting that 2/3 of rules the ‘96 Act set were voided by courts, while the FCC never adopted many others. The new act would set out codifying principles “to give the FCC a mechanism” by which to enforce rules. Streamlining the bill’s bulk could be the way to do this, he said: “I fear we could go too far and have the courts rule what we're doing is unconstitutional.” This would negate any progress a rewrite made, he said.