Senate Needs to Trim Bill, Pickering Says

But as the House learned in 2 drafts of “BITs” measures, it’s tough out there for a far-reaching telecom bill. The one (HR-5252) the House did pass focused on federal franchising for video service providers, Pickering said. That targeted approach “puts all communications policy services on the federal level, providing a level playing field for companies,” he said.

The impending House vote will provide a “catalyst for our friends in the Senate,” Pickering said, predicting passage by an “overwhelming” majority. He said he expects a ruling in a “day or 2” on a Judiciary Committee request for jurisdiction over the bill the Commerce Committee passed. House Speaker Hastert (R-Ill.) will decide what to do, based on a ruling by the House parliamentarian. Pickering said Judiciary shouldn’t have a stake in the bill. But Judiciary Chmn. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) is determined to pursue the issue, as he made clear in a lengthy letter to Hastert.

The House and Senate will be able to conference on a bill if the Senate passes a measure, Pickering said. Universal service fund (USF) provisions, not in the House bill, wouldn’t be a roadblock, though the 2 committee chairmen have opposite philosophical views on USF, he said. Thanks to the House bill not addressing USF, telecom advocates “have a good negotiating position,” Pickering said. The solution must be “sustainable, rational, reasonable and limited,” he said.

The Senate Commerce Committee is grappling with net neutrality as Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) and staff hear reaction to a telecom bill released last week (CD May 2 p1). “Everyone who has an opinion is up talking to us,” Committee Staff Dir. Lisa Sutherland said: “It will be the central issue as the committee moves forward.” The Senate bill’s net neutrality provision calls for the FCC to study the issue -- a “light touch” that provides a starting point for talks, she said. “Sen. Stevens went back and forth on this” issue, she said. Initially, he tilted toward an assertive approach to prevent discrimination. But after hearing from a Wall Street panel, he feared that approach might hurt investment, Sutherland said: “This will be an issue he and Sen. Inouye will develop as we go along.”

Senate Democrats likely will seek stronger language. “I don’t view this as new regulation of the Internet,” Senate Democratic Counsel James Assey said: “Operators should be prevented from discriminating -- I don’t see anything wrong with setting up a rule that makes sure everyone plays fair.”

On the House side, net neutrality is a “heated issue,” said Johanna Shelton, minority counsel, Commerce Committee Ranking Member Dingell (R-Mich.). Republicans believe they have struck the right balance. “Our approach has been that there’s not a problem, but we'll be creating a problem if we allow govt. regulation to chill investment,” said Commerce Committee Chief Counsel Howard Waltzman.

The Senate will wrangle with franchising provisions, as the House did, though its bill is structured differently. The language seems to give localities more say over franchising by not stripping all local franchising authority from the outset, but that’s misleading, Assey told us. The Senate bill does include local franchising authority, but it significantly restricts that authority, he said: “We prefer that localities be in charge of some things and for the federal govt. to be in charge of some things. The difficulty is to find the proper balance… If the job left to localities is basically ministerial -- to stamp a form -- that would leave me with some concern.”