Stevens Plans Telecom Act Changes, Then Will Invoke Cloture
The draft telecom bill (S-2686) was too hard on cities, Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) said Wed. at the first of 2 hearings on it. Acknowledging as “fair criticism” complaints about the bill’s local franchising provisions, Stevens said those parts of the bill were “put in by others.” Stevens said he takes “credit or blame” for the bill’s handling of net neutrality, but wants more Democratic input before revising the bill.
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!
“This senator is going to see that this bill gets to the floor… and we'll do so this year,” Stevens said when the bill was termed “too aggressive” by Sen. Boxer (D-Cal.). “Don’t you need the votes?” Boxer asked. “We have them,” Stevens replied. Boxer, like other Democrats, urged caution; she objects to net neutrality and local franchising provisions.
Committee Democrats want local govts. to keep more power in local franchising, they said. “The key elements of reform in S-2686 will require substantial revisions if we are to pass legislation this year,” said Ranking Member Inouye (D- Hawaii). The bill doesn’t reflect principles he and Sen. Burns (R-Mont.) suggested earlier for affirming local govt. interests in the local franchising process, Inouye said. The draft “would eliminate key consumer protections regardless of whether new competition emerges or not,” Inouye said. The bill could move forward if “we narrow our focus and get serious about what is reasonable and what can be accomplished,” he said.
“Most of the principles” were addressed, Sen. Burns (R- Mont.) told Stevens, joking that the committee should adopt a new model of legislating on the premise that “we're not happy until you're not happy.” Burns thanked Stevens for including his Universal Service Fund (USF) measure, aimed at bringing broadband to rural areas, in the telecom bill.
One thing emerging from the telecom hearings is a consensus that the USF program is needed, Stevens said: “There’s no one at the table who says there shouldn’t be USF. There were two years ago.” If Stevens’ bill passes the Senate, he'll have to confront House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.), who not only opposes expanding USF but wants to shut it down.
The bill would hamstring local govt. supervision of video service providers, municipal representatives told the committee. The bill “would severely undermine local franchising enforcement and compliance authority, threaten local budgets, limit the benefit of broadband-video competition to a few well-to-do neighborhoods” and weaken govt. ability to protect residents, said Michael Guido, vice chmn., U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The net effect is to strip authority from local govt. and give it to the FCC, Guido said. The requirement that franchise authorities act on a request in 15 days and okay a franchise in 30 days would “in many instances violate state and local law… and leave consumers without a voice in their community,” he said.
Consumers Union (CU) urged inclusion of a mandate for buildout in the bill to ensure underserved consumers are reached. “Phone companies will not commit to serving all consumers,” said Gene Kimmelman, CU vp-federal affairs. The bill would erase cable’s duty to serve all consumers, he said: “The danger here is reliance on hope of competition rather than the reality of competition.”
Net Neutrality Hovers
The hearing focused on franchising and USF, but net neutrality surfaced throughout. NCTA Pres. Kyle McSlarrow nervously congratulated Stevens on the bill’s language, which calls for an FCC study. Net neutrality proponents deem that insufficient and want enforcement language beyond current law. Inouye isn’t satisfied with the language.
“I don’t want to hurt you here,” McSlarrow said, “but I'd like to give you credit. This is a number one issue.” He said it’s “more appropriate to study the issue further: “There’s no possible way you can legislate on this. Our recommendation is to be very cautious and to stay away from net neutrality as it’s commonly understood.”
USTelecom hailed the bill’s net neutrality language, and reissued a vow from past hearings that telcos won’t block, impair or degrade content, applications or services. “We stand by that pledge,” Pres. Walter McCormick said: “We think this legislation strikes the right balance.”
But Boxer and other committee Democrats disagree, and future hearings will see vigorous discussion. “It’s very likely this whole bill could die over net neutrality,” Sen. Smith (R-Ore.) said: “If this thing gets hung up in the Senate, which is easy to predict, it will be over net neutrality. If you have good ideas, I'd like to hear them.”
Stevens plans to invoke cloture if the bill gets to the floor, he said. That would require 60 votes to pass. He plans to release a revised draft of the bill June 5, and hold the next hearing May 25, chaired by Inouye, he said. A hearing is set for June 13 on the revised substitute bill with amendments due June 16 and a markup June 20.