Telecom Bill Markup Recesses; Few Amendments Handled

Hill watchers expected a marathon, perhaps lasting well into the night. With 250 amendments rumored, reporters packed snacks, bottled water and spare batteries. But around 4 p.m., after tackling about 20 of roughly 100 amendments Stevens said he expected to address, the committee recessed until 10 a.m. Tues. By all accounts, the landmark markup proved anticlimactic.

Committee co-Chmn. Inouye (D-Hawaii) predicted a “formidable task” that would “press the limits of our patience.” More than 213 first-degree amendments were filed in recent days -- a new record for the committee, he said. The sheer volume of amendments meant members would have to proceed with caution, Inouye said.

Sen. Allen (R-Va.) backed the draft, saying it would benefit consumers by increasing competition and giving them more choices of communications service. Provisions pertaining to the Internet, which Allen called “the greatest invention since Gutenberg’s press” for disseminating ideas, were the focus of his opening remarks. The Web is an “individualized empowerment center,” he said. The Internet is also a tool for encouraging industry competition, which translates into lower prices and better service for consumers, he said.

But it’s important that the Internet “bring more opportunities to more people,” Allen said. Some citizens in rural areas and big cities without access to broadband would benefit from a wireless innovation act woven into the Stevens draft, he said: “It’s ten times as good as Wi-Fi was when we passed that.” Broadband development must proceed and that depends on a stable taxation and regulatory approach, he said. Allen filed an amendment to make permanent a moratorium on Web access taxes set to expire next year. Extending the moratorium would promote broadband deployment and penetration, he said. He “couldn’t imagine anything worse” than allowing an average 18% tax on consumers’ monthly Internet access bills, as some have predicted if the moratorium ends, he said.

Sen. Boxer (D-Cal.) wants to give consumers more video options and increase competition in local markets, she said. But state and local govts. must be able to protect their residents from anticonsumer actions, she said. Many problems with Stevens draft have been remedied, but “my constituents have told me more is needed,” Boxer said. She filed a number of amendments, including one that would let municipalities stop video services with an “anticonsumer history.” The bill should preserve baseline FCC consumer protections, she said.

Sen. Smith (R-Ore.) said Stevens did a “remarkable job” putting together “very historic legislation,” despite the daunting challenge of achieving consensus on amendments. Sen. Vitter (R-La.) said “very few bills can compete” with Stevens’ in terms of its potential impact on growth, consumer empowerment, competition, prices and innovation. Sen. Lautenberg’s (D-N.J.) priorities are better interoperability for emergency communications systems and making the transition to DTV easier, he said. He is “especially grateful” for language aimed at speeding deployment of municipal Internet access, he said. Lautenberg said lawmakers have “struck the right policy” on community broadband.

Local franchising is outmoded and this bill could help, but it goes too far, Sen. Nelson (D-Fla.) said. “If the bill were just video franchising and a few other narrow policy issues like USF, then I would be much happier,” he said: “But I have serious reservations about how broad this bill has become.” Nelson said the Stevens draft “looks much more like a sweeping telecom reform bill than what we started with.” The bill resembles “a rewrite of the Communications Act, which is not what I thought we were trying to do,” he said: “I thought we were trying to do that next year.”

Net Neutrality Debuts Early in Telecom Reform Debate

Net neutrality was the topic du jour early in the Senate Commerce Committee’s Thurs. consideration of a massive telecom reform measure. Stevens said the markup would chart his latest draft title-by-title -- starting with antiterrorism provisions, interoperability and universal service -- but the fight over the high-speed pipe was on many members’ minds during opening statements. The troublesome text appears later in the bill and amendments on net neutrality aren’t expected until next week.

Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) and others backed the Stevens bill’s so-called compromise, saying drafters addressed the concerns of those worried about equitable consumer access to online content and services. The new draft includes a “consumer Internet bill of rights;” an earlier version called only for an FCC study on the topic. But strict antidiscrimination wording in an amendment filed by Sens. Snowe (R-Me.) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) “kills this bill,” Ensign said. If the bill leaves the Senate with the Snowe-Dorgan language on-board, it won’t survive conference with the House, he said. The House rejected a similar net neutrality measure when it passed a video franchise bill this month.

Net neutrality could sink the bill, Stevens said, echoing Ensign. Stevens is confident he has the votes to get the bill out of committee, but the question is whether he can get the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster should one arise on the Senate floor.

But net neutrality is the “founding principle of the Internet,” ensuring consumers, not network operators, control their choices of online content and services, Snowe said: “The Internet has always been an “unfettered, unfiltered, unrestricted environment.” If safeguards aren’t incorporated to preserve net neutrality, “we will radically transform the Internet as we know it today,” she said. A telecom world without this kind of regulation will become a burden on consumers, websites, entrepreneurs and innovators, she said.

Boxer ticked off the issue’s array of odd bedfellows like MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America and the Christian Coalition, who've united to back net neutrality. Few issues bring together such diverse coalitions, she said. Net neutrality provisions in the bill wholly “fail to address the fundamental issue of discrimination,” she said. Dorgan urged the committee to “have the patience to slow down sufficiently” and debate net neutrality. It’s a centerpiece to encouraging innovation and competition, he said.

His bill has the correct language on net neutrality, Stevens told reporters after markup. “We have consumer protection, and in addition to that, we have the FCC ready to raise the flag anytime they see anything they can define as net neutrality,” he said. Despite a tag-team match pitting AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth against Amazon.com, Google and eBay, nobody’s been able to define the issue, Stevens said. He’s willing to include a provision to fast-track any future legislation necessary to thwart discrimination, but only if it actually occurs, he said.