Verizon Won’t Return if Franchise Bill Fails, Tauke Says
ASPEN, Colo. -- Verizon won’t seek a federal franchise bill next Congress if the telecom bill (HR-5252) fails to pass this year, Verizon Exec. Vp Tom Tauke said Tues. at the annual Progress & Freedom Foundation conference here: “We aren’t going to be starting out from the same place -- the appeal of video is going to be less.” Verizon’s state-level success with franchise laws significantly weakens demand for federal reform, Tauke said.
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!
“The stars are aligned” for passage of the bill, he said, voicing optimism about overcoming political hurdles. But next Congress the company likely will have other legislative goals, Tauke said: “Every year there are new challenges. I still see a need to streamline and update rules like USF (Universal Service Fund).” But in terms of federal action, “this is the year for video choice,” he said.
The net neutrality debate, which threatens to hang up the telecom bill, is not new, Tauke said: “It’s a debate many of us have participated in at least twice before; it’s kind of ‘Groundhog Day for Broadband.” The issue emerged in 1999 with the “open access” argument. Cable companies that owned Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were denying access to other ISPs. The FCC refused to intervene and the market worked out the problem, Tauke said. The next version came when the FCC was weighing how to regulate broadband. With an FCC decision to treat broadband as an information, rather than telecom or cable service, the market again was allowed to work, he said.
Now comes net neutrality, where “'old rules’ advocates call for non-discrimination and demand that business models be shaped by regulation,” Tauke said: “For all the fireworks over net neutrality, I believe there is now an emerging consensus” that it’s all about consumers and their ability to get information and services they want. “Relationships between and among players [should] be resolved in the marketplace,” he said.
Telcos remain firm in resisting any non-discriminatory net neutrality requirements in the telecom legislation. “We would oppose any bill with strong net neutrality language,” said USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick. Congress isn’t likely to go that way, Howard Waltzman, majority chief counsel, House Commerce Committee, said: “There would not be a bill sent to the president that included [non-discriminatory net neutrality requirements] because the House would not agree to it. I do not believe the Snowe-Dorgan amendment would pass the Senate.”
“I see no need for Congress to act where there’s no problem,” Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert said, calling it “preposterous” to think network operators would degrade services when consumers are the point of their business model. The FTC is an appropriate agency for policing bad behavior by network operators, he said, predicting a new task force announced Mon. will assure greater scrutiny: “The FTC is not only able to regulate Internet services it is the most appropriate government entity to do so.”
Like Tauke and McCormick, Notebaert said there’s no need for more regulation when laws exist to deal with problems. He also is not open to a compromise on the current language in the bill, he said: “This is not one I'd like to make.”