Net Neutrality a Hitch for Major Telecom Bill, Panelists Say
Prospects for a comprehensive telecom bill are dim, considering the unresolved net neutrality arguments going into the next Congress, congressional aides said Thurs. on a Practising Law Institute panel. The neutrality debate doomed telecom legislation in the 109th Congress, Republicans and Democrats agreed, and though the issue is less politicized now that elections are over, it’s still misunderstood. Congress’s role in franchising is uncertain, with FCC action coming soon, and so is the path to dealing with net neutrality, they 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!
Net neutrality could be a “poison pill” if it’s included in telecom legislation, said Lisa Sutherland, Senate Commerce Committee majority staff dir. It’s the “big elephant in the room,” she said, noting that most Democrats voted against the net neutrality amendment on the House floor last Congress: “It’s hard to say how it will play out, other than to say I think it will be an active issue” in the next Congress. Democrats said the FCC’s franchising rulemaking can’t deal with all the matters Congress could, so further legislation may be on the horizon.
But the difficulty is managing the net neutrality issue. Senate Commerce Committee Chmn.-designate Inouye (D-Hawaii) will view net neutrality through consumers’ eyes, said Rachel Welch, minority aide. “The consumer should be able to choose where to go and at what speed from the broadband provider,” she said: “There can be a lot of variations on that perspective, but that’s the lens from which Senator Inouye will approach the issue next year.”
The House telecom bill addressed consumers’ interests, said Commerce Committee Majority Counsel Neil Fried. “We tried to take care of it,” he said, referring to provisions in the bill that would have codified FCC broadband principles. The bill provided consumers rights to go anywhere on the Internet and have access to any content they want. “That’s not the issue here,” Fried said. What’s at stake is regulation in anticipation of problems, he said. Net neutrality advocates called for measures that would have amounted to controlling parts of the network, he said. “That’s just not the solution,” Fried said: “In a burgeoning market with no identified problem, the last thing we need is prophylactic regulation.”
“I think you're going to see a lot of evolving positions among members of Congress” on net neutrality, said Andrew Wallace, aide to Rep. Green (D-Tex.). He said the issue will come down to how video is handled, because it requires so much bandwidth. “At some point we have to ask who’s going to pay for that, whether it’s content providers, consumers or a mix of that and how that’s managed,” he said: “It is very controversial.” If a middle ground can be reached between content providers and network operators, then it may be possible to get a major telecom bill in the future, he said.
Legislation to reshape the Universal Service Fund (USF) is likely to pick up steam in the next Congress, Sutherland said. Although Stevens and Inouye have shared a commitment to moving a bill, Barton’s outspoken opposition to any expansion of the fund put a damper on progress in the House. With Democrats in control and House Speaker-designate Pelosi’s (D-Cal.) commitment to broadband deployment, the political dynamics are different for the next Congress. But some things are the same. Fried said Barton thinks USF isn’t “sustainable” in its present form and Congress needs to look at other options.