Broadband Access Nice, Not Necessity, Barton Says

"Almost everybody in the country has a cellphone or an iPhone or an iPad, and we have multiple service providers’ 3G and 4G networks,” Barton said. “I see no real reason for the Universal Service Fund as it was originally construed, and it’s debatable if you need it at all.” At one time, a USF was necessary, he said. “You have a tough time making that case today. If you choose to live in some remote area, you don’t have an entitlement to broadband. … It’s not a necessity. It’s a nicety.” Barton said the FCC has made some progress on reforming the USF over the last year, which he approves. He acknowledged “it’s a tough, tough thing” for Congress to approve “real reform,” especially in the Senate, given rural interests in keeping the USF alive.

Barton was strongly critical of arguments the FCC made this week, in a pleading on Verizon’s appeal of the 2010 order at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, that net neutrality rules stimulated investment in broadband (CD Sept 12 p1). “How hard is it to pat yourself on the back for something that wasn’t necessary?” he asked. “I don’t put much credibility in their patting themselves on the back. I don’t think they've done much harm with it, but I don’t think it’s necessary and I don’t think it’s done any good.” If Republican candidate Mitt Romney is elected, net neutrality rules are likely to be revoked, Barton said. “It depends on who wins the election.” If Republicans take control of the House and Senate, “I believe it’s reasonable to assume that we'd move a repeal bill,” Barton said.

Barton said in general he disagrees with many of the positions taken by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “Chairman Genachowski is a very bright person … he’s very hard working. I think he does his homework,” Barton said. “I don’t agree with his philosophy. I think it’s too regulatory. I think he has tried to stretch some of these older laws in ways that fit a political purpose of President Obama, who he is very close to personally.” Barton met with Genachowski on several occasions, the legislator said. “He’s available, accessible, he’s been by to visit me several times. … We've had several phone conversations.”

Barton’s hopeful the House will approve the Do Not Track Kids Act, which the Privacy Caucus co-chair wrote this year with fellow co-chairman Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Barton said he spoke with Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., about moving the bill. “I don’t have a commitment from him to do that, but that bill is a possibility, especially in the lame duck,” Barton said. “In the regular session, we're probably not going to have that many more legislative days."

The creation of the Privacy Caucus has helped get Congress up to speed on such issues, Barton said. “I think the public is ahead of the Congress on privacy,” he said. “Companies like Microsoft and some of those guys are ahead. They're building in their default positions to have more and more privacy. In the Congress we're still, in my opinion, a little bit behind the curve, but we gained a lot of ground in this Congress.” Barton said he remains very committed on privacy. “We have the tea party now, and they're real big on the strict interpretation of the Constitution,” he said. “But I was tea party before there was a tea party, and I think the Fourth Amendment can be construed to be a privacy amendment."

Barton said he and Markey chose to introduce legislation on kids’ privacy first “because we thought that would be a way to get the ball rolling to a bigger bill.” Getting any legislation through the House and Senate is difficult, Barton conceded. “In a normal sense, the answer to that is yes, but when there’s really no controversy, once you get on the track, that’s the kind of bill that could move very quickly and could be done very quickly,” he said. “I'm not saying it will be, but it certainly could be."

Barton said there’s little momentum in Congress at this point for a Telecom Act rewrite. “This is not a telecommunications Congress,” he said. “There’s no crisis. The reform telco act is 1996. That’s a number of years ago. … Most of the principals have retired.” Legislating in areas like telecom, with its rapid change, is never easy, Barton said. “It’s difficult, but it’s supposed to be difficult,” he said. “The good news is it’s not impossible. What you really need is some sense of commonality across the political spectrum of what the problems are, so that then you can work on solutions. When the country identifies a problem and liberals in California are on the same page as conservatives in Texas, Congress can find a deal.”

"It shouldn’t have taken 10 years to get [a network] apparently, really going,” Barton said. He said the February spectrum law that created FirstNet is “conceptually excellent,” but more remains to be seen. “I think the proof is in the pudding and the board hasn’t met yet, they don’t meet until September 25,” he said. “If anything works like it’s supposed to, hopefully, within four or five years we'll have an interoperable first responder network through the entire country and that definitely will be a good thing.” Barton said, “potentially I have a lot of questions, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s see what they do.”

Barton said he remains opposed to Internet taxes in general. “People like me who don’t have any taxation of the Internet could reasonably support the collection of a local sales tax,” he said. “But other than that, I'm still no taxes, no transaction tax, no surtax, just to get on the Internet."