WASHINGTON-Just as wireless was largely left on the edges of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it once again remains in the shadows as lawmakers map out new plans for telecom reform. Broadband is the key word today as fears grow that America is losing its technological leadership position.
Two bills emerged from the Senate last week as members were wrapping up business before leaving town for the August recess. One bill would give wireless a key goal-pre-emption-and would ban municipalities from building their own broadband networks, many of which are wireless. Another bill would make it more difficult for wireless carriers to qualify for a new universal-service program aimed at broadband deployment.
“It is time to restore America’s status as a leader in the field of global communication technology and to improve burdensome and outdated government regulations for the benefit of consumers nationwide,” said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), chairman of the Senate technology subcommittee. “We must not allow government regulations to be an anchor on the advance of technology if we want America to lead the world in the information age.”
Ensign became the first out of the gate on the Senate side to introduce a telecom reform bill with the Broadband Consumer Choice Act of 2005. “We are hoping this bill is the impetus for telecom reform,” he said. “We are trying to put a marker out there.”
While the high-tech and telecom industries generally supported Ensign’s bill, Consumers Union blasted it. “Consumers better hold on to their wallets if this bill becomes law,” said Jeannine Kenney, Consumers Union senior policy analyst. “Despite platitudes toward consumer choice and protection, this bill does the exact opposite.”
Ensign would not give a timetable for consideration of his bill, saying that it would be up to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The wireless industry will get its long sought-after pre-emption if Ensign’s measure becomes law. “The bill will enact a set of federal consumer protection measures to ensure that consumers get high-quality service from all providers,” said Ensign. “By setting federal standards that states can enforce, we will allow national carriers to invest and compete without a patchwork quilt of regulations.”
On its face, the Ensign bill seems to deal more with the franchising debate that has been swirling as the Baby Bells try to get into video offerings.
The bill repeals Title I, Title II and Title VI of the Communications Act. The wireless industry is generally governed by Title III, which Ensign’s bill does not appear to address.
The debate regarding the deployment of municipal-broadband networks, including unlicensed wireless use, intensified when Ensign included an incumbent right-of-first-refusal in his bill. “I just fundamentally believe that government shouldn’t compete with the private sector,” he said.
After Ensign introduced his bill, several Democrats expressed support for municipal broadband at a forum sponsored by the New Republic magazine. “We have narrowed the digital divide, but we have not closed it. For that reason, I support attempts by underserved local communities to deliver advanced broadband services to their citizens,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Kerry later told reporters he had not read Ensign’s bill, and he indicated he may want to introduce his own bill.
Out of deference to Stevens, Ensign said his bill explicitly did not deal with universal service. However, a draft bill being circulated last week by Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) waded right into the universal-service waters.
The Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, would “expand the contribution base for universal service and establish a separate account within the universal-service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States.”
The universal-service bill protects small incumbent telephone companies and creates a broadband block-grant program for the states but only allows the states to give grants to one provider.
