WASHINGTON-The wireless industry continued to press for pre-emption as telecom reform plods along in the Senate. But the industry could be making some headway on universal service provisions that are more favorable to wireless carriers.
At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, CTIA President Steve Largent again argued for pre-empting state regulation, the trade group’s top legislative priority for the year. Pre-emption is proving a tough nut to crack for wireless. The House of Representatives passed its version of telecom reform without a pre-emption provision and state regulators are fighting it at full-strength. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners believes telecommunications reform should put in place what it calls “functional federalism.”
“A federal framework should look into the core competencies of agencies at each level of government-state, federal and local-and allow for regulatory functions on the basis of who is properly situated to perform each function most effectively,” said Philip Jones, commissioner with the Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission and chairman of the NARUC federal legislative subcommittee. “In that model, states excel at responsive consumer protection, efficiently resolving intercarrier disputes, ensuring public safety, assessing the level of competition in local markets and tailoring national universal service and other goals to the fact-specific circumstances of each state.”
Amendments on wireless pre-emption are expected to be offered when the Senate Commerce Committee considers the bill June 22.
Wireless pre-emption wasn’t the only wireless issue explored last week. Sprint Nextel Corp. lobbied for special-access reform.
Special access is a term to describe the dedicated lines used to carry traffic from a wireless base station to a mobile switching center and/or onto the public switched telephone network. Since these lines are typically local, incumbents control them. Sprint Nextel told the senators that 99 percent of the special-access lines it uses are controlled by Bell operating companies.
Special-access reform was included in the Democratic staff draft, but has not been included in the Republican drafts. This issue is expected to be considered as part of the mark-up process when amendments are offered.
Staff for the Senate Commerce Committee spent the past month meeting with each committee member’s staff and every industry group involved in telecommunications.
Language in the latest draft is more pro-wireless when it comes to universal service, including competitive-neutrality language that is part of the Democratic staff draft. Universal-service provisions also change some anti-wireless ideas being pushed by rural local exchange carriers, such as requiring wireless carriers to allow customers to choose their own long-distance provider. The wireless industry has long fought against any “equal-access” requirement.
In addition, specific broadband speed requirements that would have been onerous for wireless have been replaced in favor of reporting requirements. If a carrier receives money from the broadband portion of the universal-service fund, it must report what it is doing with the money and what speeds it is offering.
Net compromise
On the thorny subject of network neutrality, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) hinted at a compromise, where the Federal Communications Commission would be given the authority to resolve consumer complaints of discriminatory behavior, but businesses such as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. would be forced to litigate the issue, most likely using antitrust principles.
“We should let the FCC deal with net-neutrality problems with consumers and let the big providers hire lawyers,” said Stevens, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Stevens wants to remove the artificial distinction between information services and telecommunications services. Telecom services are regulated while information services generally are not. Since digital subscriber lines were recently declared to be information services, network-neutrality proponents believe that content providers soon will be charged more for using the bigger pipes being built.
“Communications is communications and should not to be treated differently if they are telecommunications or information services,” said Stevens.
The original bill introduced May 1 has the FCC studying whether network operators are prioritizing the content traveling over their networks. Based on comments he made at the hearing, Stevens apparently still likes this approach, but Democrats oppose it. On the House side, Democrats tried unsuccessfully to include language that would prohibit blocking, degrading and/or restricting access to content-things that are done routinely by wireless operators today.
The White House has signaled that it is also opposes net neutrality.
Network neutrality has become so controversial that senators expressed fears that it could sink the entire telecom reform effort.
“There is so much good in the broader bill, it would be a shame if network neutrality ruined it,” said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.).
Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was treated to the pros and cons of net neutrality.
Like his counterpart in the House, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made clear his intention to have a voice in the telecom-reform debate.
“There are very important antitrust issues involved,” Specter said. The House Judiciary Committee, however, was largely cut out of the debate. It remains to be seen how much influence the Judiciary Committee will have as the process moves along in the Senate.
William Kovacic, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, told lawmakers continued convergence of the telecom and Internet industries makes it important that Congress give the FTC jurisdiction over telecommunications carriers. Telecom carriers are under the purview of the FCC today.
RCR Wireless News Washington Bureau Chief Jeff Silva contributed to this report.
