WASHINGTON-A dispute among Democrats during a House panel debate on telecom reform underscored how lawmakers’ views of network neutrality often corresponds to whether they think telephone companies should be allowed to compete in the TV space.
In the end, a watered-down telecom reform bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act, overwhelmingly passed committee and is set to go before the full House. The Senate has yet to introduce its version of telecom reform legislation, but one senator is aiming to streamline the issue by combining five previously introduced bills.
Paying for special treatment is at the heart of a debate over network neutrality, a provision that would force transport providers to offer everyone equal access on the Internet.
Democrats broke on network neutrality when Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) tried to require the Federal Communications Commission to study how content providers and search engines like Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. might distort information delivered to consumers. Such firms sometimes promote the content of paying companies over those that do not pay. Gonzalez’s district includes San Antonio, home of AT&T Inc.
Gonzalez’s amendment argued that content providers and search engines are the companies that prioritize content based on their relationships, not transport providers. AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc.-proponents of the telecom reform bill because of its focus on creating a national franchise for their Internet-protocol TV offerings-have said they would consider giving priority service to content providers that are willing to pay for the privilege.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House telecommunications subcommittee, opposes what he calls “creating a fast lane and a slow lane” on the Internet. As such, he fought the Gonzalez amendment that was soundly defeated.
That result, and a similar defeat of an earlier Markey amendment to preserve network neutrality, showed that telecom reform debate is not dividing down party lines. Supporters of the Gonzalez study included Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), both COPE sponsors.
Pipe owners have said they would like to prioritize packets so they can manage their networks effectively. Network-neutrality proponents warn that this would create two Internets; one with premium content paid for by both the consumers and content providers, and the one that exists today.
The House bill gives the FCC authority to adjudicate complaints that the FCC’s broadband policy had been violated, but does not allow the commission to turn that policy into a regulation.
The COPE Act is a scaled-back reform bill. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) again tried to include universal-service and intercarrier-compensation obligations for Voice over Internet Protocol providers, but was unsuccessful.
The Senate Commerce Committee, which spent the winter holding hearings on telecommunications-reform-related topics, has yet to introduce its bill. However, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) said he plans to introduce telecom-reform legislation, dubbed the Broadband for America Act of 2006, meant to jumpstart discussion by combining five already-introduced bills. One existing bill calls for using TV white spaces for unlicensed use, another allows municipalities to deploy their own broadband infrastructure and a third would create a broadband-grant program using universal-service funds.
“Leaving outdated laws on the books stalls job creation and inhibits the introduction of wireless technology that can be utilized in parts of America today’s technology will never reach. Today’s laws choke job creation with regulation and hold back innovation that proves time and time again to improve consumer’s options,” said Smith.
Support for Smith’s bill comes from combining the ideas of his Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, which he introduced along with Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.); the Wireless Innovation Act by Sen. George Allen (R-Va.); the Anti-Deficiency Act by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine); the Community Broadband Act by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); and the Video Choice Act Smith introduced with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.).
Following an appearance at the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association breakfast, Smith said his bill has support of most of the Senate Commerce Committee. “I think there is a real consensus developing on the topic,” he said.
