State, Local Players Push for Role in Internet Regulation
Users need and expect reliable emergency services from voice providers and public access services from video providers, Cheryl Leanza of the National League of Cities told Washington Internet Daily after speaking on a Congressional Internet Caucus panel last week on the role of states and cities in regulating the Internet (WID April 29 p3). The topic is of increasing concern to video, data, and voice providers as the technologies converge. “There are different social contracts we've made based on service,” Leanza said. Most debate centered on the level of control localities should have, in her words, “over the physical right of way” and in dictating “fair and equitable access to infrastructure.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Every PUC wants to be an honest broker of information to Congress, said Tenn. Regulatory Authority Comr. Deborah Tate. She said states and counties are most interested in “getting involved” in areas where the federal govt. and carriers haven’t: Complaints, E-911, rural coverage, “state police powers.” Leanza pointed to some of the failures of VoIP carriers to offer E-911 as a reason for increased state-level involvement: In March, the Tex. Attorney Gen. sued Vonage on allegations of failure to disclose flaws in its 911 system after a Houston girl couldn’t get through to authorities to report a gunman in her home. Leanza and Tate pushed for DTV transition as well, because of the first-responder spectrum it would open up. Small changes would provide “opportunity” to those who don’t have access in rural Tenn., Appalachia and the Dakotas, Tate said.
It’s in companies’ “enlightened self interest” to promote choice, said Ed Merlis of the U.S. Telecom Assn. Constant uncertainty has prevented the unveiling of better, more convergent technologies in the industry, Merlis said. Investors “can’t spend a penny” on something if they won’t know how it’s regulated, he said, which in the end hurts consumer choice. Merlis was a lonely voice on the panel for fewer local controls, calling U.S. consumers “pretty bright” and saying their purchasing power should rule the market. He did express a need for rules on 911 and public access video.
“The real question is the regulation of IP-enabled services,” said Rick Cimerman of the National Cable & Telecom Assn., calling the 1996 Telecom Act that might be up for a rewrite “an overwhelming success.” So many more people have access to wireless, broadband and information than in 1996, Cimerman said, so a massive rewrite just isn’t necessary. He, too, suggested caution should be employed before removing state and local regulatory rights across the board: “IP is not a magic bullet… as if something touches the Internet and is therefore inviolate” and free from all regulation.
Regulation differences “certainly shouldn’t be based on the technology used to offer a service, Leanza said, reiterating the “technology-neutral” argument often made by boosters of the states’ role. She said in all cases the service itself should determine the regulatory regime, one that she said she hopes will incorporate state and local interests.