Ensign, Pickering See Bills Soon on Franchising, IP Service
Hill action on telco video franchising and IP services will emerge soon, key members of the House and Senate told a Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) forum Tues. Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) said he plans to introduce a bill in July to address Telecom Act revisions regarding franchising and VoIP. Rep. Pickering (R-Miss.) predicted reform legislation could clear the House in the fall, positioning the Senate to act in the Spring.
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.
Asked if Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R- Alaska) had endorsed his planned legislation, Ensign said Stevens has given “his blessing.” He said his bill won’t address universal service because that’s something in which Stevens has particular interest.
Ensign said he wants to get govt. out of “picking winners and losers” in markets that are competitive. The video market is clearly competitive and there’s “no sense” to have thousands of local govts. making entry decisions, he said. New entrants such as phone companies “should not have to cut these deals with tens of thousands of video regulators across the country,” he said. The voice market is similarly competitive, with cellular, wireline and “dozens of VoIP providers,” he said. Having “a patchwork quilt” of local or state regulation of VoIP entrants doesn’t make sense, he said: “We have to have a regulatory scheme that allows technology to develop in the future.”
Pickering said the House will focus on IP reform, while the Senate will stress universal service, combining the 2 in conference. Both Ensign and Pickering predicted legislation preempting local franchising authority, although Pickering said he couldn’t say if the Hill will favor moving that authority to the states or the federal govt.
Like Ensign, Pickering said some local authority has to remain over video services, for example to protect local rights of way. The goal, he said, is to remove barriers raised by franchising but not to eliminate authority in areas such as rights of way. In answer to a reporter’s question, Pickering said he doesn’t expect redlining to be in the Committee draft. It probably will be dealt with as an amendment, Pickering said.
The Committee is close to agreement on how to deal with issues involving converter boxes but there’s “disagreement on how much” the analog TV subsidy should be, Pickering said. At issue is the need to offer “compensation for taking TVs away” with disagreement over how much to give, he said.
Pickering said the House Commerce Committee may give franchise legislation time on the committee schedule reserved for a DTV transition bill. “DTV could be pushed back until Sept. into [Budget] Reconciliation,” Pickering told reporters after his speech. “That opens up committee time and focus to look at whether we can move something before the Aug. recess.” Pickering added: “Both pieces of legislation have their own complexities and difficulties. If we start now focusing on both I think that the committee can act by the fall… on both pieces of legislation.”
The PFF forum sought input on a proposal to impose an FTC-like regulatory model on the FCC that is part of a PFF-led project on telecom reform (CD June 20 p4). Pickering said the question is whether it’s time yet to move in the direction PFF urges or if another step -- such as legislation contemplated by Congress -- should prevail.
FCC Comr. Abernathy praised the PFF proposal as a “very thoughtful reassessment,” particularly a “provocative” suggestion that FCC regulation be based on adjudication rather than rulemaking. It’s good that the proposal maintains an interconnection requirement because “you can’t freeze out new competitors by refusing to interconnect,” she said. Abernathy said she doesn’t necessarily endorse all of the ideas in the proposal but “I'm absolutely sure all should be discussed.”
A panel of industry representatives saw pluses and minuses in the PFF proposal. Pulver.com Gen. Counsel Jonathan Askin said the proposal is “close to something my organization could live with” but he has “fears” in areas such as pricing, social obligations and lack of “network freedom” language. Time Warner Vp Steven Teplitz said the “underlying theory is right.” However, rather than eliminating existing regulatory “silos,” Teplitz said, he would keep them and “superimpose” another recommendation on them -- an antitrust model instead of traditional regulation. T-Mobile Vp Tom Sugrue said his company would support the idea of substituting market principles for today’s regulatory “mish-mash,” although there might be a need for intervention not outlined in the proposal. For example, said Sugrue, “we might go further with interconnection.”
Verizon Senior Vp Peter Davidson noted that while the PFF project selected a so-called “adjudicatory” model based on the FTC, another “IP migration model” seems to be popular on Capitol Hill. “It will be interesting to see how they mesh,” he said. “Perhaps you'll persuade [lawmakers] but I doubt it.” Intel Communications Policy Dir. Peter Pitsch said the plan is “a great step forward from where we are today” but he too said he wondered about Congress’s leaning to the IP migration model. The IP migration model is among several the PFF group rejected in favor of the FTC one. Rather than replace existing regulation, it would create a new regulatory category for IP networks with lighter regulation.