Judiciary Panel Takes Up Net Neutrality in First Task Force Hearing
It’s urgent that Congress enact a strong net neutrality law with enforcement provisions, proponents told the House Judiciary Telecom Task Force on Tues. in the first of several planned hearings on telecom issues. USTelecom said its members wouldn’t “block, degrade or impair” access, and companies are free to compete if they can afford to enter the market.
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.
“Does it exist or doesn’t it exist?” asked Rep. Lungren (R-Cal.), venting frustration at analogies used to illustrate the net neutrality debate. Regulation isn’t needed because there’s no problem, said U.S. Telecom Pres. Walter McCormick, alone on a panel with 3 proponents of net neutrality measures. “We've said there’s a marketplace out that’s working… for anyone who’s willing to invest,” he said.
McCormick said there’s no need for the language in the House Commerce Committee bill set for markup today (Wed.), let alone stronger language being proposed in amendments or action the Judiciary Committee may consider. “Because there’s not a real problem, now is not the time to legislate,” he said.
The Judiciary hearing was among the most “lucid and engaging I've attended,” said Telecom Task Force Chmn. Cannon (R-Utah). He wants to see if concerns raised by many groups are “substantive” -- and whether anticompetitive activities need to be addressed, he said.
“We have a plan for rollout of networks that’s discriminatory,” said Timothy Wu, prof.-Columbia Law School, calling the rollout the “Tony Soprano model of networking, where some companies get better service than others.” Companies can “through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up,” Wu said, adding it’s govt.’s responsibility to ensure consumers get fair treatment.
Consumers have many ways to link to the Internet, said McCormick. There isn’t a problem with access, he said, citing phone, cable modem, ISPs, BPL, Wi-Fi and WiMAX. What’s under debate is the prospect of “huge application providers that want to move into new areas that require huge bandwidth,” McCormick said: “Who pays for this enhanced network?” USTelecom believes it’s “up to consumers to decide to buy how much Internet access they want,” he said.
Why isn’t this a standard antitrust issue? asked Rep. Issa (R-Cal.), challenging McCormick’s assurances that his group won’t block access and that consumers have access to several forms of broadband access. In a tense exchange, Issa pressed McCormick: “What about the last mile? To be honest, to have competitive entry, the Bells and cable are the only ones that have the right to tear up the streets, don’t you see that?”
“No I don’t see that,” McCormick said. Issa turned to Wu, who reprised his viewpoint: “This is a classic duopoly. It’s the duty of Congress to see that this doesn’t happen.”
Companies that prioritize access to their networks need scrutiny, said CompTel Pres. Earl Comstock. “We need to spell out some very clear violations” through legislation, Comstock said: “It is going to take some rules to make the Internet work.” He urged the committee to hold more hearings to study Bell behavior and create a “specific antitrust remedy.”