Specter Wants Role in Stevens’ Telecom Bill
Net neutrality policy sparked a sharp clash of viewpoints at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wed., where Chmn. Specter (R-Pa.) said he wants the committee to “play a significant role” in developing telecom legislation. He stopped short of saying he would write his own bill; he said he’s been collaborating with Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska). “I want to see what Commerce has and see if we can piggyback” on that legislation, Specter said.
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.
Specter said he and Stevens had worked out a “coordinated plan” on matters that Judiciary believes concern it. “Net neutrality is very high on the agenda,” Specter said. Other issues include video program access, broadcast and audio flag, municipal broadband deployment and rules governing distribution of child pornography.
The congenial approach differs markedly from the obvious tension in the House, when Commerce Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) made it clear he didn’t want any involvement from Judiciary Chmn. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). The 2 chairmen had a complete disagreement, resulting in Sensenbrenner writing his own bill. Before beginning his testimony Wed., Sensenbrenner made a wry reference to his failure to get his bill on the House floor: “I want to save this country from the impulsivity of the House.”
Sensenbrenner condemned an amendment to Barton’s telecom bill (HR-5252) clarifying that language giving the FCC exclusive jurisdiction over net neutrality complaints wouldn’t displace antitrust laws. “I voted against this amendment because I concluded that it provides a proven road map for judicial circumvention of a substantive antitrust remedy for competitive misconduct in this field,” Sensenbrenner said.
The FTC told the committee that net neutrality brings fresh urgency to its longstanding request to Congress to give the FTC jurisdiction over telecom common carriers. “We believe the exemption [of the carriers] is outdated and a harmful obstacle to good policy-making,” said FTC Comr. William Kovacic. He told senators that the Commission has a wide range of experience dealing with Internet access cases and would be in a good position to oversee competition complaints.
But Kovacic refused to be drawn into a direct attack on the FCC or the Commerce bill when Specter asked him if he thought Stevens’ bill (S-2686) was a “direct encroachment” on FTC’s jurisdiction. Kovacic said the 2 agencies typically share responsibilities, but asked Congress to give the FTC the ability to handle antitrust matters involving telecom common carriers.
Is There a Problem?
Specter asked witnesses their opinions of a “case by case” approach to net neutrality instead of legislation. “It’s very easy to get the Congress to do nothing. It’s very hard to get the Congress to do something,” Specter said: “When you're dealing with legislation, it’s extraordinarily difficult to get resolution, from what I've seen, but usually you have resolution when you bring the parties to the table.”
“I would be very nervous with a ‘case by case’ approach,” said Vint Cerf, Google vp. “You almost never get to conclusions. I'd be more comfortable with legislation.” Specter said he disagreed, but asked Cerf to state his views more fully in written comments. “I do think you get to resolution,” Specter said.
Cerf told the committee that broadband carriers have “significant, unconstrained market power over the net’s on- ramps” leaving most people with few choices and no meaningful competition. The carriers “have both the ability and the stated desire to dictate how consumers and producers can utilize the on-ramps to the Internet,” Cerf said. Their intention is to turn the Internet into a “closed and proprietary system of centralized control.”
USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick retorted that Google makes proprietary choices that amount to “favoritism.” Sen. Biden (D-Del.) asked whether any witnesses could provide examples of preferential treatment. When no one could, Biden said the lack of evidence showed that legislating net neutrality is “premature.”
“If the fears were real, there'd be an explosion. The top of the Capitol would come off and we'd have more bloggers here than people in America,” Biden said. “I like the notion of a neutrality rule. I just wonder if we can write it in a way that doesn’t cause an explosion.”