‘Cordial’ Discussion, No Negotiation at Hill Telecom Meeting
Attendees said a closed-door Hill meeting Friday was a productive starting point as Congress pursues an update to the Telecom Act. It was more a listening session than a negotiation over any specific proposal, they told us afterward. But some cited a preference in the room for narrowly targeted network neutrality legislation. The two-hour session was moderated by Bruce Wolpe, senior adviser on the House Commerce Committee, and included 31 participants representing ISPs, Internet edge companies, think tanks, labor and public interest groups. More meetings are planned next month, with the next set for July 2.
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.
A diverse array of interested parties attended the meeting. In addition to those reported Thursday (CD June 25 p1), groups present included: USTelecom, CTIA, Telecommunications Industry Association, CompTel, Rural Cellular Association, Qwest, Sprint Nextel, Dish, Cisco, Microsoft, Level 3, Center for Democracy & Technology, Communications Workers of America, Information Technology Industry Council, Media Access Project, Open Internet Coalition, Phoenix Center, and the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
The meeting was mostly a forum for collecting ideas, said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Hill staff representing Democratic and Republican leaders on the House and Senate Commerce Committees gave brief introductions about possible legislative approaches, Atkinson said. Staff asked questions about the need for legislation and what legislation should look like, he said.
Participants sat around a big circular table and took turns laying out their positions in two minutes or less, said Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman, describing the discussion as “cordial.” It wasn’t a negotiation, and there was no specific proposal on the table for debate, but it was a “useful beginning” to a longer process, he said. Some called for a narrow legislative response, while others wanted something more comprehensive, Schwartzman said. But it’s not clear yet which path Congress will take, he said.
The large number of participants could have made the meeting “unwieldy,” but it was more productive than expected, said Atkinson. The groups seemed open to finding consensus, avoiding the “pure posturing” that sometimes occurs at meetings, said Atkinson. And Hill staff made it clear they didn’t want to hear the same old rhetoric, he said. Keeping the doors closed to the public encouraged parties to say things “outside their comfort zone,” he added.
The meeting was productive and “very civil,” agreed Debbie Goldman, CWA telecommunications policy director. It’s critical that stakeholders reach consensus so the FCC can act on recommendations in the National Broadband Plan, she said. CWA urged “narrowly targeted” legislation clarifying the FCC’s broadband authority in a letter last week with civil rights, environmental and other labor groups (CD June 21 p8).
Not everyone thought the meeting was useful. It was a waste of time, said a Senate aide, because most groups operated from the usual set of talking points and offered no new information. -- Adam Bender