AT&T, Verizon Want Congress to Embark on Total Rewrite of Communications Act

"AT&T believes that a wholesale rewrite of the Act could well be in order,” it told Congress in the new documents. “The market would certainly benefit from a complete restructuring of the Act around core principles that would apply across the ecosphere, while retaining the provisions of the current Act that are working and benefitting consumers. A comprehensive rewrite could also help future-proof the ultimate framework for a longer period of time.”

Verizon said “Congress must resist the temptation to merely tweak around the edges of the current statute or focus reform on only the most ill-fitting provisions.” Congress should “start from scratch,” Verizon said. House Republican leaders have distanced themselves from the word “rewrite,” instead preferring to frame their effort as a Communications Act update. Some parties have denied the Telecom Act of 1996 needs any fundamental update at all.

The House Commerce Committee received 114 responses about the best ways to approach a Communications Act update, totaling many hundreds of pages, according to a list it released Wednesday. Commenters included companies such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, CenturyLink, Disney, Sinclair and Microsoft, as well as groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Free Press. Associations included NCTA, the American Cable Association, CEA, USTelecom, NAB, Comptel, the Competitive Carriers Association, the Voice on the Net Coalition, NARUC and NASUCA.

AT&T pointed to many IP-related technology changes. Even if Congress doesn’t totally rewrite the act, it could craft “a new title that would apply to the next-generation, broadband-enabled services and platforms to which the market is converging,” AT&T said. Guiding principles should be service to all Americans, public safety and network reliability, competition, consumer protection and spectrum management, and “telecommunications/information services distinction should have no enduring role in determining regulatory scope and jurisdiction,” AT&T said. Verizon said goals should be “protecting consumers, promoting competition, and encouraging investment and innovation.”

Deregulation should be “continuously pursued,” said ALEC, whose members include AT&T, Verizon and other major communications companies. ALEC has long pushed for deregulatory measures on the state level. The Voice on the Net Coalition also backs limited regulation in an era of IP services, calling for regulation primarily in instances of consumer protection and public safety. There should be a “market-based, commercially negotiated interconnection regime to govern packet-based communications with limited oversight functions,” AT&T said. Verizon, despite its push for reoriented regulation, backs “an effective governmental backstop through an agency with authority and tools to step in as needed to protect competition and consumers when and if real problems arise, regardless of their source,” it said. Special provisions may be needed for “public safety, universal service, disabilities access, and spectrum management,” Verizon added.

Consumer advocates shot back against any industry call for less regulation. “If we as a nation fail to restore common carriage to our nation’s central communications network, then we are ensuring that future generations of Americans will not be able to send the information of their choosing, between points of their choosing, without undue discrimination,” Free Press told Congress. “That is the very definition of a telecommunications service. Nowhere in Communication Act or in the lengthy debates leading up to the 1996 rewrite is it suggested that Americans should not be able to access telecommunication services. That shouldn’t be surprising, because it’s a plainly absurd proposition.” There’s no need for any overhaul, Free Press insists: “We have the act we need.”

NASUCA said the distinction between telecom and information services can be largely eliminated, though several consumer protections are necessary: “The requirement of just and reasonable rates and the promise of affordable voice and broadband service must be maintained.” NASUCA wants the act’s goals that “apply to Title II services [be] extended to more services, those on which consumers increasingly depend,” the consumer advocates said. Don’t let “business plans and pecuniary interests of particular companies” sway any overhaul, NASUCA warned.

XO Communications praised much of 1996 act and called for the preservation of certain tools required for when markets are not functioning correctly. The tools include mechanisms for “easing entry (and exit), providing wholesale access to bottleneck services and facilities and access to infrastructure essential to build networks at rates that foster competition, and ensuring cost-based interconnection,” XO said.

T-Mobile wants technology-neutral tweaks but not the sweeping revamp AT&T and Verizon request. “The Act’s presumption that a particular Title will neatly cover the regulatory landscape for a service offering is no longer accurate,” T-Mobile said. It backed an “enhanced focus” in the act on spectrum, citing the needs of carriers. The act could give the FCC in “a separate service-neutral Title, sufficient authority for the Commission to promote how spectrum should be utilized to ensure its best and highest use,” T-Mobile said. It also suggested a section devoted to competition, giving the FCC “authority to impose limits on the amount and type of spectrum that providers can acquire through auctions and secondary market transactions in order to prevent market dominance.” (jhendel@warren-news.com)