The new telecom deal?

Probably very few, even in our industry, would say that national telecom policy played any role in the recent midterm elections. But there is little question that the Democrats' telecom policies differ from those of the Republicans, at least at the rhetorical level. What's unclear is whether these differences will work their way into law and thus affect the market.

At the highest level, the Republicans often have been viewed as the party of the RBOCs. Last month BusinessWeek listed AT&T as the No. 2 contributor to the GOP. The Bush era has seen a shift in telecom policy in favor of RBOC positions, with broadband increasingly immune from unbundling and the unbundled network element-platform (UNE-P) eliminated. The Democrats have been a kind of party of the Internet, embracing the revolutionary players more than the incumbents.

This RBOC/Internet tension is reflected pretty clearly in the parties' view of net neutrality. The Republicans generally have taken the position that the FCC has the authority to do what's necessary to ensure that access providers don't discriminate based on content or source in handling Internet traffic.

To continue reading, register here and become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

Probably very few, even in our industry, would say that national telecom policy played any role in the recent midterm elections. But there is little question that the Democrats' telecom policies differ from those of the Republicans, at least at the rhetorical level. What's unclear is whether these differences will work their way into law and thus affect the market.

At the highest level, the Republicans often have been viewed as the party of the RBOCs. Last month BusinessWeek listed AT&T as the No. 2 contributor to the GOP. The Bush era has seen a shift in telecom policy in favor of RBOC positions, with broadband increasingly immune from unbundling and the unbundled network element-platform (UNE-P) eliminated. The Democrats have been a kind of party of the Internet, embracing the revolutionary players more than the incumbents.

This RBOC/Internet tension is reflected pretty clearly in the parties' view of net neutrality. The Republicans generally have taken the position that the FCC has the authority to do what's necessary to ensure that access providers don't discriminate based on content or source in handling Internet traffic.

The Democrats think the FCC position might need to be expanded to preclude charging for premium handling or even offering premium IP services outside the context of the Internet. At a minimum, they want the FCC's position (which was issued as a memo, not an order, and thus has no legal force) to be solidified as legislation.

The franchise legislation pending in Congress is another point of contention between the parties. A bill that would give the RBOCs quick access to the video market to bypass what otherwise could be a long series of negotiations with individual communities, has been bottled up in the Senate by Democratic opposition. That legislation might be dead, now that the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate.

So what does this add up to? Should we dust off our stock from competitive local exchange carriers? It's not that simple.

The FCC sets U.S. communications policy based on the legislative framework Congress enacts. This arrangement has worked well in areas where there's a lot of very technical stuff to be done. Congress sets policy goals, and the FCC decides how to meet those goals with specific technical oversight.

The Republicans still control the FCC, because the president appoints the commissioners, and the balance of power always rests with the party that has the presidency. The FCC won't be up for change until 2008, so unless there are legislative changes, there won't be any policy change until then.