Telecom reform bill meets opposition

Republican draft legislation that would largely deregulate IP-based services such as broadband video favors giant incumbent telecommunications carriers over other competitors, complained some witnesses and lawmakers during a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday.

"The telephone companies, to us, appear to get everything they ask for ... while avoiding most social obligations," said Marilyn Praisner, a member of the Montgomery County Council in Maryland, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom and Internet subcommittee.

The staff draft, revised from a bipartisan draft released in September, streamlines video franchising requirements, allowing large telecom carriers such as Verizon and SBC to compete with cable television providers without securing franchise agreements from multiple local governments.

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.

Republican draft legislation that would largely deregulate IP-based services such as broadband video favors giant incumbent telecommunications carriers over other competitors, complained some witnesses and lawmakers during a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday.

"The telephone companies, to us, appear to get everything they ask for ... while avoiding most social obligations," said Marilyn Praisner, a member of the Montgomery County Council in Maryland, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom and Internet subcommittee.

The staff draft, revised from a bipartisan draft released in September, streamlines video franchising requirements, allowing large telecom carriers such as Verizon and SBC to compete with cable television providers without securing franchise agreements from multiple local governments.

The draft, a first step toward a rewrite of the wide-ranging Telecommunications Act of 1996, would require VoIP providers to provide enhanced 911 emergency dialing services, and it requires VoIP and telecom service providers to exchange voice traffic, but it leaves negotiations over fees entirely to the carriers.

The draft, which creates a new regulatory category called broadband Internet transmission services, is needed because U.S. industry needs a clear legal framework for offering broadband services, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The advance of technology has left the law behind," he said.

SBC this month called the new draft a "strong, positive step for consumers and the country," and most subcommittee Republicans praised the new draft. While SBC and Verizon applauded the draft, Praisner criticized it for seemingly limiting the franchising fees local governments can collect as telecom companies begin to offer broadband video services.

ISP EarthLink complained that the draft includes no enforcement of network interconnection requirements, and some consumer groups and Internet-based companies such as Google, Yahoo and Amazon.com said the bill doesn't have strong enough protections for Internet users to access the legal content of their choice. With a handful of telecom carriers and cable companies controlling most broadband access, Internet users need a legal guarantee that they can access the content of their choice, say supporters of stronger language in the bill.

A set of so-called network neutrality rules are in the draft bill, but broadband providers could cut off some content or services "under the guise of network management," said Gene Kimmelman, senior director of public policy and advocacy at Consumers Union. The draft bill says broadband providers "may not unreasonably" restrict legal services or applications over their networks, but the bill doesn't define "unreasonable," he said.

The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.