There is little question that the Democrats’ telecom policies differ from those of the Republicans, at least at the rhetorical level.
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.
Let’s look at the issue of the party of the RBOCs. AT&T is one of the largest contributors to the GOP, which Democratic fund raisers will take to mean that AT&T could become one of their largest. The sum total of all the campaign contributions that net-neutrality proponents have made is probably significantly less than AT&T alone contributed. Money talks, folks.
Another truth is that the opposition party’s role is to oppose things; a minority party can’t pass legislation. When the Democrats take power, they will be judged by what they do, now that they’ll be in a position to do something. It may surprise you how many quietly will take a more conservative or even RBOC-friendly view, now that their position will set policy.
Finally, remember that in politics, inaction is often the best course, even for the party in power. We had a major telecom policy change with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but no legislation to amend the act has gotten to a vote since then. When the Republicans took over, they didn’t amend it. Will the Democrats do so now?
So, is change hopeless? Statistically speaking, I’d have to say yes. Is that bad? Not necessarily. It took us six years to dig out from under the conflicts and problems the 1996 legislation created. Maybe we’d be better off if the New Deal and the Old Deal turned out to be the Same Deal after all.
