« Watching the Word Spread on Morpheus vs. Kazaa (and Skype): | Main | My "Golden Rules" for Speaker Placement Success at our VON events: »
March 27, 2006
"Son of a BITS III" - The House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases the text of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE) of 2006:
As Congress now embarks on major efforts to rewrite the laws governing the future of communications and the Internet, I ask you all to consider joining the VON Coalition at this critical moment. This is the year that the policy debate will rage and shape how we communicate and what we might do to evolve the Internet.
Here is the most recent evidence (and please note that we have not had a chance to parse through the entirety of the draft legislation):
Republicans on the US House Energery and Commerce Committee have just released the attached Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE) of 2006 (aka "Son of a BITS III" or "Grandson of a BITS") and scheduled a hearing on for Thurs. March 30, 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.
There has been broad recent trade press coverage about a partisan breakdown on the bill. Nonetheless, the VON Coalitions efforts to ensure that the bill does not include broad new regulation of VoIP (as contemplated in the original draft) have been successful. The bill also recognizes that VoIP providers also need enabling tools like E911 and has included language (Title III). The bill also includes network neutrality language (Title II).
VoIP E911 Provision (Title III page 27): The bill has modestly improved over the language in the House BITS II bill - but it appears that there are important areas for improvement. The bill differs substantively from the Senate version because it:
* does not include the equivalent liability language (which House sponsors say will be added when it gets to the floor)
* Still appears to have an overly broad definition of VoIP and would potentially include one-way services
* Does not include any waiver language (as the Senate bill did) or any level of flexibility in rural areas
* Does not include the transition to an IP-enabled emergency network
* Does not include the no tech mandates language from S. 1063
VoIP Interconnection Rights: The bill does includes new language giving VoIP providers new interconnections rights including under Section 251 and 252.
Network Neutrality Language (Title II beginning on page 25): There is also a network neutrality language which:
* gives the Commission the authority to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein.
* does not give the FCC rulemaking authority
* calls on the FCC to conduct a study with 180 days of enactment
Removes Broad Regulation of VoIP: We were successful in getting the overly broad regulation in the previous BITS bill dropped. That language sought to apply foreign ownership, disability, privacy, fax, pay phone, and virtually every other Title II obligation to an overly broad definition of VoIP.
Municipal Broadband. (Title IV page 33): The language, which is nearly identical to the BITS II language, would allow communities to explore their own broadband options.
Chance of Passage: We understand that the sponsors of the bill are Barton, Rush, Upton, and Pickering. Rep. Pickering has been a particularly great champion of the Internet and of communications competition, so, for that reason alone, I hold out some hope that the Internet, its users and innovators will have some coverage and get a fair hearing. We would note that with a partisan rift in Committee (which can be bridged but will take time), Judiciary committee efforts to assert their jurisdiction, lack of a Senate companion at this point, and only a limited number of days left in the Congressional calendar, the likelihood that this bill will be signed into law is not too high. But it nonetheless, advances the ball and sends a message to other players about Barton's priorities.
We will need to immediately begin developing feedback - both positive and negative - and see which parts of this bill we can COPE with. Please us your feedback immediately so we can see if we can work with the VON Coalition to develop feedback for the committee prior to Thursday's hearing.
Now is the time for us - those driving the communications and Internet revolution - to participate in the dialogue within the Beltway, and within governments around the World.
I must also note the fortunate timing of release of this Bill with our upcoming Freedom-to-Connect Conference on April 3-4 in DC. I suspect that we will delve deeply into the nuances and consequences of the draft legislation and other efforts to reframe the policy structure governing the Internet and communications.
Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, F2C, Jeff Pulver
(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on March 27, 2006 10:18 PM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
It's the internet providers (the Bells) that have hinted that a 'free and open' internet (or market if you prefer) is not in their best business interest. The legislation would only prevent providers from unfairly limiting or charging for content delivery - hence the net nuetrality issue. But as passed yesterday, the net nuetrality protections of the Barton/COPE Bill were voted down.
But the Barton/COPE Bill goes much further, undermining local oversight of 'rights of way', potentially eliminating PEG and at present, legitimizing the redlining of services. This is not a good Bill for the market - it's a good Bill for AT&T and Verizon who have bought and paid for the legislation (not to mention more than a few House Republicans).
.
Posted by: Michael at April 6, 2006 09:14 AM
I am still not convinced that what is best for all companies involved with the internet is free and open competetion and not government interference. Network neutrality laws seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist. How can that be a good idea?
Posted by: pkp646 at April 4, 2006 06:41 PM
Congress should not get involved and just allow the marketplace to continue grow and evolve so network and applications providers can offer the widest range of innovative service options.
Regulation that covers more than just VoIP will do more harm than good. What we need is a DoJ that enforces anti-trust laws.
Posted by: Raphy at March 28, 2006 05:40 PM