The Jeff Pulver Blog: The Senate Commerce Committee Weighs In on Communications Reform:

« Comments in Response to the Evslin/pulver Post-Disaster Communications Petition to the FCC: | Main | Markey Introduces Stand-Alone Net Neutrality Bill »

May 02, 2006

The Senate Commerce Committee Weighs In on Communications Reform:

Well, Senator Stevens' Office has released its Staff Working Draft of Communications Reform Legislation ("Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006"). The Draft Bill deals primarily with video franchising and Universal Service, but the Draft does implicate IP-based communications in several parts, particularly where the Bill considers Net Neutrality (Title IX), Municipal Broadband (Title V), Universal Service (Title II), and Title I ("War on Terrorism"). Interestingly, the E911 for VoIP provisions, which the Senate had passed unanimously a few months ago and contained very positive provisions to protect the Internet communications industry and to allow us to advance next-generation emergency response capabilities (and represented a dramatic improvement over the FCC's backward looking approach to E911), has not been incorporated into the Bill (at least not yet).

The Draft Bill is 135 pages, so we have only been able to give it a quick review. This will undoubtedly serve as the template for Senate discussion over the weeks and months ahead.

Committee staff expects to hold two hearings in May to take testimony on the Bill. We understand the Bill will not get floor time this month, but the Committee will likely hold a mark-up shortly after the Memorial Day recess. We expect there to be at least two weeks before the first hearing.

The Bill does not appear to have broad bipartisan support. Perhaps the strong Democratic support for Net Neutrality in last week's House Commerce Committee Mark-up and the overwhelming support emerging from the House Judiciary Committee might suggest that this Bill failure to promote Net Neutrality might be a stumbling block for both Democrats and forward-looking supporters (both Republicans and Democrats) of application layer competition. Senator Inouye is nominally cosponsoring the Bill, but, in his statement, he noted that this is a draft bill "of the Majority Staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form."

In any event, here is a down-n-dirty, rough analysis of the Draft:

As I mentioned, this Senate Draft, like the House's COPE Bill is primarily designed as a vehicle to relieve the Bells of a lot of local video franchising obligations. That is all well and good as far as I am concerned. I think there should be no limitations on Internet-delivered applications, be they voice or video or otherwise, except where monopoly control or excessive marketpower might tend to stifle innovation. The Bill, however, like the House Bill, still misses the point on what video delivery could be and simply paves the way for another spoon-fed, Bell-delivered cable-clone offering to couch-potato recipients of video content. Ho-hum. Where is the Bill that will enable us to revolutionize the way people receive AND submit AND control their use of video and other Internet content and applications?

As for the issues that more directly implicate the Internet communications industry:

* Call Home Act. FCC is directed to work with DoD, and the State Department to reduce telephone rates for troops stationed overseas by eliminating fees and charges, increasing VoIP usage, and reducing settlement rates.

* Universal Service Reform.
Applies to all "Communications Services." Definition of communications services includes IP Enabled Voice service which is defined as: IP-Enable Voice Service Definition.- (Appears to be same definition included in Senate E911 bill S. 1063.) The term 'IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with 2-way interconnection capability such that the service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network.'
- Doesn't specify contribution mechanism. Allows the FCC to use revenues, working telephone numbers, network capacity, or a combination thereof and eliminates the intrastate/interstate distinction.

* Includes similar VoIP Rights and Obligations as in House bill(Page 22). (language appears to be borrowed from House COPE subcommittee passed bill - not full committee bill)

* Interconnection -- includes rights and obligations under 251 and 252.

* Disability - includes obligations under 225, 255, and 710.

* IP Enabled Voice Service is Defined again, but appears to use the same definition as above.

* Phantom Traffic (Page 34.) IP-enabled voice service providers (among others) "shall ensure that all traffic that originates on its network contains sufficient information to allow for traffic identification by other communications service providers that transport, transit, or terminate such traffic, including information on the identity of the originating provider, the calling and called parties, and such other information as the Commission deems appropriate."

* Broadband buildout. Creates a "broadband for unserved areas account" under the universal service fund and requires eligible telecommunications carriers to build out broadband within 60 months of passage.

* Municipal Broadband (Page 105). Includes a combination of language from the McCain/Lautenberg bill, the Ensign bill, and Smith bill which would allow communities to offer broadband choices, but give the private sector a right of first refusal.

* Wireless Innovation Networks. Allows use of TV spectrum "white spaces" for broadband buildout.

* Net Neutrality (page 131). Requires an annual FCC study (for the next 5 years.) If the FCC notices any problems (rather than suggesting action), the FCC can include those in its next annual report and make recommendations to Congress on how to remedy those problems (except for recommending additional rulemaking authority.)

Like the COPE Bill in the House, I think the Net Neutrality provisions in this Draft are insufficient to protect and advance and allow us to maximize the value of the open Internet.

I would like to hear your views on where the Bill is deficient so that we might be able to work with the Senate to improve the Draft.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Universal Service, E911, Jeff Pulver