HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE VOTES AMENDED ‘2% CARRIER’ BILL
House Commerce Committee adopted amended version of “2% carrier” bill (HR-496) by Rep. Cubin (R-Wyo.) Wed. and sent it to House floor. Measure seeks to reduce regulation of ILECs that control less than 2% of nation’s access lines. Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.), before introduction of amendment, said deregulatory bill was “indicative of future action on telecommunications reform.” He said committee and full House last year passed similar bill, which then stalled in Senate.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Cubin offered amendment in form of substitute after acknowledging concerns raised by ranking Democrat Markey (Mass.), who said language in original bill would leave “consumers at the mercy of the monopolists.” It was modified to: (1) Avoid providing loopholes to eligible ILECs that merged and subsequently controlled more than 2% of nationwide access lines. (2) Clarify definition of 2% carrier “to ensure that large providers aren’t unintentionally included in this bill.” (3) Prevent possible gaming of system by companies that chose tariff flexibility. (4) Guarantee rural customers’ rates wouldn’t increase “when competition forces prices to go down in one area only to be shifted to another area to make up the difference.” (5) Clarify that “new” interstate telecom services indeed were services “never before offered by the carrier,” Cubin said.
Committee also referred HR-90 to House floor. Bill, by Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) would prohibit telemarketers from interfering with consumers’ caller ID services when making phone solicitations. Measure would require FCC to develop regulations to constrain telemarketers that “interfere with or circumvent” ability of consumers to use services and would enable consumers in state courts to pursue “action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each violation, whichever is greater.”