TAUZIN-DINGELL BILL FIGHT TO START IN EARNEST THIS WEEK

Tauzin-Dingell bill has been atop Committee’s agenda ever since Tauzin ascended to chairmanship, replacing former Chmn. Tom Bliley (R-Va.), who wouldn’t allow it markup. Surprise for onlookers has been that it took 3 months into 107th Congress for measure to be introduced. Time certainly wasn’t spent redrafting bill, since draft we saw looked identical to last year’s version. “Frankly, we didn’t want to tip our hand as to our strategy,” Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said. “Everyone knew we were going to reintroduce the bill, but no one knew when.” One Hill staffer said Tauzin and Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) “wanted to have some successes under their belts” before undertaking what could be their most contentious telecom fight of year.

Bill could have up to 75 original co-sponsors, Johnson said. That’s far fewer than 224 who signed on to HR-2420 last year, but he said “there was no big push this year to enlist co-sponsors.” He said Tauzin expected to get measure through House by Aug. 4, when Congress goes to summer recess. “By moving the bill quickly, our critics will have fewer opportunities to distort it,” Johnson said.

Indeed, their first chance to alter bill probably will be their best one, we're told. Everyone agreed amendments would be offered, and Johnson said Tauzin would even welcome changes that would “improve the bill… We don’t claim to have all the answers.” However, many amendments are expected from lawmakers who aim to kill bill before it reaches full Committee and House, where it’s expected to be hard for many to vote against bill advertised as closing digital divide. “The people who best know the issue obviously are on the Telecom Subcommittee,” Johnson said. Tauzin-Dingell supporter said, “I think it'll be close in the Subcommittee.” Source said that “members of the Subcommittee have stronger views and longstanding relationships” with competitive phone companies, ISPs and other opponents of Bell companies.

Frequently mentioned candidates to offer hostile amendments were Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Largent (R-Okla.), although aides for both said they still were working out strategy. Tauzin and Dingell “have more support at the full Committee,” said Markey aide. On Subcommittee, he said, “some members are still committed to competition.” “A lot of strategy is being planned right now” on Hill, said another opponent. “A number of Congressmen have been caught flatfooted. They didn’t expect this to move so quickly.” That source suggested that’s exactly what Tauzin had in mind in scheduling markup so quickly after introduction and hearing: “He doesn’t have overwhelming support in the Subcommittee. He’s trying to ram the bill through before it can be fully considered.”

There’s also talk of bill’s becoming “Christmas tree” adorned with other telecom and Internet measures riding on bill that obviously has Committee chmn.’s favor. “Let’s face it, you've got to look at this as a vehicle,” lobbyist said. “It could be the only telecom vehicle that moves in this Congress, certainly on this time frame. You'll see some [amendments] that are related, and probably some totally unrelated.” Amendment to require cable open access was most mentioned, with several sources saying it could come from Rep. Boucher (D-Va.). Boucher was in transit from NAB show in Las Vegas and not available for comment. “We think that isn’t relevant to this bill,” said Dingell staffer. “That’s a policy question that can be addressed elsewhere.”

Still, Tauzin-Dingell supporters expressed confidence that their bill would escape relatively unscathed. Tauzin “probably wouldn’t mark it up if we didn’t have the votes,” said one supporter. “The only thing that forestalls [Thurs. vote] is if [Tauzin] looks down the aisle and sees he doesn’t have the votes,” said an opponent. Most observers pointed to Wed. hearing in full Commerce Committee as critical indicator of bill’s support. “What happens on Thursday will depend on what happens on Wednesday,” said one opponent. “I think you'll see members express concern that this is moving too quickly -- a procedural” objection. Although witness list hadn’t been released at our deadline, we were told it was likely to include representatives from Verizon, SBC, AT&T, Covad, McLeod, Infohighway Communications (reseller of telecom services), Intel, Corning, Wall St. analyst and group dedicated to combating digital divide.

Although most of arguments advanced by both sides were familiar -- Bell companies claimed bill would bring more competition to backbone market, particularly in underserved areas, while their opponents said it would end incentives for Bells to open their local phone markets to competition -- there have been some rhetorical adjustments to take into account declining economic fortunes of high-tech sector. “Our bill will be a shot in the arm” for technology companies, Johnson said. “This is going to have a crippling effect on an already weakened telecommunications market,” countered CompTel Pres. Russell Frisby.

For ISPs, bill has “some very nice pieces” and shouldn’t be too worrisome, U.S. Internet Industry Assn. Pres. David McClure said. He said consumers “will continue to have a choice of ISPs” and ISPs still would have “the right of open access to phone networks and facilities.” Bell companies’ gaining right to build their own networks “just gives us more capacity,” McClure said. He did express one concern with bill -- that it would bar FCC from requiring incumbent phone companies to wholesale “any high-speed data service.” Bell companies are likely to take “interpretation that they're no longer required to wholesale DSL” as well as their backbone networks, said McClure, who said he was drafting letter to Subcommittee members asking for clarification. McClure’s group has Verizon as board member. Other ISP groups that are closer to competitive phone companies, such as Commercial Internet eXchange and American ISP Assn., are strenuously opposing Tauzin-Dingell bill.