TAUZIN SAYS UPTON BILL COULD BE ADDED TO TAUZIN-DINGELL
House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) will hold hearing on efforts to increase FCC enforcement authority and will focus on standalone bill he introduced late May 8 that would increase penalties Commission could impose on violators of telecom regulations. Despite recent refusal by House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) to consider measure as amendment to his and ranking Democrat Dingell’s (Mich.) data deregulation bill (HR- 1542), Tauzin said Wed. at markup of HR-1542 that language of Upton bill eventually could be added to Tauzin-Dingell. In recent Subcommittee markup of HR-1542, Tauzin refused to consider Upton’s enforcement measure, which he said wasn’t germane to data deregulation legislation. However, Tauzin said if House Rules Committee granted germaneness waiver, Upton bill (HR-1765) could be attached to Tauzin-Dingell when it reached House floor. HR- 1765 would increase FCC’s statute of limitations to 2 years from one and increase maximum penalty to $1 million per violation from $120,000. It also would double those penalties for repeat offenders. Markup was continuing at our deadline.
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.
Tauzin at markup introduced manager’s amendment to HR-1542 (CD May 9 p2) that, among other changes, included provision to preserve FCC line-sharing order, which CLEC industry said was insufficient compromise. Tauzin rejected point of order raised by Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) that substitute bill “vastly expanded the scope of the Subcommittee reported bill” by including undefined references to “private peering arrangements” and “Internet backbone services.” Markey said packets of data that Bell companies could send over networks technically could include any service, including voice telephony. He criticized Tauzin’s substitute amendment as nongermane, noting that his own amendment containing provision relating to Internet telephony had been rejected as nongermane at Subcommittee level. “If our amendments are nongermane, then this substitute is nongermane,” Markey said.
However, Tauzin said amendment was limited “to data relief only.” He said he had to reject Markey’s position because otherwise any amendments to bill could be introduced, regardless of whether they applied to voice, data or even broadcast issues. “The amendment meets the test for germaneness,” he said.
Subcommittee on voice vote adopted amendment by Reps. Rush (D-Ill.) and Sawyer (D-O.) that would impose high-speed network deployment mileposts on Bell companies. It would require that: (1) Bells, within one year of enactment, would have to attain high-speed data capability in 20% of central offices in their region. (2) Within 2 years, 40% capability. (3) Within 3 years, 70% capability. (4) Within 5 years, 100% capability. It also would allow Bells to use alternative means of technology, other than DSL, through other service providers as equivalent means of deployment. Panel rejected, 17-37, similar amendment by Reps. Largent (R-Okla.), Stupak (D-Mich,) and Strickland (D-O.) that would have capped mileposts at 3 years and had provision to attain high-speed data capability in certain “low-income census tracts.”
Panel adopted amendment by Rep. Stearns (R-Fla.) that would preserve existing interconnection agreements between Bells and CLECs. However, it shot down several amendments by Rep. Davis (R- Va.). Although Tauzin-Dingell goal of encouraging high-speed network deployment is admirable, it steers Congress in wrong direction, Davis said. Regulatory parity argument by proponents of bill, who assert that current regulations favor cable industry while burdening Bells, is invalid, he said. “Remember, the Bell companies built their networks over decades with a monopoly profit guaranteed by the government,” Davis said. “Captive ratepayers paid for the Bells’ infrastructure and in exchange for granting the Bell system a monopoly, the government mandated certain buildout requirements to help ensure affordable and universal phone service to every consumer. In stark contrast, the cable companies built their networks using private capital with no guaranteed profit.”
“Why we would want to shield the Bells from competition while at the same time freeing them” from other market-opening regulations, Rep. Waxman (D-Cal.) asked: “With the use of packet switching technology, it is impossible to distinguish between packets of voice and data,” he said. “The states simply would not have the ability to protect consumers and ratepayers.”
However, Rep. Boucher (D-Va.) said broadband deployment into last mile “is the greatest single Internet challenge that we are facing at the present time.” He said he supported Tauzin-Dingell because it called for regulatory parity with other service providers. He said it would result in adequate Internet backbone services in rural and underserved areas, further encourage Bells to deploy DSL and maximize initial investment in deployment of DSL service. Boucher also said he intended soon to offer bill governing interactive TV service offerings to address open access requirement to ensure that “vertically integrated transport service providers” don’t discriminate against unaffiliated content providers. Tauzin said Subcommittee should explore issue, but level of legislative action should be contingent upon how market was working.