Telecom Bill Notebook...
Preemption provisions in the Senate telecom reform bill draft have drawn opposition by the National Governors Assn., which said they “threaten the long-standing partnerships between the federal govt. and states in determining the nation’s communications policy.” The bill is set for mark-up today (Thurs.) by the Senate Commerce Committee, amid what some observers see as growing opposition. NGA said Wed. the bill would usurp state authority by “preempting existing state broadband deployment laws that manage video service and telecommunications deployment within states; undermining state-wide franchising solutions that streamline and improve video franchising; replacing robust state consumer protection standards with federal standards established by federal bureaucrats; preventing state governments from enforcing basic state contract and consumer protection laws on cell phone providers; and preempting states’ ability to enforce any state law that regulates satellite providers.”
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.
--
The Senate telecom bill could jeopardize TV industry digital conversion with a provision that would let unlicensed wireless devices operate in TV’s spectrum, MSTV Pres. David Donovan wrote in a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska). Title VI of the draft bill would allow “any type of unlicensed use including radio controlled toys, cordless telephones and wireless game controllers,” in all U.S. markets, Donovan said. The devices could interfere with TV sets but the bill wouldn’t let consumers file interference complaints, Donovan said. The bill shouldn’t place the burden of enforcement on licensees, as the draft does, because they can’t track down “millions of interfering devices,” he said.
--
An amendment to Sen. Stevens’ telecom bill (S-2686), which would shield DBS providers from potential multicast must-carry requirements, may be proposed Thurs. by Sen. DeMint (R-S.C.), a spokesman from DeMint’s office confirmed. Under the current language of the Stevens bill, satellite TV providers are required to carry TV stations’ “video signal” under must-carry, which could be interpreted by the FCC as a DBS multicast mandate. DeMint’s amendment would replace the term “video signal” with “primary video,” we're told. DirecTV and EchoStar both paid visits to FCC Comr. McDowell’s office last week to lobby against multicast must-carry. In addition to statutory, Constitutional and policy concerns, the DBS operators argue they don’t have the satellite capacity to carry multiple must-carry signals of broadcasters in local markets. Existing FCC rules require DirecTV and EchoStar to carry local broadcasters’ multicast signals only in Alaska and Hawaii. -- AK
--
The Computer & Communications Industry Assn. (CCIA) has “grave concerns” about provisions of Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens’ (R-Alaska) telecom bill. In a letter sent Wed., CCIA Pres. Ed Black told Stevens that his proposal would do “serious damage to innovation and consumer rights, while doing little to promote the national goal of rapid deployment of broadband Internet service.” Black urged Stevens either to make several changes to the bill or delay a vote in order to assess the concerns of innovators, communicators and consumers. CCIA said it hoped greater consensus could be achieved, but with no compromise likely, “it was time to choose,” Black said. Specifically, CCIA said the draft does little to correct distortions created by the Universal Service Fund process and places the FCC at the heart of “a centrally-planned regime for regulating the design of computers, consumer electronics and software.” The Stevens draft burdens VoIP providers with “a layer of regulation soundly rejected nearly a decade ago” and fails to ensure “open and dynamic competition” on the Web. CCIA also took issue with the broadcast flag mandates in the draft. Black said they would make the FCC “the new federal gatekeeper of innovation.”
--
Implementing a net neutrality mandate would bar network operators -- the “owners and developers” of the Web’s infrastructure -- from charging different prices for different service levels and could end up preventing consumers from setting up private networks and screening out content they deem objectionable, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said Wed. “The government should not be allowed to force network owners into adopting static pricing schemes or mandated access rules,” CEI Technology Analyst Peter Suderman said. The net neutrality push, backed by Google, eBay and Amazon, would create federal regulations that will “allow them to avoid paying increased rates for more demanding services” like HD video, he said.