The Congressional attempt to update the nation's 1996 Telecommunications Act died with the pounding of the gavel that recently ended the 109th Congress. Ted Stevens (R-AK), the aging senator whose grasp on the technology in question was definitely "old school," won't be chairing any committees when the next Congress is sworn in, and the bill he helped to draft must be introduced again next year to have any chance at passing—and that's unlikely to happen unless Stevens is a fan of Pyrrhic victories.
Assuming that the new Congress turns its attention once more to the Telecommunications Act, the resulting product should look quite a bit different. The Stevens-drafted version included no support for network neutrality, but plenty of love for audio and video broadcast flags.
That angered groups like the SavetheInternet.com coalition, which counts such unlikely allies as the National Religious Broadcasters and the ACLU among its members. The group calls the death of the bill "a stunning victory for real people who want to retain control of the Internet," and notes that network neutrality is now in the hands of "what appears to be a more Web-friendly Congress."
When the group talks about a "Web-friendly Congress," they're talking about people like Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who introduced a network neutrality amendment to a House bill on the subject (which was later rejected). In a sign of how serious he is, network neutrality is currently listed as one of the four "featured issues" on Markey's official web page.
Markey will be a key player in telecoms law in the new year; after the election, he announced that he was seeking the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. He got the nod almost immediately.
Other Democratic leaders from California, including Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, have publicly supported network neutrality in the past, as have Republicans like Olympia Snowe of Maine. Though not a sure thing, network neutrality stands a far better chance of finding its way into a bill next year than it did this year.
Digital copyright
But having the Democrats in power is no guarantee that consumer-friendly Internet legislation will be passed. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) was just appointed to the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee that deals with Internet issues. Berman, a well-known defender of Hollywood's interests, may find himself at odds with Markey over copyright issues as the two chair their respective subcommittees. He also looks likely to support continued "broadcast flag" initiatives of the kind championed by the movie industry. It's safe to say, whatever you think of broadcast flags, that consumers aren't exactly crying out for them to be implemented, but the powerful entertainment lobby might get its wish on this one.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), another prominent Democrat, has previously introduced his Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act without success. That bill, which would allow for the prevention of copy protection when the intended use is legitimate, could well be revived in the coming year, but might face opposition from representatives like Berman.
Video franchising
Companies like AT&T and Verizon have been backing legislation that would make it easier for them to strike franchising agreements. These agreements allow the companies to use public rights-of-way to lay lines and install equipment, but generally require them to pay a portion of revenues and provide local public access channels. For obvious reasons, telecoms firms would prefer to sign these agreements at the state or federal level instead of negotiating them with every municipality in the country.
The issue is a contentious one; AT&T's proposed rollout of IPTV services in the Chicago suburbs has run into problems over this very issue. Lawsuits have been filed and moratoria enacted, with the end result that deployments have been few and far between.
Expect to see another big push for a change in the franchising system at both the state and federal levels next year, places where the phone companies have far more access (and leverage, in the form of dollars) than they do in city council races.
reader comments