Very interesting, as Drew points out, he was the ONLY reporter present after the House vote on major telecommunications legislation.

from: DrewClark.com [1]

Friday, June 09, 2006

The House passed the telecommunications legislation of Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, just past 10 p.m. on Thursday. The final vote tally on the bill was 321-101. Among Republicans, 215 supported it, with only 8 opposed. A majority of Democrats, 108 versus 92, voted for passage. The one independent voted no. Earlier in the evening, an amendment seeking to strengthen the Barton bill's "network neutrality" provisions failed 269-152. The amendment had been offered by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

Normally when major legislation is being passed by Congress, even late in the evening or early in the morning, there is a crowd of reporters following the event. Not so last night. Shortly after the members left the floor for the evening, I caught up with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton in the speakers' gallery. Barton was ready for a crowd, but since I was the only one there, here is our exclusive interview.

DREW CLARK: How do you feel at this moment?

JOE BARTON: Stunned and absolutely ecstatic. I think this sends a very strong signal to the country and the Senate that the county is ready for a broadband policy that promotes competition, good jobs for American workers, and new services for consumers.

CLARK: What about the vote on network neutrality?

BARTON: On that vote, we almost ended with a two-thirds vote against Markey. The premise of the Markey amendment is just flawed. If you had passed Markey, even if you go by his own analogy you would have forced the [auto] dealer to sell both cars at the same price. [He was referring to Markey's argument that both a Ferrari and a cheaper car could travel the same speed on the highway.] We want to empower the consumer to make choices from a broad array of services. The consumer will regulate the choice, not the regulator.

CLARK: Are you at all afraid that without neutrality rules, we are letting the genie out of the bottle and creating a second-tier Internet?

BARTON: That is a bogus argument. You will not see a second-tier Internet. These companies are going to spend billions of dollars and offer new choices in markets where there is one cable company.

At this point, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., walks into the Speaker's Gallery. I ask Barton about the prospects for the bill in the Senate, and he points to Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

FRED UPTON: It is my understanding that the Senate Commerce Committee is likely to mark up their bill this month and be on the floor in July. We have established a very good relationship with [Alaska Republican and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman] Stevens and his members: [John] Sununu, [Sam] Brownback and others, in addition to Stevens, through work on digital television, decency legislation, we have [bridged] any breaches that might have existed.

CLARK: What about the Universal Service Fund? There is a considerable difference with Stevens on that.

BARTON: We will work with Sen. Stevens, and we will find a compromise that satisfies most of the parties. I fundamentally disagree that we should saddle a new service with a fee that in the Internet era makes no sense. Why put a fee that was based on a monopoly service? With wireless and the Internet, you don't need that model. We can give them the functionality of the Universal Service Fund without given them regulation.

At this point, Ed Markey walks close to our circle, greets Barton, but turns to leave.

ED MARKEY: I agree with everything he says, [referring to Barton. But I assume Markey is joking.]

CLARK, to Barton: How is your relationship with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin?

BARTON: I have a cordial personal and professional relationship with the Chairman and the other commissioners.

CLARK: [I ask him about the pointed letter he sent to Martin on Wednesday over the issue of cable operators being required to carry broadcasters' digital multicasts.]

BARTON: Multicast must-carry is another example; there is no reason in a broadband Internet competition model to impose regulatory [rules] based on some sort of constrained capacity. You don't need must-carry [when technologies] have no capacity constraints whatsoever.