from: Technology Daily [1]

Senate Telecom Debate Hints Consensus Will Be Tough To Reach

By David Hatch

(Tuesday, June 13) A hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee underscored the complexities of reaching consensus on the telecommunications legislation drafted by Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Stevens released the second draft Monday and plans to unveil a third iteration soon, with committee consideration now set for June 22. While several members and witnesses expressed support for various portions, most tempered their praise with criticism or fears that the text might be altered to their disliking.

"While I recognize and appreciate that the new draft makes a number of improvements, I remain concerned by the lack of significant progress in a number of key areas," ranking member Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, emphasized in a statement.

He complained that the bill still would not require the Bell telephone companies and other new video providers to "build out" their systems to entire communities. He also griped about a lack of strong network neutrality safeguards to prevent high-speed Internet operators from potentially acting as Internet gatekeepers.

Inouye further wants tougher requirements governing the interconnection of competitive telecom providers with incumbents, and he is worried that the bill would not do enough to promote competition for business customers of telecom services.

Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., endorsed language on municipal broadband that he helped craft but said video build-out requirements are needed. "I still think there's room for improvement," he said.

Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., applauded portions addressing franchise deregulation and changes to the government program subsidizing telecom service in rural areas. But he also wants build-out mandates and net neutrality protections, which he dubbed "Internet freedom."

Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina and John Sununu of New Hampshire, however, warned that strict neutrality safeguards would be a mistake. "We should be very careful before we start imposing regulations" that might deter investments, Sununu said. DeMint said net neutrality would create a "litigation playground for the trial lawyers."

"We have always operated in an unregulated environment," testified Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. He added that neutrality proponents want people to think "something's changed."

Hinting at a possible compromise, Stevens said the FCC could address anti-competitive matters affecting Internet customers while letting broadband operators and Internet firms hire lawyers to resolve disputes. The draft now requires the FCC to study net neutrality, but Stevens may alter those provisions.

Ben Scott, policy director for the watchdog Free Press, complained that without build-out and neutrality requirements the measure would "cement the digital divide into statute" and result in a "patchwork" of service. Anti-competitive conduct would be difficult to reverse once it begins, he warned. Other witnesses countered that the Internet has been successful with light regulation and that restrictions would hamper investment.

"It's so important that we get this passed for so many reasons," said George Allen, R-Va., arguing that the bill would result in more choices and lower prices. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., also was bullish about the draft, adding: "The goal is to permit competition, and I think it does."