Save Access

Note: We have three weeks to go in this Senate session before the lame duck session after the elections, let's make sure this period is a telecom bill wake.

from: Technology Daily

Budget Office Pegs Bill Cost At $5.2 Billion

By David Hatch

(Tuesday, September 19) The Senate telecommunications bill would increase U.S. government spending by $5.2 billion from 2007 to 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimates in a just-released report. During that period, however, U.S. Treasury revenue would grow by $5 billion, the report predicts.

The bulk of the costs would result from changes to the universal service fund that subsidizes telecom offerings in rural and impoverished areas. CBO says that nearly $4.5 million would be spent over nine years to expand the program to subsidize high-speed Internet access. But the report also says USF revenue collection would grow by roughly the same amount.

The CBO report poses yet another hurdle to Senate consideration of the bill because it shows that the measure would add to the budget deficit. That makes the measure subject to a point of order that would require 60 votes to overcome.

CBO estimates that the Senate version of the House-passed bill, H.R. 5252, could raise costs for state and local governments by up to $400 million per year in 2008 and 2009. Their costs would be at least $150 million per year during that period. Costs for states and localities would decrease after 2009 but could exceed $100 million per year through 2011, the office says.

The report surfaced as proponents of the legislation spearheaded by Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, continued their last-minute push to secure its passage before adjournment. At a Tuesday press briefing, executives representing telecom equipment manufacturers that would benefit from the proposal urged lawmakers to swiftly enact it.

"There's not a lot of time left in the session," warned Electronic Industries Alliance President and Chief Executive Officer Dave McCurdy, who suggested that it would be risky to bump consideration to a post-election session of Congress. "Better to get it done now," said McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma.

Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the House version, said the legislation would usher in much-needed competition and lower cable rates. Speaking later to reporters, he brushed aside suggestions that the bills, as written, might result in "redlining," whereby companies bypass low-income and minority areas as they deploy services.

Regarding the report, CBO said costs also would rise due to provisions to limit franchise fees on cable providers, to permanently extend the ban on certain Internet taxes, and to impose a three-year moratorium on state and local taxes applied to wireless telephone service.

Stevens' bill faces opposition from several constituencies, including state regulators worried that the nationwide video franchises it would create would lower the fees they collect from pay-television providers. CBO says some of those losses would be offset by increased competition.

Many state regulators and attorneys general are concerned that the Senate language would pre-empt their consumer-protection authority, while Internet companies fear it would give broadband providers too much control over high-speed Internet pipes.

Stevens has been struggling to secure the 60 votes needed for filibuster-proof Senate consideration of his measure. While he might be able to bring it to the floor after the election, concern is growing among Republicans that if the Democrats make substantial election gains, they will block action.