Congress shaping telecom law in private
May 8th, 2006 by MattWell here’s a shocker, frm at the Austin Statesman. Lobbyists are writing the bill in secret, in conference committee. Megolomaniac AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre doesn’t like it when the public gets involved in lawmaking.
No one should waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks.
Instead, they want to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee.
The Senate just needs to pass “anything to get us into conference,” where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal’s Technology Daily.
I can’t say I’m surprised. These guys have always had contempt for the public.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Not exactly a direct response to the entry, but I’m really confused.
On common cause’s web page they refer to the COPE bill as HR 5252 here:
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6…
I don’t understand legalese I guess, but the text reads to me as saying almost the opposite of what the web page says the bill says.
TITLE IV—MUNICIPAL
PROVISION OF SERVICES
SEC. 401. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERV8
ICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Neither the Communications Act
of 1934 nor any State statute, regulation, or other State
legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of telecommunications service,
information service, or cable service (as such terms are
defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing
such services to any person or entity.
(b) COMPETITION NEUTRALITY.—Any State or polit
ical subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or in
strumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof,
that is, owns, controls, or is otherwise affiliated with a
public provider of telecommunications service, information
service, or cable service shall not grant any preference or
advantage to any such provider. Such entity shall apply
its ordinances, rules, and policies, including those relating
to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance
bonding, and reporting without discrimination in favor of any such provider as compared to other providers of such services.
Unless I’m reading the wrong part, doesn’t that say that no provider should be given preference over another?
May 8th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
The “San Antonio Statesman?” How about “The Austin American-Statesman?” Let’s try to pay a little bit more attention.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
This is terrible news, but hopefully this campaign will provide enough public awareness to make this an election issue. Sounds like the real battle is to prevent a bill from passing in the Senate.
As to Ignoramus’ comment:
The provision you noted refers to government-provided wireless (muni wifi). Common Cause (and others) support these provisions of the bill, because many states have passed laws prohibiting this. This provision has NOTHING to do with net neutrality, it just prevents municipalities from using their position to provide a competitive advantage over other providers.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
[…] read more | digg story […]
May 9th, 2006 at 1:28 am
Can you point out where in the bill there is text that represents an attack on net neutrality, or that represents text removed from the previous bill and so represents an attack on net neutrality?
Consider this: If someone with an opposing political view were to tell me assertions about what some “liberal” legislation was going to do, and all they had to tell me was “go look at liberals want to kill you .org” I would not believe them and want them to show me where in the bill the offending text is. It might be a good idea to present this issue in that way, not assertions but pointing out the text in the bill that is offensive.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:08 am
Another aspect of this heinous bill is related to the unlawful NSA wiretapping that Bushco has authorized, in violation of Article IV of the Bill of Rights.
AT & T will be a big receipent of our money if this abomination passes. AT & T was also one of the tele-comm giants that let the NSA set up shop in its telephone switch buildings, effectively allowing the feds to spy on US citizens in the US.
Does this bill represent a “quid pro quo”? That is, is the government returning the favor to the tele-comm giants for letting it unlawfully spy on American citizens?
Greg Bacon
Ava, MO
May 9th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Greg, let’s not turn this into a partisan issue. The legality of NSA’s international wiretaps, which — by the way — have been vetted with Congressional members of both parties for years, are being worked by multiple committees. Let’s not confuse the issue. This blog advocates net neutrality… and members of both parties are after the carriers on this topic.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Hi Ignoramus — The COPE bill has several sections. The one you cite in your first post is Title IV and deals with municipal broadband. It’s actually a good provision that protects the rights of local governments to offer high-speed Internet access to their citizens. The telcos have been lobbying a lot of state legislatures to ban municipal broadband, because they want to eliminate their competition. However this good provision doesn’t outweigh the bad in the COPE bill.
The net neutrality language is in Title II (the bill calls it “enforcement of broadband policy statement.”) But instead of giving the FCC any enforcement power, the bill would actual limit the Commission’s authority to write rules protecting net neutrality. The specific language appears on page 43 of the bill:
…the Commission’s authority to enforce the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein does not include authorization for the Commission to adopt or implement rules or regulations regarding enforcement of the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein, with the sole exception of the authority to adopt procedures for the adjudication of complaints, as provided in paragraph (3).
Does that answer your question?
May 9th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I don’t think it does, but I’m not sure. It seems to be saying that a commission would have it’s authority to enforace a broadband policy limited. This is not obvioiusly “pushing a law that would abandon the Internet’s First Amendment” as the home page says.
Imagine me trying to talk to my sceptical neighbor or congress person. I would say “there’s a bill that is going to be voted on that is going to do away with net neutrality”. If they listen to me long enough to actually want me to back up what I’m saying, what would I tell them?
Switch the scenario to your black helicopter paranoid right wing neighbor telling you there’s a bill that is going to make it illegal to own a Bible. There is no way I would listen any further if they said they didn’t know what text in the bill says that, or if the text amounted to “some commission is giong to have it’s authority limited”.
I realize the text is not easy for the average person to understand, since I don’t feel like I can understand it. The promotion of this issue should involve quoting the text of the bill, togehter with an explanation, so you can show exactly how it’s saying what this site claims it says.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
I’m not a lawyer but in regards to ignoramus’s first post, both (a) and (b) appear to be massive giveaways to communication and information providers. They even call giveaway (b) “network neutrality” to confuse people.
Paragraph (a) is vague but says the state, state agencies or state-owned services may not prohibit certain public communications services. For example in the case of telecom towers, counties and municipalities may regulate the placement of those towers through zoning - for example no towers in residentially zoned areas. Zoning may also regulate the use of large satellite dishes. However in my state that zoning authority is granted by the state legislature. Therefore it could be construed to mean that counties and municipalities cannot regulate the placement of telecom towers through zoning and the state has no authority to regulate the placement of such towers. That effectively means they can be placed anywhere.
Paragraph (b) is also vague but deals with municipality or counties which might operate a wireless service or over-the-air broadcast, or which might have a municipal franchise agreement with a cable company. Essentially it says they cannot use their ordinances, rules, public rights-of-way, permitting, performance bonding, and reporting to discriminate against certain communication and information providers. Potential examples are:
1. Cable franchise agreements for example may not discriminate against any communication or information provider by giving one cable provider exclusive access. However typically counties and municipalities sell exclusive cable rights in return for an annual franchise fee and specify the cable company must provide coverage to the entire county or municipality. This “network neutrality” provision may effectively gut cable franchise agreements, something Verizon desperately wants.
2. a municipality which offers a wireless service for for a fee, or even for free, may not discriminate against another communication or information provider who wants to provide the same service. I believe there was a case where a city operated an exclusive wireless service in their area and refused to let Verizon provide the same service. In effective “network neutrality” say they may have to open the service to bidding.
3. Municipal or county contracts to a community television or radio station to broadcast over the air certain municipal functions may also have to be opened to bidding. For example my town contracts with our non-profit community television station to televise certain town meetings. The funding from the town is 50% of the community TV stations budget and widely supported by voters. However possibly now my town will have to open that process to bidding.
Both (a) and (b) seem designed to provide major benefits to communication and information providers at the expense of states, counties and municipalities. Nothing is provided to the states, counties and municipalities in return.
May 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
This is what my Senater Saxby Chambliss had to say:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE Act). I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand the importance of quick and affordable broadband service to Georgia’s small businesses, homes, and schools that will enable us to share information in a global market, enhance our lives through technology, and communicate more effectively in an ever changing world. As you know, the internet is a critical communications tool for millions of Americans.
The COPE Act has been introduced before the House of Representatives to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services. There is currently no Senate version of this bill. Be assured that I will continue to support fair market competition, the protection of consumers, and lower prices in any legislation regarding broadband that comes before the Senate.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up
via my web site at: http://www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please do not
hesitate to be in touch if I may ever be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
October 26th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
[…] Page Summary: Lobbyists are writing the bill in secret, in conference committee. Common Cause (and others) support these provisions of the bill, because many states have passed laws prohibiting this. For example in the case of telecom towers, counties and municipalities may regulate the placement of those towers through zoning - for example no towers in residentially zoned areas. For example my town contracts with our non-profit community television station to televise certain town meetings.read more | digg story […]
October 26th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
[…] Page Summary: Lobbyists are writing the bill in secret, in conference committee. Common Cause (and others) support these provisions of the bill, because many states have passed laws prohibiting this. For example in the case of telecom towers, counties and municipalities may regulate the placement of those towers through zoning - for example no towers in residentially zoned areas. For example my town contracts with our non-profit community television station to televise certain town meetings.read more | digg story […]