Benton RSS Feed

TELECOM BILL LIKELY TO HIT HOUSE FLOOR NEXT WEEK
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
The telecommunications legislation approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday is likely headed for a House floor vote May 4, aides to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said. The vote would put the bill -- sponsored by Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) -- before the Rules Committee on Wednesday. The timetable presumes that House parliamentarians will rule against an expected effort by the House Judiciary Committee to seek referral of the bill. Granting a referral to Judiciary likely would delay a vote, but most congressional and industry sources say Judiciary will not get a chance to consider the bill. Rep Barton has been cautious in rejecting amendments and drafting text to avoid Judiciary jurisdiction. "We are going to review the final bill that came out of Barton's committee on Monday," Judiciary spokesman Terry Shawn said. The Commerce report on the measure is likely to be released Monday. If Judiciary is denied a referral, the key question for the Rules Committee is whether it allows a vote on the contentious issue of "network neutrality," said various industry, nonprofit and congressional sources.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-LCSP1146169911157.html
Also see --
* Key House Panel Defeats Net Neutrality
[SOURCE: The Nation, AUTHOR: Jeff Chester]
[Commentary] With midterm elections looming, GOP leaders will come under increasing pressure to make a choice. Will they continue to back their few phone and cable industry supporters and keep the open Internet safeguards off the table? Or will they recognize that a genuine digital-age protest movement is emerging that could further harm their party's chances in November? The next few weeks will reveal whether the "smart mobs" can win over a tiny handful of communications monopolists.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/chester
* Save the Internet
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/35557/
* Net neutrality vote: the cost in human terms
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1061

INFO ON VIDEO FRANCHISING BILL
[SOURCE: House of Representatives Commerce Committee press release]
Specifically, the Barton-Rush legislation would: 1) Create a national approval process, known as a “franchise,” for telephone carriers and cable providers that offer subscription television. By streamlining this system, more competitors will offer services that are similar to cable TV. The likely result will be lower prices and more choices for consumers. 2) Improve competition between VoIP Internet-based telephone services and local telephone services. 3) Require cable and telephone companies to offer broadband services without requiring consumers take telephone, television or other services the provider offers. 4) Preserve municipalities’ right to collect up to a six percent fee from pay-TV providers. Part of this fee will go towards ensuring local communities can continue to offer public, educational and governmental (PEG) stations. 5) Establish penalties of up to $500,000 for broadband providers that block lawful content. The Federal Communications Commission would have, for the first time, explicit power to go after companies that violate network neutrality principles. 6) Require Internet-based telephone services to offer 9-1-1 capabilities while ensuring Internet telephone providers have access to all necessary 9-1-1 infrastructure and technology. This will help ensure that VoIP service can be a safe and effective competitor to standard telephone service. 7)Allow localities to retain control of their rights-of-way and ensure local jurisdictions still receive the franchise fees they collected under the current system. Additionally, the FCC will be authorized to step in if a locality tries to unfairly use its rights-of-way authority to block new competitors from entering the local market. 8) Allow cities and towns to develop their own broadband networks. 9) Require broadband operators take additional steps to ensure their networks aren't used to transmit child pornography. 9) Strong anti-discrimination provisions that include fines of up to $500,000 a day and even revocation of franchises.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/04272006_1857.htm
* House committee votes to streamline FCC’s multi-mode device authorization
[SOURCE: RCR Wireless, AUTHOR: Heather Forsgren Weaver ]
The Video Franchising Bill passed Wednesday by the House Commerce Committee includes provisions to streamline the process that the Federal Communications Commission uses to approve multi-mode devices. Radio-frequency devices are required to be certified to ensure they meet technical standards established by the FCC. New technologies must undergo commission certification, but, according to the FCC’s web site, cell phones and other devices can be certified by telecommunications certification bodies—outside groups authorized by the agency to conduct the testing necessary for certification. “All we are trying to do is kick in a quicker process so that we don't have to wait 64 days to get approval for multi-mode devices,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the sponsor of the amendment. “We are asking FCC to streamline the process. It doesn't specify the process.”
http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26234

NET NEUTRALITY....THE CURRENT RULES
[SOURCE: Washington Monthly, AUTHOR: Kevin Drum]
[Commentary] here are the current principles of net neutrality that were adopted by the FCC last August. These principles would be enforced by the Barton-Rush bill if it were passed in its current form: 1) Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. 2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement. 3) Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network. 4) Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management. The Barton-Rush bill instructs the FCC to enforce these principles if a complaint is submitted, but does not allow the FCC to proactively create new regulations based on them. Note that these principles prohibit Internet providers from blocking access to sites, but do not explicitly prohibit degradation of service. It's an open question how the FCC will interpret "access" if someone ever lodges a complaint alleging that a network provider has deliberately degraded performance in a way that effectively prevents a site or application from working properly. Note also that these principles do allow Internet providers to create special high-speed lanes that they can offer for a price to specific customers. The most likely customers for such a service are video-on-demand providers.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008697.php

TELECOM BILL GETS MIXED REVIEWS
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Verizon cheered the House Energy and Commerce Committee's vote to approve the bill and send it to the full House floor. The company and the United States Telecom Association also applauded the committee's vote to reject an amendment that would have prohibited broadband providers from blocking or impairing their customers' access to competing Web sites or applications. The House should pass the bill and not weigh it down with issues such as "mandating government regulation of the Internet," Peter Davidson, Verizon senior vice president for federal legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We are disappointed but not surprised that the committee voted to turn over the future of the Internet to the telephone and cable industry," Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge's president, said by e-mail. "Neither of those two sectors contributed to the creative development of the Internet, and neither is known for innovation. They are known for their desire to control what goes over their networks."
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/04/27/77839_HNtelecombill_1.html
* Bloggers Weigh In On Net Neutrality Debate
http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=HQS...
* TV Producers, Writers & Directors Support Net Neutrality on Hill
http://creativevoices.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/tv_producers_wr.html

ECONOMIST DEBUNKS 'NET NEUTRALITY' ISSUE
[SOURCE: KSBI-TV Oklahoma]
John Rutledge of Rutledge Capital warns "Network neutrality is a contrived issue that would push American telecommunications back towards the stifling regulatory climate it's been trying to escape for 20 years." "Lobbyists for the big on-line service companies not only want Congress to set price controls in advance, but they are wrapping their self-interest in the flag of network neutrality and making the ridiculous claim that they want to protect affordable Internet service for everyone," said Rutledge. He said affordable consumer Internet service, especially consumer broadband, can be best assured by continued investment in networks that bring super high-speed fiber connections direct to homes and small businesses. This will encourage more competition among phone companies, cable companies and other high-speed network operators. Rutledge warned that inclusion of network neutrality regulations in current legislation could discourage passage and if adopted, would discourage both investment and competition. "Every time this nation moves to promote free-market competition, it seems some special interest has come along to subvert the intent and sink consumer interests in the muddy waters of regulatory interpretation and special interest legislation," Rutledge said. "The net neutrality campaign is a continuation of that syndrome."
http://www.ksbitv.com/technology/2704051.html