While the COPE Act, now known as HR 5252, crawls relentlessly toward a floor vote by the full U.S. House of Representatives, over in the Senate a key player is getting ready to make it even worse.
Harold Feld at wetmachine dissects the net neutrality and community broadband provisions of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' Communications, Consumer Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. Stevens is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and his bill is meant to be the main vehicle for dealing with the COPE Act issues -- national video-Internet franchising, Community Right to Network, etc. -- in the upper house.
Harold says the Stevens bill, which covers a lot of territory, includes some good stuff in other areas. CNet says the bill is so broad that it likely means no major telecom legislation will actually get passed by both houses this Summer. (Of course, that's what all the "knowledgeable sources" were saying just six weeks ago about the House Energy and Committee's chance of agreeing on a bill.)
Harold doesn't discuss the Stevens bill's provisions on the local vs. national video-Internet franchising issue. Apparently Stevens wants to leave the franchise approval process in the hands of local governments, but require them to use FCC application forms and act on any proposed new franchise within 30 days. My first impression is that its impact on local authority and negotiating leverage won't be all that different from the COPE Act -- in effect, it may just amount to letting city councils hold the FCC's rubber stamp -- but I can't find any real analysis yet, so let's reserve judgment.*
(In case you've been wondering, I still haven't heard a word from Sherrod Brown about his "yes" vote on the COPE Act.)
*Update: My first impression seems to have been correct... see this article in today's National Journal Technology Daily, courtesy of saveaccess.org.
New Senate telecommunications legislation would take away the ability of local governments to reject video franchises -- effectively granting the former regional Bell operating companies the same expedited entry into video services as proposed in a competing House bill...Well, that clears that up.
Commerce ranking member Daniel Inouye, R-Hawaii, reluctantly co-sponsored the legislation but voiced many reservations...
Notwithstanding dramatic differences in how they are drafted, both bills address video franchising in a way likely to benefit Bell companies. Most significantly, neither bill would require new video entrants to offer service in all parts of their regions, according to Senate Commerce Committee aides.
The call for such "buildout" language has been at the center of the franchising tussle between the Bells on the one hand and the cable industry and local governments on the other.
Inouye and Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., had drafted principles that urged a continuation of the local franchise process but on an expedited basis. The cable industry endorsed those principles.
Under existing local franchise agreements, cities traditionally have imposed some sort of requirement that video providers offer services to all residents.
Stevens' bill, S. 2686, appears to preserve local franchise authorities' role in cable television licensing, albeit in a streamlined franchising process.
But, although local governments may negotiate for a requirement that Bells offer services to everyone, the Bell applicants are free to reject them under the Senate bill. If an application were not approved within 30 days by the locality, permission to offer video is granted under the terms of a "standard franchise agreement form."
That generic form would be provided by the FCC, and there is no mention of any buildout requirement on the standardized form.
"We set national standards if they don't come out with an agreement" on the local level, a Senate Commerce Committee aide said. "We were trying to be responsive to the Inouye-Burns principles, which called for local franchising. They may not see it that way."
The aide added, "There are other people on the Republican side who didn't think we should do it at all, but we tried to lean toward what Sen. Inouye said he was more comfortable on -- local franchising."
Under both the Senate and House bills, Bell companies would have to pay the same franchise fees as current cable operators and provide the same access to public, educational and governmental television channels.
Here's Angela's take on the Stevens bill.