July 27, 2005
Major Reform of Telecom Act Proposed
By Roy Mark

WASHINGTON -- Sweeping legislation to deregulate the U.S. telecommunications market finally hit Congress today. Long awaited and much anticipated, the bill calls for stripping away many of the current federal and state rules for the delivery of voice, video and data services.

Introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act aims to level the playing field between telephone, cable and satellite companies while opening the door for the delivery of emerging broadband services.

Ensign's bill specifically calls for eliminating state and local franchise requirements for all video providers, including telephone companies moving into the field. Existing cable franchises would cease to exist upon enactment of the bill.

Ensign said state and local authorities would be protected from financial losses under his bill by requiring video providers that use existing rights of way to pay local authorities a fee of up to five percent of gross video revenues.

Broadband services, regardless of technology platform, are largely freed from federal and state regulation at both the wholesale and retail levels. The bill further states that consumers may not be denied access to any legal content provided over the facilities used for broadband communications, including Voice over IP (define) port blocking.

"Americans' ingenuity and creativity can provide more choices for consumers if government bureaucrats will get out of the way and allow our companies to compete," Ensign said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "Technology is moving forward but current laws are not."

As for interconnection fees between broadband providers and facilities-based providers, the legislation says the parties are required to establish "commercial arrangements." The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would only intervene if they fail to reach an agreement.

The legislation also targets state and local governments considering establishing their own broadband networks. Under the bill, local municipalities must give the private sector notice before going into business for themselves and allow non-government providers to bid on the project.

"We need to modernize our communications laws. Instead of stifling, government-managed competition, we need to move to market-controlled forces," Ensign said. "We need to get the investment dollars flowing."

Ensign cited the cell phone industry as a model of innovation with minimum government regulation. "This is the type of competition we want between cable and telephone companies," he said.

Incumbent telephone companies will be required to continue to provide unbundled access to their copper lines until 2011 and to make narrowband communications available for resale at rates established by the FCC.

The FCC also retains the authority granted in the 1996 Telecommunications Act to require service providers to comply with wiretapping requests. In addition, Ensign's bill retains prohibitions on obscene Internet materials.

The bill does not, however, deal with reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF), an issue Ensign said he was leaving to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).

Ensign's legislation drew a flurry of statements in support of telecom reform.

"Senator Ensign has produced the most deregulatory communications bill ever introduced in Congress, and, commendably so, in light of the vast marketplace changes that have occurred since passage of the 1996 act," said Randy May, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation.

Roger Cochetti, group director for U.S. public policy at the Computing Technology Industry Association, added, "Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the convergence of markets, the rapid advance of information and communications technology, and the ubiquity of the Internet have pushed the 96 Act to its limits.

Cochetti said while the Telecom Act did much to update the nation's regulatory structure, "It is timely and appropriate that we revisit that landmark legislation."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 13, 2004
Sununu Drafting VoIP Bill
By Roy Mark
U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu says he is drafting a bill to keep Internet telephony beyond the reach of state and federal regulations that govern traditional telecoms.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began proceedings in December to determine what, if any, telecom taxes and rules should apply to the quickly emerging Internet telephone business built on Voice over IP (VoIP) (define)> technology.

"Congress must establish pre-eminence of federal authority in this area and provide major direction for any action by the FCC," the New Hampshire Republican said late last week at the CES show in Las Vegas. "I'm afraid the benefits of VoIP will be smothered by state and federal regulators. A clear pre-emptive remedy is needed now."

VoIP technology presents problems for regulators because the new industry doesn't fit traditional telecom regulatory models. While it clearly provides telephone service, it does it by turning voice packets into data packets and does so over the virtually unregulated Internet, both public and private, instead of the heavily taxed and regulated public switched voice telephone networks (PSTN).

The Internet telephone industry claims it is not a telecom since it does not deal in voice traffic. As the major telecoms and cable companies join start-up VoIP ventures in moving voice traffic over the Internet, the issue becomes critical for cash-starved states that raise hundreds of millions in revenues by taxing traditional telephone services.

California says since VoIP providers use conventional telephone lines to connect their calls, they are a telephone company and is seeking to collect access fees. Washington, Oregon and Florida are also skirmishing with Internet phone companies on the same issue.

In the only court decision, however, a federal judge spiked Minnesota's attempt to regulate and tax telephone service offered by Edison, N.J.-based Vonage, ruling the company does not have to register as a telephone company in order to conduct business in Minnesota.

"Voice communications are at a watershed moment. The adoption and deployment of VoIP applications allow providers to completely reject old ideas and limitations over voice communications," Sununu said in his official Las Vegas statement. "Beyond improving productivity and creating valuable new service features, the innovation created by VoIP applications forces a complete shift in the way traditional voice communications are viewed."

At the Dec. 1 opening hearing on VoIP, FCC commissioners and a wide range of VoIP experts, including some state regulatory officials, agreed that only a light regulatory touch, mainly involving public safety (911 availability), law enforcement (legal wiretap accessibility) and disability issues (equipment), should be brought to bear on the nascent industry.

FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said at the hearing he "unflinchingly (believes) in maintaining an Internet free from government regulation" and firmly supports the idea that the Internet telephony industry should "evolve in a regulation-free zone."

The FCC will now gather additional information and public comment about the issue. The process is expected to take at least a year.

"VoIP providers should be free from state regulation, free from the complexity of FCC regulations, free to develop new solutions to address social needs, and free to amaze consumers," Sununu, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said.

Details of Sununu's proposed legislation were unavailable as of Tuesday morning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pulver Counsel Pans Telecom Reform Bill
August 1, 2005
By Roy Mark


WASHINGTON -- A major telecom reform bill iintroduced last week by Sen. John Ensign brought the Nevada Republican a blitz of favorable comments and praise. Think tanks and IT trade groups alike rushed to praise the "sweeping" and "timely" legislation.

Not so fast, said Pulver.com general counsel Jonathan Askin.

"We'll be stuck with another five years of implementing it and 15 years of litigation," Askin told internetnews.com. "It's a definitional shell game. Miraculously, a telecom service becomes an information service."

The legislation seeks to level the playing field between all advanced communications services with a deregulatory approach to how services are categorized. Askin said the bill, in fact, will likely create more rules and regulations for Internet Protocol (IP) developers and providers and Voice over Internet providers in particular.

For Askin, the issue is not what the Ensign bill removes from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but what it leaves in. "It imposes 'social obligations' on standalone VoIP providers," he said. "It puts regulations on previously unregulated companies."

The social obligations will likely involve wire tapping accommodations, handicap access and Universal Service Fund obligations. The FCC already has imposed E911 obligations on VoIP providers, a decision Askin claims forces Internet telephone providers to develop "backward looking" technology.

Pulver.com Enterprises controls approximately 20 operating companies touching various aspects of IP-based communications. The company's founder, Jeff Pulver, first gained Washington's attention when he successfully petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to exempt his computer-to-computer Free World Dialup from FCC regulations.

If the Ensign bill ultimately passes, Askin predicts, "We'll be sucked back into a regulatory regime we never asked for. We'll be brought into a regulatory quagmire."

That day, however, may be a long time in coming.

Despite the favorable publicity generated by Ensign's Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act, the bill has yet to have hearing in the Senate and companion legislation in the House of Representatives has not been introduced. In both houses, competing legislation less sweeping in scope are working their way through the legislative process.

"In the House, we're trying to narrowly target telecom reform and it will probably only deal with IP services," a Capitol Hill staff lawyer told internetnews.com. "I'll be surprised if we get something on the president's desk by the end of the 109th Congress."

The current two-year Congress is scheduled to adjourn late in 2006.

Askin said he favors legislation introduced last year by Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) that called for exempting IP services from telephone access charges. The bill did carry some federal obligations on VoIP providers but excluded applications, such as Pulver's Free World Dialup, that do not interconnect with the public switched network.

The legislation failed when lawmakers feared the potential revenue loss to states.

"It got mired down and done in by forces beyond our control," he said. "And don't think the entrenched power structure in Washington isn't going to have a big say in this [Ensign legislation]."

Askin, a former senior attorney in the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau, said what is really needed is "unfettered competition at the application layer. We need to combine the free market with IP technology. We need for either Congress or the FCC to embrace an Internet freedom empowerment principle."

Fighting words, perhaps. But then, Askin identifies himself on his business card as a "Wartime Consigliere."



---
You are currently subscribed to telecom-cities as: archive@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To set DIGEST mode and only receive one list message per day with all the daily 
traffic, please visit the list website at 
http://www.informationcity.org/telecom-cities

Reply via email to