Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) did what Washington insiders had most feared: He reintroduced the misnamed Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 1999 on Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

by Patricia Fusco ISP-Planet Managing Editor [April 27, 2001]

When H.R.2420 last sparked debate during the 106th Congress, it was eventually left to die of neglect in the Senate—while the country got busy electing the 107th Congress. But Tauzin's office is very confident that the bill, known this time around as H.R.1524, will successfully pass through the House and Senate this year.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the bipartisan bill's co-sponsor, said that the legislation would actually give consumers lower prices and greater choices among cable and DSL access providers.

In his opening statement, Dingell said that H.R. 1542 ensures that competition for broadband Internet services would be robust. Adding that high speed Internet connections would be delivered to all and that no single sector of the industry would be granted a de facto monopoly.

The 1996 Telecom Act (Section 271), provides that the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), like Verizon and SBC, may not provide long distance services without first complying with a 14-point checklist of items demonstrating to the Federal Communications Commission that they have opened up their networks to rivals.

The underlying goal of the statute is to create local competition in telecom services.

H.R. 1524 would exempt data transport (but not voice traffic) from the conditions of Section 271—effectively enabling RBOCs to wheel and deal among themselves to serve up nationwide DSL access while they're still prohibited from providing nationwide long distance voice services.

Aye, aye
Reps. Tauzin and Dingell contend that the bill would promote the deployment of DSL service by the RBOCs to make broadband Internet access more widely available in the U.S. Of course, it would also shut down rival wholesalers and service providers. Tauzin and Dingell were joined by a litany of peers and predictably—SBC and Verizon.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the Chairman of the Telecom Subcommittee, offered his qualified support for the bill. Upton said Congress needs to provide deregulatory parity for broadband regardless of the platform by which it is delivered—be it by telephone, wire, cable, wireless, or satellite. Upton indicated that the legislation would be amended in mark up, but only to increase fines and financial penalties for phone companies, which could be assessed by the FCC.

Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Steve Buyer (R-IN), and Gene Green (D-TX) also offered their support for the bill.

Thomas Tauke, Verizon senior vice president of public policy and external affairs, said existing federal regulations handicap Verizon's provision of DSL services, so Congress needs to act now.

"The FCC cannot solve the problem of regulation that inhibits broadband deployment and skews the competitive marketplace," Tauke said. "Congress must do that. The longer the delay, the longer consumers will have to wait for services they want and the longer the economy will have to wait for the boost that these new services would surely produce.

"I urge you to start the process and to take up and report out the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act without delay," Tauke added.

In his testimony on Capitol Hill, Paul K. Mancini, SBC vice president and assistant general counsel, said the legislation is a step in the right direction.

"Any legislation to promote the delivery of high-speed Internet access services to the public should reduce the asymmetric regulation that currently exists between the cable industry, the telephone industry and other providers of these services," Mancini said. "It is only through full and fair competition that consumers can obtain the benefits of quality, choice and price. SBC strongly supports H.R.1524 and encourages this Committee and the Congress to pass this legislation."

For those of you keeping score, that's nine ayes—seven elected officials and two indignant RBOCs believe that the bill is pro-competitive and it would remove disparate regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed data services market.

Go to page 2: Nay, nay >