SPECIAL REPORT: House Passes Video Franchise Bill 321-101

Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.). The Senate will release a revised telecom bill in time for a hearing on Tues. where the net neutrality fight is expected to continue -- Senate Democrats have pro-posed language similar to what failed in the House. The House approved 6 amendments, including a Republican net neutrality measure that clarified that antidiscrimination complaints are subject to antitrust laws even though the FCC is the main arbiter. That amendment passed 353-68. ?This is a good solid followup to the 96 Telecom Act,? said House Financial Services Chmn. Oxley (R-Ohio). The financial services industry understands competition and choice, Oxley said, and consumers will benefit from the bill without the Markey amendment. Key Democrats argued strenuously against the bill. ?It?s a bad bill,? said Commerce Committee Ranking Member Dingell (R-Mich.) ?Consumers are going to see cities lose control over their streets and roads,? Dingell said. ?New and existing companies will be able to cherry pick customers and the rest of us will be left without competitive choice,? Dingell said: ?Mr. Chairman, If you want a bad piece of legislation, you are looking at it right here.? ?This bill is a failure,? said House Telecom Subcommittee Ranking Member Markey (D-Mass.), complain-ing that the Republicans disrespected the importance of the issue. ?They allowed 20 minutes of debate on net neu-trality, when the naming of a new post office gets as much as 40 minutes of time,? Markey said. ?This bill has been put together behind closed doors with the most powerful companies in America,? he said. Markey’s net neutrality amendment failed 152-269. ?It is a shame that the House turned its back on the es-sence of the Internet,? said Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn. ?Instead the House ignored the arguments of con-sumers, technology companies and interest groups from across the political spectrum.? The net neutrality debate was heated, with Markey railing against the bill?s failure to include protections he said were essential to maintain openness of the Internet. Republicans tried to craft a compromise with the Smith amendment. But the amendment didn?t go far enough to quell the fervor of pro-net neutrality forces: ?Mr. Smith?s amendment does absolutely nothing,? said Rep. Lofgren (D-Cal.). Markey?s net neutrality amendment would have imposed anti-discrimination requirements on network op-erators, with an expedited complaint process. It drew widespread support from key Democrats including House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Cal.). But Barton and many other Republicans opposed it. ?I rise in the strongest possi-ble opposition? to the amendment, Barton said. Markey argued tirelessly for the net neutrality amendment, using every possible minute to warn members about the need to protect the openness of the Internet. He also said the overall video bill would allow phone companies to ?cherry pick? the best neighborhoods to deploy their new services. He was angry that the Rules Committee wouldn?t allow an anti-redlining amendment, which Markey said is necessary to ?protect people on the other side of town.? One Democrat didn?t buy his argument. ?I?m from the other side of town,? said Rep. Rush (D-Ill.). What these communities need is competition and lower prices, he said. He condemned members who?ve been spending time arguing about net neutrality. ?Network neutrality is the Trojan horse in this whole debate,? Rush said. Mem-bers making those arguments ?aren?t in favor of lowering cable costs for the people on the other side of town.? Barton, impatient with Markey?s anti-redlining arguments, mimicked his Boston accent when introducing Rep. Pickering (R-Miss.). ?He didn?t go to the great institution of Harvard, he went to Ole Miss,? Barton said. Later Barton said he?d listened with a ?great degree of respect? to Markey?s arguments and said he shared the same goals. ?We want to preserve the open access nature of the Internet,? Barton said. ?The underlying purpose of this bill? is to boost broadband deployment into homes and to offer new services. ?Mr. Markey?s amendment says you can?t charge for that,? Barton said, so the deployment wouldn?t happen. The House approved by voice vote Barton?s manager?s amendment that would clarify: (1) what constitutes a franchise area; (2) that a person or group seeking authority to provide service under a national franchise must comply with FCC consumer protection requirements; (3) that anyone with a national franchise is subject to all the cable operator provisions of the Communications Act?s Title VI except for those excepted in the bill; (4) that noth-ing in the legislation affects existing pole attachment law. The House approved an amendment offered by Rep. Johnson (D-Tex.) that would increase penalties on cable operators from $500,000 to $750,000 for denying access to residents based on income. ?Cable providers should not be let off the hook for failing to bring competition? to their communities, Johnson said. Barton said he supported the amendment. Barton also gave his support to an amendment the House approved, offered by Rep. Rush (D-Ill.), which outlined a complaint process to resolve fee disputes between local franchise authori-ties and a cable operator. Also approved was an amendment requiring VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF) when they interconnect with local exchange carrier networks. Sponsored by Rep. Gutknecht (R-N.M.), the amendment would require VoIP providers to compensate network owners for using their networks just as incumbent and competitive carriers are required to under current rules. Barton opposed the amendment be-cause he wants to reform USF, he said. The House approved Rep. Wynn (D-Md.)?s amendment which would allow a franchising authority to issue an order requiring compliance with FCC revised consumer protection rules. Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-Ill.) withdrew an amendment that would reduce from 1% to 0.5% the fee paid to local franchise authorities for public education changes by women-owned, small businesses and economically disadvantaged firms.