Stevens Faces Tough Floor Fight on Telecom Bill

“The 11-11 vote [on a net neutrality amendment] sent a bad signal,” said Stifel Nicolaus analyst David Kaut. A vote that close suggests the Democrats are picking up strength and could make it tougher to find consensus on such a volatile issue, he said, a viewpoint echoed by many lobbyists and Hill sources Thurs. The buildout amendment, which failed on a 12- 10 vote also showed a closing of the ranks. The Bells “have to regroup and figure out how to get to 60,” Kaut said, referring to the number of votes needed to avert a filibuster.

Stevens said Wed. that he doesn’t think he has the 60 votes lined up “yet.” TIA Pres. Matthew Flanigan told us he’s confident the bill will pass this year because of the underlying strength of the provisions it contains. But it won’t be easy. Flanigan estimated there are about 10-15 members who are “on the fence,” and he and other bill supporters will “be fanning out where needed” on the Hill after the July 4th recess making their case.

While the bill may face a fight, the Bells should be encouraged by Stevens’ backup plan for a slimmer bill, said Paul Gallant, analyst with Stanford Washington Research Group. And over the longer term, he said, “the Bells have to be glad that Congress is unlikely to limit their plans for traffic prioritization service,” he said. “That’s probably more important to them than franchise relief, which could happen even without congressional action.”

The slimmed-down version is the approach House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) took after several drafts of his bill, which was swept into the Senate version but changed to reflect the Senate approach. The House could pass the Senate bill, but that’s unlikely given the major differences. So if the bill passes the Senate the measures will have to be worked out in conference. Stevens is optimistic that he and Barton can come to agreement on a Universal Service Fund provision, based on recent statements Barton has made, Stevens told reporters Thurs.

The Senate bill extends USF contribution requirements to more voice service providers, which would make the system more fair, he said. But Barton has been reluctant to support growth in the fund, and the Senate bill has no cap on funding -- something that could become a point of argument. But for Stevens, one thing is clear -- a telecom bill must include USF provisions. “I won’t vote for a bill that doesn’t have USF,” Stevens said.

The House and Senate will “absolutely” work out their differences on telecom reform, said Howard Waltzman, chief counsel for telecom and the Internet of the House Commerce Committee, speaking on a panel at the Wireless Communications Assn. conference. Waltzman said he’s confident that Stevens and Barton have a good working relationship that will help them work out differences. There’s “nothing irreconcilable” between the houses, he said, adding that much of the House language lacking in the Senate committee bill would be taken up on during floor voting.

“There will be 60 senators” who want lower cable prices, he said, as long as the debate process is fair,” Gregory Vadas, congressional fellow on telecom issues for Sen. Burns (R-Mont.), said at the same conference. Vadas said the 2 sides are working closely together and he agreed something will pass this year.

Nothing will get done this year without “significant improvements” in the language, said Johanna Shelton, minority counsel, House Commerce Committee. She praised “a lot of hard work on both sides” but said the Senate telecom bill “fell short” from the standpoint of Ranking Member Dingell (D-Mich.), especially on some of the cable buildout language. “It’s interesting to see the Senate pass a bill that is on the one hand so strong on maintaining a service principle” for telecom but not for video or broadband.

With enough bandwidth available, Vadas said, net neutrality will take care of itself, and the Commerce Committee members are “ready to come down” on any players found to be practicing discrimination. Waltzman defended consumer choice as the final arbiter in the matter, and said trial lawyers would probably love to take on big providers for net neutrality violations now that “tobacco litigation is mostly over [and] Vioxx doesn’t seem to be gaining ground.” He added that net neutrality legislation runs the risk of burdening the FCC with every frivolous individual complaint over access by aggrieved parties large and small.

Shelton called it “interesting” that Waltzman would worry about overburdening the FCC when the Congress is now “taking every local franchising agreement and putting them at the FCC.” She disagreed with her Republican colleagues that there’s no real-world problem with network discrimination today, and said net neutrality proponents in the House have no dispute with tiered service. She asked whether there would be an “effective” way to address enforcement if more consistent bit discrimination arose; because the FCC can easily wipe out its own non-binding enforcement policy at any time, there’s no heft to Congress’ talk about policing bad behavior.

Shelton and Waltzman agreed, however, on white spaces policy, both taking the position that DTV was much more of a priority for freeing up spectrum. Waltzman said he “challenged” tech companies to prove their white spaces technology was interference proof, even promising to pressure the FCC to witness any trials they ran, and so far, he said, he hasn’t heard back from them. White spaces are “Swiss cheese little pieces” of high-value spectrum that no one’s using, Valas said, and they present a great opportunity to make more efficient use of 60 MHz of unlicensed, “beach front” spectrum. He said it was a waste to see it go untapped despite no proof that interference really happens.