Stevens Won’t Compromise on Net Neutrality Rules
Pushing for passage of telecom legislation, Sen. Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) said he’s unlikely to compromise on net neutrality with groups pushing for it as part of the panel’s bill. Stevens and others opposing anti-bias mandates said many rules already keep cable and telcos from blocking Web content. Their recalcitrance could hurt chances of Senate passage for the wide-ranging telecom bill (HR-5252), said Free Press’ Craig Aaron. The bill has been given low odds of passing in 2006 by some analysts and executives.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
“I don’t expect a compromise on net neutrality,” Stevens told reporters after a committee hearing on parental TV controls. “It’s something you can’t define,” said the senator, adding he’s gotten “a stack of mail” decrying such rules. Existing antitrust regulations and the threat of FCC enforcement of its 4 net neutrality principles suffice to keep Internet service providers from blocking delivery of content, he said. Some senators wanted stronger anti-bias language.
Stevens may have to yield on net neutrality to get the 60 votes he needs to avoid a filibuster, Aaron said: “The idea that this clearly now contentious and controversial issue is not going to be dealt with at all does jeopardize the chances of a larger bill moving forward. It’s of course not the only issue in this bill.”
“Stevens has already compromised” by fitting the bill with First Amendment language and an Internet “bill of rights,” Netcompetition.org Chmn. Scott Cleland said: “We already have seen there are 4 people in committee who are not willing to block the bill over net neutrality,” he said of the 15-7 Commerce Committee vote. “The question is not does Stevens have 60 votes. Do the net neutrality supporters have 41 votes to bring down the bill over net neutrality?”
Those 60 votes may not be there, said Stevens. “I'm not convinced, I haven’t been personally told we have” the votes, he told reporters. Asked to say when the Senate will vote on the bill, he was coy. “How long it will take depends on when we have those 60 votes,” he told us: “I could get it done in 5 days,” given the chance, he said. “I would prefer if we do it before the election,” but passage might not occur until the lame duck session, he said.
PSAs to Avoid Regulation
Meanwhile, Stevens maintained his hands-off take on media oversight. Speaking Thurs. at a hearing on TV parental control public service ads (PSAs), the senator said his committee “could not legislate” actions that would prompt a PSA campaign industry said was worth $300 million (CD July 27 p7). “I've never seen a coalition like this,” he said of the array of broadcasters, cable, consumer electronics makers, DBS and others backing the ads. “This Ad Council program is going to have momentum,” he said: “If it works, we don’t need legislation… If this campaign doesn’t succeed, I'm sure proponents of the bills that are before us now will be back.”
Advocates of stricter media curbs aren’t waiting to see if the program works. Reps. Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Osborne (R-Neb.) introduced a la carte legislation an hour after the Senate hearing. The Family Choice Act would have the FCC offer pay TV firms the mandatory choice of offering family tiers, no longer including channels with indecent prime-time shows on expanded-basic packages or blocking channels a customer doesn’t want. The bill scorns V-chips. “The V-chip does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by multichannel video programming distributors,” read a draft provided to us. The bill’s chances of passage appear low, we're told.
The PSAs will work, ex-MPAA Pres. Jack Valenti said in a bid to counter criticisms of the campaign. However, experts we polled said the spots refer too fleetingly to a parental controls website and joke too subtly about blocking technology. The first time around viewers may not get the commercials’ point, Stevens said: “They're very subtle. You have to watch a couple of them… I had to watch them a second time.”
People will understand the PSAs once they've seen them several times, Valenti said. “The sheer repetitive force of this thing will have a major effect,” he told us. The ads may display thetvboss.org address longer, he said: “We could probably do it instead of 3 or 4 seconds for 8 seconds… Anything that heralds the websites.” Such spots may help avoid more rules, a consultant said. “It’s a very tough war to win, and the industry and parents will need to keep up consistent efforts,” Carmel Group’s Jimmy Schaeffler said: “But I agree: Avoid government regulations at most costs.”
Parodies of Stevens’ description of the Internet as a series of “tubes” didn’t dampen support for his stance on net neutrality, he told reporters: “It’s a free country. People are entitled to go on the Web and be wrong.” Asked if he was invited on The Daily Show, which has lampooned him, Stevens said: “They don’t invite me on daily shows.” If he were asked to be a guest, he said: “Well, Id consider it.”