Both Political Parties Eye Eventual ‘96 Act Update, But It May Take Time, Aides Say
BOSTON -- Updating the Telecom Act or 1992 Cable Act is on the radar screens of aides from both parties on the House and Senate Commerce committees, they told a panel Monday at the Cable Show. They generally agreed that any update to the 1996 law could take years, and some said a more piecemeal approach could move on Capitol Hill more quickly but still would take time. Representatives from both parties said their bosses backed the FCC’s approach to reforming the USF, with an aide to Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., saying that if the commission doesn’t keep up its momentum on the contribution side, the Hill could eventually step in.
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.
The House Communications Subcommittee is looking at “setting the stage” for a “discussion” of modernizing many parts of what’s in the Telecom Act, said Ray Baum, aide to Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore. “Obviously some of this will depend on how the fall elections come out.” It might be “easier to jump” if the same party controls both chambers and the presidency, Baum noted. It’s “difficult to take on all at once,” so “it might be better to take it piecemeal,” he said. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., “would be willing to take the lead on a rewrite” of the ‘96 law, said aide John Branscome. “He would want to tackle it on behalf of consumers,” rather than “put the thumb on the scale” for one industry over another, Branscome said.
Any changes to telecom law would “be really cumbersome,” given the time and work it took to pass the spectrum bill in February, which only “miraculously” passed, and that’s when almost all stakeholders “wanted it done,” said Roger Sherman, aide to House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. It could take two years for any update to the Cable Act to become law, and “we should start looking at it,” Sherman said. “We really haven’t done a systematic look at the Cable Act in a long time,” said Daniel Sepulveda, who works for Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass. “A serious rewrite” of the Cable or Telecom Acts “would take more than two years … and there needs to be a significant degree of coalescing” around “what the issues are” before that would be likely to occur, Sepulveda said.
"The time is ripe to start thinking very seriously” about “modernizing” the act, said the aide to Wicker, Greg Orlando. “We also should start thinking about the role of the FCC” and issues like forbearance “perhaps expanding” beyond “traditional common carrier” deregulation, he said. Any update to the Cable Act shouldn’t “put the old regime on new technology,” said House Commerce Committee Majority Counsel Neil Fried, “whether it’s reform, or whether it’s letting it wither and die.” Proponents of statutory change would need to show if it’s better to take a more focused approach, given “big legislation is not any easier,” he said. “You end up getting a lot of horse trading” with major bills, Fried said. “Sometimes it’s horses for cows, it’s horses for chickens, sometimes it gets very messy. It doesn’t mean we don’t do it.” Focused legislation “can accomplish goals more quickly,” he said.
On Internet issues, Republicans were wary of a more unified approach on cybersecurity, while Democrats backed legislation on privacy and GOP aides said they're watching the issue as the NTIA talks to stakeholders and aides said the Hill could participate. Government stakeholders on cybersecurity expressed “nothing to the contrary” that the issue belongs “to the expert agencies that are currently doing it,” said Baum. Any cybersecurity czar would concern the House Commerce Committee majority, said Fried. “One-size-fits-all is not going to work here” because there are “different networks, different software providers” and different ISPs, he said.
Privacy, “like much else,” seems “to have a partisan divide as to the need for law,” said Sepulveda. He said Kerry’s concerned there’s no single law on privacy across all commerce, and existing legislation is for specific sectors. “It’s a hard year to be legislating” in general, the adviser noted. “You need a comprehensive solution, and it should be neither technology-based nor based on who the collector is.” While more strict safeguards for children online than for privacy for adults may be needed, “I'm not sure that we would support moving in a sideload fashion” by hiving off youth legislation and passing that, Sepulveda said. Rockefeller believes self-regulation can be “inherently one-sided, and usually industry’s interests win out” over consumers, Branscome said.
On USF, “we need to hold firm and not back down in the face of some complaints,” which the FCC ought to work through, said Sherman. The agency’s Lifeline reform order and what the cable industry is doing on broadband adoption “will go a long way” toward increasing subscriber rolls, said David Grossman, aide to Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. It’s “imperative” that USF “support go to those who really need it,” said Branscome. The commission’s USF wavier process ought to be fully utilized, said Orlando. On changing contribution rules, now that distribution rules were changed last year, “if the commission doesn’t ultimately react, I think Congress could have a greater role in terms of determining what the scope of contributions could be,” said Orlando. “This is a lot easier said than done.” It’s “important to keep moving forward” on contribution, he said.