Barton-Dingell
I'm just beginning to digest Barton-Dingell [warning, large PDF]. My initial reaction is that although there are some positive signs in the bill — elements of non-discrimination and encouragement of municipal broadband — the bill's vision of the internet is made up of cleanly-categorized services provided by large registered entities whose activities are closely watched by the FCC.
The bill uses the acronyms BIT and BITS to mean “broadband Internet transmission” and “broadband Internet transmission service” (very clever — no one ever gets to refer to bits again in a simple technical sense). A “broadband Internet transmission service” is defined, in turn, as “a packet-switched service that is offered to the public . . with or without a fee” and is “transmitted in a packet-based protocol” and “provides to subscribers the ability to send and receive packetized information.”
At first I thought that a BITS was any online application. The definition includes all the machines and functionalities and everything else connected to a BITS (”any features, functions, and capabilities, as well as any associated packetized facilities, network equipment, and electronics, used to transmit or route packetized information”). But that can't be right — they must really mean providers of broadband access to the internet.
What happens to BITS under the bill?
Well, the first step is to register. All service providers have to sign up with the FCC and with all the states. Then they're subject to interconnection and nondiscrimination obligations (but only with respect to “lawful” services), with exceptions for special service plans, video services, protection of their networks, and the need to provide quality of service guarantees (many many bodies buried there).
Same approach for VoIP services. This time, Skype is clearly covered — the bill defines VoIP to include free services that allow calls to be made to the PSTN (or to be received). Oddly, VoIP doesn't include cable services. Again, the first step is to register and then be subject to a multitude of obligations. It's striking that one of those obligations is to exchange traffic with other VoIP providers. Plus required number portability. More sniping at Skype. Lots of E911 requirements, and a quick hard look at universal service before it is applied to VOIP.
Same approach for broadband video services. No matter what size they are, no matter what they're up to, they'll need to register. A bunch of former cable obligations will be applied to broadband video (including closed captioning).
The bill includes a laundry list of FTC-like consumer protection rulemakings that the FCC will go through, including this doozy:
(a) NATIONAL STANDARDS REQUIRED.—The Commission shall by rule establish national consumer protection standards with respect to BITS, VOIP services, and broadband video services, individually or collectively. Such standards shall—
10) prohibit the use of any equipment used for the provision of BITS, VOIP services, and broadband video services for obscene or indecent communication made—
(A) with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; or
(B) knowing that that the recipient is under 18 years of age
Sure, we've been litigating over this for years, but now the FCC will be in charge of rules about using computers to annoy people with legal indecent materials.
Plus many provisions about privacy and advertising.
At first blush, this bill is about guaranteeing sources of revenue for network providers. They'll have control over video packages and VOIP services. All independent VOIP providers will go out of business, crushed by universal service, disability access, and E911 requirements. Independent video offerings won't survive, because there's no requirement of nondiscrimination with respect to them. And the FCC will become the internet consumer protection agency.
Lots of work to do.
Comments
One Response to “Barton-Dingell”
Got something to say?
I'm also reviewing Barton-Dingell for my work at Public Knowledge.
Because of the definition of “Broadband Video Service Provider” as a person who delivers “.. a broadband video service … directly to subscribers over facilities the service provider owns,” Titles I and III would seem to apply pretty much only to cable companies and telecos. Thus, while the Act would equalize cable and telecos by qualifying both as broadband video service providers, it does nothing to fix the obsolete “silos” of current telecommunication regulation. It only makes the silos look more alike.
The limitation of the early titles to the owners of the curb-to-house wiring makes the broad language of Title IV that you point out even more surprising. Suddenly the FCC is regulating all BITS providers, which seems to include every ISP in the country.
As you said, a lot of work to be done here. Good luck. =)