Stevens telecom bill (I)
It's 135 pages long, and the first Title is: “War on Terrorism.” Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) has issued his draft Communications Act of 2006, which is based on the structure of (and amends) the existing Communications Act. Here is his floor statement introducing the bill (only five pages long). He makes clear that this is a draft, and that he'll be holding hearings to take suggestions.
The draft contains a reporting requirement intended to address network neutrality concerns, but is careful to say that no new rulemaking authority will be accorded the Commission even if these reports show that there are problems. Here is the reporting requirement:
Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall report annually to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce for 5 years regarding—
(1) the developments in Internet traffic processing, routing, peering, transport, and interconnection;
(2) how such developments impact the free flow of information over the public Internet and the consumer experience using the public Internet;
(3) business relationships between broadband service providers and applications and online user services; and
(4) the development of and services available over public and private Internet offerings.
Here's the part where the Commission's authority to do anything about these developments is sharply limited:
(b) DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—If the Commission determines that there are significant problems with any of the matters described in subsection (a) the Commission shall make such recommendations in its next annual report under subsection (a) as it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure that consumers can access lawful content and run Internet applications and services over the public Internet subject to the bandwidth purchased and the needs of law enforcement agencies. The Commission shall include recommendations for appropriate enforcement mechanisms but may not recommend additional rulemaking authority for the Commission.
The distinction between “public” and “private” internet services is clear. The “public” internet is the internet that won't be prioritized, and it will continue to be available to the extent private broadband providers make it available (subject to the needs of law enforcement). The Commission wouldn't have the authority under this Act to do enact a generally-applicable rule covering degradation of carriage, but it might be able to (sometime in the distant future) bring an enforcement action about these issues — although it's not clear from the bill what standard such an enforcement action would be enforcing.
This question is down the road and not as important, but: What needs of law enforcement? Is this the place where law enforcement says that encryption is unlawful?
In other news, Sen. Stevens's floor statement says that municipalities and local governments should be able to “offer their own broadband service, so long as they do not compete unfairly with the private sector.” The bill makes municipal provision of broadband quite painful — a requesting private provider has to be allowed to create a broadband service using the same trenches, conduit, and locations, private providers get a right of first refusal before a municipality can provide broadband, and the municipality can only do it by itself if a neutral third party says that the private broadband won't be cheaper. Very elaborate.
There's also an elaborate rebirth of the broadcast flag — but more on that tomorrow.
Comments
Got something to say?