|
(Updated 06/10/06) Stay up to date on national legislation, designed to rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and/or ease telephone companies entry into video services, that could have a significant impact on our city and our efforts to build thriving community media in Indianapolis.
The House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement
(COPE) Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252)
late on Thursday, June 8. The Marke amendment on net neutrality was defeated,
152-269. COPE's primary aim is to create a national franchise for video providers. The COPE Act maintains the number of existing PEG access channels --
but only allows an increase in the number of channels every ten
years. Although expected to negatively impact access TV funding in many communities, it offers some improvements for Indianapolis access channels over Indiana's new statewide video franchising law, including specifically designated funding and programming guide participation.
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!
talks to Anthony Riddle, Executive Director of the Alliance for
Community Media, on what's at stake for the internet and public access
TV in, "House Passes Controversial COPE Telecom Bill, Rejects Amendment to Protect Net Neutrality." The Communications, Consumer?s Choice
and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, was introduced on May 1, 2006 by sponsor
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). The bill contains one small section on net
neutrality, merely requiring the FCC to report annually for five years to the
Senate. The FCC can recommend enforcement but not make new
regulations. The franchising authority can be a state or local government,
which may require up to one percent of the provider?s gross revenue to support
PEG access channels and institutional networks in the franchise area. Municipalities can offer broadband service
but public-private partnerships are encouraged and the municipality must give
public notice so that citizens and private companies have a chance to submit
competitive bids. The Digital Communications Act of 2005 (DACA), as of now without a number, was introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in December, 2005. DACA offers a fundamental change to telecommunications policy, primarily relying on a competitive marketplace to take care of the public interest. All like telecommunications services would be treated the same, such as all telephone services -- wired, wireless and VoIP -- paying into a capped Universal Service Fund distributed to the states as performance-based block grants. The FCC's role would be reduced to rectifying market failures in protecting limited public interest, after the fact, instead of developing proactive regulations. All cable franchises -- and requirements for public access channels and franchise fees above the costs of accessing right-of-ways -- would be eliminated four years after DACA's enactment. States would retain authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive business acts, develop their own programs for distribution of the Universal Service Fund (in accordance with DACA's principles), protect public safety and security, and manage public right-of-ways. DACA does not have a net neutrality provision. Older bills:
Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 (S. 1504), introduced on July 27, 2005 and sponsored by Sen. Ensign and Sen. McCain, is a significant rewrite of telecommunications law, including cable and telephone regulations that "would eliminate existing franchise agreements and preempt local control...eliminates all rate regulation.... [and] would also limit local government's ability to provide broadband internet service...," according to the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns. See also "Opposition Mounting to Ensign Telecom Rewrite Bill," and "National League of Cities Voices Concerns on Ensign Bill".
Video Choice Acts of 2005 (H.R. 3146 and S. 1349), bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, would allow the incumbent Baby Bell telephone companies to provide video services without having to negotiate local franchise agreements. Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005 (H.R. 2726) prohibits municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services except to remedy market failures to provide such services by private enterprise. Whereas, the Community Broadband Act of 2005 (S. 1294) would amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services. Advanced Internet Communications Services Act of 2005 (H.R. 214) limits regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the states of advanced internet services such as Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP). Online Resources: Legislative News
Benton Foundation Local Public Access TV Under Attack From Trio of Congressional Bills
Democracy Now! Alliance for Community Media Position on HR3146, S1349 and S1504 Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett Analysis "The Fallout from the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned"
Common Cause www.freepress.net/defendlocalaccess/ www.freepress.net/communityinternet/ Key Congressional Aides BITS summary and analysis
Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett |
