Efforts to update the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are continuing in Congress, with telephone companies, cable companies, and astroturf groups spending nearly $1 million per week on just advertising in Washington D.C.

On April 26 the house Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 (H.R. 5252), a comprehensive telecommunications and national cable franchising bill that has a few good points including 1% designated funding for public, education, and government (PEG) access TV, but significant bad ones, such as no requirements to offer service to at least a specified portion of the franchise area within a specified timeframe, no enforcement authority for localities, and no provisions for net neutrality. The votes for COPE were almost all along party lines, with most Democrats voting for amendments that protect the public interest, such as net neutrality and prohibition of discrimination, and ultimately against the bill. One consistent Democratic exception was cosponsor  Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois. Rep. Rush is currently in the news for accepting $1 million in grants from AT&T for a ?Bobby L. Rush Technology Center? through an organization on whose board he and his wife sit and his son works.

It is not clear whether there is enough time for the full House and Senate to pass COPE ? or any other telecom bill ? before the 2006 congressional session ends in the fall. There are some concerns about allowing debate to include net neutrality because of concern over the extent of controversy associated with that issue. A statement made repeatedly by opponents of a net neutrality clause is ?it?s not happening now, if it happens, the FCC can address it or we can establish rules at that time.? As many speakers testified, discrimination on the internet IS happening now (see page 5 sidebar, ?Returning to Sender...Online?) but often this news is under-reported.

COPE?s progress to the full House was slowed by the House Judiciary Committee?s now denied claim of  jurisdiction in order to support net neutrality. On April 25, an oversight hearing on net neutrality was held for a House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust. Participants included Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon.com, Earl W. Comstock, President and CEO, COMPTEL, Timothy Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School and Walter B. McCormick, President and CEO, United States Telecom Association. That hearing can be viewed at http://boss.streamos.com/real/hjudiciary/full/taskforce042506.smi. It offers an excellent perspective on the issues and how they appear to these stakeholders.

In the Senate, multiple bills have been referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, most of them not positive for consumers. The latest Senate bill, 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 House committees on how the free flow of information and ?consumer experience? is affected. 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.