July 27, 2005 1:35 PM PDT
Bill launched to overhaul broadband rules
- Related Stories
-
Time for a Digital Age Communications Act
July 13, 2005 -
FAQ: What is Brand X really about?
June 27, 2005 -
FCC chairman calls for new telecom laws
August 23, 2004 -
The brewing war over broadband
October 13, 2003 -
Remaking the Telecommunications Act
February 5, 2001 -
FCC tackles bandwidth
January 21, 1997
Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, introduced a bill that reopens a national dispute that has been simmering, but not fully engaged, since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was enacted. The drafters of the law did not envision the explosive growth of the Internet, wireless and broadband technologies over the last decade.
Ensign's 72-page measure takes a broadly pro-business approach. It says, for instance, that local governments wishing to provide broadband service to residents must allow an "open bidding process" in which private companies may participate. Also, companies such as Verizon Communications that would like to provide video, but have been stymied by the need to obtain permission from local governments, would receive a regulatory reprieve.
"We must not allow government regulations to be an anchor on the advance of technology if we want America to lead the world in the information age," Ensign said when introducing the bill. It "will create jobs, stimulate the economy and increase consumer choice," he added.
Underlying Congress' revamping of the 1996 law, which could take a year to complete, are competing philosophies of how the government should treat telecommunications providers. Are consumers better served through price-setting by regulators--or by letting competition flourish? Is it wiser to mandate that companies permit rivals to use their networks, or will that discourage investment in fiber links?
Ensign's bill says that neither state regulators nor the Federal Communications Commission may set rates and prices for communications service. It also says they may not require fiber owners to provide their rivals with access to facilities. Direct-to-home satellite service would also be immune from price regulation.
While his proposal, called the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act, is likely to meet opposition from liberal groups, it won applause from Verizon.
"We applaud Sen. Ensign for introducing legislation to bring our communications laws into the 21st century...This bill recognizes that the world has changed and consumer-driven markets work better than those managed by the government," Verizon said in a statement.
But the bill is not entirely laissez-faire. It says that telephone companies must continue to provide access to their copper wires "on commercially reasonable" terms, and broadband providers "shall not willfully" block Web sites unless the restrictions are in place because of bandwidth limits. Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, service also can't be blocked--a problem that's already arisen a few times.
See more CNET content tagged:
fiber,
bill,
broadband,
telecommunications,
Verizon Communications
only works when you have a lot of companies offering alot of
services. When you have just a few, then prices become set (and
usually high-notice how gas prices tend to be the same regardless
of the company selling it).
Cable costs me $95. My cell cost me $42, I will bet that these
prices aren't going any lower any time soon.
That fact alone tells me that government controlled monopolies are not well controlled and that people are routinely overcharged by monopolies simply because they can.
the American telecomm system for the benefit of
the American people.
Bandwidth has been a valuable commodity for over a
century. There is a reason why - to this day - "police bandwidth" remains the lowest (most secure), AM next up, FM next up and so forth.
The FCC used to train some of our country's most
brilliant engineers.
But these silly notions were back in days when we
had a single phone company, to whom none of paid
"monopolistic" rates.
With the ill-decided break-up of AT&T, what we've seen is understaffing and undermining of the core
excellence that underlaid our original FCC's engineering dominance. The result has been a
few cable and phone oligopolies which charge
such outrageous rates that the USA has a higher
percentage of dialup customers than most other
countries on earth. Sometimes I really do wish
we lived in a modern country like South Korea,
Brazil or Sri Lanka.