Monday, April 24, 2006
Barton Bill Battle Begins
WooHoo! Free Press is in. MoveOn is in. Even the Gun Owners of America have joined the fight. And Pulver.com, while it has not joined the main coalition yet (C'mon Jeff! C'mon Jonathan!), has an imaginative campaign that should be part of the anti-discrimination fight.
I finally got my mitts on the most recent version of the Barton-Upton Telecom Bill, called COPE for ‘‘Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006." It is dated April 12. The acronym COPE sounds like not even the authors are happy with it. I've put the .pdf on my website.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce hears the bill tomorrow and Wednesday. There will be a Webcast. A cursory reading of the bill helps make the Webcast a bit more meaningful.
I have not yet read the daunting Title 1 on cable franchising. This is the one that the telcos want. All the rest is quid to this pro-quo.
Here's some observations on what I have read to date:
a) It has a pretty good muni networking section, but arguably it does not prohibit a Pennsylvania-type anti-muni law because PA does not prohibit munis from offering network services (Verizon's Link Hoewing argued this directly in
a panel I chaired at the last VON meeting), it just makes it awfully damn inconvenient and time-consuming.
b) It has a good provision saying that broadband providers can't force customers to buy other services (e.g., voice
or CATV) with broadband (but it does not explicitly prohibit discounting, bundling or unjust pricing).
[Look for both muni and broadband provisions above to disappear before it comes up for the real vote.]
c) Its anti-discrimination provision, its best shot at prohibiting blocking, impairment or degrading of any content, application or service is based on the four watery Martin Internet Principles (original .pdf, derived .html) which are weakened by phrases like "subject to the needs of law enforcement," and "that do not harm the network," and Footnote 15 that says, "The[se] principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management," which can be taken to mean whatever the carrier wants it to mean. It has a 90 day window to determine whether a complaint is actually a violation, and then an infinite amount of time to take action, such action resulting in a $500,000 fine -- or less -- per incident. It prohibits the FCC from adopting additional enforcement procedures.
My analysis: Obscenely toothless, a telco-cableco giveaway in consumer-protection clothing. A poor excuse for anything resembling non-discrimination. If you agree, please sign the statement (and contact your legislators) at SaveTheInternet.Com!!!
But I am not a lawyer or legislator, so if your informed opinion is different, please comment.
Here's the Benton Foundation's summary of an earlier draft of COPE.
I finally got my mitts on the most recent version of the Barton-Upton Telecom Bill, called COPE for ‘‘Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006." It is dated April 12. The acronym COPE sounds like not even the authors are happy with it. I've put the .pdf on my website.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce hears the bill tomorrow and Wednesday. There will be a Webcast. A cursory reading of the bill helps make the Webcast a bit more meaningful.
I have not yet read the daunting Title 1 on cable franchising. This is the one that the telcos want. All the rest is quid to this pro-quo.
Here's some observations on what I have read to date:
a) It has a pretty good muni networking section, but arguably it does not prohibit a Pennsylvania-type anti-muni law because PA does not prohibit munis from offering network services (Verizon's Link Hoewing argued this directly in
a panel I chaired at the last VON meeting), it just makes it awfully damn inconvenient and time-consuming.
b) It has a good provision saying that broadband providers can't force customers to buy other services (e.g., voice
or CATV) with broadband (but it does not explicitly prohibit discounting, bundling or unjust pricing).
[Look for both muni and broadband provisions above to disappear before it comes up for the real vote.]
c) Its anti-discrimination provision, its best shot at prohibiting blocking, impairment or degrading of any content, application or service is based on the four watery Martin Internet Principles (original .pdf, derived .html) which are weakened by phrases like "subject to the needs of law enforcement," and "that do not harm the network," and Footnote 15 that says, "The[se] principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management," which can be taken to mean whatever the carrier wants it to mean. It has a 90 day window to determine whether a complaint is actually a violation, and then an infinite amount of time to take action, such action resulting in a $500,000 fine -- or less -- per incident. It prohibits the FCC from adopting additional enforcement procedures.
My analysis: Obscenely toothless, a telco-cableco giveaway in consumer-protection clothing. A poor excuse for anything resembling non-discrimination. If you agree, please sign the statement (and contact your legislators) at SaveTheInternet.Com!!!
But I am not a lawyer or legislator, so if your informed opinion is different, please comment.
Here's the Benton Foundation's summary of an earlier draft of COPE.
Technorati Tags: F2C, FCC, Law, MunicipalNetworks, NetworkNeutrality
Comments:
Post a Comment
