Delay In The Information Superhighway p. 13

By: Debra Gersh Hernandez

Congressional bill aimed at forging a national
telecommunications policy will not come to a vote this year sp.

LOBBYISTS JOKE THAT working the telco issue is job security; journalists covering it have developed a camaraderie usually reserved for combat duty; and in the next Congress, it looks like they're going to have to do it all over again.
Two telecommunications bills, H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636, passed the House with an overwhelming majority in June. They were combined into one bill after passage.
In the Senate, however, a slightly different telecommunications bill, S. 1822, will not come to a vote this year, according to its sponsor, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), who said he was ceasing his efforts on its behalf.
Hollings cited opposition from the regional Bell operating companies and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who introduced amendments that included speeding up competition between the RBOCs and cable companies in each other's markets.
One of the RBOCs, Pacific Telesis, said it believed that differences between the regional Bells and members of Congress could have been resolved before the 103rd Congress was slated to adjourn on Oct. 7, and took exception to suggestions the Bells were responsible for the stalled legislation.
"Any suggestion that this company sought to kill this bill is absolutely wrong," said Pacific Telesis' vice president for Washington operations Ronald Stowe.
"The truth is, local telephone companies very much need regulatory reform," Stowe's statement continued. "The long distance carriers and the cable companies, on the other hand, will do anything they can to keep competition out of their markets."
Noting that negotiations were laborious because of the issue's complexity, Stowe noted that they were made "even more difficult when the Senate Commerce Committee released 190 pages of a bill that sought to micro-manage the telecommunications industry through legislation, instead of turning over the nuts and bolts of key issues to the FCC, where they properly belong."
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of H.R. 3636, expressed his dismay over the bill's failure, and wondered if the best opportunity for passage may have been lost.
"The demise of this bipartisan legislation in the Senate, which passed the House overwhelmingly (423-4), means that the information superhighway will be delayed unnecessarily, will not generate as many jobs as it could, will not go to every neighborhood, will be dominated by a monopolist, and will not be open and accessible," Markey said in a prepared statement.
"We had an historic opportunity to pass legislation updating our communications laws. That opportunity is now gone, and I have trouble seeing another opportunity coming our way," Markey said.
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill contained language unopposed by the newspaper industry, which had reached an agreement on electronic publishing with the RBOCs that each could live with.
"The goal of achieving comprehensive telecommunications legislation is laudable, and we stand ready to assist Congress in addressing the issue next year," said Newspaper Association of America president and CEO Cathleen Black in her released statement.
"The fact that 423 members of the House supported a comprehensive bill will not be lost on the 104th Congress," Black added.
National Newspaper Association president and CEO Tonda Rush noted there were two provisions for newspapers included in both House and Senate bills ? fair access, rates and competition for smaller publishers; and safeguards against cross-subsidization and other abuses by carriers.
"We hope the next Congress will move swiftly to enact comprehensive telecommunication legislation embodying these two provisions, both of which have strong bipartisan support and no sign of opposition," Rush's statement said.
Both newspaper organizations expressed thanks to legislators who championed issues of concern to their members.