[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 72 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3551-H3587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 850 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5252.
{time} 1758
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and
services, with Mr. Price of Georgia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically bring the general debate for H.R.
5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of
2006, to the floor of the House of Representatives. The process in
getting the bill to this stage has been long, has been fruitful, and,
in my opinion, it has been fair. It has involved more than a year of
hearings, as well as staff and Member-level negotiations. That process
has clearly borne, I think, positive fruit.
We come to the House today with a bill that has received overwhelming
bipartisan support in both the subcommittee and the full committee. The
bill passed the subcommittee by a margin of 27-4, with all Republicans
voting for it and two-thirds of the Democrat minority party voting for
it. In the full committee it was reported by a margin of 42-12, again
all Republicans voting for it and a majority of the Democrats voting
for it.
The primary focus of this legislation is to create a streamlined
cable franchising process in order to increase the number of
facilities-based providers for video, voice, and data services
everywhere in our great Nation.
Today, there are thousands of local franchising authorities. Each may
impose disparate restriction on the provision of cable service in its
specific franchising area. The requirement to negotiate such local
franchises and the patchwork of obligations that local franchising
authorities impose are hindering the deployment of advanced broadband
networks that will bring increasingly innovative and competitive
services to all of our constituents.
The United States does not even rank in the top 10 of the nations of
the world in broadband deployment. This bill should change that
statistic.
H.R. 5252 seeks to address this concern and strike the right balance
between national standards and local oversight. It would allow the
negotiation of local franchises, but make available an alternative
national franchise process.
{time} 1800
Moreover, the national franchise preserves local franchise fees,
municipal control over their rights-of-way, and support for their
Public Education and Governmental channels that so many of our Members
are strongly in favor of.
The bill also seeks to strike the right balance between ensuring the
public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace, and ensuring
Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet
services, an action that I believe would have a chilling effect on
broadband deployment, especially broadband innovation. We need the FCC
to stop the cheats without killing honest creativity. We don't need
anybody to be the first Secretary of the Internet.
Finally, the bill addresses rules for voiceover Internet protocol
services, or VoIP services, to ensure that the Internet voice services
become a vibrant competitor to what we call plain old telephone
service.
I want to thank Congressman Rush for his cosponsorship, Subcommittee
Chairman Mr. Upton for his cosponsorship, Vice Chairman Chip Pickering
of Mississippi for his leadership, and all the members of the committee
and the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored
this bipartisan legislation with me.
I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to a
vigorous debate on the amendments that have been made in order by the
Rules Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure. It
is a bad bill. It does nothing except take care of the special and the
vested interests. The baby bells, the telephone companies, and the
cable operators are going to cut a fat hog. The consumers are able to
anticipate only a few things: One, they are going to get worse service,
probably less competition, and almost certainly increases in rates.
Consumers are going to see their cities lose control over their
streets and roads to, of all things, the Federal Communications
Commission, one of the sorriest of the Federal agencies, and an agency
which has neither the staff time nor willingness to address the
important questions that are going to be conferred on it by this
legislation.
In addition to that, the FCC is going to be clogged. There is going
to be deadlock and absolute chaos in that agency because of the total
lack of that agency in addressing the serious questions regarding
administration of highways, streets, roads, and use of public
facilities belonging to cities, counties, and States.
It would be a wonderful argument, which is made by the proponents of
this bill, that it will lower cable bills and bring consumers choice.
What a wonderful argument, if only it were true. This bill is going to
harm our consumers, harm our citizens, and harm commercial users of the
Internet.
First, with regard to consumers. The bill will leave many consumers
paying higher prices for cable services. There is no general promise of
lower prices. In fact, the telephone companies, and listen to this,
have been telling Wall Street that the price they get for their
services will be higher than cable. That is the competition we are
going to see under this legislation.
Worse, the bill is a blow to the universal service principles which
Congress has insisted on since 1927. The bill abandons current law that
in exchange for the use of public property cable operators are required
to serve all consumers, all consumers in the franchise area. Both new
and existing cable providers will, under this bill, be allowed to
cherrypick and skim cream,
[[Page H3552]]
serving only attractive neighborhoods and the highest value of
consumers in the way that best suits their balance sheets. The rest of
us will only be left without competitive choice, but we very well can
face higher cable bills, worse service qualities, or even withdrawal of
our only provider.
The bill's redlining provisions focused on income is too weak to
offer any real protection against discrimination, which is why the
leadership conference on civil rights opposes it. The bill does not
stop cable operators from offering inferior service based on a person's
race, color, religion, national origin or sex.
Second, communities find that this bill inexplicably takes control
over local rights-of-way. And as I mentioned, hands them, of all
things, to the FCC. Now, the FCC knows about as much on street and
sidewalk repairs and local traffic patterns and other local concerns as
it does about astrophysics, yet the bill lets the FCC overrule the
cities with regard to the management of their property. This is the
reason that the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors and the
National Association of Counties oppose it.
Citizens and commercial users of the Internet will find a third
reason to oppose it. This bill does away with network neutrality. It is
something in which there should be no mistake. Telephone and cable
companies will be able to operate as private tax collectors to single
out certain Web sites to pay extra fees, to make extra benefits, and
get extra privileges. Small and large business schools, libraries,
ordinary citizens running Web sites will get shut out of this fast lane
unless they are willing to pay a lot more. This could significantly
alter the open and innovative Internet that the government has, until
now, protected.
If you want a bad piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, we are looking
at it right here. It is going to hurt people. We could have written a
good piece of legislation but, regrettably, did not. We have before us,
then, a piece of the purest special interest legislation, something
which will benefit the few at the expense of the many, something which
is rather worthy of this Republican-led Congress.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, a strong supporter of the bill, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 5252, the COPE Act. Today's
communications networks have become national and international in
nature, therefore it does not make sense to still require companies to
provide video services to meet varying requirements in tens of
thousands of different areas.
We have seen evidence and heard stories of the months and years it
takes to get any one individual franchise, and in some cases video
providers must get dozens of individual franchises to service one area.
All that does is slow down competition.
This bill also helps get the next generation Internet to consumers
with the ability to provide voice, data, and now video,
telecommunications companies will be able to develop and increase their
infrastructure and provide better and cheaper services.
This is one of the most pro-consumer bills to come to the floor this
year, and we need to make sure that the President signs video voice
legislation this year. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the COPE
Act.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5252,
the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006.
Simply put, I support the ends but not the means with respect to this
legislation. The goal of increasing competition in the video
communication market is worthy. Indeed, it is of great importance. We
know that robust competition can improve customer services, reduce
pricing, and spark innovation and technological advances. This House is
right to take on this critical and timely subject. But I am
disappointed the drafters felt the need to use a national cable
franchise as the means to achieve these laudable ends.
I see numerous examples of telephone companies, small and large,
entering into successful negotiations with local franchise authorities,
and I believe that we can encourage new entrants and new competition
without moving to a federally managed national franchise.
But, Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations about the national cable
franchise, I might view this model more favorably if the legislation
contained adequate safeguards and requirements to ensure that the
benefits of increased competition are shared as widely as possible.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened in committee when we marked up
this legislation and we were denied the ability to bring our amendments
to improve the bill to the floor this evening.
Instead, H.R. 5252 backs away from the tenet of universal service to
all citizens, which has been a fundamental principle of our Nation's
communication policies for over 70 years. And while anti-redlining
language is included in the bill, other provisions in the bill render
it toothless.
The legislation also strips the States and localities of their
authority to both establish and enforce consumer protections and
customer service standards. It makes the FCC the final arbiter of local
rights-of-way disputes.
Most disappointingly, the bill does little to protect what we call
the neutrality of the Internet. Neutrality has become crucial to the
development of innovative and competitive broadband content and
services.
I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of
the full committee and the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans'
Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton
for their leadership, along with my colleague, Mr. Rush, from Chicago,
and others.
This came out of the subcommittee 27-4, a majority of the minority
Democrats of the full committee supported this legislation. So this is
an overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation that is very exciting
for the American people because it outlines the principles of free,
open, market competition. It continues to spawn the technological
renaissance that will benefit consumers and lower price.
We are talking about things today that weren't even around when we
did the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telephony? IPTV? We didn't even
know those terms. As a matter of fact, when compression technology came
along, we thought the future in 1996 was about voice. We got it wrong.
It is about voice, video, and data, and that is what we have today on
these cell phones.
So when we talk about delivering of video services, the landscaped
has changed. Congress has to change. We need to get out of the way. We
need to deregulate. If you have to regulate, do so on parity and be
technologically neutral.
I commend the chairman.
I do not support the Markey amendment.
Mandated neutrality standards do nothing more than squelch
innovation, stifle competition and undermine broadband deployment.
Anytime the government attempts to legislate a ``potential'' problem
it ends up either, at best in years of litigation, and at worst with a
regulatory framework that does nothing to help this country.
Currently, at great expense, large and small companies across the
country have invested billions of dollars to lay fiber in an effort to
provide wanted services to their consumers. Any attempt for government
to then restrict their ability to potentially charge for the use of
these pipelines acts as a disincentive to continue to deploy, or
maintain current access.
Even now, consumers choose different tiers of access to the
Internet--I don't see how it can be fair to charge the same rate to one
consumer who merely wants to use the internet for sending and receiving
emails and another who is actively downloading a multitude of songs,
videos, and television shows. The same goes for web sites that demand
the use of large amounts of data, such as a video sharing site, or a
music download site. In an effort to provide the fastest and most
efficient service, should we be blind to those who paid and labored to
place the fiber in the ground?
It seems inequitable and counterintuitive to the pro-market
principles from which this nation has benefited.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
[[Page H3553]]
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding this time to me. I rise in support of the bill and I urge
its approval by the House.
In my view, it will bring urgently needed competition to cable
television and benefit consumers nationwide with more varied program
offerings and the better pricing that competition inevitably brings.
The bill also opens the door for local governments to offer
commercial telecommunication services, filling the gap where broadband
is either not available or is available but is priced beyond the reach
of residential subscribers and the small business community.
The manager's amendment contains provisions I recommended that will
assure fair treatment for electric utilities and telephone companies in
pole attachment pricing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton), who chairs the full committee, for his assistance with
that provision. And the bill will assure that consumers who desire to
purchase a freestanding broadband service can do so without having to
buy telephone or cable service from the broadband provider.
I also urge support for the net neutrality amendment that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be offering. It is
essential to preserve the Internet as a platform for innovation.
Broadband providers plan to create a two-lane Internet, a fast lane for
their own content and for others who can pay for fast-lane access, and
a slow lane for everyone else. That plan fundamentally changes the
character of the Internet and would eliminate the openness and the
accessibility that have enabled the Internet to be a platform for
innovation unequaled by any advent in American history.
{time} 1815
I will have more to say about that when the Markey amendment is
offered, but I want to take the opportunity during these remarks to say
that the net neutrality amendment is fundamental, and I strongly urge
its adoption when it is offered.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Alexander).
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5252. This
legislation will permit us to move the video franchising process into
the 21st century. The concept of a national franchise is needed to make
the U.S. concurrent with the global nature of telecommunications by
enabling competition to enter the market and build tomorrow's
communications network in a timely manner.
There are more than 30,000 individual franchise authorities in the
United States. If telecom companies have to negotiate with each and
every one of these, it will be a very long time before they get around
to addressing video franchises for rural areas such as the one I
represent in Louisiana. Video competition will increase access for
these rural Americans and drive new innovations like telemedicine and
distance learning. We can greatly accelerate that process by creating a
national streamlined method for video entry.
Let us not miss this opportunity to allow the marketplace to thrive
and usher in a new era in technology.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Telecommunications Subcommittee for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying, here we are again. I
remember being a conferee on the 1996 telecommunications bill. It does
not seem like it was a decade ago, but it was.
That bill, if my colleagues will recall, was designed to create
telephone competition for the Baby Bells. But instead, it resulted in
the babies eating the mother.
There is something monopolistic in the air here. And if any Member of
the House is trying to make up their minds about what to do with this
bill, I want to tell you something, if you like monopolies, you will
love this bill because they are at it again.
In 1996, they signed onto and said these are the rules that we are
going to play by. Local competition, boy, that went out the window.
Then they came on again and wanted something else. Now the telephone
companies want to go for the golden goose of the American economy, and
that is the Internet.
What should be built into this bill is net neutrality. But I want to
say a few other things about the bill. It is flawed in other ways. It
really turns local control on its head. Local governments across the
country have weighed in. Mayors have said these are not good rules for
us.
I came from local government. I have a deep regard for it. We can do
much better by the cities and mayors in our communities. We can do much
better about the rules in terms of build-out in our country. We should
not in the 21st century be drawing lines around who is in and who is
out. That is not where America is at its strongest and its best.
This is a flawed bill, and we have to remember, all of us, that the
Internet has been the key driver of the American economy. And to have
the telecoms come after it and reconfigure it, reshape it to their
liking, is something that is an echo of the past, their past behavior.
We should not allow that.
So I am urging my colleagues in this general debate to reconsider
what it is you are considering because this is not the best legislation
for the people of our country. We can do much, much better.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary
inquiry.
I would like to yield 10 minutes to my Democrat sponsor, Mr. Rush, to
control in the general debate in the Committee of the Whole. Is that
possible, or how might I do that?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not
entertain a request to change the scheme for control of general debate
ordered by the House.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. So I can't do it.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas must be the
one to yield the time, and the Chair cannot entertain a request to
change the scheme for general debate from the established by the
special order of business in House Resolution 850.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I yield 2 minutes on
behalf of Mr. Rush to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I need to thank the
chairman, my neighbor in Texas, as well as Mr. Rush, my dear friend and
colleague.
I want to express my support today as we move forward on the COPE
Act. This bill will make necessary changes to the Nation's cable laws
to ensure that for the first time we have a fully open national market
for cable services. This will allow not only the major phone and cable
companies to compete against each other in provision of video services
to average Americans, but will allow countless new companies to quickly
enter the cable television market and offer their services. This will
not only drive down prices for every American, but it will undoubtedly
result in countless unforeseen new services and technologies to be
offered to Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the telecommunications industry is the most dynamic
industry in this country. Every day new technologies are introduced
that have the potential to dramatically expand the opportunities for
average Americans to have access to new sources of information, new
forms of entertainment, and new ways to communicate with each other.
These changes have become so rapid with so many implications to both
business and public policy that the political process has simply failed
to keep up.
This bill reflects, in my view, how Congress should best handle the
revolutionary changes that are occurring in telecommunications. It
should let the marketplace work. Mayors, regulators, and Members of
Congress simply do not know in advance how all of the revolutionary
changes in telecommunications will turn out. For us to attempt to do
so, whether under the guise of net neutrality or any other slogan, is
both foolish and dangerous.
Rather, we should aim, as this bill does, to relieve unnecessary
barriers that prevent a full national market to
[[Page H3554]]
develop and leave the ultimate decision-making process to the
engineers, the businessmen and, most importantly, the consumers of our
country.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, until August of last
year, broadband Internet providers were considered common carriers
under the law, with a legal requirement to carry all traffic equally.
A series of FCC decisions and the Supreme Court's decision to them
changed all that, turning broadband services into unregulated
``information services.''
Why is this important? In my district in Silicon Valley, everybody
uses the Internet and knows that you have to have net neutrality. They
cannot believe that we would even consider changing that rule.
So what does ``common carrier'' mean? For those of you who don't use
the Internet a lot, common carrier is a concept that is quite old. What
it really means in exchange for rights to use public ways: you agree to
carry all passengers on the same terms. If you get on the bus, a common
carrier, you are charged a fee; but the bus company cannot charge more
to women than it can to men, and that is really the equivalent of what
we are talking about here.
The phone company consolidations have meant that most Americans have
one or at most two choices for their broadband service provider. What
that means is that we are going to have a duopoly or a monopoly unless
we have net neutrality rules that will stifle the Internet. It will
turn the Internet into the equivalent of cable TV. That is not going to
be good for innovation.
Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that was founded in a
dorm room by two Stanford students. They had an opportunity to be
successful because they were not screened out at the very beginning by
incumbents who paid for access. That is about to change unless this
House adopts net neutrality rules.
Some of the phone companies have suggested that there is a free ride.
What they have failed to point out is that the phone companies are paid
an enormous amount of money, just like the bus company is, for use of
their services. What the net neutrality rules say is you cannot
differentiate.
I would just like to say we want to go on seeing the girl in the
funny hat making lemonade. Don't make us watch Robin Williams's cousin
making bacon juice instead.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a very valuable member of the subcommittee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our chairman for the
good work on the bill, and I want to encourage my colleagues to support
this legislation tonight.
My colleague, Representative Wynn, and I began working on the effort
to streamline this Nation's franchising rules more than a year ago when
we introduced the Video Choice Act. It has been a pleasure to work with
him on the issue.
We knew that government regulations were keeping prices high for
American consumers; and when I spoke earlier today during debate on the
rule, I talked a bit about how competition helps lower prices. I have a
chart here to help make that point. This data demonstrates consumer
price changes over the past 7 years. Here is the Consumer Price Index.
Now take a look at what has happened with cable prices over the past 7
years and how they have soared. This blue line right here is our long
distance prices, and then our wireless prices are the green line. So
you can see how dramatically our video or cable pricing has outpaced
the Consumer Price Index.
Mr. Chairman, the COPE bill will bring competition. It will help
lower prices. It will help all entrants, including the little guys,
like Ben Lomand Telephone Cooperative in McMinnville, Tennessee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5252. I regret
that leadership did not allow votes on key amendments important to
municipalities and community television.
Each of us wants more competition in video. That can happen today.
There is no legal impediment to a telephone company offering video over
its lines. There are two towns in Maine wired for video, but the
service has not been turned on.
If the current local franchising regime is as cumbersome as the phone
companies say, then let's figure out a way to streamline the process.
The municipalities are open to streamlining. We should negotiate a
consensus bill involving all of the stakeholders.
Unfortunately, this bill did not follow that process. Twice the
Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I serve struck bipartisan
deals that gave all stakeholders a voice in the legislation; and twice
the bipartisan deals were scuttled by external forces that preferred a
divisive bill to a consensus one.
My substantive concerns are threefold:
First, local control. The current cable franchising process gives
communities the ability to meet their needs. Municipalities can ensure
that every resident gets service and that access to public access
channels. They retain management of public rights-of-way.
This bill goes too far by federalizing the process of streamlining.
It makes the FCC the arbiter of consumer complaints, for example; and
the FCC has neither the resources nor expertise to do that.
Second, universal access. The new video providers have been honest.
They are going to the swanky neighborhoods first. Maine is a rural
State. Without a build-out requirement, companies are free to ignore
northern and eastern Maine.
{time} 1830
If we abandon universal access, we will leave rural areas behind.
Third, net neutrality. I support the Markey amendment. Allowing toll
booths on the Internet will undermine the freedom of the Internet and
hurt consumers.
Lastly, any franchising bill that becomes law should include reform
of the universal service fund to bring broadband and video competition
to rural and underserved counties.
I urge defeat of the bill.
Mr. UPTON. At this point, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex
piece of legislation with a simple purpose, granting a nationwide cable
television franchise to provide competition.
Today, cable television is a series of local monopolies. Only 2
percent of the United States has competition, companies that those
local franchises are aggressively marketing, Voice Over IP, telephone
service, broadband, and giving them a triple play of video, broadband
and voice services at a flat monthly rate.
In Houston, that monthly rate is about $100 and you can get digital
cable, high speed Internet and unlimited telephone calls from the cable
company. To compete with the cable's triple-play monopoly, telephone
companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry the
high-definition cable television service and faster broadband.
The FCC has found that cable television rates drop 40 percent after
competition. And that doesn't even factor in the consumer benefits from
the triple play, so to speak, that you add, also the cost savings from
telephone Internet and high speed cable service, definition service.
As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable
television service to spur competition. If we stick with local
franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple-play
competition.
The purpose of the bill is great, and I have had a number of concerns
about the district I represent that is not a wealthy area. These
concerns have been addressed.
For example, franchise areas are defined as they are today that would
prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking areas out of existing
franchises. This means that the bill's redlining provisions, drafted by
my colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, would stop companies from
picking and choosing the areas they want to serve. I would have
preferred Mr. Dingell's
[[Page H3555]]
approach, but again we don't have that opportunity, and it didn't pass
in committee even though I voted for it.
However, I still strongly support the legislation because we have had
several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans
for competition in my area. As a result, I am confident that the build-
out will increase in all areas of Houston, and they are not just going
to go to the high-income areas; they will come to my low-wealth and my
middle class area.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to place my full statement into the
Record, and I would hope that this would be a compromise bill. I am
sorry that our leadership and the committee didn't work it. But some
day, hopefully, it will be the Barton-Dingell bill again.
Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a
simple purpose: granting nationwide cable television franchises to
provide competition.
Today cable television is a series of local monopolies--only 2
percent of the U.S. has competition.
Companies with these local franchises are aggressively marketing VOIP
telephone service and broadband, giving them a ``triple play'' of
video, broadband, and voice services at a flat monthly rate.
In Houston, for $100 a month, you can get digital cable, high speed
Internet, and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company.
To compete with cable's triple play monopoly, telephone companies
need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry high-
definition cable television service and faster broadband.
The Federal Communications Commission has found that cable television
rats drop 40 percent after competition and that doesn't even factor in
the consumer benefits of the triple play.
As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable
television service to spur competition. If we stick with local
franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple play
competition.
The purpose of the bill is great, but I did have a number of concerns
about this legislation and its effects on the middle-class folks in my
district. These concerns have been addressed.
For example, franchise areas in the bill were defined as they are
today, which would prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking
areas out of existing franchise areas.
This means that the bill's anti-redlining provisions, drafted by
Congressman Bobby Rush, will stop companies from picking and choosing
the areas they want to offer service.
I would have preferred the approach by Mr. Dingell, which would have
set reasonable, flexible guidelines for companies to build out their
networks and offer new services.
I wish we could have considered Mr. Dingell's amendment today, and I
am disappropriated that the Rules Committee rejected it.
They did a disservice to one of the most knowledgeable, respected
Members in the history of Congress.
However, I can still strongly support this legislation because we
have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their
plans for competition in the Houston area.
As a result of those conversations, I am confident that buildout is
going to increase in all areas of Houston and that they are not going
to discriminate against our middle class and low wealth areas.
To all members who are concerned about the impact of this legislation
on your district, I encourage you to contact your incumbent telecom
company and meet with their local staff responsible for deployment, not
just the DC staff. I think you will be happy with what you hear.
Cities are also concerned with their interests in franchising, but
many of these concerns have been addressed. Cities will not lose any
revenue as a result of this bill. The COPE Act allows 5 percent
franchise fees and 1 percent public access fees.
Cities will also not lose any right-of-way control and to make sure,
I included an amendment in Committee to require companies to certify in
writing that they will obey local right of way rules.
I do regret that the usual bi-partisan telecom process between the
leadership of our Committee has temporarily broken down.
Today is not the end of the road, so I hope this can still become a
Barton-Dingell bill or a Dingell-Barton bill before all is said and
done.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts
for his leadership on all of these issues.
Net neutrality would maintain the free and open Internet that exists
today. This bill simply does not protect the right of consumers to a
wide array of information and entertainment sources.
The Markey amendment would provide those essential protections by
outlawing sweetheart deals between network operators, like the phone or
cable companies, and Internet content providers.
Without net neutrality, buying company A's phone service might
restrict you to Google and deny you Yahoo, might deny you CNN.com and
only give you FoxNews.com.
American consumers deserve choice, whether they choose to use the
Internet giant Google or the new start-up search engine. This amendment
is about consumer choice. This amendment is about market
competitiveness.
I urge you to join me in support of the Markey amendment in
opposition to the bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank Chairman Barton,
chairman of the Full Committee; and the gentleman from Michigan, who is
the subcommittee chairman; as well as Vice Chairman Pickering. And also
we have enjoyed the bipartisan support from Bobby Rush on our
committee.
This is truly a bipartisan product that was forged together after
countless hours of negotiation. Its recent passage out of the Energy
and Commerce Committee by a vote of 42-12 only underscores this point.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in north Texas, and there is a
community within that area in north Texas named Keller. Keller, Texas,
a very forward-thinking town of over 36,000 people. Keller is home to
Verizon's first fiberoptic television system. What has happened since
the fiberoptic system was introduced in the Keller market is that
prices for cable TV are now 25 percent lower than they were before the
entry into the video market. New services, new technologies, lower
prices.
Consumers now have a choice, and over 30 percent of the market has
signed up for this new fiberoptic service from Verizon. Clearly, people
want choice. The citizens of Keller not only have access to one of the
best telecommunications networks in the world, and a choice of
providers, but they also get much better services at competitive
prices.
What is even more intriguing is about a third of those new video
customers were not previously cable customers. That means that these
customers now are a new source of franchise fee revenue for the city of
Keller.
Mr. Chairman, it is no accident that every member from Texas on the
committee supports this bill. This past year the State of Texas passed
legislation similar to that which we are considering here, removing the
franchise fee from the local level. Texas is now at the forefront of
video competition.
I sponsored H.R. 5252. I voted for it in committee. I will vote for
it on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation as well.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This is a historic bill. Without question, the Republican majority is
not respecting the importance of the issue.
Tonight, we will have a debate on net neutrality that will last 20
minutes, 10 minutes on either side. That is, without question, a
disgrace. We debate week after week out here on the House floor,
namings of post offices that each get 40 minutes. Here we are talking
about an engine of economic growth which has transformed our economy
and the global economy over the last 15 years. And it has done so with
provisions which guaranteed nondiscrimination to the smallest players
being able to enter with their ideas and communicate across our country
and across the globe.
What the Republicans are doing tonight is they are refusing to have a
debate on who is going to be benefited
[[Page H3556]]
from it. That is, will the telephone companies be responsible for
building-out across all communities? Their bill says you don't have to,
and they won't allow us an amendment out here on the floor so that we
can have that debate.
Will there be redlining? We believe there should not be. The
Republicans refuse to allow Hilda Solis's amendment out here on the
floor so we can have a full debate on it.
Will there be a bill that passes tonight which is defeatist in terms
of entrepreneurs and equal access, democratization of access to
opportunity because of access to this new technology in every part of
the community? Or will it be a bill that has a future orientation,
looking ahead over the next century as to who Americans are going to
be, what the nature of our economy is going to be in terms of these
entrepreneurs playing this change agent role? Or will we have this bill
that has been put together behind closed doors with the most powerful
three or four companies in America, the telephone companies who had
nothing to do with the construction of the Internet?
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Congressman Rush, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), an able member of
the subcommittee.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman for his
leadership, the subcommittee chairman for his leadership, as well as
Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee who worked with me on the Video Choice Act
which was somewhat of a precursor to this bill.
I want to say, first of all, that this bill is not about net
neutrality. The Google crowd, the Internet crowd does not care about
cable rates. But this bill is about cable rates. And what we know today
is that cable rates are too high in America. We know that consumers are
paying as much as 80 percent increases over the last years in cable
rates, and so that is what this bill seeks to address. It addresses it
by trying to create more competition. And there is no disagreement that
if we had more competition in video services we would have lower cable
bills.
Now, there are new companies, telephone companies and other
companies, that want to come into the market. But under current law,
they have to negotiate hundreds of thousands of individual agreements
with local governments. That is why we don't have more competition.
This bill creates a national franchise and says we can bring in new
entrants to provide competitive services and lower prices. What happens
with this? Well, we do protect the local communities because they still
receive franchise fees from new entrants. We protect their rights to
control their rights-of-way.
We also have antidiscrimination to protect against redlining. We have
language that says that if you discriminate, you can and will be
punished and penalized. So I think this is a very good bill that
addresses the fundamental issue, which is cable rates.
Let me turn for a moment to net neutrality. Understand, there is only
finite space within the network. Everybody can't travel at top speed at
the same time, so there has to be some differentiation. And ultimately,
the issue is who will pay. Will the consumer pay, or will the content
providers pay? That is the Google and the Internet and the innovators
that they talk about. Those innovators, those people would rather have
the consumer pay if there has to be a differentiation, if you want
ultra-high speeds, if you want excessive amounts of the bandwidth.
I believe net neutrality is not a relevant issue here. I believe that
we have a solid bill that addresses the fundamental concern, which is
reducing cable rates. We have an opportunity to do something very good
for the American people, and I think we ought to do it and pass the
COPE bill.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman and Members, today I rise again in strong
opposition to this bill. I support the efforts to increase competition
in the video marketplace.
Greater competition, as we know, will inevitably help to create jobs
and provide for lower consumer costs. But we must also make certain
that benefits derived from a streamlined franchising process benefit
consumers and not just the telecommunications industry.
The bill doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to ensure that all
communities have access to broadband Internet. Although the broadband
access has increased greatly in recent years, the digital divide
remains a reality in communities like mine, the ones that I represent
in Los Angeles County in California.
In fact, in 2003, a study by the Pew Foundation found that those
least likely to have broadband Internet access at home are the poor,
the older, less educated and Latinos and African Americans; 60 percent
of the constituents I represent in my district happen to be underserved
Latinos.
While Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group of online
users, only one in eight Latino households has access to broadband
services.
Eleven Hispanic Members of this Congress and numerous civil rights
organizations, consumer and Latino advocacy organizations weighed in in
strong support of such language, including the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
known as MALDEF; the National Conference of Hispanic State Legislators;
the Hispanic Federation; the National Puerto Rican Coalition; and the
National Hispanic Bar Association. That is why these groups are urging
a ``no'' vote on the bill.
The bill also weakens, in my opinion, consumer protections without
providing strong enforcement for consumer rights. We should ensure that
all States and localities retain the ability to establish consumer
protection standards for video services. No one here knows the needs of
the residents that I represent in Los Angeles, El Monte, West Covina,
and other cities that I represent.
In fact, this week I received numerous letters that I will submit for
the Record from cities in my district, including the City of Los
Angeles, the newly elected mayor, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, urging me
and others to oppose the bill.
I share with my colleagues' goals of passing legislation which
promotes an increased competition, lower prices, improves the quality
and access to developing brand-new services that help all consumers.
But the digital divide, Members, remains a reality for many
constituents in my district and many others across this country. We
should not let this opportunity pass without addressing this fact. I
would ask that we not let this opportunity pass without addressing the
fact in an effective manner.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Furthermore, I would like to
say that while we have had numerous discussions outside of the
committee room regarding this bill, I still have not heard from the
telephone companies and others that they would like to see strong
language put in the bill to provide for protection so that we don't
exclude communities like mine that I represent.
{time} 1845
I am disheartened when I hear that there is a possibility that they
will come into Los Angeles, but they will go around East Los Angeles
and they won't attend to those constituents that I represent.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, rural America needs broadband now more
than ever. The information society is in full swing with an abundant
amount of choices and access to the infinite sources of information,
yet there are those who may not have the same access to information and
will therefore be left out in the cold.
As we move away from dial-up Internet to broadband via cable modem,
DSL, satellite, and fiber-based networks, Congress should be enacting
legislation that encourages broader network deployment. Without the
proper economic incentives and regulatory environment, rural America
will be left behind when the next generation networks are built.
That is why we must pass the COPE Act tonight. Not only does COPE
open competition in the video market, but it also includes the proper
regulatory light touch and the right incentives to
[[Page H3557]]
foster the deployment of advanced networks. More importantly, it
creates incentives to build out these networks without the spending of
government funds.
It is time to pass this bill and get broadband deployment moving in
the right direction, the direction of rural America.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would yield on behalf of Mr. Rush 1 minute
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the COPE Act.
Fundamentally, it is all about promoting greater competition in the
video service industry, what we often call cable, but is no longer
limited to that delivery system.
We have all heard the complaints from our constituents about the
rising cost of cable. For part of my district, the fact is there is no
competitor to cable. Satellite TV signals can't magically go around
tall buildings nor pass through them to reach someone on the other
side. The COPE Act will speed competition into the video service
industry and drive down prices.
I am also pleased with the VoIP provisions of the bill. I was an
early proponent to require emergency 911 services for VoIP providers. I
am also pleased that we cleaned up the rules for VoIP providers to
interconnect, thus providing the same level playing field that C-LECs
enjoyed. Finally, I was pleased to offer language requiring
disabilities access with my colleague from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
With the support of Chairman Upton, we have ensured that disabled
Americans will be a full part of this broadband resolution.
We will consider a number of amendments today, some I will support
because I believe that they will make this a better bill. I would have
voted for the Baldwin and Solis amendments if they had been allowed to
be put forth. Nevertheless, we start with a good base bill, and it will
have my support on final passage regardless of which amendments pass.
We have before us a bill that seeks to update our laws to keep pace
with new technologies and new market realities.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
Buckeye State, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr.
Oxley.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems like old times debating a
telecommunications bill. It has been a while since I had that
opportunity, and I see some familiar faces on both sides. I first want
to congratulate my good friend from Michigan for his concerted efforts
on this legislation as well as Chairman Barton and other members who
have worked on this legislation.
This is a good solid follow-up of the 1996 Act. It recognizes market
forces, it gets government out of picking winners and losers. I chair
the Financial Service Committee now, and there have been some arguments
about whether the net neutrality issue that the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be offering will be a boon for the financial
services industry. I am here to say that the financial services
industry understands competition, they understand choice, they
understand how markets work, and the folks that are represented in that
financial services community will benefit by this legislation without
the Markey amendment, and that is what is important to keep in mind.
This has been a great effort. I congratulate again all those who have
put this bill on the floor today.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the Communications
Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.
I've been a believer in the power of competition in
telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from
government regulation to market competition has totally changed the
telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner.
There are more products, services, and choices than ever before.
I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we
were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable
companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the
Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know
what to do with.
Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped
give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every
mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought
in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters.
I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform
Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment
and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the
regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level.
Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more
investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our
international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest
competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have
more broadband subscribers than the United States.
There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back
competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can
unleash private capital on this national need.
Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been
required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local
governments before offering video service. With some 33,000
municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly,
serving as a barrier to market access.
H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national
approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to
enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic
networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already
well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the
door for more choices, better services and lower bills.
I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the
guise of ``fairness,'' would just defeat the purpose of the bill.
The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less
than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a
new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at
once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be
built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon
enough.
Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier,''
the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth
because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not
taxing and regulating it to death.
But in the name of something called ``net neutrality,'' some would
have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements on
the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that in
order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the
service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall
investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered
in the last decade.
Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And
at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual
problem.
We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one
time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full
comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks
that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global
marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable,
satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right,
there are none in the world who are better.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the distinguished chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley, for his leadership and his
statement that he just made. It is greatly appreciated and it I think
enlightens the debate.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain one of the real problems with this bill.
In testimony before the Commerce Committee on this legislation, I asked
the head of the national cable industry what they would do once this
bill passed, and the answer was quite revealing. They said that after
this bill passes, since the telephone companies are going to go into
the wealthy side of town in order to deploy their new broadband
systems, that under the legislation they no longer had any
responsibility to serve the whole community. They had no responsibility
to continue to upgrade on the other side of the town, which the cable
industry is already serving, because every mayor always extracted that
from every cable company as they came into town.
So we are going to wind up with a perverse situation where the cable
industry on the poor side of town is able
[[Page H3558]]
to raise rates because the telephone companies won't promise to go
there and actually compete against the cable company. And the
Republicans oppose even having a debate on the House floor in order to
accomplish that, and so we wind up with a situation where the wealthy
people are going to have two competitors and have lower rates, and the
poor people are going to have only one company that is saying they are
going to raise rates because there will be no competition. It is a
perverse result for cable subscribers in America.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today in support of H.R. 5252, and I want to discuss the so-
called net neutrality provisions. The free Internet that we have today
will remain free. If you can go there today, you will be able to go
there tomorrow. If you would like to be able, in the future, to
immediately download full-length movies and high definition video games
and you are willing to pay for that greater bandwidth to do that, you
will have the freedom to make that choice as well. If we take away
these choices, it will be like trying to send a golf ball through a
garden hose in terms of clogging up the bandwidth for everyone.
In a nutshell, it seems to me that more consumer freedom and less
government regulation is the better approach. If down the road the
telecommunication companies improperly restrict access to the Internet
and the FCC fails to act, then we can drop the hammer on them. Until
then, it seems like imposing new regulations on the Internet is a case
of Big Brother being a big pain in the behind.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5252.
I rise today in support of H.R. 5252, and I want to discuss the so-
called ``Net Neutrality'' provisions.
I don't understand why we need new laws for a problem that doesn't
yet exist. I've heard that some high-tech companies, like Yahoo and
Google, are worried that certain cable or phone companies might block,
or limit, consumers' internet access.
At this early stage, it seems to me that the market place will take
care of that issue real quick. Consumers simply will not continue to
purchase service from a provider that seeks to block or restrict their
internet access.
For example, when I'm at my home in Orlando, Florida, I use Google
and Yahoo nearly every day, and I get my high speed internet access
through my local cable company, Bright House. If Bright House
restricted my access to either Google or Yahoo, I would switch to my
local phone company, BellSouth, so fast it would make your head spin.
In other words, competition is what will keep companies on the straight
and narrow.
The free internet that we have today will remain free. If you can go
there today, you will be able to go there tomorrow.
If you would like to be able, in the future, to immediately download
full-length movies and high-definition video games, and you're willing
to pay for the greater bandwidth to do that, you'll have the freedom to
make that choice as well.
If we take away these choices, it will be like trying to send a ball
through a garden hose in terms of clogging up the bandwidth for
everyone.
In a nutshell, it seems to me, that more consumer freedom, and less
government regulation, is the better approach. If, down the road, the
telecommunications companies improperly restrict access to the
internet, and the FCC fails to act, then we can drop the hammer on
them.
Until then, it seems like imposing new regulations on the internet is
a case of Big Brother being a big pain in the behind.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5252.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush of Illinois,
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
(Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Rush for this opportunity to
speak, and I thank him and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their work on this bill. As a new Member of this body who brings 20
years of experience in the tech sector, I rise today to speak in
support of H.R. 5252.
Many of our constituents have one option for cable TV and one price.
Our constituents desire choice. I believe this bill will provide much-
needed modernization of our telecommunications laws to provide for
improved competition for video services and lower prices for consumers.
By overhauling current rules and speeding the entry of competitors in
the market, we encourage competition and provide our constituents with
new choices and cheaper bills.
To keep America competitive in the global economy, telecommunications
companies will be expected to invest heavily in infrastructure. This
bill will spur investment in broadband networks that will help bring
America up to speed with other nations who have jumped ahead of us in
broadband capacity.
Some colleagues have raised legitimate concerns about how to
streamline our laws while advancing new technologies. I am confident
this bill will ensure consumer choice and preserve innovation on the
Net, respect rights for municipalities while establishing a new source
of revenue for them, and strictly prohibiting discriminatory practices
like redlining.
I encourage support.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, so again we hear the argument that this is going to
lower cable rates. And it will lower cable rates, I don't deny that, on
the good side of town, which is where they are going with their Harvard
Business School 3-by-5 card, ``go to the wealthy side of town and offer
them a package of broadband services to compete against the cable
companies.'' Rates are going down.
But the problem is on the other side of town, once this bill passes,
once the telephone company comes into town, the cable company is no
longer bound by the agreement that it made with the city. So the cable
industry, and they testified to this in the committee, they can then
raise rates on the parts of town that the telephone company is not
going to go to and provide cable service.
So you are going to wind up with this incredible situation where we,
that is, Congressmen in our parts of town, we are going to have lower
cable rates. But people on the other side of town, and you don't have
to be a summa cum laude, you from Harvard Business School, to
understand this, the people on the other side of town are not going to
get this service, because obviously the Republicans are protecting AT&T
and Verizon by prohibiting us having this discussion here on the floor.
They won't even let the discussion take place, because they know that
is what is going to happen, that the other side of town isn't going to
get this service, because AT&T doesn't want us to have to mandate that
if they are going into the town, they just can't cherry-pick the good
parts of town. They are going to have to do everybody. And if they
don't do everybody, what do you think is going to happen when there is
no competition? Rates are going up in that part of town, because that
part of the town will be a monopoly.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to a
gentleman from Mississippi who doesn't have a degree from Harvard
Business School, but he does have a degree from Ole Miss, Chip
Pickering, the vice chairman of the full committee.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
Having received an MBA from a great institution in the State of
Texas, Baylor, I was taught that competition drives deployment,
innovation, investment.
Why would the telephone companies have to go to both sides of the
town? Because the cable companies are going with something called
voiceover Internet, voice over cable systems, voice providers and other
companies, into both sides of the town. And unless the telephone
companies want to lose both sides of the town, they are going to have
to go with video.
So more video choice, more voice choice, more investment, more
innovation, greater competition. And that is why we will see benefits
on all parts, in all parts of our country, and all sides of our cities
and communities.
That is why this is a good bill. It makes a national framework, as it
should do, as we go into an IP, Internet-based world. It is interstate.
It is international. It should be done at the
[[Page H3559]]
FCC, not in a patchwork of entities all across the country, slowing
deployment and investment.
I want to commend the great chairman from the Great State of Texas
and the subcommittee chairman from Michigan, and I also want to thank
our colleagues on the other side.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the fact that the
provisions that are going to be considered do not contain any language
that would guard against discrimination, discrimination as to where
people live, redlining. And we want to be sure that when we go into
restructuring where we place our cable lines, I want to be sure no
community is left out.
Unless we can see that language in the bill, I cannot support it.
Communications are too important, and I don't want the cable companies
choosing the high-end communities and leaving the low-end communities
out of the cable network.
{time} 1900
So I would hope that if we do not get a provision in the bill, and it
looks like we are not going to, that we vote against it and try all
over again.
This will affect every area of my district, and many districts in
this country, if we do not put provisions in there to eliminate
redlining, to be sure we have antidiscrimination clauses in there, and
be sure that people do not have to come to the FCC to get rulings when
they find they are underserved. I would suggest that we vote against
the bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mack).
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, competition is the backbone of innovation.
Competition has enabled the Internet and scores of new technologies to
be introduced to the marketplace, and it has changed the way we live,
work and play.
Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act will ensure that competition and
innovation continue to flourish. It will eliminate needless government
barriers and has shown that the expansion of new technology and
innovation comes when competition is alive and well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this piece
of legislation. It will help drive prices down. It will help companies
invest in future technology that will help make our lives better.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, I want to thank the committee for
giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, here is the really perverse part of this. The telephone
company is going to come into town, and they are going to start
offering lower rates on the good part of town, as they are delivering
the service.
The people on the other side of town, the poorer part of town, are
going to say, hey, do we get the lower rates too in town? Because under
the cable-negotiated agreement with the city, everyone got the same
rate in town.
Well, the telephone company will not offer that same lower rate to
the other part of the town, only to the people on the good part of
town, which is where they are going. So we said to the majority, the
Republicans, well, let's make sure everyone in town gets that lower
rate, because now we know what the rate should be for that community,
because they are offering it to the good side of town.
The Republicans say, oh, no, we are not going to give the lower rate
to the poor side of town where the telephone company is not going to,
because they are not going there. And the cable industry says, fine, we
are going to raise rates on that side of town because the telephone
company is telling us we are not going there.
So we are going to have again this crazy situation where they are
going to the homes, and we are going to wind up with this perverse
result where they are going to the good side of town, they are going to
the good communities. They are going to have lower cable rates because
they are going to have competition. And the telephone companies have
told us over and over and over again they are not going to the other
side of town.
They are not going to the poorer communities, and we object to any
amendment by Democrats on the floor that will make us do the poor part
of town, that will make us go to the other side of town. We are going
to fight it and we are going to ask the Republicans to not even allow
for a debate on the House floor that will help the people on the poor
side of town get the lower rates.
That is what this bill at its heart is all about tonight, the ability
of the telephone companies to cherry-pick the wealthiest families in
America to have competing cable service.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), our subcommittee chairman.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, the Wall Street
Journal ran a story headlined: ``U.S. lags behind in high speed
Internet access, ranking slips to 12th spot among 30 nations.''
Today telecommunication providers offer a host of services, whether
it be voice, data, or video. And this legislation, should it be enacted
later this year like I think it will, will jump-start, jump-start that
competition, as it will provide more competition, it will lower prices,
probably in the range of $30 to $40 per household per month, nearly
$400 for the year, and I have to tell you that that is great for
America.
Now, over the last year we have had plenty of hearings, lots of
witnesses, input from almost every sector. It has been a fair and open
process from the start. And I commend my chairman, Joe Barton. He has
done a magnificent job pulling together folks from all sides of the
aisle, all different sides of the issues, to put together a bipartisan
bill that we debate tonight.
Now, the document that we marked up in my subcommittee and then in
full committee changed. It changed because of amendments that were
debated and offered and accepted and voted on. And I have to tell you
that after each step of that process, the bill was better. It was
stronger and it was better. And the proof was in the pudding.
We passed the bill in subcommittee 27-4. We passed the bill in full
committee, changed, 42-12. And I would note that when we introduced
H.R. 5252, after the full committee markup process was completed, there
were 15 Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee that asked
that their names be listed as cosponsors.
Now, in some debate tonight we have talked about the cities, a
question about right-of-way. Well, let us read the language in the
bill. Page 19 says this: ``Nothing in this act affects the authority of
a State or local government to manage, on a reasonable, competitively
neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis, the public rights-of-way and
easements that have been dedicated for compatible use.
That protects the cities with rights-of-way. We protect the cities
with a revenue stream. Most of them today have about a 5 percent
revenue from the receipts that are collected. We add to that. It will
be 6 percent, because we guarantee that that extra percent is going to
go to the community access channels, what we call the PEG channels, the
Public, Education, Government channels.
In fact, some of the studies that have come out show that the cities
will gain revenues in the neighborhood of perhaps as much as 30
percent. We added an anti-redline provision that was offered by our
friend, Mr. Rush from Chicago. It was a great provision. It made the
bill better. It was accepted, as I recall, on a voice vote.
The bottom line is this: if you are happy with the status quo, please
vote ``no'' tonight. If you like cable rates going up, if you like the
regulations, vote ``no.'' But if you want change, please vote ``yes.''
Mr. MARKEY. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman. I know this has been hard work for members of the Energy and
Commerce Committee. This is another
[[Page H3560]]
giant step in telecommunications, and now with the focus on broadband.
I recall, Mr. Chairman, the 1996 opportunity, and in fact I recall
many, many years ago before I was in Congress the opportunities that
led to the creation of BET. I hope as we go forward that we will be
able to focus on small, medium, women-owned, minority-owned businesses
that may engage in the cable franchising business.
I think as we make our way to the Senate and this bill comes back to
the House, more emphasis needs to be focused on those generating
opportunities. We are seeking, of course, to open telecommunications,
broadband to the world. And to do that, it is also important that small
businesses have the opportunity, both in terms of the franchise fees,
and both in terms of mentoring by larger companies, so I hope that in
working with my colleagues on Energy and Commerce and through the
Senate, we will have the opportunity to put a focus on small, medium,
women-owned and minority-owned businesses.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my distinguished primary cosponsor
on the Democrat side.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am from the other side of town. I live on the other
side of town; and, Mr. Chairman, those who live on the other side of
town understand the Biblical principle, the verse in the Bible that
says, know ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Mr. Chairman, there are some untruths that have been spoken today
about this bill. This is a good bill. This is a marvelous bill. This is
a bill that is worthwhile. This is a bill that will make a difference
in the lives of the people who live on the other side of town.
Mr. Chairman, there are five truths about this legislation that I
want to share with you. This legislation, number one, represents a huge
step in bringing lower prices and more choices for cable services, not
only from the other side of town, but from all of town, and also to the
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will provide equitable competition amongst a
variety of video service providers on the other side of town. Video
service providers can compete in price, in quality, and in quantity.
And the people on the other side of town, on my side of town, can
finally decide which service provider they prefer.
Number two, Mr. Chairman, the second truth, this bill will create a
nationwide approval process for pay TV services. The people on my side
of town, on the other side of town, pay more money for cable TV
services than any other demographic group within the Nation. And by
streamlining this archaic franchise system, companies will be able to
offer new TV services on the other side of town, while also protecting
the local interests.
The third truth. And this is a truth, Mr. Chairman, that I take to
heart. I have spent all of my life fighting against discrimination. And
I will never, never, ever be a sponsor or cosponsor or vote for a bill
that allows for discrimination in any area of life within this Nation.
The third truth, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill will prohibit
discrimination on the basis of income and give the FCC the power to
impose stiff fines, up to $500,000 a day, or revoke a provider's
franchise area if there is willful or repeated violation of
discrimination.
And it goes even beyond that. The burden of proof will be on the
company and not on the consumer.
The fourth truth, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill also preserves net
neutrality by allowing the FCC explicit power to go after companies
that violate network neutrality principles.
And, Mr. Chairman, on network neutrality, let me just say this:
network neutrality is a Trojan horse in this whole debate. It is not
about build-out; it is not about access. The opponents of this bill are
in favor of network neutrality, and they are not in favor, Mr.
Chairman, of lowering cable costs for the people on the other side of
town.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a failure. It fails the challenge to
ensure that this broadband technology will be deployed in every
neighborhood in America. The Bell Companies oppose it, and the
Republicans are not going to allow us to even have that debate here on
the House floor.
{time} 1915
Why is it important? Because in a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, we
have to make sure that every family and every child in every family has
access to this high tech skillset which can only come from access to
this broadband technology. The telephone companies do not want the
responsibility to build out into the poor side of the town, the
Republicans have not built that responsibility into the bill, and they
have prohibited the Democrats from making that amendment. And their
bill also fails the Internet. It fails the nondiscriminatory history of
the Internet which has required, which has made possible for
entrepreneurs and individuals on a nondiscriminatory basis, to use the
Internet.
We want to have a debate on net neutrality. All the Republicans are
willing to give to the proponents of the Net neutrality, the central
constitutional protection built into the Internet for the last 20
years, is 10 minutes. That is a disgrace. The whole way we are making
this bill is really a tribute to the Republican control of Congress and
their lack of willingness to have full and open debate on the most
important post-GATT, post-NAFTA issues we could debate, the access to a
21st century skillset and the ability for entrepreneurs to use the
information superhighway to create the new jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote
on final passage on this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5252,
the so-called Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act
of 2006, H.R. 5252.
Supporters of this bill claim that if telephone companies provide
video services to compete with cable and satellite, rates will decrease
and quality of service will increase.
I agree, but there is nothing in current law stopping phone companies
from offering video services. Just ask Verizon, which currently offers
fiber optic TV in 16 states--and counting. However, AT&T and others
thought they could get a better deal from their Congressional
benefactors. The Leave No Lobbyist Behind Republican Congress did not
disappoint them.
This bill eliminates all requirements to build out service to an
entire community, so if you want to benefit from competition, you
better live on the right side of town with the rich people. Your city
also better have enough money to have a lawyer permanently stationed in
Washington, DC, because this bill gives the Federal Communications
Commission, FCC, final say over all video services. Under current law,
cities control when and where video providers dig up streets to lay
cable and they set standards for customer service and billing. But
small government Republicans think that the FCC knows better. They
provide no new staff or money to handle this enormous responsibility,
so expect a busy signal the next time you have a problem with your
cable bill.
Finally, this bill was a critical opportunity to renew so-called
``net neutrality'' rules that require Internet Service Providers to
treat all Web sites equally. When Google was being run out of a college
dorm, the search page loaded just as quickly as Yahoo or MSN or the
Comcast corporate Web site. The ability for so-called ``garage
inventors'' to enter the market without paying a toll or suffering
degraded service enabled the Internet's rapid growth and success. Those
non-discrimination rules ended last year, and broadband providers have
made no secret of their desire to extract a high price for continued
service. Their multi-million dollar campaign to defeat a net neutrality
amendment only confirms their insidious plans.
This gift to giant telecom companies, devoid of any worthwhile public
policy, is a disgrace, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
no.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of the bill,
which is to improve competitive choice for consumers, lower costs, and
increase innovation. I hope that is where we will be at the end of this
process. However, currently, I have profound concerns about the loss of
local revenues, lack of assurances for universal access, and the
potential for anti-competitive behavior by network providers.
This comes to the floor with significant problems for local
governments. The COPE Act will reduce Public Education Government, PEG,
funding for Portland and Multnomah County by $2.4 million each year.
Proponents argue that more competitors will increase local revenues.
However, the revenue is based on the size of the customer population,
thus more competitors will not necessarily result in more revenue than
already
[[Page H3561]]
exists. This bill also grants new authorities to the FCC to resolve
local and private disputes. I am uncertain that the FCC possesses the
capacity to effectively handle these local issues.
In the spirit of preserving innovation and providing equal access to
web surfers and businesses alike, the Internet must remain a non-
discriminatory, egalitarian, and open playing field. This is an issue
that has often been referred to as ``net neutrality.'' I am concerned
about the ability of the Internet to remain neutral and equal under the
COPE Act.
This issue is particularly important to my district in Oregon as it
has one of the highest broadband penetration rates in the country. I
have received thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls from my
constituents expressing concerns about the COPE Act's ability to
safeguard the neutrality of the Internet. I support the Markey
Amendment on network neutrality, which regretfully the House failed to
adopt.
Lastly, I am concerned that the COPE Act does not ensure universal
access for vital telecommunication services. Without strong ``build out
provisions,'' poor and rural areas in the country are at risk of
falling behind. Telecom companies will be able to cherry pick the most
profitable areas and force cable companies to follow suit in order to
remain competitive. History suggests that it is unrealistic to expect
one company to continue to invest in all of its regions if a competitor
applies market pressure to small concentrated areas.
This bill is the start of a long conversation regarding how best to
address telecommunications in this country. It is my strong belief that
we will be revisiting the concerns I have outlined should this bill
pass, and it is my hope that through the legislative process, we can
provide the American people the telecom reform they deserve.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006
(COPE), H.R. 5252. This is an important, bipartisan bill that will
benefit the consumers I represent, especially those in rural areas.
While the cost of wireless minutes has fallen more than 77 percent in
the past 10 years, the cost of cable rates has done the exact opposite,
increasing over 86 percent during that same time frame. The COPE bill
will bring choice and competition to television and the Internet.
Through this bill, the market will have a chance to expand to areas in
which competition does not currently exist. As we have consistently
seen in other industries, competition helps the consumer through more
choices and lower prices. For example, my own parents live in a small
rural community. Mom and dad are retired on a fixed income. Like
millions of other Americans living in small towns or rural communities,
they have limited options when it comes to cable service. With the COPE
bill, my parents and countless others will have increased access and
competition.
It should be noted that this bill is about more than just lowering
prices and creating a competitive marketplace. Significant benefits
will be brought uniquely for rural communities. It will bring faster
broadband to more places, especially rural areas. It will also mean the
opportunity for distance learning and distance medical diagnosis and
treatment for those living in rural communities. These are new and
important opportunities for improving the quality of life for rural
America.
This legislation really is about choice, competition, and rural
access. I urge my colleagues to support the Barton-Rush COPE Act, an
important bipartisan bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations
about the COPE Act, H.R. 5252, I will vote for it today.
There have been many changes in the telecommunications and cable
industry in the 10 years since the last major revision of
telecommunications law.
In 1996, telecommunication companies and cable companies provided
very different services. Today though, these industries are providing
very similar services and the distinctions in the old law are no longer
as relevant. As a result, I believe it is time for us to make changes
to our telecommunication laws that take into account the technological
advances of the industry and the changes in the marketplace.
This bill would make some of those needed changes. However, I am
concerned that its provisions, particularly those affecting the local
franchise authorities, may go a little too far and do not do enough to
allow localities and their constituents to adequately address right-of-
way concerns in a timely fashion. I hope that Congress will be able to
more fully address these concerns as this bill proceeds through the
legislative process.
I supported the Markey amendment, even though its language would have
needed some adjustments in conference particularly as it pertained to
the ``last mile'' of Internet connectivity, because I thought it would
improve the bill.
I was joined in this support for ``net neutrality'' by a wide variety
of organizations whose members place a high value on unencumbered use
of the internet--from AARP, ACLU and Gun Owners of America. I regret
the amendment was not adopted.
However, even without that amendment this bill is an improvement over
current law. It takes important steps to increase competition and
reduce costs of cable and Internet. There is no doubt that the Internet
has revolutionized how we do business, educate, and entertain. Making
broadband services more affordable and accessible is vital to ensure we
close the digital divide and allow businesses to benefit from new
Internet-based technologies.
While this bill is not perfect, it is a good step forward. I believe
it is important that we continue to work with the Senate to improve
this bill and hope a conference report will continue to provide an
increase in competition while protecting the freedom of the Internet.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support of this
legislation, which will increase competition in the video services
market by reducing the regulatory barriers that effectively bar new
entrants into this important market. Competition will give consumers
more choices and will help ensure the delivery of new and innovative
services at lower prices.
However, I have concerns about the way this bill addresses the net
neutrality issue. Specifically, this legislation was drafted such that
it grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Communications
Commission to adjudicate complaints arising from anticompetitive
practices of broadband providers. This grant of exclusive jurisdiction
unfortunately puts into question whether the antitrust laws would apply
when anticompetitive conduct arises in this area.
I believe in free market principles and the fact that government
involvement often stifles innovation in the marketplace. However, I
also believe that our Nation's antitrust laws have served as important
guidelines to ensure that markets remain competitive and that these
antitrust laws must remain applicable in the broadband services market.
I understand that Congressman Lamar Smith will offer an amendment
today to expressly state that the antitrust laws do indeed apply
despite the use of the word ``exclusive'' in the underlying bill. I
support that clarification to ensure that our nation's antitrust laws
continue to have full effect and continue to guard against
anticompetitive conduct in the marketplace. However, I do not believe
that this amendment goes far enough to discourage anticompetitive
conduct in the Internet arena.
On the other hand, I do not believe that the amendment that will be
offered by Congressman Markey is the right approach either.
Specifically, that amendment would create more government red tape and
hurdles for broadband providers by applying an FCC-focused overly
regulatory approach to protecting the Internet. The way to ensure
competition in the provision of broadband is not to bury broadband
providers with more regulations.
I believe that competition in this area can be encouraged by setting
forth clear and articulate guidelines that do not stifle innovation or
the ability for broadband providers to recoup the investments they make
in their infrastructures. Relatively minor amendments to our Nation's
antitrust laws could be the right approach in this area. Unfortunately,
neither this legislation, nor any of the amendments being offered
today, contains such a narrowly-tailored and effective approach.
Despite my strong concerns about how the underlying bill handles the
net neutrality issue, I will support this legislation because of the
video services provisions that will increase competition and lower
prices in that market. However, I look forward to working with all
affected parties to ensure that robust competition remains the standard
in the broadband services market.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
share my thoughts on H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity,
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.
Similar to the 1996 telecommunications law that deregulated the phone
and cable industries, I have examined this bill with the interests of
my constituents in mind and a deep respect for the advancement of
technological innovation.
As a result of this I have decided to vote in favor of H.R. 5252 as
the bill provides the best we here in the House of Representatives
could wish for with regard to the increased distribution of affordable
cable services and a continued support of increased telecommunications
innovation.
As with any complex bill, I do not agree with every aspect of the
measure; however, I do feel that the measure provides the tools
necessary to facilitate increased video choice for my district.
Streamlining the video franchise process will help accelerate
competition in the video market.
Constituents within my congressional district are crying out for
increased competition and affordable cable rates and it is impossible
for me to disregard their concerns by voting
[[Page H3562]]
against this, bill. According to the Federal Communications Commission,
roughly 1.5 percent of markets have head-to-head competition for cable
services.
Increased competition amongst cable providers will provide my
constituents with consumer choice that is currently lacking. Consumers
win when telecom carriers and cable operators compete head to head.
A multitude of service providers, each committed to indiscriminately
serving my constituents regardless of income levels holds great promise
for lower prices, better service and increased programming content and
diverse ownership opportunities for minority and women-owned
businesses.
Lastly, much has been said regarding the issue of net neutrality, the
notion that broadband service providers should operate their networks
in a nondiscriminatory manner.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this notion, I also feel that the
government should not act too prematurely in intervening with the
growth and innovation of the internet. The net neutrality bill
presented before us tonight would impose a non-discriminate requirement
on the internet backbone.
For years, the internet has blossomed, thanks in large part due the
hands-off approach the federal government has taken. Currently I am
satisfied with the language captured in H.R. 5252.
The bill gives the FCC strong authority to protect web access and
internet applications by allowing the FCC to enforce its broadband
principles that ensure consumers are entitled to: (1) Access the lawful
internet content of their choice; (2) Run applications and services of
their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) Connect
their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4)
Competition among network providers, application and service providers,
and content providers.
While I do not feel that additional action above and beyond the
bill's current language at this time, I do support revisiting the issue
in the event discriminatory conduct amongst internet service providers
in the future.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this legislation for
several reasons. I fully support the concept of bringing competition to
video, but the bill before us today contains some serious flaws and
omissions that negate the positive intentions.
First, the bill does not contain meaningful net neutrality
protections. All it does is reference the FCC's policy statement, which
does not clearly delineate what a network provider can and cannot do.
It provides the FCC with ``exclusive'' authority to define and
adjudicate discriminatory broadband practices but also deprives the FCC
of the authority to adopt rules on net neutrality. It only allows for
case-by-case adjudication of complaints so that there will never be an
order of general applicability.
Chairman Sensenbrenner and I hoped that our net neutrality
legislation, which passed the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan
support, would be debated on the House floor today. Qur amendment would
have required that broadband service providers interconnect with the
facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and
nondiscriminatory basis. It also would have required them to operate
their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all
content, applications and services are treated the same and have an
equal opportunity to reach consumers.
To the detriment of the COPE Act, the Rules Committee did not make
our amendment in order. The Committee did make in order an amendment
offered by Representative Smith, which purports to preserve the
antitrust laws for net neutrality but is actually nothing but a fig
leaf. It changes nothing and does nothing to protect net neutrality. Of
course the antitrust laws apply, but the Smith amendment does nothing
to clarify how they apply and whether they apply to protect non-
discrimination.
The failure to provide strong net neutrality rules is not the only
flaw of the COPE Act. Again, while I support the goal of furthering
competition in video, I could only endorse this approach with certain
protections to ensure that the service is distributed equitably and
fairly. The COPE Act does not include these important safeguards.
The COPE Act removes guarantees that all cable customers must be
treated equally, regardless of race, color, nationality or sex because
it permits providers to designate their franchise areas. As a result, a
provider will be able to ``cherry pick'' those areas it wants to serve
and totally bypass other parts of the community. And it allows national
franchise holders to offer service in one area of a community at a
higher rate in order to subsidize the provision of service to residents
in a more competitive area of the community.
These are serious problems that detract from the ultimate goal of
furthering competition in the provision of video services. As a result,
I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5252. Communications
technology today is advancing rapidly but communications law is not.
H.R. 5252 will allow the law to not only ``catch-up'' with technology,
but also to get out of the way so consumers may benefit from new
innovations and competition for broadband video services.
It is odd to me that, at the same time we are streamlining our policy
in one area, we are considering new regulation in another area that has
enjoyed explosive growth and innovation precisely because it has been
free of government regulation. Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to
start regulating the Internet.
Some voices say new regulation is necessary to preserve the Internet
and protect consumers. I do not agree. The Internet is growing and
thriving without regulation. Until there is a specific problem to fix,
I think Internet regulation is a heavy-handed solution in search of a
problem that will have many unintended consequences.
It is important to remember that the FCC has already adopted
principles designed to ensure that Internet services are provided in a
fair and neutral manner. Provisions of H.R. 5252 reinforce these
principles without imposing innovation stifling regulation. Plus, my
colleague on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, is offering an
amendment making it clear that our Nation's anti-trust laws are in
place to protect consumers as well. I support his amendment and
encourage my colleagues to approve H.R. 5252 and reject calls for
Internet regulation.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.
I've been a believer in the power of competition in
telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from
government regulation to market competition has totally changed the
telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner.
There are more products, services, and choices than ever before.
I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we
were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable
companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the
Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know
what to do with!
Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped
give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every
mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought
in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters.
I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform
Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment
and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the
regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level.
Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more
investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our
international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest
competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have
more broadband subscribers than the United States.
There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back
competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can
unleash private capital on this national need.
Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been
required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local
governments before offering video service. With some 33,000
municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly,
serving as a barrier to market access.
H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national
approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to
enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic
networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already
well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the
door for more choices, better services and lower bills.
I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the
guise of ``fairness'', would just defeat the purpose of the bill.
The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less
than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a
new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at
once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be
built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon
enough.
Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier'',
the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth
because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not
taxing and regulating it to death.
But in the name of something called ``net neutrality'', some would
have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements
[[Page H3563]]
on the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that
in order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the
service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall
investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered
in the last decade.
Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And
at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual
problem.
We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one
time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full
comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks
that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global
marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable,
satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right,
there are none in the world who are better.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5252
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act
of 2006''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NATIONAL CABLE FRANCHISING
Sec. 101. National cable franchising.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Monitoring and reporting.
TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT OF BROADBAND POLICY STATEMENT
Sec. 201. Enforcement of broadband policy statement.
TITLE III--VOIP/911
Sec. 301. Emergency services; interconnection.
TITLE IV--MUNICIPAL PROVISION OF SERVICES
Sec. 401. Government authority to provide services.
TITLE V--BROADBAND SERVICE
Sec. 501. Stand-alone broadband service.
Sec. 502. Study of interference potential of broadband over power line
systems.
TITLE VI--SEAMLESS MOBILITY
Sec. 601. Development of seamless mobility.
TITLE I--NATIONAL CABLE FRANCHISING
SEC. 101. NATIONAL CABLE FRANCHISING.
(a) Amendment.--Part III of title VI of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 630. NATIONAL CABLE FRANCHISING.
``(a) National Franchises.--
``(1) Election.--A person or group that is eligible under
subsection (d) may elect to obtain a national franchise under
this section as authority to provide cable service in a
franchise area in lieu of any other authority under Federal,
State, or local law to provide cable service in such
franchise area. A person or group may not provide cable
service under the authority of this section in a franchise
area unless such person or group has a franchise under this
section that is effective with respect to such franchise
area. A franchising authority may not require any person or
group that has a national franchise under this section in
effect with respect to a franchise area to obtain a franchise
under section 621 or any other law to provide cable service
in such franchise area.
``(2) Certification.--To obtain a national franchise under
this section as authority to provide cable service in a
franchise area, a person or group shall--
``(A) file with the Commission a certification for a
national franchise containing the information required by
paragraph (3) with respect to such franchise area, if such
person or group has not previously obtained a national
franchise; or
``(B) file with the Commission a subsequent certification
for additional franchise areas containing the information
required by paragraph (3) with respect to such additional
franchise areas, if such person or group has previously
obtained a national franchise.
``(3) Contents of certification.--Such certification shall
be in such form as the Commission shall require by regulation
and shall contain--
``(A) the name under which such person or group is offering
or intends to offer cable service;
``(B) the names and business addresses of the directors and
principal executive officers, or the persons performing
similar functions, of such person or group;
``(C) the location of such person or group's principal
business office;
``(D) the name, business address, electronic mail address,
and telephone and fax number of such person or group's local
agent;
``(E) a declaration by such person or group that such
person or group is eligible under subsection (d) to obtain a
national franchise under this section;
``(F) an identification of each franchise area in which
such person or group intends to offer cable service pursuant
to such certification, which franchise area shall be--
``(i) the entirety of a franchise area in which a cable
operator is, on the date of the filing of such certification,
authorized to provide cable service under section 621 or any
other law (including this section); or
``(ii) a contiguous geographic area that covers the
entirety of the jurisdiction of a unit of general local
government, except that--
``(I) if the geographic area within the jurisdiction of
such unit of general local government contains a franchise
area in which a cable operator is, on such date, authorized
to provide cable service under section 621 or any other law,
the contiguous geographic area identified in the
certification under this clause as a franchise area shall not
include the area contained in the franchise area of such
cable operator; and
``(II) if such contiguous geographic area includes areas
that are, respectively, within the jurisdiction of different
franchising authorities, the certification shall specify each
such area as a separate franchise area;
``(G) a declaration that such person or group transmitted,
or will transmit on the day of filing such declaration, a
copy of such certification to the franchising authority for
each franchise area for which such person or group is filing
a certification to offer cable service under this section;
``(H) a declaration by the person or group that the person
or group will comply with the rights-of-way requirements of
the franchising authority under subsection (f); and
``(I) a declaration by the person or group that--
``(i) the person or group will comply with all Commission
consumer protection and customer service rules under section
632(b) and subsection (g) of this section; and
``(ii) the person or group agrees that such standards may
be enforced by the Commission or by the franchising authority
in accordance with subsection (g) of this section.
``(4) Local notification; preservation of opportunity to
negotiate.--
``(A) Copy to franchising authority.--On the day of filing
any certification under paragraph (2)(A) or (B) for a
franchise area, the person or group shall transmit a copy of
such certification to the franchising authority for such
area.
``(B) Negotiated franchise agreements permitted.--Nothing
in this section shall prevent a person or group from
negotiating a franchise agreement or any other authority to
provide cable service in a franchise area under section 621
or any other law. Upon entry into any such negotiated
franchise agreement, such negotiated franchise agreement
shall apply in lieu of any national franchise held by that
person or group under this section for such franchise area.
``(5) Updating of certifications.--A person or group that
files a certification under this section shall update any
information contained in such certification that is no longer
accurate and correct.
``(6) Public availability of certifications.--The
Commission shall provide for the public availability on the
Commission's Internet website or other electronic facility of
all current certifications filed under this section.
``(b) Effectiveness; Duration.--
``(1) Effectiveness.--A national franchise under this
section shall be effective with respect to any franchise area
30 days after the date of the filing of a completed
certification under subsection (a)(2)(A) or (B) that applies
to such franchise area.
``(2) Duration.--
``(A) In general.--A franchise under this section that
applies to a franchise area shall be effective for that
franchise area for a term of 10 years.
``(B) Renewal.--A franchise under this section for a
franchise area shall be renewed automatically upon expiration
of the 10-year period described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Public hearing.--At the request of a franchising
authority in a franchise area, a cable operator authorized
under this section to provide cable service in such franchise
area shall, within the last year of the 10-year period
applicable under subparagraph (A) to the cable operator's
franchise for such franchise area, participate in a public
hearing on the cable operator's performance in the franchise
area, including the cable operator's compliance with the
requirements of this title. The hearing shall afford the
public the opportunity to participate for the purpose of
identifying cable-related community needs and interests and
assessing the operator's performance. The cable operator
shall provide notice to its subscribers of the hearing at
least 30 days prior to the hearing.
``(D) Revocation.--A franchise under this section for a
franchise area may be revoked by the Commission--
``(i) for willful or repeated violation of any Federal or
State law, or any Commission regulation, relating to the
provision of cable service in such franchise area;
``(ii) for false statements or material omissions knowingly
made in any filing with the Commission relating to the
provision of cable service in such franchise area;
``(iii) for willful or repeated violation of the rights-of-
way management laws or regulations of any franchising
authority in such franchise area relating to the provision of
cable service in such franchise area; or
``(iv) for willful or repeated violation of the
antidiscrimination requirement of subsection (h) with respect
to such franchise area.
[[Page H3564]]
``(E) Notice.--The Commission shall send a notice of such
revocation to each franchising authority with jurisdiction
over the franchise areas for which the cable operator's
franchise was revoked.
``(F) Reinstatement.--After a revocation under subparagraph
(D) of a franchise for a franchise area of any person or
group , the Commission may refuse to accept for filing a new
certification for authority of such person or group to
provide cable service under this section in such franchise
area until the Commission determines that the basis of such
revocation has been remedied.
``(G) Return to local franchising if cable competition
ceases.--
``(i) If only one cable operator is providing cable service
in a franchise area, and that cable operator obtained a
national franchise for such franchise area under subsection
(d)(2), the franchising authority for such franchise area may
file a petition with the Commission requesting that the
Commission terminate such national franchise for such
franchise area.
``(ii) The Commission shall provide public notice and
opportunity to comment on such petition. If it finds that the
requirements of clause (i) are satisfied, the Commission
shall issue an order granting such petition. Such order shall
take effect one year from the date of such grant, if no other
cable operator offers cable service in such area during that
one year. If another cable operator does offer cable service
in such franchise area during that one year, the Commission
shall rescind such order and dismiss such petition.
``(iii) A cable operator whose national franchise is
terminated for such franchise area under this subparagraph
may obtain new authority to provide cable service in such
franchise area under this section, section 621, or any other
law, if and when eligible.
``(c) Requirements of National Franchise.--A national
franchise shall contain the following requirements:
``(1) Franchise fee.--A cable operator authorized under
this section to provide cable service in a franchise area
shall pay to the franchising authority in such franchise area
a franchise fee of up to 5 percent (as determined by the
franchising authority) of such cable operator's gross
revenues from the provision of cable service under this
section in such franchise area. Such payment shall be
assessed and collected in a manner consistent with section
622 and the definition of gross revenues in this section.
``(2) PEG/I-net requirements.--A cable operator authorized
under this section to provide cable service in a franchise
area shall comply with the requirements of subsection (e).
``(3) Rights-of-way.--A cable operator authorized under
this section to provide cable service in a franchise area
shall comply with the rights-of-way requirements of the
franchising authority under subsection (f).
``(4) Consumer protection and customer service standards.--
A cable operator authorized under this section to provide
cable service in a franchise area shall comply with the
consumer protection and customer service standards
established by the Commission under section 632(b).
``(5) Child pornography.--A cable operator authorized under
this section to provide cable service in a franchise area
shall comply with the regulations on child pornography
promulgated pursuant to subsection (i).
``(d) Eligibility for National Franchises.--The following
persons or groups are eligible to obtain a national franchise
under this section:
``(1) Commencement of service after enactment.--A person or
group that is not providing cable service in a franchise area
on the date of enactment of this section under section 621 or
any other law may obtain a national franchise under this
section to provide cable service in such franchise area.
``(2) Existing providers of cable service.--A person or
group that is providing cable service in a franchise area on
the date of enactment of this section under section 621 or
any other law may obtain a franchise under this section to
provide cable service in such franchise area if, on the date
that the national franchise becomes effective, another person
or group is providing cable service under this section,
section 621, or any other law in such franchise area.
``(e) Public, Educational, and Governmental Use.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), a cable
operator with a national franchise for a franchise area under
this section shall provide channel capacity for public,
educational, and governmental use that is not less than the
channel capacity required of the cable operator with the most
subscribers in such franchise area on the effective date of
such national franchise. If there is no other cable operator
in such franchise area on the effective date of such national
franchise, or there is no other cable operator in such
franchise area on such date that is required to provide
channel capacity for public, educational, and governmental
use, the cable operator shall provide the amount of channel
capacity for such use as determined by Commission rule.
``(2) PEG and i-net financial support.--A cable operator
with a national franchise under this section for a franchise
area shall pay an amount equal to 1 percent of the cable
operator's gross revenues (as such term is defined in this
section) in the franchise area to the franchising authority
for the support of public, educational, and governmental use
and institutional networks (as such term is defined in
section 611(f)). Such payment shall be assessed and collected
in a manner consistent with section 622, including the
authority of the cable operator to designate that portion of
a subscriber's bill attributable to such payment. A cable
operator that provided cable service in a franchise area on
the date of enactment of this section and that obtains a
national franchise under this section shall continue to
provide any institutional network that it was required to
provide in such franchise area under section 621 or any other
law. Notwithstanding section 621(b)(3)(D), a franchising
authority may not require a cable operator franchised under
this section to construct a new institutional network.
``(3) Adjustment.--Every 10 years after the commencement of
a franchise under this section for a franchise area, a
franchising authority may require a cable operator authorized
under such franchise to increase the channel capacity
designated for public, educational, or governmental use, and
the channel capacity designated for such use on any
institutional networks required under paragraph (2). Such
increase shall not exceed the higher of--
``(A) one channel; or
``(B) 10 percent of the public, educational, or
governmental channel capacity required of that operator prior
to the increase.
``(4) Transmission and production of programming.--
``(A) A cable operator franchised under this section shall
ensure that all subscribers receive any public, educational,
or governmental programming carried by the cable operator
within the subscriber's franchise area.
``(B) The production of any programming provided under this
subsection shall be the responsibility of the franchising
authority.
``(C) A cable operator franchised under this section shall
be responsible for the transmission from the signal
origination point (or points) of the programming, or from the
point of interconnection with another cable operator under
subparagraph (D), to the cable operator's subscribers, of any
public, educational, or governmental programming produced by
or for the franchising authority and carried by the cable
operator pursuant to this section.
``(D) Unless two cable operators otherwise agree to the
terms for interconnection and cost sharing, such cable
operators shall comply with regulations prescribed by the
Commission providing for--
``(i) the interconnection between two cable operators in a
franchise area for transmission of public, educational, or
governmental programming, without material deterioration in
signal quality or functionality; and
``(ii) the reasonable allocation of the costs of such
interconnection between such cable operators.
``(E) A cable operator shall display the program
information for public, educational, or governmental
programming carried under this subsection in any print or
electronic program guide in the same manner in which it
displays program information for other video programming in
the franchise area. The cable operator shall not omit such
public, educational, or governmental programming from any
navigational device, guide, or menu containing other video
programming that is available to subscribers in the franchise
area.
``(f) Rights-of-Way.--
``(1) Authority to use.--Any franchise under this section
for a franchise area shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way, and
through easements, which is within the area to be served by
the cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible
uses, except that in using such easements the cable operator
shall ensure that--
``(A) the safety, functioning, and appearance of the
property and the convenience and the safety of other persons
not be adversely affected by the installation or construction
of facilities necessary for a cable system;
``(B) the cost of the installation, construction,
operation, or removal of such facilities be borne by the
cable operator or subscriber, or a combination of both; and
``(C) the owner of the property be justly compensated by
the cable operator for any damages caused by the
installation, construction, operation, or removal of such
facilities by the cable operator.
``(2) Management of public rights-of-way.--Nothing in this
Act affects the authority of a State or local government
(including a franchising authority) over a person or group in
their capacity as a cable operator with a franchise under
this section to manage, on a reasonable, competitively
neutral, and non-discriminatory basis, the public rights-of-
way, and easements that have been dedicated for compatible
uses. A State or local government (including a franchising
authority) may, on a reasonable, competitively neutral, and
non-discriminatory basis--
``(A) impose charges for such management; and
``(B) require compliance with such management, such
charges, and paragraphs (1)(A), (B), and (C).
``(g) Consumer Protection and Customer Service.--
``(1) National standards.--Notwithstanding section 632(d),
no State or local law (including any regulation) shall impose
on a cable operator franchised under this section any
consumer protection or customer service
[[Page H3565]]
requirements other than consumer protection or customer
service requirements of general applicability.
``(2) Proceeding.--Within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Commission shall issue a
report and order that updates for cable operators franchised
under this section the national consumer protection and
customer service rules under section 632(b), taking into
consideration the national nature of a franchise under this
section and the role of State and local governments in
enforcing, but not creating, consumer protection and customer
service standards for cable operators franchised under this
section.
``(3) Requirements of new rules.--
``(A) Such rules shall, in addition to the requirements of
section 632(b), address, with specificity, no less than the
following consumer protection and customer service issues:
``(i) Billing, billing disputes, and discontinuation of
service, including when and how any late fees may be assessed
(but not the amount of such fees).
``(ii) Loss of service or service quality.
``(iii) Changes in channel lineups or other cable services
and features.
``(iv) Availability of parental control options.
``(B) Such rules shall require forfeiture penalties or
customer rebates, or both, as determined by the Commission,
that may be imposed for violations of such Commission rules
in a franchise area, and shall provide for increased
forfeiture penalties or customer rebates, or both, for
repeated violations of the standards in such rules.
``(C) The Commission's rules shall also establish
procedures by which any forfeiture penalty assessed by the
Commission under this subsection shall be paid by the cable
operator directly to the franchising authority.
``(D) The Commission shall report to the Congress no less
than once a year--
``(i) on complaints filed, and penalties imposed, under
this subsection; and
``(ii) on any new consumer protection or customer service
issues arising under this subsection.
``(E) The Commission's rules established under this
subsection shall be revised as needed.
``(4) Complaints.--Any person may file a complaint with
respect to a violation of the regulations prescribed under
section 632(b) in a franchise area by a cable operator
franchised under this section--
``(A) with the franchising authority in such area; or
``(B) with the Commission.
``(5) Local franchising orders requiring compliance.--In a
proceeding commenced with a franchising authority on such a
complaint, a franchising authority may issue an order
requiring compliance with any of such regulations prescribed
by the Commission, but a franchising authority may not create
any new standard or regulation, or expand upon or modify the
Commission's standards or regulations.
``(6) Access to records.--In such a proceeding, the
franchising authority may issue an order requiring the filing
of any contract, agreement, or arrangement between the
subscriber and the provider, or any other data, documents, or
records, directly related to the alleged violation.
``(7) Commission remedies; appeals.--Unless appealed to the
Commission, an order of a franchising authority under this
subsection shall be enforced by the Commission. Any such
appeal shall be resolved by the Commission within 30 days
after receipt of the appeal by the Commission.
``(8) Cost of franchising authority orders.--A franchising
authority may charge a provider of cable service under this
section a nominal fee to cover the costs of issuing such
orders.
``(h) Antidiscrimination.--
``(1) Prohibition.--A cable operator with a national
franchise under this section to provide cable service in a
franchise area shall not deny access to its cable service to
any group of potential residential cable service subscribers
in such franchise area because of the income of that group.
``(2) Enforcement.--
``(A) Complaint.--If a franchising authority in a franchise
area has reasonable cause to believe that a cable operator is
in violation of this subsection with respect to such
franchise area, the franchising authority may, after
complying with subparagraph (B), file a complaint with the
Commission alleging such violation.
``(B) Notice by franchising authority.--Before filing a
complaint with the Commission under subparagraph (A), a
franchising authority--
``(i) shall give notice of each alleged violation to the
cable operator;
``(ii) shall provide a period of not less than 30 days for
the cable operator to respond to such allegations; and
``(iii) during such period, may require the cable operator
to submit a written response stating the reasons why the
operator has not violated this subsection.
``(C) Biannual report.--A cable operator with a national
franchise under this section for a franchise area, not later
than 180 days after the effective date of such national
franchise, and biannually thereafter, shall submit a report
to the Commission and the franchising authority in the
franchise area--
``(i) identifying the geographic areas in the franchise
area where the cable operator offers cable service; and
``(ii) describing the cable operator's progress in
extending cable service to other areas in the franchise area.
``(D) Notice by commission.--Upon receipt of a complaint
under this paragraph alleging a violation of this subsection
by a cable operator, the Commission shall give notice of the
complaint to the cable operator.
``(E) Investigation.--In investigating a complaint under
this paragraph, the Commission may require a cable operator
to disclose to the Commission such information and documents
as the Commission deems necessary to determine whether the
cable operator is in compliance with this subsection. The
Commission shall maintain the confidentiality of any
information or document collected under this subparagraph.
``(F) Deadline for resolution of complaints.--Not more than
60 days after the Commission receives a complaint under this
paragraph, the Commission shall issue a determination with
respect to each violation alleged in the complaint.
``(G) Determination.--If the Commission determines (in
response to a complaint under this paragraph or on its own
initiative) that a cable operator with a franchise under this
section to provide cable service in a franchise area has
denied access to its cable service to a group of potential
residential cable service subscribers in such franchise area
because of the income of that group, the Commission shall
ensure that the cable operator extends access to that group
within a reasonable period of time.
``(H) Remedies.--
``(i) In general.--This subsection shall be enforced by the
Commission under titles IV and V.
``(ii) Maximum forfeiture penalty.--For purposes of section
503, the maximum forfeiture penalty applicable to a violation
of this subsection shall be $500,000 for each day of the
violation.
``(iii) Payment of penalties to franchising authority.--The
Commission shall order any cable operator subject to a
forfeiture penalty under this subsection to pay the penalty
directly to the franchising authority involved.
``(i) Child Pornography.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
promulgate regulations to require a cable operator with a
national franchise under this section to prevent the
distribution of child pornography (as such term is defined in
section 254(h)(7)(F)) over its network.
``(j) Leased Access.--The provisions of section 612(i)
regarding the carriage of programming from a qualified
minority programming source or from any qualified educational
programming source shall apply to a cable operator franchised
under this section to provide cable service in a franchise
area.
``(k) Applicability of Other Provisions.--The following
sections shall not apply in a franchise area to a person or
group franchised under this section in such franchise area,
or confer any authority to regulate or impose obligations on
such person or group: Sections 611(a), 611(b), 611(c),
613(a), 617, 621 (other than subsections (b)(3)(A),
(b)(3)(B), (b)(3)(C), and (c)), 624(b), 624(c), 624(h), 625,
626, 627, and 632(a).
``(l) Emergency Alerts.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit a State or local government from
accessing the emergency alert system of a cable operator with
a franchise under this section in the area served by the
State or local government to transmit local or regional
emergency alerts.
``(m) Reporting, Records, and Audits.--
``(1) Reporting.--A cable operator with a franchise under
this section to provide cable service in a franchise area
shall make such periodic reports to the Commission and the
franchising authority for such franchise area as the
Commission may require to verify compliance with the fee
obligations of subsections (c)(1) and (e)(2).
``(2) Availability of books and records.--Upon request
under paragraph (3) by a franchising authority for a
franchise area, and upon request by the Commission, a cable
operator with a national franchise for such franchise area
shall make available its books and records to periodic audit
by such franchising authority or the Commission,
respectively.
``(3) Franchising authority audit procedure.--A franchising
authority may, upon reasonable written request, but no more
than once in any 12-month period, review the business records
of such cable operator to the extent reasonably necessary to
ensure payment of the fees required by subsections (c)(1) and
(e)(2). Such review may include the methodology used by such
cable operator to assign portions of the revenue from cable
service that may be bundled or functionally integrated with
other services, capabilities, or applications. Such review
shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established
by the Commission.
``(4) Cost recovery.--
``(A) To the extent that the review under paragraph (3)
identifies an underpayment of an amount meeting the minimum
percentage specified in subparagraph (B) of the fee required
under subsections (c)(1) and (e)(2) for the period of review,
the cable operator shall reimburse the franchising authority
the reasonable costs of any such review conducted by an
independent third party, as determined by the Commission,
with respect to such fee. The costs of any contingency fee
arrangement between the franchising authority and the
independent reviewer shall not be subject to reimbursement.
``(B) The Commission shall determine by rule the minimum
percentage underpayment
[[Page H3566]]
that requires cost reimbursement under subparagraph (A).
``(5) Limitation.--Any fee that is not reviewed by a
franchising authority within 3 years after it is paid or
remitted shall not be subject to later review by the
franchising authority under this subsection and shall be
deemed accepted in full payment by the franchising authority.
``(n) Access to Programming for Shared Facilities.--
``(1) Prohibition.--A cable programming vendor in which a
cable operator has an attributable interest shall not deny a
cable operator with a national franchise under this section
access to video programming solely because such cable
operator uses a headend for its cable system that is also
used, under a shared ownership or leasing agreement, as the
headend for another cable system.
``(2) Definition.--The term `cable programming vendor'
means a person engaged in the production, creation, or
wholesale distribution for sale of video programming which is
primarily intended for the direct receipt by cable operators
for their retransmission to cable subscribers.
``(o) Gross Revenues.--As used in this section:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
term `gross revenues' means all consideration of any kind or
nature, including cash, credits, property, and in-kind
contributions (services or goods) received by the cable
operator from the provision of cable service within the
franchise area.
``(2) Included items.--Subject to paragraph (3), the term
`gross revenues' shall include the following:
``(A) all charges and fees paid by subscribers for the
provision of cable service, including fees attributable to
cable service when sold individually or as part of a package
or bundle, or functionally integrated, with services other
than cable service;
``(B) any franchise fee imposed on the cable operator that
is passed on to subscribers;
``(C) compensation received by the cable operator for
promotion or exhibition of any products or services over the
cable service, such as on `home shopping' or similar
programming;
``(D) revenue received by the cable operator as
compensation for carriage of video programming or other
programming service on that operator's cable service;
``(E) all revenue derived from the cable operator's cable
service pursuant to compensation arrangements for
advertising; and
``(F) any advertising commissions paid to an affiliated
third party for cable services advertising.
``(3) Excluded items.--The term `gross revenues' shall not
include the following:
``(A) any revenue not actually received, even if billed,
such as bad debt net of any recoveries of bad debt;
``(B) refunds, rebates, credits, or discounts to
subscribers or a municipality to the extent not already
offset by subparagraph (A) and to the extent such refund,
rebate, credit, or discount is attributable to the cable
service;
``(C) subject to paragraph (4), any revenues received by
the cable operator or its affiliates from the provision of
services or capabilities other than cable service, including
telecommunications services, Internet access services, and
services, capabilities, and applications that may be sold as
part of a package or bundle, or functionally integrated, with
cable service;
``(D) any revenues received by the cable operator or its
affiliates for the provision of directory or Internet
advertising, including yellow pages, white pages, banner
advertisement, and electronic publishing;
``(E) any amounts attributable to the provision of cable
service to customers at no charge, including the provision of
such service to public institutions without charge;
``(F) any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability
imposed on the customer or the transaction by a Federal,
State, or local government or any other governmental entity,
collected by the provider, and required to be remitted to the
taxing entity, including sales and use taxes and utility user
taxes;
``(G) any forgone revenue from the provision of cable
service at no charge to any person, except that any forgone
revenue exchanged for trades, barters, services, or other
items of value shall be included in gross revenue;
``(H) sales of capital assets or surplus equipment;
``(I) reimbursement by programmers of marketing costs
actually incurred by the cable operator for the introduction
of new programming; and
``(J) the sale of cable services for resale to the extent
the purchaser certifies in writing that it will resell the
service and pay a franchise fee with respect thereto.
``(4) Functionally integrated services.--In the case of a
cable service that is bundled or integrated functionally with
other services, capabilities, or applications, the portion of
the cable operator's revenue attributable to such other
services, capabilities, or applications shall be included in
gross revenue unless the cable operator can reasonably
identify the division or exclusion of such revenue from its
books and records that are kept in the regular course of
business.
``(5) Affiliate revenue.--Revenue of an affiliate shall be
included in the calculation of gross revenues to the extent
the treatment of such revenue as revenue of the affiliate has
the effect (whether intentional or unintentional) of evading
the payment of franchise fees which would otherwise be paid
for cable service.
``(6) Affect on other law.--Nothing in this section is
intended to limit a franchising authority's rights pursuant
to section 622(h).
``(p) Additional Definitions.--For purposes of this
section:
``(1) Cable operator.--The term `cable operator' has the
meaning provided in section 602(5) except that such term also
includes a person or group with a national franchise under
this section.
``(2) Franchise fee.--
``(A) The term `franchise fee' includes any fee or
assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or
other governmental entity on a person or group providing
cable service in a franchise area under this section, or on a
subscriber of such person or group, or both, solely because
of their status as such.
``(B) The term `franchise fee' does not include--
``(i) any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability
(including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both
utilities and a person or group providing cable service in a
franchise area under this section (or the services of such
person or group) but not including a fee or assessment which
is unduly discriminatory against such person or group or the
subscribers of such person or group);
``(ii) any fee assessed under subsection (e)(2) for support
of public, educational, and governmental use and
institutional networks (as such term is defined in section
611(f));
``(iii) requirements or charges under subsection (f)(2) for
the management of public rights-of-way, including payments
for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance,
indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages; or
``(iv) any fee imposed under title 17, United States Code.
``(3) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access
service' means a service that enables users to access
content, information, electronic mail, or other services
offered over the Internet.
``(4) Unit of general local government.--The term `unit of
general local government' means--
``(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of
a county, township, or city;
``(B) the District of Columbia; or
``(C) the recognized governing body of an Indian tribe or
Alaskan Native village that carries out substantial
governmental duties and powers.''.
(b) Implementing Regulations.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the
amendment made by subsection (a) within 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
Section 602 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
522) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``, or its equivalent as determined by
the Commission'';
(2) in paragraph (5)(A), by inserting ``(regardless of
whether such person or group provides such service separately
or combined with a telecommunications service or information
service)'' after ``over a cable system''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) the term `cable service' means--
``(A)(i) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (I)
video programming, or (II) other programming service; and
``(ii) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required
for the selection or use of such video programming or other
programming service; or
``(B) the transmission to subscribers of video programming
or other programming service provided through wireline
facilities located at least in part in the public rights-of-
way, without regard to delivery technology, including
Internet protocol technology, except to the extent that such
video programming or other programming service is provided as
part of--
``(i) a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined
in section 332(d)); or
``(ii) an Internet access service (as such term is defined
in section 630(p)).''.
SEC. 103. MONITORING AND REPORTING.
(a) Report on Cable Service Deployment.--The Federal
Communications Commission shall, commencing not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this Act, issue a
report annually on the deployment of cable service. In its
report, the Commission shall describe in detail--
(1) with respect to deployment by new cable operators--
(A) the progress of deployment of such service within the
telephone service area of cable operators, if the operator is
also an incumbent local exchange carrier, including a
comparison with the progress of deployment of broadband
services not defined as cable services within such telephone
service area;
(B) the number of franchise areas in which such service is
being deployed and offered;
(C) where such service is not being deployed and offered;
and
(D) the number and locations of franchise areas in which
the cable operator is serving only a portion of the franchise
area, and the extent of such service within the franchise
area;
(2) the number and locations of franchise areas in which a
cable operator with a franchise under section 621 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541) on the date of
[[Page H3567]]
enactment of this Act withdraws service from any portion of
the franchise area for which it previously offered service,
and the extent of such withdrawal of service within the
franchise area;
(3) the rates generally charged for cable service;
(4) the rates charged by overlapping, competing
multichannel video programming distributors and by competing
cable operators for comparable service or cable service;
(5) the average household income of those franchise areas
or portions of franchise areas where cable services is being
offered, and the average household income of those franchise
areas, or portions of franchise areas, where cable service is
not being offered;
(6) the proportion of rural households to urban households,
as defined by the Bureau of the Census, in those franchise
areas or portions of franchise areas where cable service is
being offered, and the proportion of rural households to
urban households in those franchise areas or portions of
franchise areas where cable service is not being offered,
including a State-by-State breakdown of such data and a
comparison with the overall ratio of rural and urban
households in each State; and
(7) a comparison of the services and rates in areas served
by national franchisees under section 630 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section 101 of this
Act) and the services and rates in other areas.
(b) Cable Operator Reports.--The Federal Communications
Commission is authorized--
(1) to require cable operators to report to the Commission
all of the information that the Commission needs to compile
the report required by this section; and
(2) to require cable operators to file the same information
with the relevant franchising authorities and State
commissions.
TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT OF BROADBAND POLICY STATEMENT
SEC. 201. ENFORCEMENT OF BROADBAND POLICY STATEMENT.
Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 715. ENFORCEMENT OF BROADBAND POLICY STATEMENT.
``(a) Authority.--The Commission shall have the authority
to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and
the principles incorporated therein.
``(b) Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--This section shall be enforced by the
Commission under titles IV and V. A violation of the
Commission's broadband policy statement or the principles
incorporated therein shall be treated as a violation of this
Act.
``(2) Maximum forfeiture penalty.--For purposes of section
503, the maximum forfeiture penalty applicable to a violation
described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
$500,000 for each violation.
``(3) Adjudicatory authority.--The Commission shall have
exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a
violation of the broadband policy statement and the
principles incorporated therein. The Commission shall
complete an adjudicatory proceeding under this subsection not
later than 90 days after receipt of the complaint. If, upon
completion of an adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to this
section, the Commission determines that such a violation has
occurred, the Commission shall have authority to adopt an
order to require the entity subject to the complaint to
comply with the broadband policy statement and the principles
incorporated therein. Such authority shall be in addition to
the authority specified in paragraph (1) to enforce this
section under titles IV and V. In addition, the Commission
shall have authority to adopt procedures for the adjudication
of complaints alleging a violation of the broadband policy
statement or principles incorporated therein.
``(4) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Commission's authority to enforce the broadband policy
statement and the principles incorporated therein does not
include authorization for the Commission to adopt or
implement rules or regulations regarding enforcement of the
broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated
therein, with the sole exception of the authority to adopt
procedures for the adjudication of complaints, as provided in
paragraph (3).
``(c) Study.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment
of this section, the Commission shall conduct, and submit to
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, a study
regarding whether the objectives of the broadband policy
statement and the principles incorporated therein are being
achieved.
``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`Commission's broadband policy statement' means the policy
statement adopted on August 5, 2005, and issued on September
23, 2005, In the Matters of Appropriate Framework for
Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities,
and other Matters (FCC 05-151; CC Docket No. 02-33; CC Docket
No. 01-337; CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10; GN Docket No. 00-
185; CS Docket No. 02-52).''.
TITLE III--VOIP/911
SEC. 301. EMERGENCY SERVICES; INTERCONNECTION.
Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) is further amended by adding after section 715 (as
added by section 201 of this Act) the following new sections:
``SEC. 716. EMERGENCY SERVICES.
``(a) 911 and E-911 Services.--
``(1) In general.--Each VOIP service provider has a duty to
ensure that 911 and E-911 services are provided to
subscribers of VOIP services.
``(2) Use of existing regulations.--A VOIP service provider
that complies with the Commission's regulations requiring
providers of VOIP service to supply 911 and E911 capabilities
to their customers (Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 04-36
and 05-196) and that are in effect on the date of enactment
of this section shall be considered to be in compliance with
the requirements of this section, other than subsection (c),
until such regulations are modified or superseded by
subsequent regulations.
``(b) Non-Discriminatory Access to Capabilities.--
``(1) Access.--Each incumbent local exchange carrier (as
such term is defined in section 251(h)) or government entity
with ownership or control of the necessary E-911
infrastructure shall provide any requesting VOIP service
provider with nondiscriminatory access to such
infrastructure. Such carrier or entity shall provide access
to the infrastructure at just and reasonable,
nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions. Such access
shall be consistent with industry standards established by
the National Emergency Number Association or other applicable
industry standards organizations.
``(2) Enforcement.--The Commission or a State commission
may enforce the requirements of this subsection and the
Commission's regulations thereunder. A VOIP service provider
may obtain access to such infrastructure pursuant to section
717 by asserting the rights described in such section.
``(c) New Customers.--A VOIP service provider shall make
911 service available to new customers within a reasonable
time in accordance with the following requirements:
``(1) Connection to selective router.--For all new
customers not within the geographic areas where a VOIP
service provider can immediately provide 911 service to the
geographically appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider, or
its third party vendor, shall have no more than 30 days from
the date the VOIP provider has acquired a customer to order
service providing connectivity to the selective router so
that 911 service, or E911 service where the PSAP is capable
of receiving and processing such information, can be provided
through the selective router.
``(2) Interim service.--For all new customers not within
the geographic areas where the VOIP service provider can
immediately provide 911 service to the geographically
appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider shall provide 911
service through--
``(A) an arrangement mutually agreed to by the VOIP service
provider and the PSAP or PSAP governing authority; or
``(B) an emergency response center with national call
routing capabilities.
Such service shall be provided 24 hours a day from the date a
VOIP service provider has acquired a customer until the VOIP
service provider can provide 911 service to the
geographically appropriate PSAP.
``(3) Notice.--Before providing service to any new customer
not within the geographic areas where the VOIP service
provider can immediately provide 911 service to the
geographically appropriate PSAP, a VOIP service provider
shall provide such customer with clear notice that 911
service will be available only as described in paragraph (2).
``(4) Restriction on acquisition of new customers.--A VOIP
service provider may not acquire new customers within a
geographic area served by a selective router if, within 180
days of first acquiring a new customer in the area served by
the selective router, the VOIP service provider does not
provide 911 service, or E911 service where the PSAP is
capable of receiving and processing such information, to the
geographically appropriate PSAP for all existing customers
served by the selective router.
``(5) Enforcement: no first warnings.--Paragraph (5) of
section 503(b) shall not apply to the assessment of
forfeiture penalties for violations of this subsection or the
regulations thereunder.
``(d) State Authority.--Nothing in this Act or any
Commission regulation or order shall prevent the imposition
on or collection from a VOIP service provider, of any fee or
charge specifically designated or presented as dedicated by a
State, political subdivision thereof, or Indian tribe on an
equitable, and non-discriminatory basis for the support of
911 and E-911 services if no portion of the revenue derived
from such fee or charge is obligated or expended for any
purpose other than support of 911 and E-911 services or
enhancements of such services.
``(e) Feasibility.--In establishing requirements or
obligations under subsections (a) and (b), the Commission
shall ensure that such standards impose requirements or
obligations on VOIP service providers and entities with
ownership or control of necessary E-911 infrastructure that
the Commission determines are technologically and
operationally feasible. In determining the requirements and
obligations that are technologically and operationally
feasible, the Commission shall take into consideration
available industry technological and operational standards.
``(f) Progress Reports.--To the extent that the Commission
concludes that it is not
[[Page H3568]]
technologically or operationally feasible for VOIP service
providers to comply with E-911 requirements or obligations,
then the Commission shall submit reports to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate on the progress in attaining and deploying E-911
service. Such reports shall be submitted semiannually until
the Commission concludes that it is technologically and
operationally feasible for all VOIP service providers to
comply with E-911 requirements and obligations. Such reports
may include any recommendations the Commission considers
appropriate to encourage the migration of emergency services
to TCP/IP protocol or other advanced services.
``(g) Access to Information.--The Commission shall have the
authority to compile a list of PSAP contact information,
testing procedures, and classes and types of services
supported by PSAPs, or other information concerning the
necessary E-911 infrastructure, for the purpose of assisting
providers in complying with the requirements of this section.
``(h) Emergency Routing Number Administrator.--Within 30
days after the date of enactment of this section, the Federal
Communications Commission shall establish an emergency
routing number administrator to enable VOIP service providers
to acquire non-dialable pseudo-automatic number
identification numbers for 9-1-1 routing purposes on a
national scale. The Commission may adopt such rules and
practices as are necessary to guide such administrator in the
fair and expeditious assignment of these numbers.
``(i) Emergency Response Systems.--
``(1) Notice prior to installation or number activation of
voip service.--Prior to installation or number activation of
VOIP service for a customer, a VOIP service provider shall
provide clear and conspicuous notice to the customer that--
``(A) such customer should arrange with his or her
emergency response system provider, if any, to test such
system after installation;
``(B) such customer should notify his or her emergency
response system provider after VOIP service is installed; and
``(C) a battery backup is required for customer premises
equipment installed in connection with the VOIP service in
order for the signaling of such system to function in the
event of a power outage.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `emergency response system' means an alarm
or security system, or personal security or medical
monitoring system, that is connected to an emergency response
center by means of a telecommunications carrier or VOIP
service provider.
``(B) The term `emergency response center' means an entity
that monitors transmissions from an emergency response
system.
``(j) Migration to IP-Enabled Emergency Network.--
``(1) National report.--No more than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this section, the National 911
Implementation and Coordination Office shall develop a report
to Congress on migrating to a national IP-enabled emergency
network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen
activated emergency communications.
``(2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph
(1) shall--
``(A) outline the potential benefits of such a migration;
``(B) identify barriers that must be overcome and funding
mechanisms to address those barriers;
``(C) include a proposed timetable, an outline of costs and
potential savings;
``(D) provide recommendations on specific legislative
language,
``(E) provide recommendations on any legislative changes,
including updating definitions, to facilitate a national IP-
enabled emergency network; and
``(F) assess, collect, and analyze the experiences of the
PSAPs and related public safety authorities who are
conducting trial deployments of IP-enabled emergency networks
as of the date of enactment of this section.
``(3) Consultation.--In developing the report required by
paragraph (1), the Office shall consult with representatives
of the public safety community, technology and
telecommunications providers, and others it deems
appropriate.
``(k) Implementation.--
``(1) Deadline.--The Commission shall prescribe regulations
to implement this section within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this section.
``(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to permit the Commission to issue regulations that
require or impose a specific technology or technological
standard.
``(l) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) VOIP service.--The term `VOIP service' means a
service that--
``(A) provides real-time 2-way voice communications
transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP
protocol, or a successor protocol (including when the voice
communication is converted to or from TCP/IP protocol by the
VOIP service provider and transmitted to the subscriber
without use of circuit switching), for a fee;
``(B) is offered to the public, or such classes of users as
to be effectively available to the public (whether part of a
bundle of services or separately); and
``(C) has the capability so that the service can originate
traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched
telephone network.
``(2) VOIP service provider.--The term `VOIP service
provider' means any person who provides or offers to provide
a VOIP service.
``(3) Necessary e-911 infrastructure.--The term `necessary
E-911 infrastructure' means the selective routers, selective
router databases, automatic location information databases,
master street address guides, trunk lines between selective
routers and PSAPs, trunk lines between automatic location
information databases and PSAPs, and other 911 and E-911
equipment, facilities, databases, interfaces, and related
capabilities specified by the Commission.
``(4) Non-dialable pseudo-automatic number identification
number.--The term `non-dialable pseudo-automatic number
identification number' means a number, consisting of the same
number of digits as numbers used for automatic number
identification, that is not a North American Numbering Plan
telephone directory number and that may be used in place of
an automatic number identification number to convey special
meaning. The special meaning assigned to the non-dialable
pseudo-automatic number identification number is determined
by nationally standard agreements, or by individual
agreements, as necessary, between the system originating the
call, intermediate systems handling and routing the call, and
the destination system.
``SEC. 717. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF VOIP SERVICE PROVIDERS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Facilities-based voip service providers.--A
facilities-based VOIP service provider shall have the same
rights, duties, and obligations as a requesting
telecommunications carrier under sections 251 and 252, if the
provider elects to assert such rights.
``(2) Voip service providers.--A VOIP service provider that
is not a facilities-based VOIP service provider shall have
only the same rights, duties, and obligations as a requesting
telecommunications carrier under sections 251(b), 251(e), and
252, if the provider elects to assert such rights.
``(3) Clarifying treatment of voip service.--A
telecommunications carrier may use interconnection, services,
and network elements obtained pursuant to sections 251 and
252 from an incumbent local exchange carrier (as such term is
defined in section 251(h)) to exchange VOIP service traffic
with such incumbent local exchange carrier regardless of the
provider originating such VOIP service traffic, including an
affiliate of such telecommunications carrier.
``(b) Disabled Access.--A VOIP service provider or a
manufacturer of VOIP service equipment shall have the same
rights, duties, and obligations as a telecommunications
carrier or telecommunications equipment manufacturer,
respectively, under sections 225, 255, and 710 of the Act.
Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission, in consultation with the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, shall prescribe
such regulations as are necessary to implement this section.
In implementing this subsection, the Commission shall
consider whether a VOIP service provider or manufacturer of
VOIP service equipment primarily markets such service or
equipment as a substitute for telecommunications service,
telecommunications equipment, customer premises equipment, or
telecommunications relay services.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Facilities-based voip service provider.--The term
`facilities-based VOIP service provider' means an entity that
provides VOIP service over a physical facility that
terminates at the end user's location and which such entity
or an affiliate owns or over which such entity or affiliate
has exclusive use. An entity or affiliate shall be considered
a facilities-based VOIP service provider only in those
geographic areas where such terminating physical facilities
are located.
``(2) Voip service provider; voip service.--The terms `VOIP
service provider' and `VOIP service' have the meanings given
such terms by section 716(j).''.
TITLE IV--MUNICIPAL PROVISION OF SERVICES
SEC. 401. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Neither the Communications Act of 1934 nor
any State statute, regulation, or other State legal
requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
any public provider of telecommunications service,
information service, or cable service (as such terms are
defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing
such services to any person or entity.
(b) Competition Neutrality.--Any State or political
subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof,
that is, owns, controls, or is otherwise affiliated with a
public provider of telecommunications service, information
service, or cable service shall not grant any preference or
advantage to any such provider. Such entity shall apply its
ordinances, rules, and policies, including those relating to
the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance
bonding, and reporting without discrimination in favor of any
such provider as compared to other providers of such
services.
[[Page H3569]]
(c) Compliance With Other Laws not Affected.--Nothing in
this section shall exempt a public provider from any law or
regulation that applies to providers of telecommunications
service, information service, or cable service.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
shall submit to the Congress a report on the status of the
provision of telecommunications service, information service,
and cable service by States and political subdivisions
thereof.
(e) Definition of Public Provider.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``public provider'' means a State or
political subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof,
that provides telecommunications service, information
service, or cable service, or any entity that is owned,
controlled, or is otherwise affiliated with such State or
political subdivision thereof, or agency, authority, or
instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof.
TITLE V--BROADBAND SERVICE
SEC. 501. STAND-ALONE BROADBAND SERVICE.
Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) is further amended by adding after section 717 (as
added by section 301 of this Act) the following new section:
``SEC. 718. STAND-ALONE BROADBAND SERVICE.
``(a) Prohibition.--A broadband service provider shall not
require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any
broadband service the provider offers, to purchase any cable
service, telecommunications service, or VOIP service offered
by the provider.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `broadband service' means a two-way
transmission service that connects to the Internet and
transmits information at an average rate of at least 200
kilobits per second in at least one direction.
``(2) The term `broadband service provider' means a person
or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls
any facility used to provide broadband service to the public,
by whatever technology and whether provided for a fee, in
exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.
``(3) The term `VOIP service' has the meaning given such
term by section 716(j). ''.
SEC. 502. STUDY OF INTERFERENCE POTENTIAL OF BROADBAND OVER
POWER LINE SYSTEMS.
Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Federal Communications Commission shall conduct, and submit
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, a study of the interference
potential of broadband over power line systems.
TITLE VI--SEAMLESS MOBILITY
SEC. 601. DEVELOPMENT OF SEAMLESS MOBILITY.
(a) Streamlined Review.--
(1) The Commission shall further the development of
seamless mobility.
(2) Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall implement a process for streamlined
review and authorization of multi-mode devices that permit
communication across multiple Internet protocol-enabled
broadband platforms, facilities, and networks.
(b) Study.--The Commission shall undertake an inquiry to
identify barriers to the achievement of seamless mobility.
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall report to the Congress on its findings and
its recommendations for steps to eliminate those barriers.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
``seamless mobility'' means the ability of a communications
device to select between and utilize multiple Internet
protocol-enabled technology platforms, facilities, and
networks in a real-time manner to provide a unified service.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill is in order except those
printed in House Report 109-491. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Barton of Texas:
Page 5, line 4, strike ``intends'' and insert ``seeks
authority''.
Page 5, lines 13 and 23, and page 6, line 4, strike
``contiguous''.
Page 5, beginning on line 17, strike ``within the
jurisdiction of such unit of general local government
contains'' and insert ``overlaps with''.
Page 6, lines 1 and 2, strike ``area contained in the
franchise area of such cable operator'' and insert
``overlapping area''.
Page 6, line 15, after ``certification'' insert ``for
authority''.
Page 6, line 20, strike ``under'' and insert ``in
accordance with''.
Page 7, line 1, strike ``and subsection (g) of this
section'' and insert ``(including the rules adopted under
section 632(b) pursuant to subsection (g) of this section)''.
Page 8, line 4, strike ``that files'' and insert ``with''.
Page 9, line 19, after the period insert the following:
``The Commission shall by rule specify the methods by which a
franchising authority shall notify a cable operator of the
hearing for which its participation is required under this
subparagraph.''.
Page 12, line 24, strike ``definition of gross revenues''
and insert ``definitions of gross revenues and franchise
fee''.
Page 15, line 25, after ``to provide'' insert ``on the day
before its national franchise became effective''.
Page 16, beginning on line 20, strike subparagraph (A) and
insert the following:
``(A) A cable operator franchised under this section shall
ensure that any public, educational, or governmental
programming carried by the cable operator under this section
within a franchise area is available to all of its
subscribers in such franchise area.
Page 17, line 16, after ``cable operators shall'' insert
``, if at least one of the operators is providing cable
service in the franchise area pursuant to a franchise under
this section,''.
Page 19, line 16, strike ``Act'' and insert ``section''.
Page 22, line 7, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate''.
Page 27, beginning on line 24, strike ``The following
sections'' and insert ``The provisions of this title that
apply to a cable operator shall apply in a franchise area to
a person or group with a national franchise under this
section to provide cable service in such franchise area,
except that the following sections''.
Page 28, line 3, before the colon insert ``in such
franchise area''.
Page 28, line 7, strike ``Act'' and insert ``section''.
Page 29, line 22, strike ``subsections (c)(1) and (e)(2)''
and insert ``subsection (c)(1) or (e)(2)''.
Page 30, line 22, after ``cable operator'' insert ``with a
national franchise''.
Page 38, line 5, strike ``and''; on page 39, line 2, strike
the period at the end of the line and insert a semicolon; and
after such line insert the following:
(4) in paragraph (7)(D), by inserting after ``section 653
of this title'' the following; ``except in a franchise area
in which such system is used to provide cable service under a
national franchise pursuant to section 630'';
(5) in paragraph (9)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``means''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``; and (B) a national franchise that is effective
under section 630 on the basis of a certification with the
Commission''; and
(6) in paragraph (10), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``, but does not include the
Commission with respect to a national franchise under section
630''.
Page 39, line 8, before the period insert the following:
``pursuant to the amendments made by this title''.
Page 41, after line 20, insert the following new section:
SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall affect the application or interpretation of section 224
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 224).
Page 53, line 24, after ``for a fee'' insert ``or without a
fee''.
Page 54, beginning on line 11, strike paragraph (3) and
insert the following:
``(3) Necessary e-911 infrastructure.--The term `necessary
E-911 infrastructure' means the originating trucks to the
selective routers, selective routers, databases (including
automatic location information databases and master street
address guides), trunks, or other related facilities
necessary for the delivery and completion of 911 and E-911
calls, or other 911 and E-911 equipment, facilities,
databases, interfaces, and related capabilities specified by
the Commission.
Page 57, line 18, and page 60, line 13, strike ``716(j)''
and insert ``716(l)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have continued to listen to the constructive comments
from Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the comments of the
cities and the affected stakeholders in this issue as the bill has
moved from committee to discussion under the Rules Committee, and now
to the floor
[[Page H3570]]
of the House of Representatives. We have tried to incorporate many of
those constructive comments into the manager's amendment that is now
before the House.
The amendment would do the following: It would clarify what
constitutes a franchise area. This was a concern of Mr. Dingell in the
full committee markup.
It would clarify that a person or group seeking authority to provide
service under a national franchise must agree to comply with all
requirements the FCC Commission would promulgate pursuant to the
consumer protection and customer services provisions in the bill.
Further, it clarifies that pursuant to a colloquy that I had with Mr.
Boucher at the full committee markup, the manager's amendment would
clarify that anyone with a national franchise shall be subject to all
the cable operator provisions of title 6 of the Communications Act,
except for those ones specifically in the pending bill.
It would also clarify that nothing in the legislation that affects
existing pole attachment law. This was another concern of Mr. Boucher
and others at full committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I might add that I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment
except to the extent to which the manager's amendment does not include
language on nondiscrimination. Language which would ensure that all
parts of a community receive the lower cable rates, not just the good
parts of town where the telephone companies are going to deploy.
There is no provision in here that deals in a meaningful way with net
neutrality to ensure that the Internet as we know it is preserved,
protected for the future, that entrepreneurs know that they can have
access to it without having to pay a discriminatory entry fee, that the
telephone companies cannot tip these entrepreneurs upside down and
shake money out of their pockets. That is the problem that I have with
the manager's amendment. It is not that I object to what is in it. It
is really what is not in it, what should have been included, what would
have led to this bill being characterized as a bill which was balanced.
By the way, the bill which we had agreed upon on a handshake deal,
Democrats and Republicans, was a balanced bill. It did include
protections for the Internet. It did include protections for rate
payers. But all of that, obviously, was objected to by the Bell
companies.
Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had
nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had
nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell
companies had nothing to do with the browser in its development. In
fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet
switch network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the
government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Betranick
and Newman got the contract. It was a very small company, not AT&T.
They have had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but
now at this late date, they want to come in and to create these
bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes,
Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the
Internet for a generation.
It is this absence of nondiscriminatory language in the manager's
amendment and in the bill to which I object, and I think as time goes
on and, obviously, the majority has been unwilling to have this debate
in the full light of day. We will be finishing this some time around
midnight. And the key amendments, of course, were not even put in order
for us to debate, with the exception of net neutrality which we will
have 10 minutes to the proponents of net neutrality to make their case.
You can barely explain the concept in 10 minutes, much less have a full
debate on what the implications of it are. But that is all part of the
plan by the telephone companies and the Republican majority not to have
a full debate on it.
But the consequences for our country are going to be dramatic in the
long run. It has taken a long time to get to this point where America
has been the leader in the Internet. And tonight monopolies have
arrived, finally, belatedly, as they have come to understand this
technology. But a little bit of history is important to understand.
They never purchased their first foot of fiber optic until the
government broke up AT&T in 1984. They never deployed their first
broadband technology until 1997 after we passed the Telecommunications
Act. It has always taken the government to ensure that AT&T, these
telephone companies, do, in fact, innovate, such as the word can be
used, when you are describing a telephone company.
The real storyline over the last 20 years has been hundreds of
thousands of smaller companies using the Internet, innovating on the
Internet, creating jobs and revolutionizing not only our own country's
ability to communicate and create jobs, but the rest of the world's as
well.
So I do not object to the manager's amendment for what is in it but
rather for what is not in it. And, unfortunately, the same thing can be
said for amendments which are not going to be debated here tonight
because of the Republican recalcitrance, their unwillingness to have a
full blown debate on perhaps the central growth issue that we will have
before the Congress on this session.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time. I urge a yes vote on the Barton manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 15, line 16, before the period insert ``, except that
such amount shall be equal to 0.5 percent of such revenues in
the case of a cable operator that is a small business concern
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals or a small business concern owned
and controlled by women (as such terms are defined in section
8(d)(3) of the Small Business Act)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman. My amendment had
very well founded and grounded intentions, and that is in this massive
effort, the hard work of this committee, the fine leadership of Mr.
Dingell and Mr. Markey, fine leadership of Mr. Barton and Mr. Rush, all
focus on greater opportunities. And so this amendment was to provide
greater opportunity for, in fact, the small businesses, minority-owned
businesses, women-owned businesses, businesses in rural areas to
access, if you will, the broadband, the DSL, but opportunities to be a
franchisee, if you will, and be able to have small entities that would
be part of this massive reformation of this system.
So this was an effort to draw upon the funding for a particular
programmatic provision in the legislation and to allow the small
companies to pay less fees so they could be competitive enough to
engage in what I think is a very, very important business.
I hope that as we make our way through this process of legislation
and as we make our way to the Senate, we
[[Page H3571]]
will be reminded of language specifically that could ensure the energy
of small businesses to be created. Someone gave me a terminology, I
hope I have it correct, but the productivity of technology or the
expansion of technology amongst many, many different groups and
specifically the women-owned disadvantaged and small businesses.
However, I am also aware of the fact that the peg programming supports
stations like Access Houston and covers programming for issues dealing
with women and minorities. So I am particularly sensitive to that
issue.
Even with that in mind I do not want to eliminate, if you will,
eliminate the opportunity for small businesses with this massive
reformation of this broadband and DSL system as we move forward with
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Houston
for her leadership on this issue. I am somewhat unclear what her
intentions are in terms of moving towards a vote. I will pledge to her
to continue to work with her, if she were to withdraw the amendment, to
reach a mutually acceptable resolution as we go to conference with the
other body, but I am going to follow her yield or her wishes on the
pending amendment.
If she calls it for a vote, I will vote yes on the amendment. If she
wishes to withdraw it, I will work with her as we move forward in the
normal channels of the legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, her amendment is a
very worthwhile amendment. It goes a long way toward getting to the
essence of a problem that I have determined is one of the barriers to
economic parity within this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we are sick and tired in my community of just being
viewed as consumers of technology. We also want to be providers of
technology. And this amendment, the Jackson-Lee amendment, would go a
long way in making us providers of that amendment.
{time} 1930
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 30
seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I wanted to compliment her on her amendment because it focuses on a
very important area and that is the diversity of technology providers,
focusing on women-owned business, minority businesses and small
businesses that want to compete as providers of technology, and the
thrust of this bill is providing more competition. She recognizes it is
providing an opportunity to help these small businesses compete.
There has been a lot of talk about build-out in neglected
communities. One aspect of the bill that has not been considered is the
fact that there are a lot of competitors who may go into other
communities, underserved communities, who may be enthusiastic about the
opportunities she is trying to provide.
So I wanted to indicate that she is on the right track with her
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his comments.
I want to inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
and thank him for his leadership. We know the leadership you have
given. We understand the dilemma I have here because I support
programmatic funding that PEG provides as well. However, I think it is
important that we have at least a language statement, if you will,
about the importance of small, minority, women-owned businesses to be
engaged in this superhighway and this new DSL and broadband.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this
very important issue, and really, since the beginning of my career on
the Telecommunications Subcommittee, working with Mickey Leland from
your district, adding in language that ensured a larger percentage of
minority participation in legislation, it is without question a high
goal.
What I think we all want to be sure of here is that in communities it
does not take resources away from municipalities that might have gone
to those very same communities, but I think we can work together in
order to accomplish that.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Let me thank Mr. Markey. I know of his history. Let me thank the
chairman, Mr. Rush and Mr. Wynn. I am passionate, as many of us are,
about the embracing of small, minority, women-owned businesses and
medium-owned businesses, and I like the terminology ``provider of
technology.''
We want to make sure that we have extensive build-out. We want to
make sure that we have the representation of our community, but I want
to see some producers. I accept the kind hand of the chairman and the
ranking member of the subcommittee I believe of energy and commerce and
Mr. Wynn and Mr. Rush.
With that in order to ensure a program going forward, I would like to
be able to work on this language further as it makes its way through
the Senate and the conference.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask to withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Wynn
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Wynn:
Page 21, strike line 17 and all that follows through page
23, line 22, and insert the following:
``(B) The Commission's revised consumer protection rules
shall provide for forfeiture penalties, or customer rebates,
refunds or credits, or both, and shall establish forfeiture,
rebate, refund, and credit guidelines with respect to
violations of such rules. Such guidelines shall--
``(i) provide for increased forfeiture penalties for
repeated violations of the standards in such rules; and
``(ii) establish procedures by which any forfeiture penalty
assessed by the Commission under this subsection shall be
paid by the cable operator directly to the franchising
authority affected by the violation.
``(4) Complaints.--
``(A) In general.--Any person may file a complaint with
respect to an alleged violation of the Commission's revised
consumer protection rules in a franchise area by a cable
operator franchised under this section--
``(i) with the franchising authority in such area; or
``(ii) with the Commission.
``(B) Local franchising authority procedure.--On its own
motion or at the request of any person, a franchising
authority for a franchise area may--
``(i) initiate its own complaint proceeding with respect to
such an alleged violation; or
``(ii) file a complaint with the Commission regarding such
an alleged violation.
``(C) Timing.--The Commission or the franchising authority
conducting a proceeding under this paragraph shall render a
decision on any complaint filed under this paragraph within
90 days of its filing.
``(5) Local franchising orders.--
``(A) Requiring compliance.--In a proceeding commenced by a
franchising authority, a franchising authority may issue an
order requiring compliance with the Commission's revised
consumer protection rules, but a franchising authority may
not create any new standard or regulation, or expand upon or
modify the Commission's revised consumer protection rules.
``(B) Access to records.--In such a proceeding, the
franchising authority may issue an order requiring the filing
of any data, documents, or records (including any contract,
agreement, or arrangement between the subscriber and the
cable operator) that are directly related to the alleged
violation.
[[Page H3572]]
``(C) Cost of franchising authority orders.--A franchising
authority may charge a cable operator franchised under this
section a nominal fee to cover the costs of issuing orders
under this paragraph.
``(6) Commission remedies; appeals.--
``(A) Remedies.--An order of a franchising authority under
this subsection shall be enforced by the Commission under
this Act if--
``(i) the order is not appealed to the Commission;
``(ii) the Commission does not agree to grant review during
the 30-day period described in subparagraph (B); or
``(iii) the order is sustained on appeal by the Commission.
``(B) Appeals.--Any party may file a notice of appeal of an
order of a franchising authority under this subsection with
the Commission, and shall transmit a copy of such notice to
the other parties to the franchising authority proceeding.
Such appeal shall be deemed denied at the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date of the filing unless the
Commission agrees within such period to grant review of the
appeal.
``(C) Timing.--After the filing of a notice of appeal under
subparagraph (B), if such notice is not denied by operation
of such subparagraph, the Commission shall render a decision
within 90 days of such filing.
``(7) Annual report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the
Commission shall submit a report to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate on the implementation of this subsection, including
the following:
``(i) The number of complaints filed with franchising
authorities under clause (4)(A)(i).
``(ii) Any trends concerning complaints, such as increases
in the number of particular types of complaints or in new
types of complaints.
``(iii) The timeliness of the response of such franchising
authorities and the results of the complaints filed with such
franchising authorities, if not appealed to the Commission.
``(iv) The number of complaints filed with the Commission
under clause (4)(A)(ii).
``(v) The number of appeals filed with the Commission under
paragraph (6)(B) and the number of such appeals which the
Commission agreed to hear.
``(vi) The timeliness of the Commission's responses to such
complaints and appeals.
``(vii) The results of such complaints and appeals filed
with the Commission.
``(B) Submission of information by franchising
authorities.--The Commission may request franchising
authorities to submit information about the complaints filed
with the franchising authorities under subparagraph
(4)(A)(i), including the number of such complaints and the
timeliness of the response and the results of such
complaints.
``(8) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `Commission's revised consumer protection rules' means
the national consumer protection and customer service rules
under section 632(b) as revised by the Commission pursuant to
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I ask
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One of the issues that came up as we began to develop this bill was
consumer protection and the role of the local franchising authority in
protecting the interests of local consumers.
The bill says that we will have a national franchise, and it also
provides that under the national franchise the FCC will promulgate
specific standards for consumer protection, dealing with issues such as
billing disputes, discontinuation of service, loss of service, service
quality, changes in channel line-up, other service features, the
availability of parental controls.
The amendment that I have today basically says that, number one, an
individual that has a complaint may file a complaint with the FCC or
with the local franchising authority. It says that the FCC or the local
franchising authority must render a decision in 90 days of the filing
of a complaint. That is to address the concern that the complaint
process, the consumer protection process, is too time consuming and
imposes burdens on the franchisee.
Second, the amendment provides that the local franchising authority,
the cities, the counties, the States, may initiate on their own a
complaint proceeding and file that complaint with the FCC regarding a
violation of the rules promulgated by the FCC. They may issue an order
requiring that the franchisee comply with the FCC's consumer protection
rules. This order will stand and may be enforced by the FCC unless it
is successfully appealed.
This basically adds to the consumer protections already in the bill
and enables both the individual and the local community to bring an
action to enforce the rules that are set forth by the FCC to protect
the consumer.
In addition, the amendment provides for an annual report, because one
of the things that we wanted to see was what was going on out there
once we had this new field of competition and new providers of video
services. So we will have a study that will come back to our committee
and our companion committee in the Senate telling us about the number
of complaints the FCC has received, the trend in these complaints, the
timeliness of the response to these complaints. We believe this type of
information will be very useful in determining whether we need stronger
rules and regulations on consumer protection.
In sum, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment that
protects the consumers and involves the local communities, and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. This is a good amendment. I am very supportive and urge a
``yes'' vote on the Wynn amendment.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my good friend from Maryland for offering a good
amendment that is quite similar to the provisions of the Doyle-Dingell
amendment that was ruled out of order. No sour grapes. It is a good
amendment, worthy of support, but it only goes part of the way.
I want to make sure my friends and colleagues understand that
settling for the Wynn amendment is like a football team declaring
victory right after kickoff.
The Doyle-Dingell amendment would have been the equivalent of winning
the Super Bowl, and I say that humbly, coming from Pittsburgh.
The Wynn amendment gives local governments the right to enforce
consumer complaints and outlines an FCC backstop, just like the Doyle-
Dingell amendment did.
Where this amendment stops is on the enforcement of the rest of the
bill. If you agree with Mr. Wynn that the principle of local
enforcement and an FCC appeal is a good one, and you should, you should
also agree with that same principle for issues like public access and
school channels, INETs, public hearings, as well as consumer protection
like the Dingell-Doyle amendment would have.
While we are on the subject of enforcement, I want to make sure my
friends are aware that the House will not debate an amendment to fix
the COPE Act's rights-of-way boondoggle. For my friends who have gotten
calls and letters from mayors in their districts, resolutions from city
councils, this amendment, while good, does not address their larger
concerns about their roads, their streets, and their other public
property.
If local enforcement is such a good idea, and it is, then why should
local governments not be allowed to enforce their own laws about their
own streets? The COPE Act sends any dispute about streets and sidewalks
to the FCC in Washington, D.C. That is a fundamental change. It is so
far from how the law works today, and our body needed to debate that
point.
America's cities and towns and consumers will benefit from the Wynn
amendment, and I thank my friend from Maryland for offering it, but it
is a 5-yard gain when America needs 80 yards to score.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H3573]]
Let me begin by thanking the gentleman for his kind words with
respect to my amendment, and I also want to thank him for his
leadership, along with that of our ranking member on other issues of
great concern.
I would only point out that he has acknowledged that having the FCC
promulgate and allow local enforcement of this rule is a good idea. I
thank you for that comment, and that is what this amendment attempts to
do.
Are there other things that might be desirable? I would certainly
concur with him that there are, but I would certainly appreciate
support for the amendment because, as he has pointed out, it addresses
at least part of the issue that local communities have expressed
concern about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just conclude by saying that it is better to have someone in
the local jurisdiction who understands the problems of local government
make these decisions than a bureaucrat down in Washington, D.C. If you
want to have every municipality, every mayor, every city council have
to hire a Washington attorney to go to the FCC to represent them when
there is a dispute about a street opening, then we have not done a good
enough job today on this bill.
The Wynn amendment is a good idea. It is a good principle. It goes
halfway. It is a shame we could not have gone all the way and taken
care of all the problems in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas:
Page 27, line 5, strike ``$500,000'' and insert
``$750,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Let me thank the chairman of the committee, also a Texan. I have an
amendment before us today that is really unambiguous and
straightforward in its intent.
The amendment increases the maximum forfeiture penalty in the
antidiscrimination section from $500,000 to $750,000 if the FCC
determines that a cable operator has denied access to its services to a
group of potential services because of that group's income.
It is my respectful view that an increase of 50 percent to this
bill's current penalty amount is a small price for a corporation that
discriminates in the delivery of video or broadband services against
communities that are crying out for increased competition and
affordable cable prices.
Many of the constituents that I represent are heavy cable users and
heavy telephone users. The gas prices are very high. Tickets to
entertainment are very high, and so cable is generally their
entertainment and the telephone keeps them in touch with companies. So
it is a large use many times of the lower-income communities in my
congressional district and throughout America that should not be
relegated to second-class citizens with regard to their ability to
enjoy the fruits of cable competition that this bill touts.
I am not thrilled that the Federal Communications Commission will be
delving into discrimination matters that could impact an entire class
of individuals. However, it is my belief that if the FCC is to be
charged with enforcing antidiscrimination laws and levying
correspondent fines, the agency, one, should be sensitive as possible
to complaints filed by a local franchising authority that believes a
cable operator with a national franchise has violated the
antidiscrimination section of this bill; and, two, respond forcefully
with a meaningful forfeiture penalty that preserves the integrity of
the ultimate public interest goal of universal service, particularly to
individuals that stand to benefit significantly from increased
competition.
Mr. Chairman, as I close, I would like to reiterate that a 50 percent
increase in this bill's current penalty amount is a small price for the
battle between the millionaires and billionaires, and so I do not know
why I did not put $1 million here; but whether the action is motivated
intentionally or the direct result of shortsightedness, cable providers
should not be left off the hook for failing to bring competition to
communities that need it the most.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I
rise in opposition to the amendment; but I am not in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, let me say about the gentlewoman from Dallas, I support her
amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it adds to the bill,
increasing the penalty by 50 percent from $500,000 to $750,000. It does
increase the penalty for discrimination; and for that reason, I will be
happy to support the amendment at the appropriate time.
{time} 1945
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with a member of
the committee, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the chairman for this. I have worked with you in
the committee to move this bill forward. I know it has a number of
things that continue to help local franchising authorities to collect
the 5 percent of revenues and also allows some other aspects in there,
but I want to get to a colloquy about these two specific issues.
Many localities in my district are concerned about their continued
management of rights-of-way. In Pennsylvania, such management has been
said to include not only the physical, but also the fiscal management
of those rights-of-way. Currently, when a cable wire carries multiple
services, a Pennsylvania municipality can charge rent based on some
formula for the use of rights-of-way.
Do you see the bill having an adverse effect on a locality's income
by shielding operator revenue in this manner?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Congressman Murphy, current law allows local
authorities to assess a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable
operator's gross revenue for the use of the public right-of-way for
cable service. The Act before us would allow the localities to assess
the exact same fee on holders of a national franchise.
In other words, localities may continue to collect the same rent for
the use of the rights-of-way for cable service. The Act before us also
preserves the locality's physical management of their right-of-way.
Section 630(f) explicitly states that nothing in the Act affects the
authority of the localities to manage their rights-of-way on a
competitively neutral, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One other question.
In addition to retaining rights-of-way management authority, isn't it
true that municipalities would still have the authority to negotiate
franchises with cable operators under this bill?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Is it true that municipalities would still have the
authority to negotiate franchises with cable operators under this bill?
In other words, they still have the authority to negotiate local
franchise agreements.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. For a specific period of time, the answer to
that is yes.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, and I appreciate your responses and clarifying
these issues, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H3574]]
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would always yield to my friend from
Pittsburgh, a member of the committee, and the new manager of the
Democrat baseball team, who is so overworking his team that they are
complaining to me about how hard they are having to work, yes.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, when you have a talent deficit, you have to
work harder.
Mr. Chairman, just a question. Under the bill, if a local government
had an ordinance that said you couldn't open a street during rush hour
in a major artery, and the cable or phone company saw that as not
reasonable and decided not to comply with that ordinance, where would
the appeal process be? Currently, under law now, that appeal process
takes place in local courts. Would the bill require local governments
to now go to the FCC for any dispute resolution on rights of ways?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, nothing in the pending bill
will change current law with regard to how the cities control their
local rights-of-way, the physical access to that right-of-way. They
would have access through the local court system, and I would assume,
if they wished to, they could also go to the Federal Court system or
the FCC. But they can certainly continue to use the remedies available
under current law.
Mr. DOYLE. If the chairman will continue to yield. So, Mr. Chairman,
you are saying under the COPE bill, that any disputes with regards to
rights-of-way do not have to go to the FCC for resolution?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. They have the option under the pending bill, if
the gentleman were so kind to vote for it on final passage, and I know
he is thinking about that, we would expand the potential remedies. They
would have every remedy under existing law, plus they could also go to
the Federal courts and to the FCC.
Mr. DOYLE. So if the gentleman will continue to yield.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. So far you have not tricked me, so I will
continue to yield.
Mr. DOYLE. You are saying that any right-of-way dispute, any right-
of-way dispute could be adjudicated at the local level and not have to
go to the FCC.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. They have the option. They have the option. They
have an expanded list of remedies that they currently don't have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rush:
Page 30, after line 15, insert the following new paragraph:
``(6) Fee dispute resolution.--
``(A) Complaint.--A franchising authority or a cable
operator may file a complaint at the Commission to resolve a
dispute between such authority and operator with respect to
the amount of any fee required under subsection (c)(1) or
(e)(2) if--
``(i) the franchising authority or the cable operator
provides the other entity written notice of such dispute; and
``(ii) the franchising authority and the cable operator
have not resolved the dispute within 90 calendar days after
receipt of such notice.
``(B) Meetings.--Within 30 calendar days after receipt of
notice of a dispute provided pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i),
representatives of the franchising authority and the cable
operator, with authority to resolve the dispute, shall meet
to attempt to resolve the dispute.
``(C) Limitation.--A complaint under subparagraph (A) shall
be filed not later than 3 years after the end of the period
to which the disputed amount relates, unless such time is
extended by written agreement between the franchising
authority and cable operator.
``(D) Resolution.--The Commission shall issue an order
resolving any complaint filed under subparagraph (A) within
90 days of filing.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment establishes a dispute resolution process
for monetary disputes between local franchise authorities and cable
operators. If localities and video operators have disputes over
franchise fees or other fees, this amendment will allow them to
negotiate a resolution in a timely process.
The amendment is simple. It sets forth a deadline for the initiation
and resolution of a complaint process. First, the amendment calls for
the parties to meet and settle their differences before issuing a
complaint at the FCC. It simply states that a franchise authority or
cable operator must provide written notice to each other if there is a
dispute regarding franchise fees or PEG/I-Net support. Both parties
must meet within 30 days of notification. If the local franchise
authority and the cable operator have not resolved the dispute within
90 days, then both parties can petition the FCC to resolve the
complaint. The FCC then has 90 days to resolve any fee disputes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I rise to
claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do support the Rush amendment. I
think it is an addition to the base bill, and it continues to show the
excellent leadership that Mr. Rush is providing on this issue, and I
would urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to support the
amendment.
At this point in time, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership on this
legislation and I would like to call attention to an issue of extreme
importance to America's public safety providers: The inability of
Americans to use 911 on their Voice Over Internet Protocol phones. As a
former cop, this certainly ranks high on the list of my concerns.
The Federal Communications Commission attempted to address this issue
by requiring Voice Over IP companies to provide enhanced 911 before
they could sell their services. I am largely in favor of this bill;
however, it does reverse the FCC ruling. It allows Voice Over IP
companies to continue to sell telephone service without having to
properly route 911 calls for as long as 6 months after entering a new
market. Six months is too long to wait, which is why many first
responders have not embraced this bill.
There have already been tragedies and near tragedies that have
occurred when Voice Over IP consumers have tried to call 911 in an
emergency. To call 911 and receive the service is a necessity
regardless of the type of phone service a caller is using. Customers
expect this capability.
The ability to provide every American full access to 911 is of great
concern to me. Our first duty is to protect American citizens. I urge
you to address this issue before the legislation is finalized in
conference.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me this opportunity voice my
concerns.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
raising this issue. We agree that as a matter of both public policy and
public safety, American citizens should have access to basic 911
service.
I understand your perspective on this concern, as a former law
enforcement officer who had to respond to 911 calls himself for many
years. I will work in conference to address your concerns.
I can add that Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Pickering of
Mississippi, just to name two members of the committee, share your
concerns and are working on this issue.
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with
you.
[[Page H3575]]
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have no other requests for time, urge a
``yes'' vote on the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Smith of Texas:
Page 44, after line 12, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
``(d)(1) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the
applicability of the antitrust laws or the jurisdiction of
the district courts of the United States to hear claims
arising under the antitrust laws.
``(2) Definition of antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust
laws' has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first
section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such section 5 applies
to unfair methods of competition.''
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Internet has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, in large part,
because the government has not tried to regulate its growth. I
sympathize with the concerns of those who want to regulate the
Internet, but we do not want to destroy the wonderful tool the Internet
has become in order to save it. Frankly, I do not think we have the
ability to perceive how the Internet will grow or to direct that
growth.
I am more comfortable leaving these matters to the antitrust courts
and the FCC to decide on a case-by-case basis in the context of
specific factual situations, and that is what this amendment would do.
It is a simple antitrust savings clause. It makes clear that the
language in the bill that gives the FCC exclusive jurisdiction of
network neutrality complaints does not displace the antitrust laws or
the jurisdiction of the courts to hear antitrust cases in this area.
These cases would be heard under existing antitrust standards.
Look at what the Internet was 10 years ago and look at what it is
now. It would not be anything like what it is today if we had tried to
regulate it then. The courts and the FCC are sometimes slow, but they
are much better equipped to work through the complicated fact
situations that these issues present. We can always come back and
legislate in the future if they fail in their task.
This amendment makes sure that broadband service providers are
subject to antitrust lawsuits. In my experience, most people would
consider that to be a pretty heavy burden. If those broadband service
providers lose such a suit, they are subject to the whole range of
antitrust remedies, including treble damages, injunctions, and
attorneys' fees. The people who are for the various provisions designed
to ensure network neutrality are the same people who usually push these
kinds of antitrust remedies.
Some will argue you should skip over this amendment and vote for the
Markey amendment. It is true that the Markey amendment includes an
antitrust savings clause, and I appreciate Mr. Markey's desire to keep
the Judiciary Committee involved in this area. The problem with his
amendment is that it is a package deal. Not only do you get an
antitrust savings clause, you also get to impose his vision of how he
and the government would regulate the Internet. I do not think, Mr.
Chairman, anyone is qualified to dictate how the government should
control the Internet. The Internet has done pretty well on its own
without any interference from any of us.
So the choice is this: Do we let the Internet grow on its own, as it
has for the last 10 years; or do we tie its future to government
regulation? To me, that is an easy choice, and that is why I offer this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the Markey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify some things
with the author of the amendment. Does your amendment deal specifically
with the complaint adjudication process with regards to antitrust laws
and the jurisdiction of the courts to hear such cases?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. If my friend will yield, the answer is yes, that
is correct.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. With that understanding, I am going to change
from opposition to support and encourage you for offering the
amendment.
{time} 2000
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment of the gentleman from Texas on the Judiciary Committee,
Mr. Smith. I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has claimed the time in
opposition.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to the
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I believe I
probably still have 4 minutes; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may state her inquiry.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Isn't it necessary to claim the time
in opposition to actually be opposed, and the chairman of the committee
is not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was opposed at the beginning of
the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman stated he was opposed, and the Chair took the gentleman
at his word when allocating the time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect Mr. Conyers. He is a
good man. He is in serious opposition. I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
I would be happy to yield those 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, Mr.
Conyers.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Barton,
because I am sure this could have been cleared up and it was an
inadvertent mistake and I thank him for his generosity in correcting
this matter.
I would like to share some of this time in opposition with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), but I rise against the
Smith amendment because what we have here is a problem of an amendment
that does not really promote the goals of net neutrality as we
understand them.
It is a horse, a beautiful horse, but it is a Trojan horse. The
language is disguised as meaningful net neutrality protection, but it
is actually an empty shell.
The current law already allows for an antitrust remedy for violations
of anticompetitive conduct; but when it comes to net neutrality, there
are no rules, no guidelines telling the gatekeepers of the Internet
what kind of conduct is allowed and what kind is not allowed.
The telephone and cable companies have made it clear they intend to
use their market power to charge companies who want to distribute their
content over the Internet, thereby determining what a consumer can
access.
The Sensenbrenner-Conyers net neutrality amendment which we hoped to
have made in order would have provided clear guidelines. I have five
specifics that would make it very clear as opposed to what the Smith
amendment does not do, and I include them for the Record.
H.R. 5417 reasserts an antitrust remedy for anticompetitive conduct
in which the
[[Page H3576]]
broadband network provider: (1) fails to provide network services on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; (2) refuses to interconnect
with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and
nondiscriminatory basis; (3) blocks, impairs or discriminates against a
user's ability to receive or offer lawful content; (4) prohibits a user
from attaching a device to the network that does not damage or degrade
the network; or (5) fails to disclose to users, in plain terms, the
conditions of the broadband service.
I will reserve our time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I do, I will be happy to yield
to the gentlewoman from California. I want there to be a full debate on
this.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I still have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield Ms. Lofgren 2\1/2\ minutes
if she so wishes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out that the Smith amendment does absolutely nothing. The
amendment is to the Communications Act, not to the Clayton or Sherman
antitrust acts; and whether or not we past this amendment, the current
antitrust laws will continue to operate as before.
The savings clause neither creates new net neutrality protections nor
takes them away. It is superfluous, it is nothing, and it is meant to
encourage Members who actually are for net neutrality into thinking
they can somehow get away with being for net neutrality but doing
nothing.
The Trinko case contained a similar antitrust savings clause. The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Trinko case basically held there
were no antitrust remedies for anticompetitive conduct in areas
regulated by the Telecommunications Act.
The whole issue is how the antitrust laws apply. I would point out
that our committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, reported out by a
vote of 20-13 a bill introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner and the
ranking member, Mr. Conyers, that actually did provide antitrust
remedies for these Internet provisions. Inexplicably, the real bill,
the real amendment that the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member crafted and that won a majority of support, bipartisan I would
add, on the committee to be reported out, was not made in order for us
to discuss today. Instead, this phony amendment was made in order.
I would like to say something else about this rhetoric about
regulation. Antitrust law is not regulation. It sets the standard for
what monopolies cannot do. It is not a regulatory approach. It is a set
of laws that keep monopolies from squeezing the little guys, which is
what is going to happen if we do not get real net neutrality in this
bill.
The Markey amendment was put in order. We can vote for that, and I
hope it passes. If it does not, we will end up with the dualopolies or
the monopolies turning the Internet into a kind of cable television
outfit.
When the public finds out what we are doing to their Internet, the
dome is going to collapse with the uproar they create. For Members who
have been here a long time and remember the vote that they took that
allowed cable TV rates to go through the roof, that uproar is going to
be nothing compared to what you hear if this measure goes forward.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say again that I sympathize with the concerns of
those who would oppose this amendment. I want a vibrant Internet just
like they do. Our disagreement is over how best to achieve that. I say
let entrepreneurs develop it freely. They say let the government
dictate it. It is an honest difference of opinion, but I think we have
a 10-year track record and the entrepreneurs have got us to where we
are today.
My amendment deals only with antitrust, so I urge my colleagues to
reject government regulation of the Internet. Vote for the Smith
amendment and against the Markey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Markey:
Strike section 201 of the bill and insert the following:
SECTION 201. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.
(a) Amendment.--Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 715. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.
``(a) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States--
``(1) to maintain and enhance the vibrant and competitive
free market that presently exists for the Internet and
Internet services, upon which Internet commerce relies;
``(2) to preserve and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the Internet and consumer empowerment and choice;
``(3) to foster innovation, investment, and competition
among network providers, as well as application, content, and
service providers;
``(4) to ensure vigorous and prompt enforcement of this
section's requirements to safeguard innovation, consumer
protection, and marketplace certainty; and
``(5) to preserve the security and reliability of the
Internet and the services that enable consumers to access
content, applications, and services over the Internet.
``(b) In General.--Each broadband network provider has the
duty--
``(1) not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against,
or interfere with the ability of any person to use a
broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer
lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet;
``(2) to operate its broadband network in a
nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or
provide content, applications, and services through, or over,
such broadband network with equivalent or better capability
than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties,
and without the imposition of a charge for such
nondiscriminatory network operation;
``(3) if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced
quality of service to data of a particular type, to
prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data
of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without
imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such
prioritization or enhanced quality of service;
``(4) to enable a user to attach and use any device to the
operator's network that does not physically damage, make
unauthorized use of, or materially degrade other users'
utilization of, the network; and
``(5) to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in
plain language, accurate information about the speed, nature,
and limitations of their broadband connection.
``(c) Preserved Rights and Exceptions.--Nothing in this
section shall prevent a broadband network provider from
taking reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to--
``(1) manage the functioning of its network to protect the
security of such network and broadband network services,
provided that such management does not depend upon the
affiliation with the broadband network provider of the
content, applications, or services on the network;
``(2) offer varied service plans to users at defined levels
of bandwidth and different prices;
``(3) offer consumer protection services (including
services for the prevention of unsolicited commercial
electronic messages, parental controls, or other similar
capabilities), or offer cable service, so long as a user may
refuse or disable such services;
``(4) give priority to emergency communications and
telemedicine services; or
``(5) prevent any violation of Federal or State law, or
comply with any court-ordered law enforcement directive.
``(d) Expedited Complaint Process.--Within 180 days after
the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall
prescribe regulations providing for the expedited review of
any complaints alleging a violation of this section. Such
regulations shall include a requirement that the Commission
issue a final order regarding any request for a ruling
contained in a complaint not later than 30 days after the
date of submission of such complaint.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Broadband network provider.--The term `broadband
network provider' means a person or entity that owns,
controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used
[[Page H3577]]
to provide broadband network service to the public, by
whatever technology and whether provided for a fee, in
exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.
``(2) Broadband network service.--The term `broadband
network service' means a two-way transmission service that
connects to the Internet and transmits information at an
average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least
one direction.
``(3) User.--The term `user' means any person who takes and
uses broadband network service, whether provided for a fee,
in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.''.
(b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability
of the antitrust laws, as such term is defined in section
602(e)(4) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In the heading of title II of the bill, strike
``ENFORCEMENT OF BROADBAND POLICY STATEMENT'' and insert
``NETWORK NEUTRALITY''.
Conform the table of contents accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding this time to me.
The Internet is a platform for innovation unequaled in American
history. It has enabled the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs
and has driven the growth and the technology industry, which in turn
has driven the growth of the American economy.
But innovation on the Internet is now at risk. The openness and
accessibility that have defined the Internet experience are now
threatened. Broadband providers are planning a two-lane Internet with a
fast lane for their content and for the content of those who pay, and a
slow lane for everyone else. Start-ups cannot afford the fast lane
fees, and in the slow lane they cannot succeed. Innovation is at risk.
The Markey amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor will keep the
Internet open. It will keep the toll booths from being erected. It is
essential to the promotion of the American economy. This is the most
important debate that we are having on this bill. There are those who
will say that we have the time to wait; we should simply see how this
works out. Make a determination 5 or 8 or 10 years down the road about
how the two-lane Internet is faring. And if innovation is threatened,
if problems arise, then we can always come back and make corrections.
My message tonight is that we will have one opportunity to act, and
it is tonight. History shows us that once a business model goes into
effect and revenues are being derived from that business, jobs depend
on that business, stock valuations depend on that business, and it is
virtually impossible for Congress under those circumstances to take
that business model away. And so tonight is the night.
The Markey amendment is the amendment. It will preserve the openness
and accessibility of the Internet. It will keep it a platform for
innovation for the 21st century, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible
opposition to the Markey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I live by an adage: if it ain't broke, don't
fix it. No Internet service provider ought to be able to block access
to your favorite Web sites or Internet applications, and I have to say
that there are protections in this bill which preserve those rights.
There is no evidence of any problem. And if they surface, we have some
protections in here.
Let me read what they are. This bill, Barton-Rush bill, ensures that
consumers are entitled to: one, access the lawful Internet content of
their choice; two, run applications and services of their choice,
subject to the needs of law enforcement; three, connect their choice of
legal devices that do no harm to the network; and, four, competition
among network providers, application and service providers, and content
providers.
We give the FCC the explicit authority to enforce those principles,
in fact, a fine for up to half a million dollars for every violation.
We have a 90-day time clock to make sure that they are adjudicated
properly and in a timely fashion.
The Internet has a great history of developing free of taxation and
regulation. We want to keep it that way, and that is why we should vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the Internet, the World Wide Web truly are
the most magnificent intellectual achievements since the invention of
the printing press. And tonight the U.S. Congress, if it does not do
its job, will severely let down that marvelous achievement of the human
intellect because today, at least until last August, engrained in the
DNA of the Internet was a principle of nondiscrimination and freedom
among all sources of information on the Internet.
Unless we pass the Markey amendment and preserve net neutrality, that
basic DNA is going to be subject to mutation, to discrimination.
We have a simple proposition in the Markey amendment, and that is
just as all men are created equal, all bits are created equal and we
must treat all bits of information fairly, accurately, and without
discrimination.
If this amendment does not pass, we will for the first time, for the
first time allow the infection of discrimination to discriminate
amongst bits of information. I note this because the opponents of this
amendment, the Markey amendment, are saying we have to get these
entities that use these services to pay. No doubt. And under the
marketing ability, you will be able to charge for the distribution of
bits. But what we should not allow is to discriminate amongst those who
in fact enter the on-ramp of the Internet information superhighway.
{time} 2015
We will continue to allow people to charge depending on how many bits
you send through the pipe. But what we should never allow, and until
last August, we have not allowed, is the discrimination about who is
sending those bits across this information super highway.
Preserve the basic DNA of the Internet. Pass the Markey amendment and
preserve freedom of access of information.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished member of the subcommittee and full committee, the
gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey
amendment.
This afternoon I went to the computer and I pulled up Google and then
I pulled up Yahoo and in my search engines I put ``network
neutrality.'' Interesting what I found.
Well, I found article after article that I certainly believe has
their facts wrong, because network neutrality is a term that people
can't agree on. Everybody has got a different definition.
Now, while that bothered me, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is
important that we do a couple of things. One of those is I don't think
the government ought to tell Google and Yahoo how to rank or present
their information. That is not a road that we want to go down. But that
is what the Markey amendment would do. It would force companies that
build and maintain the networks where the data flows to present and
categorize data in packets according to a government standard. Once we
have done that, Mr. Chairman, the next thing is going to be having a
Secretary of Internet access. I don't believe that is somewhere we want
to go.
The COPE bill says that individuals should be able to connect any
device to the Internet and access legal content.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo).
[[Page H3578]]
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member of
the Telecommunications Committee in the House. And everyone knows that
when he speaks about anything that is related to telecommunications, he
knows of what he speaks. And that is why this amendment that bears his
name, and I am proud to have my name as a part of this amendment as
well, why it is so important.
Now, for people that are listening in to us this evening, what is
this debate about? What does the term ``net neutrality'' mean? I think
the better way to describe this is what does the Internet look like
today? How does it function? What does it represent? What are the
opportunities? Who takes advantage of these opportunities? Is anyone
discriminated against when they go to use the Internet? Whether it is a
small Web company, whether it is an individual user, whether it is a
university, a library, a school, seniors in the senior center, those
that are at home, those of us in Congress, our staff, it is not
discriminatory. It is open. Everyone has equal access to it.
So what is this debate about? The telephone companies, and let's face
it, if they really were in charge of the future, they would have
allowed cell phones, and they didn't. I mean, these people are really
part of the past, I am sorry to say. So what this is is a profound
change to the Internet.
What will the change be? The telephone companies have come to the
Congress and said, change the rules. Rewrite the rules. We want to be
able to offer our own tier, our own speed and charge for it. I think
that this is flawed, deeply flawed. And I think if we move in this
direction, we will be moving away from the future. This debate is
really all about the future, the future of the Internet and what we
want it to look like.
Our Republican friends have done some real heavy lifting here. Some
Democrats too, but I will tell you something. I take my hat off to the
Republicans. They have done everything for the telephone companies,
everything, at a cost to what is one of the greatest sources of pride
of America, a free and open Internet that is accessible to everyone. It
has worked. We are the envy of the world as a result of it. We should
not tamper with it. Vote for net neutrality.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman of the full committee hailing from the great
Alamo City, birthplace of Texas democracy, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the advocates for this
amendment claim this amendment is about consumers, the little guy.
Countless of bloggers have written all Members of Congress in fear if
this amendment does not pass, they will no longer be free to express
their opinions on the Internet and have their voices heard. Let me tell
you as directly as I can to all the bloggers out there, to all of e-
mailers out there, to all the households out there, to the average
American, this Markey amendment is not about you. It is not about the
consumer.
So what is it? I will tell you what it is. First, it is a guarantee
that the consumer will be the only one to finance the building, the
maintenance and the improvement of the Internet highway. That is what
the Markey amendment will do.
It imposes and establishes, secondly, a massive Federal regulation by
mandating and dictating conditions on how the Internet will evolve
without any consideration for technological advances and emerging
business practices and models.
The Markey amendment does this. It picks sides. It creates inferior
and superior stakeholders in the Internet.
And lastly, this is the Markey amendment, in my own opinion. It is
driven by a hostility against one particular business entity that is
involved and is a stakeholder in the Internet.
It is unfair when this body takes sides and does not allow the
marketplace and innovation, imagination, creativity, technological and
business practices to flourish in our society. We do a disservice. Vote
``no'' on Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the full
commerce committee, the gentleman from the State of Michigan, Mr.
Dingell.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, this is a good
amendment. If you want to improve the bill, and I suspect the Bells
don't want you to, and they may not even permit you to. But the hard
fact of the matter is this preserves network neutrality.
The bill, as it now constitutes, says that the FCC shall do certain
things. But it denies them specifically the authority to write rules
under which uniform treatment will be afforded to all persons. It
imposes, or permits the imposition of huge fines. But the fines will
never be imposed.
What network neutrality does, it sees that everybody is treated alike
with regard to use of the Internet. That has been a principle which has
been applied to the Internet and Internet use since it was first
originated.
This legislation permits the Bells to begin to disregard that, to
pick and choose whom they will serve, to determine the conditions under
which they will afford service, and to create a situation where there
will be no rights and no capacity for the user of the Internet or the
companies which provide Internet service to see to it that they can
protect their rights.
The Markey amendment, which is before us, gives us some assurance
that the FCC will be able to do some of the things that it should do to
see to it that we preserve the Internet as we have known it, to protect
the users, to protect the companies which provide this service, to
protect the libraries, the schools, the individuals and the
universities.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the pride of
New Providence, New Jersey, a member of the full committee, Mr.
Ferguson.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey
amendment. This amendment is essentially a solution in search of a
problem. When we considered this bill in both the subcommittee and in
the full committee, we asked experts to identify one example of a
problem that this amendment would solve. They couldn't point to one
example where a Bell-operated company or a cable company had blocked
access to their networks or infringed on so-called Internet freedom.
Further, when we asked these experts to define net neutrality, these
same experts couldn't even agree on a definition for this term or even
provide a description that was less than confusing.
I am concerned that this amendment will give the FCC the authority to
impose old network common carriage requirements on new networks.
Since the advent of the Internet, Congress's hands off policy has
allowed the World Wide Web to prosper by having the market pick winners
and losers, rather than the government.
The Markey amendment takes us in the opposite direction. It forsakes
the free market in favor of government price controls. This amendment
would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new
broadband services, and, at the end of the day, very simply, it would
reduce choice for our constituents. The Internet has prospered very
well without this type of heavy-handed interference.
This amendment is not about network neutrality, it is about network
neutering, and this amendment should be defeated.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the pride of the entire State of
Nebraska, Mr. Lee Terry.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the interesting irony about this is that the
bill, as written, does not regulate or tamper or mess with anything on
the Internet. The amendment that we are discussing here is the
regulation of the Internet. And I agree with the Speaker beforehand.
There is not an issue today on prioritization along the network or
through the pipelines.
I look at it like, this amendment, if it was brought up 100 years
ago, would have froze the Pony Express into that permanent state. But
yet, we all know that later on developed first class mail, airplane,
FedEx, UPS and a variety of different ways to deliver to the consumer.
I say, let's wait until there is a discriminatory process that is put
in place, that is anti-consumer and trying
[[Page H3579]]
to guess that something that, we don't know what, may happen in the
future. Let's not regulate the Internet today. Let's defeat this
amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member
of the distinguished Energy and Commerce Committee who hails from
Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope I am also the pride of
the whole State of Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. He is the pride of the entire State of Texas.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will include my full
statement in the Record, and I will paraphrase it.
The Internet is made of numerous interconnected, privately owned
networks. It has become the amazing resource it is today without the
law on network Internet neutrality.
The FCC, in 2005, released four network neutrality principles and
they are in this language. H.R. 5252 enacts these network principles
into the law, sending a strong anti- or nondiscrimination message to
the telecommunications industry.
As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment
will use these four principles in their rhetoric, but their amendment
adds a much different network neutrality principle. The Markey
amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large
Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how
much bandwidth they are using.
The Markey amendment means higher praises for the consumers, those of
us who pay monthly, while large Internet content providers get a free
ride over the portion of the Internet that is the most need for
investment.
Supporters claim the Internet companies pay for their network. The
problem is, with television and video, it requires more bandwidth. They
have got to make that investment. Are we going to put it on our
constituents individually, or are the people who are making the money
going to pay for it?
The Internet is made of numerous interconnected privately-owned
networks, and it became the amazing resource it is today without any
law on Internet network neutrality.
In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission released four network
neutrality principles:
(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice;
(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice;
(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of safe, legal
devices; and
(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network, application,
service, and content providers.
Some people say we need to pass the Markey amendment to prevent
blocking of websites or anticompetitive behavior. This is not the case.
The (COPE) Act, H.R. 5252, enacts these net neutrality principles
into law, sending a strong non-discrimination message to the
telecommunications industry.
As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment
will use these four FCC principles for their rhetoric, but their
amendment adds a much different network neutrality principle.
The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from
charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades
based on how much bandwidth they are using.
The Markey amendment means higher prices for consumers while large
Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the
Internet that is in most need of investment.
Supporters claim that if Internet companies pay their way on the
network we will hurt entrepreneurs.
Any website that takes up a lot of bandwidth already has always paid
more to Internet backbone providers if they are putting a lot of
content on the Internet and generating a lot of traffic.
Now many of these companies are complaining about paying local
Internet network owners for the use of their networks.
The issue for the future is when websites offer high-bandwidth
services like high-definition movies, television, and video games from
websites, all over the Internet.
These applications require guaranteed high quality service, something
that's not usually available on the Internet today.
To upgrade the ``last mile'' of broadband to accommodate these new
services while keeping consumer prices low, telephone and cable
companies may need to offer premium service to large Internet content
companies.
The Markey amendment bans this commercial arrangement and sends the
whole bill to the consumers.
Congress should ensure that no Internet service is blocked or
degraded by cable or telephone companies, and the COPE Act does just
that.
This point is so important we should repeat it: the underlying text
of the COPE Act puts network neutrality into law for the first time. No
anticompetitive discrimination is allowed.
The Markey amendment goes much further, and regulates the price of
Internet traffic between large network operators and large Internet
content providers.
A good definition of wisdom is not how much you know, but if you know
what you don't know.
Most of us do not fully understand how the Internet works on a
detailed basis or the financial arrangements that build our networks.
The Internet has thrived without Congressional intervention on prices
and commercial arrangements, and it will do so in the future. If it
ain't broke, don't fix it.
{time} 2030
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of the time.
This debate is a travesty. We are allowed 10 minutes to explain this
fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. It is pretty
much a joke.
If two consumers go into a car dealership and one wants to buy a
Ferrari and another decides to buy a Ford Taurus, that is their choice.
The Ferrari is expensive and has all sorts of bells and whistles. But
once those two customers drive the Ferrari and the Taurus off the lot,
the car dealership shouldn't be allowed to tell them where they can and
cannot drive. We don't have certain roads or destinations just for
Ferraris or just for Taurus drivers, and the auto dealership certainly
shouldn't be permitted to put up new toll booths to extract fees on
those highways. That limits freedom. That is what the Republicans and
the Bell companies are doing tonight.
If you like the way the Internet is today, vote for the Markey
amendment. If you don't want new broadband taxes, fees imposed upon the
Internet, vote for the Markey amendment. If you agree with the National
Religious Broadcasters, with the Gun Owners Association, Common Cause,
the Christian Coalition, and the ACLU, you vote for the Markey
amendment tonight. Because if you don't, there is going to be a
fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. You can't put
together a coalition like that unless something fundamental is
happening in America. It goes to voices, all of these organizations who
feel it is going to be limited, and choices, the choices that consumers
are going to have and the choices that entrepreneurs are going to have
in getting onto this information highway without having to pay special
fee or tax to the telephone companies or cable companies. Vote ``aye''
for the Markey amendment. Preserve network neutrality, preserve the
Internet as we know it today. There is nothing wrong with it, and you
won't hear a word from the Republicans or from the telephone companies
making a case that there is anything wrong.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself the balance of the time.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
MR. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great degree of
respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts as he rose in defense of
his amendment. And I agree that, if a consumer goes into that
dealership and you could find a dealership that was selling a Ferrari
alongside with a Ford Taurus, that the consumer has the right to choose
which vehicle to purchase and he has the right to take that vehicle out
on the highway and he has the right, subject to the laws of the State,
to drive it as fast as he or she wishes. That is what the underlying
base bill does.
We are debating a term of ``net neutrality'' that didn't exist 9
months ago. We are debating a term that, as Mr. Ferguson pointed out in
his remarks, there wasn't even agreement among the experts exactly what
it was when we had a hearing on this before the full committee. But we
understand, just as Mr. Markey supports, we understand that, whatever
net neutrality is, we want to preserve the open access nature of the
Internet, number one.
[[Page H3580]]
Number two, we also want to bring the United States out of the
undeveloped nations, so to speak, in terms of broadband deployment.
Now, the underlying purpose of this bill is to get the private
entrepreneurs of this country to put the billions and billions and
billions of dollars that are necessary to get the broadband deployment
into the homes hopefully of every American home in this country, and
then use that to unleash the creative entrepreneurship of our creative
community to develop new services and new ways of providing those
services so that all Americans can have access to some of these new
services that are promised if we actually make this bill a reality.
What Mr. Markey's amendment really does, if we were to adopt it, is
say you can't charge for any of that; you can't differentially price
between the Taurus and the Ferrari, you have to charge everybody the
same. And, if you do that, you are not going to get the deployment.
Now, the base bill says we are not sure what net neutrality is, but
we agree it should be preserved, and we want the FCC to preserve it.
And, we explicitly give the FCC the authority to punish a transgression
once it is identified on a case-by-case basis and to do it within 90
days.
Now, if you really want to unleash the creative energy, if you really
want this to be a jobs bill, if you really want the United States to go
from twelfth in broadband deployment into hopefully number one, vote
against Mr. Markey and for the underlying bill. That is real net
neutrality.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I salute my colleagues, Congressmen
Dingell, Markey, Inslee, and Boucher, and Congresswoman Eshoo for their
leadership on this issue of vital importance to the future. I also want
to recognize the leadership of Congressman John Conyers and
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for their work on Net Neutrality in the
Judiciary Committee.
History
When Lewis and Clark made their historic journey of discovery two
centuries ago, information could only travel as fast as a horse could
run or a boat could sail. Now information travels in an instant. And
just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband has
dramatically increased the productivity and efficiency of our economy
and will continue to do so in the future. It has created jobs today,
and will create even more jobs tomorrow.
INNOVATION AGENDA
Last fall, House Democrats introduced our Innovation Agenda: A
Commitment to Competitiveness to Keep America Number One. In that
Agenda, we have called for affordable broadband access for every
American within 5 years.
INTERNET
The reason we want to bring broadband to everyone is because that key
infrastructure brings the Internet to everyone. In turn, the Internet
brings us the world--a world of information, communications, and
commerce. The Internet brings us the future.
Since its inception, the Internet has been characterized by its
openness--its freedom. That freedom has enabled innovation to flourish.
Magnificent disrupters like Jerry Yang of Yahoo! and Larry Page and
Sergey Brin from Google built businesses based on big ideas, bringing
spectacular new innovations and services to billions of users.
NET NEUTRALITY
About a year ago, the FCC and the Courts changed the way the Internet
is regulated.
Due to that change, there could be the equivalent of new taxes on
electronic commerce.
Telecommunications and cable companies are now able to create toll
lanes on the information superhighway, essentially permitting new,
discriminatory fees--a new broadband bottleneck tax--on Web-based
businesses to reach consumers.
This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the
Internet and would fundamentally change the way the Internet currently
works.
America's small businesses and entrepreneurs could be left in the
slow lane with inferior Internet service, unable to compete with the
big corporations that can pay Internet providers toll charges to be in
the fast lane. Bloggers, our citizen journalists, could be silenced by
skyrocketing costs to post and share video and audio clips.
The Markey amendment will prevent those toll lanes. The Markey
amendment will allow the innovative tradition of the Internet to
continue by enacting protections that ensure all consumers are able to
access any content they wish with the same broadband speed and
performance. The Markey amendment will preserve the equality, openness,
and innovation of the Internet that has defined it since its first
days.
CONCLUSION
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the future, to vote in favor
of Net Neutrality by supporting the Markey amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Markey
amendment to maintain network neutrality on the Internet.
This is probably one of the most important issues this Congress will
face this year.
At issue is whether we maintain the current system of
nondiscrimination on the network or whether we allow this engine for
innovation and progress to be controlled by a few large corporations.
As we all know, the Internet has a history of openess and freedom. To
be sure, all this freedom has its questionable effects--an enormous
amount of chaos, loud and intemperate voices opining on everything
under the sun, and an unparalled proliferator of unfounded rumors.
I'm sure we all remember the infamous--and mythical--Congressman
Schnell who was introducing legislation to tax the Internet? Only the
Internet could start and rapidly transmit--and keep going for years--
such an easily knocked down rumor.
But it is precisely this unbridled freedom on the Internet that has
also brought us innovation on an almost unimaginable scale over the
last decade or so. The explosive growth of everything from web-based
businesses to politically-based sites to newsgathering sources has been
nothing short of amazing. And much of that growth is attributable to
the ease with which anyone can access the world wide platform of the
Internet.
We simply have to protect that level of freedom and openess on the
Internet.
And yet, the head of AT&T is loudly calling for changes that could
seriously undermine the Internet and perhaps marginalize its innovative
qualities in the future.
I am extremely concerned about what the Internet might look like
under a regime where one--or more likely, all--of the big broadband
networks decides what data bits can move at what speeds across the
network.
The large phone and cable companies will tell us all that they have
no desire to reduce the freedom of the Internet. They will tell us such
a move would be bad for business if nothing else. And they are telling
us that there is no problem to be solved, that all this talk about
network neutrality is just theoretical.
But how can we believe any of this when AT&T's CEO refers to the
paths for Internet access as ``his pipes'' and he vows to make some
users pay for access to these pipes? That sounds very clear to me and I
find some agreement with one Internet expert who referred to this as
the ``Tony Soprano business model.''
The danger is twofold. First, it means that small players on the
Internet will find it harder to use the world wide reach of the
Internet to bring their new ideas to market.
The danger is not to Google, but to the next potential Google. That
new idea that might upend Google or MySpace won't get very far if it
can't match the reach of those behemoths. The inability to pay phone
and cable company fees for the ``fast lane'' will keep new ideas out of
the market.
Second, the lack of net neutrality allows for the distinct
possibility that the phone and cable companies could block or slow the
sites and services of their competitors. I don't see in the phone and
cable companies the kind of wide open competition that is present today
on the Internet. And given that lack of competition in the phone and
cable industries, I question the commitment to competition of its
players and what that means for consumers under the provisions of this
bill.
This legislation is supposed to be about creating more competition,
giving consumers more choices and lower prices. But without this
amendment to ensure that network neutrality remains the fundamental
principle governing the Internet, this bill will result in fewer
choices and higher prices.
I urge the House to adopt this amendment and ensure the Internet
remains a platform for innovation and choice.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time and ask for a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
postponed.
[[Page H3581]]
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed
in House Report 109-491.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
At the end of title III of the bill, add the following new
section:
SEC. 302. COMPENSATION AND CONTRIBUTION.
(a) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act (including
the amendments made by this Act) shall be construed to
exempt a VOIP service provider from requirements imposed by
the Federal Communications Commission or a State commission
on all VOIP service providers to--
(1) pay appropriate compensation for the transmission of a
VOIP service over the facilities and equipment of another
provider; or
(2) contribute on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis
to the preservation and advancement of universal service.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the terms ``VOIP service provider'' and ``VOIP
service'' have the meanings given such terms in section
716(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by section
301 of this Act; and
(2) the term ``State commission'' has the meaning given
such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 153).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 850, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the Bipartisan Congressional Rural
Caucus. The amendment we offer tonight is real simple: It preserves the
right of the FCC to require VoIP providers to contribute to the
universal service fund and pay appropriate intercarrier compensation
fees.
Today, VoIP providers do not contribute to the USF, which is the
mechanism that helps build and maintain the communications network that
we all rely on, especially in rural America. All other voice providers
contribute. Regardless of where you live, we all depend on a vibrant,
strong communications network.
So why are we doing this on this bill? Title 3 of the COPE Act is a
VoIP title. The language grants VoIP providers all the benefits of
being telecommunications carriers, such as the right to interconnect
with networks and access to right-of-way. It also gives VoIP providers
some of the same responsibilities, such as providing the E-911 service,
complying with regulations for the disabled, number portability, et
cetera. However, H.R. 5252 does not classify VoIP providers as
telecommunications carriers, and therefore they do not have all the
same social responsibilities such as USF contributions and intercarrier
payments. Our amendment would not mandate that VoIP providers
contribute to USF or pay intercarrier compensation fees, nor would it
require the FCC to force them to do these things; it merely preserves
the FCC's authority to do so. We need to assure the FCC that it is not
congressional intent to exempt VoIP providers from the duties required
under other communications networks.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Gutknecht amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object
strenuously to this amendment. I do want to make a couple of points. I
think the universal service fund needs, at a minimum, to be
significantly reformed. I do not think, as we hopefully deploy more
technologies and more innovative ways of using those technologies, that
we should saddle these new emerging technologies with attacks that,
while well-intentioned, was originated in the 1920s and is in need of
serious reform. So I do oppose the amendment, respectfully, but I
understand those that support it, and am very respectful of the
gentleman who offered it, because he has worked with us diligently on
it.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from
Tennessee at this point in time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage Chairman Barton in a
colloquy.
I would like to pose a question concerning the interplay of the
National franchise and the anti-redlining provisions of the bill,
particularly as they apply to some of the rural telephone companies
that are interested in providing the video competition afforded under
the bill.
The committee report language concerning redlining that appears on
page 23 provides, and I quote, ``A national franchisee is in violation
of the provision if it is offering service to parts of a franchised
area identified in its certificate but not to another part of the
franchised area because of the income of the area.''
Pursuant to that language, Mr. Chairman, would a telephone company
that is not providing video service to a part of a franchise area be in
compliance with the Act if the reason for not providing video service
is that the provider lacks the facilities to make service available in
the area? In other words, if the existing footprint of the phone
company does not encompass that portion of the cable franchised area,
then the provider's decision is not a case of redlining, because the
lack of service is not based on the income of the group but rather the
lack the facilities by which to provide the service.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I wish to acknowledge the important role that
you have played in the process of developing this legislation. I also
would like to commend you on your support for rural America, and would
add that, if this bill becomes law, small rural telephone companies are
going to benefit and enter the video business in communities like your
community in your congressional district of McMinnville, Tennessee.
In response to the specific inquiry, you are correct, under the
legislation if the telephone company identifies a portion of a cable
franchise area that it intends to serve with video, there is no build-
out obligation nor would there be a redlining violation as long as the
telephone company did not refuse to serve a group of potential
residential subscribers in that area because of the income of that
group.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank Chairman Barton for his answer, which is
important to hundreds of small phone companies. I congratulate you on
the bill and look forward to its enactment into law.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my cochair of the
Telecommunications Task Force of the Rural Caucus, Mr. Stupak of
Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf of
the Congressional Rural Caucus with my friend, Mr. Gutknecht from
Minnesota. This amendment makes a good bill better. Our amendment is
not controversial, it simply is a savings clause. It preserves the
ability of the FCC to extend universal service fund and intercarrier
compensation obligation to Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP
providers.
The problem is that the underlying bill extends many new rights to
VoIP providers, but extends only some of the responsibility. This
leaves out the responsibility to contribute to the universal service
system and pay appropriate compensation for use of the network.
These two funding mechanisms have ensured that we enjoy the
ubiquitous phone coverage we have today, and USF funds provide
affordable broadband access for low income schools, libraries, and
rural health facilities.
During our hearings, Jeffrey Citron of the Vonage Holdings Company
stated, and I quote: ``As a businessman, I don't get nor do I expect a
free ride on anyone's network.'' Kyle McSlarrow, president and CEO of
the National Cable and Telephone Association stated, ``The cable
industry strongly supports the goals and purposes of universal service
fund. Thus, cable operators that offer VoIP services already pay
millions of dollars into the current system, and we support making that
obligation to everyone.''
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
[[Page H3582]]
{time} 2045
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, people in my district, which is largely
rural, want and need broadband services just as much as people in urban
areas; yet according to a recent report, almost half of rural Nebraska
communities only have one broadband Internet provider and some have
none.
Without the help of the Universal Service Fund, the average Nebraskan
living in a rural area would pay an additional $235 each year for
telecommunications services, and this is true across the country in
rural areas.
The Gutknecht-Stupak amendment would preserve FCC authority to
require VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund and
pay appropriate fees, just like every other service provider. This
commonsense amendment is the result of numerous hearings, briefings and
meetings hosted by the Rural Caucus over the last year and a half.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate their leadership and efforts on this
issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a very active member of the Rural Caucus.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Stupak for
their work on behalf of this amendment. I want to tell you that the
Universal Service Fund is designed to ensure telecommunications
services to all Americans, no matter where they live, what kind of
rural area.
This amendment preserves the authority for the FCC to require the
VoIP providers to pay into the USF. I strongly support and encourage
the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsors of this
amendment for bringing this forward today, because it is relevant. I
agree with the chairman of our committee that the universal service is
built on a 1920s or 1930s model, and it is outdated and in need of
reform.
I also believe that universal service is as relevant today as it was
back then, and maybe even more so. In modernizing universal service so
that all people in America can enjoy the services of telephony and its
advanced services, broadband, we need to fix universal service.
And one of the areas that we need to fix is that as different
technology or VoIP emerges, then companies use this digital process to
avoid paying into the universal service, therefore strangling it. This
is just one piece of the universal service puzzle. I support these
efforts to fix this little piece today and also look forward to working
on the total reform of universal service and modernizing it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Smith of Texas.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 353,
noes 68, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 238]
AYES--353
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--68
Andrews
Blumenauer
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Dingell
Doyle
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Harman
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Neal (MA)
Olver
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
[[Page H3583]]
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Davis (FL)
DeLay
Evans
Gibbons
Kingston
Manzullo
McHugh
Nussle
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that two minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 2114
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. LYNCH, GILCHREST, LANGEVIN, GUTIERREZ, HASTINGS of Florida,
CLEAVER, CARDIN, BUTTERFIELD, HOYER, MEEHAN, SABO, LEWIS of Georgia and
Mrs. MALONEY and Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2115
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 269, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 239]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Burton (IN)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Case
Chandler
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--269
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Davis (FL)
DeLay
Evans
Gibbons
Kingston
Manzullo
McHugh
Nussle
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2122
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Aderholt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5252) to
promote the deployment of broadband networks and services, pursuant to
House Resolution 850, he reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Solis
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. SOLIS. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Solis moves to recommit H.R. 5252 to the Committee
Energy and Commerce with instructions to report the same
forthwith to the House with the following amendments:
Page 13, after line 20, insert the following:
``(6) Public benefits for use of public rights-of-way.--A
cable operator authorized under this section to provide cable
service in a local franchise area is authorized pursuant to
subsection (f)(1) to use public rights-of-way in the area if
the operator complies with subsection (f)(3).''.
Page 20, after line 7, insert the following:
``(3) Service area requirements.--
``(A) Cable operator elects franchise areas to serve.--A
cable operator that obtains a national franchise shall not be
required under this section to offer cable service in any
franchise area.
[[Page H3584]]
``(B) No service area requirement for 5 years.--A cable
operator that obtains a national franchise shall not be
required under this subsection to offer service in any
portion of a franchise area for 5 years after the effective
date of the operator's national franchise under this section.
``(C) Market-based incremental expansion.--Beginning on the
date that is 5 years after the effective date of a cable
operator's national franchise under this section for a
franchise area and every 3 years thereafter, if in the
portion of the franchise area where the cable operator is
offering cable service to at least 15 percent of the
households subscribe to such service, the franchising
authority in the franchise area may require the cable
operator to increase by 20 percent the households in the
franchise area to which the cable operator offers cable
service by the beginning of the next 3-year interval, until
the cable operator is capable of providing cable service to
all households in the franchise area.
``(D) High-cost, rural areas.--The Commission may--
``(i) limit the application of the provisions of this
subsection to a cable operator if the operator demonstrates
that compliance with such provisions will result in financial
distress to the cable operator;
``(ii) permit a cable operator to offer cable service using
alternative technologies to rural or high-cost areas within
the franchise area if the service offered is comparable in
rates, features, functionalities, and programming to the
cable service offered by the cable operator in other parts of
the franchise area; and
``(iii) grant exemptions--
``(I) to avoid requiring a cable operator that is an
incumbent local exchange carrier (as such term is defined in
section 251(h)) on the date of enactment of this section from
offering cable service in areas that are outside the area in
which the operator provides local exchange service;
``(II) to avoid requiring the extension of service to
portions of the franchise area that are sparsely populated
and geographically remote from the areas within which the
cable operator is offering cable service; and
``(III) to any cable operator that the Commission
determines is a small cable operator.
Page 23, beginning on line 23, strike subsection (h) and
insert the following:
``(h) Antidiscrimination.--
``(1) Prohibition.--A cable operator with a national
franchise under this section shall not deny or offer inferior
access to its cable service to any group of potential or
current residential cable service subscribers in a manner
that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against that
group on the basis of income or in a manner contrary to the
first purpose set forth in section 1 of this Act.
``(2) Enforcement.--
``(A) Complaint.--On request of an affected potential
residential subscriber, if a franchising authority in a
franchise area has reasonable cause to believe that a cable
operator is in violation of this subsection with respect to
such franchise area, the franchising authority may initiate a
proceeding to enforce the requirements of paragraph (1)
within its jurisdiction.
``(B) Notice by franchising authority.--To initiate a
proceeding under subparagraph (A), a franchising authority--
``(i) shall give notice of each alleged violation to the
cable operator;
``(ii) shall provide a period of not less than 30 days
after such notice for the cable operator to respond to each
such allegation; and
``(iii) during such period, may require the cable operator
to submit a written response stating the reasons why the
operator has not violated this subsection.
``(C) Decision.--Within 180 days after a franchising
authority initiates a proceeding by providing the first
notice for such proceeding under subparagraph (B)(i), the
franchising authority shall issue a written final decision
setting forth its findings and the reasons for its decision.
``(D) Appeal to the commission.--A final decision issued by
a franchising authority under subparagraph (C) may be
appealed to the Commission within 30 days after the date of
issuance.
``(E) Motion to enforce.--If a final decision issued by a
franchising authority under subparagraph (C) is not appealed
to the Commission within 30 days after the date of issuance,
the franchising authority may, within 180 days after the date
of issuance, file a motion to enforce its decision with the
Commission. Upon the filing of such a motion and after notice
to the cable operator, the Commission shall impose remedies
on the cable operator pursuant to subparagraphs (I) and (J).
``(F) Notice by commission.--Upon receipt of an appeal
under subparagraph (D), the Commission shall give notice of
the appeal to the complainant and the franchising authority
that initiated the proceeding under subparagraph (A).
``(G) Investigation.--In a proceeding under subparagraph
(A), the franchising authority may require a cable operator
to disclose to the authority such information and documents
as necessary to determine whether the cable operator is in
compliance with this subsection. In investigating an appeal
under this paragraph, the Commission may require a cable
operator to disclose to the Commission such information and
documents as necessary to determine whether the cable
operator is in compliance with this subsection and shall
allow the franchising authority that initiated the proceeding
under subparagraph (A) to review and comment on such
information and documents. The Commission and the franchising
authority shall maintain the confidentiality of any
proprietary information or document collected under this
subparagraph.
``(H) Deadline for resolution of appeal.--Not more than 120
days after the Commission receives an appeal under this
paragraph, the Commission shall issue a determination with
respect to each violation alleged in the decision of the
franchising authority.
``(I) Determination.--In response to a motion to enforce a
franchising authority's decision that a cable operator has
violated paragraph (1) with respect to a group, or if the
Commission determines in response to an appeal that a cable
operator has violated paragraph (1) with respect to a group,
the Commission shall ensure that the cable operator extends
access to that group.
``(J) Remedies.--
``(i) In general.--This subsection shall be enforced by the
Commission under titles IV and V.
``(ii) Maximum forfeiture penalty.--For purposes of section
503, the maximum forfeiture penalty applicable to a violation
of this subsection shall be $500,000 for each day of the
violation.
``(iii) Payment of penalties to franchising authority.--The
Commission shall order any cable operator subject to a
forfeiture penalty under this subsection to pay the penalty
directly to the franchising authority involved.
Ms. SOLIS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill has good intentions. We all support
more cable competition. Greater competition will inevitably help to
create jobs and lower consumer costs for all of us, but I urge caution
if competition for the attractive parts of the towns come literally at
the expense of everywhere else.
What I am trying to say here is that when we talk about competition,
and that is a word that is used very loosely, when we talk about
competition, oftentimes we forget about what literally happens to the
small towns, to the rural areas and to the low-income, underserved
areas. That is what we are talking about tonight.
As the world's leading economy, the U.S. must ensure the universal
deployment of broadband networks. That means every community is not
left behind. Just like the President says leave no child behind, leave
no community like mine behind.
Unfortunately, redlining, if you understand the terminology, the
practice of companies cherry-picking which communities they will serve,
continues, and in my opinion is a threat to our country and to our
Nation because you should not be allowed to come into areas where you
know you are going to make a profit and exclude those other areas that
are in need of having support and sufficient infrastructure support.
We have not done this, in my opinion, in H.R. 5252 which contains a
provision that says that they will prevent redlining. It is weak and
may prove ineffective, in my opinion.
Over 30 civil rights organizations and consumer groups agree with
this assessment. Our mayors, our cities, even in my hometown in Los
Angeles the mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, has come out and said this is
not the right thing to do.
We are giving away so much that we should further discuss and debate
this issue more thoroughly, and that has not been given to us.
Our communities have felt the sting of being jumped over and left out
when it comes to enhanced telecom and other services.
{time} 2130
This motion to recommit gives us one opportunity to ensure that
broadband is deployed to every single community, whether it is rural,
low-income, or an underserved minority community.
The motion to recommit is simple. It establishes a phased-in, market-
based buildout of services so that eventually cable operators become
capable of serving all households in a franchise area.
[[Page H3585]]
What I am talking about is that we know of instances in the State of
Michigan, where our ranking member, Mr. Dingell, has a community,
Inkster, which was excluded from buildout. They purposely went out
around his area in Michigan and served the outer surrounding community.
That community had a higher income. But when they looked at the little
portion, the donut hole, they were low income and minority. That is
what happened. There was no services provided there.
My motion, Members, is simple. It establishes a phased-in, market-
based buildout service so that eventually cable operators become
capable of serving all households. That is what this bill should be
doing and it doesn't. It extends the prohibition on discrimination
based on income to include discrimination based on race, color,
religion, and national origin. It also prohibits a cable operator from
offering unequal service, upgrades, and repairs to any group of
potential or current consumers.
The motion, in my opinion, addresses numerous flaws in the bill that
were outlined today by Ranking Member Dingell, Mr. Markey, and others
today. It will correct the bill to ensure more competitive broadband
alternatives in every neighborhood so all citizens can reap these
benefits. I think that is what we are elected to do, to provide
coverage for all our consumers.
As the world's leading economy, the U.S. must ensure that universal
deployment of competitive broadband networks, whether they live in east
Los Angeles or the San Gabriel Valley or the Bronx, every American,
every American should have the benefit of the latest digital and video
technologies. Instead, the COPE Act, or the Cop-Out Act, in my opinion,
I call it, repeals or weakens the bipartisan and time-honored laws that
have helped to ensure that those who provide video services do not
discriminate among neighborhoods based on income, race, geography or
other factors.
I would like to conclude by urging my colleagues to support the
motion to recommit.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion
for two principal reasons: The anti-redlining provisions of the motion
are unnecessary because the underlying bill has language that has been
carefully crafted with the leadership of such distinguished members of
the full committee as Mr. Rush, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Gonzalez, and
others. We worked on it for a number of months. We have perfected it,
we have changed it, and so I think the bill more than adequately
addresses that part of the motion to recommit.
On the second part of the motion to recommit, which deals with the
concept called buildout, under existing law when you only have one
franchise, only have one franchise, I think it is acceptable public
policy to require there be a buildout provision because you have a
monopoly. But the premise of this bill is to go from a monopoly
situation to a market situation where you could have as many as four or
five competitors in the same market. If that is the case, what Adam
Smith, in that great book called The Wealth of Nations, called the
hidden hand of the market is going to more than adequately take the
place of a monopolistic model buildout requirement.
If you are a new entrant into the market and you have a national
franchise and you go into Chicago or New York or Los Angeles, or a
small community, like Ennis, Texas, or Arlington, Texas, you are not
going to want to just serve a little bit, you are going to want to get
market penetration. You are going to want to take away customers from
an existing cable provider, so you are going to want to reach out to as
many people as is possible and there is not going to be a need for a
buildout provision.
I would also point out that these new entrants are going to be, in
most cases, telephone companies that already have close to 100 percent
of market penetration through their phone lines, or wireless providers
that are coming into the market with their towers that, again, will
have wide penetration. So there is really not a need for a buildout
provision.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
To close out debate, I am going to yield the balance of my time to my
distinguished sponsor, colleague of the full committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard it all. I have heard every argument against
the bill, and I have heard all in this motion to recommit. But I must
rise to oppose this motion to recommit. And I don't do it lightly, but
I must do it.
I must do it because, Mr. Speaker, what I have heard from the
opponents of this bill is so confusing, it is creating a confused state
in this Chamber. But I would ask all of my colleagues to not get
confused about this bill. This is a good bill. This is a great bill.
This bill will do a lot and go a long way to making sure that the cost
of cable television throughout America, particularly in underserved
areas, that we will have competition and the cost of cable will be
reduced.
Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this particular resolution, they are
trying to confuse us. They are trying to confuse us. They want us to
eat the wrapper and throw the candy bar away. They want us to walk
outside when it is bright and the sun is shining with our umbrella over
our head, and when there is mist from the rain and the storm, we will
walk out with nothing covering our heads. They are trying to confuse
us.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill will drive the cost of cable down
for my community in my district and districts like mine across the
country. More than that, this bill, Mr. Speaker, will allow for
diversity and ownership diversity in programming. This bill will allow
minorities to get into the cable industry and into the
telecommunication industry.
I urge my colleagues, don't fall for the confusion. Be clear. Vote
against this motion to recommit.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Motion to
Recommit that I am offering, together with Ms. Solis, on H.R. 5252, the
COPE Act of 2006. This motion will send this bill back to the Energy &
Commerce committee to fix two of the most glaring weaknesses of this
bill--the lack build-out provisions necessary to make sure all
neighborhoods and communities get service--and the lack of strong anti-
discrimination language necessary to prevent redlining.
Our motion will instruct the committee to include language, first to
prohibit discrimination based on basis of the race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, or income--the same common sense non-
discrimination language that has formed the basis of so much
legislation here in Congress--and second, to include so-called ``build-
out'' provisions, which require the companies building large broadband
networks to make sure that they are expanding their networks on a fair
basis to all communities.
The COPE Act--as currently written--allows service providers to cozy-
up to some neighborhoods while snubbing others. Without build-out
provisions that require service providers to reach all households, many
Americans will lack quality service--or be deprived of service
entirely--simply because they live in the wrong neighborhood. This
means that, under the COPE Act, consumers won't choose their Internet
provider--Internet providers will choose their customers.
Furthermore, the COPE Act excludes the anti-discrimination language
necessary to ensure equal treatment to all people, no matter what their
race, ethnicity or economic situation. Americans will have no legal
recourse if they receive inferior or no access to vital telecom
services. This anti-discrimination language is necessary to protects
all Americans from redlining, particularly those who have historically
been denied access to services others take for granted.
In short, the COPE Act as written will leave many people behind as we
enter a new technological age. It permits and even encourages redlining
by failing to require that telecom companies serve all Americans
without discrimination. In the words of Doctor Faye Williams, Chair of
the National Congress of Black Women, ``Had [this] kind of thinking
prevailed during the civil rights movement--the `don't outlaw
discrimination because the situation will take care of itself' claim--
we may have never had a Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act.''
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues--we can fix
this bill. I urge you to vote for the Solis/Watson Motion to recommit,
so we can send this bill back to committee, fix
[[Page H3586]]
these glaring weaknesses, and give Americans a telecom bill that brings
the entire country--not just certain neighborhoods and people--in the
broadband age.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 165,
nays 256, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
YEAS--165
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
NAYS--256
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Davis (FL)
DeLay
Evans
Gibbons
Kingston
Manzullo
McHugh
Nussle
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
{time} 2156
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 321,
nays 101, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
YEAS--321
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
[[Page H3587]]
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--101
Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Case
Cleaver
Conyers
Costello
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Goode
Grijalva
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Davis (FL)
DeLay
Evans
Gibbons
Kingston
Manzullo
McHugh
Nussle
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
{time} 2205
Mr. Cleaver changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Moran of Virginia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________