Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens doesn’t yet have the 60 votes needed to end debate and set up a vote on the telecom bill (S-2686) on the Senate floor, he told reporters after markup Tues. Senate leadership has “no great interest” in the bill while the debate continues as it has, he said. His comments came after a day-long session in a markup that began last week. Key issues remain to be tackled, but the bill is expected to pass out of the committee.
Senate Commerce Committee negotiations on a hefty manager’s amendment to pending telecom reform legislation were expected to continue “well into the night and tomorrow,” a committee spokesman told us Wed. The committee is scheduled to markup Chmn. Stevens’ (R-Alaska) 3rd draft of the bill today (Thurs.). Some Hill watchers said the marathon meeting could spill into next week. The broad draft contains hot topics like net neutrality and preemption of state wireless regulation (CD June 21 p1), as well as issues like video franchising and Universal Service Fund (USF) reform.
Senate Commerce Committee negotiations on a hefty manager’s amendment to pending telecom reform legislation were expected to continue “well into the night and tomorrow,” a committee spokesman told us Wed. The committee is scheduled to markup Chmn. Stevens’ (R-Alaska) 3rd draft of the bill today (Thurs.). Some Hill watchers said the marathon meeting could spill into next week. The broad draft contains hot topics like net neutrality and preemption of state wireless regulation, as well as issues like video franchising and Universal Service Fund (USF) reform.
In a surprise move, a new draft of a telecom bill by Sen. Stevens (R-Alaska) contains language sharply limiting state controls on wireless service (CD June 17 Special Report). Though carriers view this as a potential win, it has raised consumer group and state regulator ire. State regulators said Mon. the wireless language will be controversial and could keep the bill from progressing this year.
At our deadline, the House was expected to endorse a rule allowing a net neutrality amendment to the House video bill (HR-5252), which in turn was set for vote later Thurs. The amendment, by Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), would subject network operators to anti-bias rules and provide for expedited complaint review. It’s among 8 amendments the Rules Committee decided to accept late Wed. after a hearing on about 25 proposed changes to the bill.
At our deadline, the House was expected to endorse a rule allowing a net neutrality amendment to the House video bill (HR-5252), which in turn was set for vote later Thurs. The amendment, by Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), would subject network operators to anti-bias rules and provide for expedited complaint review. It’s among 8 amendments the Rules Committee decided to accept late Wed. after a hearing on about 25 proposed changes to the bill.
House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R-Tex.) will oppose efforts to exempt the E-rate program from Anti- Deficiency Act rules that require funding to be in hand before money can be spent, according to a Commerce Committee staffer. Barton and Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) brokered a deal last year that gave the program a one-year pass, but Barton is “inclined to let the ADA exemption expire,” the aide said.
Prospects are good for passage of a telecom bill the President can sign this Congress, House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) told a Tues. National Journal breakfast. “Their bill is not all that far away from ours,” Upton said, referring to a Senate telecom bill introduced Mon. (WID May 2 p3). That bill, especially its franchise provision, offers a “hook” to get something into conference where the 2 can be reconciled, Upton said.
Prospects are good for passage of a telecom bill the President can sign this Congress, House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Upton (R-Mich.) told a Tues. National Journal breakfast. “Their bill is not all that far away from ours,” Upton said, referring to a Senate telecom bill introduced Mon. (CD May 2 p1). That bill, especially its franchise provision, offers a “hook” to get something into conference where the 2 can be reconciled, Upton said.
The FCC shouldn’t apply new universal service definitions to rural telcos’ operations as a result of a proceeding involving the Bells and other “non-rural” telcos, rural telcos said. The issue came up in response to an FCC request for comments on how to respond to a remand by the 10th U.S. Appeals Court, Denver, in Qwest v. FCC. The court had questioned definitions the FCC planned to use to decide if the larger firms qualified for high-cost universal service support in some areas. The debate centers on how the FCC defines Telecom Act requirements that universal service support be “sufficient” and “reasonably comparable.”