What's up with the Tauzin-Dingell Bill? (internet access)

[Johanna]

Here in Washington, DC, one of the oddest features of daily life is “legislative commercials.” Lobbyists actually spend bazillions of dollars on public advertising for bills pending in Congress. (Along the lines of advertising prescription drugs with the line “Ask your doctor about…”)

The hottest one these days is the Tauzin-Dingell Bill. Both sides are flogging this issue furiously. The pro side promises internet access. The con side argues it will ruin internet access. Between the two of them, I can’t make heads or tails of what the real issue is. So who would really benefit from this bill? What will it really do? Anybody got the Straight Dope on it?

[Tranquilis]

It appears to be an attempt to by-pass the Telecomunications Act of 1996.

From this page:

Frisby said that everything from basic phone service to super-fast Internet access flows over the last mile, which is still largely controlled by the Bells. Being given broadband data relief will allow the Bells to bypass Section 271 requirements contained in the Telecom Act and lessen the Bells’ incentives to open up their local networks, he said.

In turn, according to Ernest B. Kelly III, president of ASCENT, the Tauzin-Dingell bill would be most devastating to competition by exempting the Bells from the resale and unbundling aspects of the Telecom Act.

From another site:

The current version of the Tauzin-Dingell bill would give the four regional Bells — Verizon, SBC, Qwest and BellSouth — exclusive access to any new networks they build, and thereby provide incentives to extend rural and inner-city service.

A new amendment drafted by Tauzin’s committee staff would extend that exclusive access to the high-speed portions of their existing networks, forcing competitors to build their own pipes.

And, lastly:

The bill does several things.

• It deprives the Federal Communications Commission and state and local authorities of regulatory authority over high speed data service or Internet access services.
• It amends Section 271 of the 1996 Telecom Act to exempts high speed data services and Internet access services from the prohibition on RBOC’s provision of interLATA telecommunications services without prior FCC approval.
• It amends Section 251 of the 1996 Telecom Act to provide that the obligations of resale and unbundled access that apply to voice services do not apply to any high-speed data services offered by ILECS.
  -It requires ILECS to allow ISPs to collocate equipment and acquire facilities and services for the provision of Internet access service, and to allow Internet users to access any ISP that interconnects with its high speed data service.

I suspect it’s a Bad Thing.

[Tranquilis]

Oh, and I missed this little gem from the TechLawJournal:

To remedy this finding, the Section 4 of the bill provides that “neither the Commission, nor any State, shall have authority to regulate the rates, charges, terms, or conditions for, or entry into the provision of, any high speed data service or Internet access service, or to regulate the facilities used in the provision of either such service.”

Say HELLOOO to unrestricted rates!

Now I’m sure it a Bad Thing.

[Derleth]

Tranquilis:
Saying whether a specific piece of legislation is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing (your phraseology) is a matter of opinion and therefore restricted to IMHO and GD (and if you make those statements in GD, be prepared to back them up). You answered the General Question quite adequately, so refrain from making this into a debate and forcing its movement or closure.

I’ve seen too many good GQ threads ruined by just this type of soapboxing. So stop it, Tranquilis. If you want to continue voicing your opinion, have the decency to start a thread in the appropriate forum.

[Tranquilis]

*Originally posted by Derleth *
****If you want to continue voicing your opinion, have the decency to start a thread in the appropriate forum. **

That’s actually a Mod’s call to make, but your point is taken.

[Tranquilis]

And I should remember to preview. :o

[Derleth]

*Originally posted by Tranquilis *
**

*Originally posted by Derleth *
**If you want to continue voicing your opinion, have the decency to start a thread in the appropriate forum. **

That’s actually a Mod’s call to make, but your point is taken. **

True, but I’m getting pretty annoyed myself. I’m glad we can come to a civilized agreement on this issue.

[Johanna]

Umm… sorry for being dense, but would anyone care to state the issue objectively in plain English, please? All that legalese and politician-speak is not very clear to me and leaves me no more enlightened than before.

*Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went. *
—Omar Khayyam

[Tranquilis]

*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo *
…would anyone care to state the issue objectively in plain English, please?

Essentially, and without editorial, It appears to be a bill aimed at permitting local telephone companies (AKA “Baby Bells”) to fast-track develop high-speed data access trunks without regulation by State or Federal agencies, and without any requirement for the local companies to share those trunks with competitors. The stated intention is to reward faster development of broadband to rural and inner city areas.

Implication (This is analysis. You decide on the impact):

• Local companies (the so-called “last Mile” providers, or “Baby Bells”) may deny access to their high-speed trunks to other data providers. Competing data access providers will either have to install their own lines, or pay whatever rate the local companies choose to levy.
• Local compamies are intended to be finacially rewarded for developing high spees access by being granted what is essentially a loophole through the Telecomuninications Act of 1996.
• Rate and data access controls by State and Federal agencies will not be permitted for data access. Voice telecomms will still be regulated.

[Johanna]

Thanks, Tranquilis. I begin to grasp what it’s about. (Now for background I’ll have to find out what the 1996 Telecommunications Act was all about.)

What I’d like to know is: What’s the bottom line for John Q. Consumer?

[Johanna]

Thanks, Tranquilis. I begin to grasp what it’s about. (Now for background I’ll have to find out what the 1996 Telecommunications Act was all about.)

What I’d like to know is: What’s the bottom line for John Q. Consumer?

[Tranquilis]

*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo *
**What’s the bottom line for John Q. Consumer? **

This is speculative, but based upon my reading of the bill, and past behavior of the various telecomms companies.

• Fewer choices of provider in the markets affected. (Almost guaranteed)
• Faster deployment of services in the markets affected. (Very likely)
• Higher cost of services in the affected markets. (Probable, but maybe not outrageous)
• Less recourse for dispute. (Almost guaranteed)
• Less quality of service. (Very Likely)
• Practical elimination of all but Cable and Baby Bells as broadband providers in affected markets. (Almost guaranteed)
• Likely to reduce overall choice and flexibility for broadband accross all markets, as marginal broadband players get out of the market. (Probable, but not necessarily bad, as the poorest players are most likely to leave first)

I’m thinking that this will have the effect of speeding, to some degree, fast data access in some markets, but there are very broad implications to the market as a whole.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

That depends on where John Q. Consumer lives. If he lives in the heart of Metropolis, he is probably already reasonably happy about his DSL options and (if he is a large business) his high speed data routing options.

If John Q. Consumer lives out in Nowhereville, he has probably already been complaining loudly about the lack of high speed access for several years.

If the bill is passed, I hope we (speaking from an ILEC here) keep our word and roll out some hicap trunks to rural America, and offer hi speed access at affordable prices. That way we will be able to look back to nay-sayers with a big I-told-you-so. Whether we bring competitive prices to rural America is another thing, especially if competitors can’t use our trunks.

[labdude]

As a native of the great state of LA I apologize to everyone for the existance of Tauzin. If Tauzin proposes any bill I could easily state that it’s a big telcom giveaway without even reading it.