SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS IN CANNON-CONYERS BEING CONSIDERED

Changes in legislation by Rep. Cannon (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Conyers (Mich.) are being considered, including adjustment in how bill (HR-1698) would set standard of proof in telecom antitrust cases, Cannon said Thurs. One change under consideration is lowering bill’s proposed standard for courts reviewing FCC or state PUC findings of Telecom Act violations, he said in Capitol panel discussion sponsored by Advisory Committee to Congressional Internet Caucus.

In bill’s current form, courts that review subsequent private actions could use such regulatory findings as per se, or automatic, evidence of antitrust violations. However, Cannon is likely to adjust higher standard by allowing courts to deem previous regulatory rulings as prima facie, rather than per se, evidence of antitrust violations, he said. That would require telecom companies accused of antitrust violations to prove why rulings weren’t evidence of antitrust violations, congressional source said. However, accusing party still could use regulatory decisions when presenting evidence in antitrust court cases, he said.

Source told us that details of other potential revisions were being worked out. One possibility is to restrict evidentiary use of regulatory rulings in antitrust proceedings solely to Justice Dept. or to state attorneys gen., source said.

Cannon-Conyers bills were offered as alternatives to bill (HR-1542) by House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) and ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.) that would ease restrictions on Bell company provision of data services across in-region interLATA boundaries. Tauzin at Internet Caucus discussion rejected criticism that HR-1542 would stifle competition, as did Va. Reps. Goodlatte (R) and Boucher (D). “There are those in this town who like the regulation of telecommunications networks, and would love to extend that form of regulation into the broadband arena,” Tauzin said. “They would have the heavy hand of regulation all over the Internet.”

Cannon rejected Tauzin’s position that FCC had extended Telecom Act’s 14-point competitive checklist into “1,100-point” market-opening provisions: “Is anybody warm? I thought it was Billy’s [Tauzin] rhetoric, but it might be the temperature.”

Complexities of market-opening regulations were created by Bell company refusal to allow competitors to colocate with their networks, not because CLECs have “bad business plans” as Tauzin- Dingell supporters claim, Cannon said. “The real question is how do we get the quickest, broadest dissemination of broadband? The answer is not to re-monopolize the Bells.”

Rep. Largent (R-Okla.) said benefits Tauzin-Dingell would give to Bell companies “would hamper and hamstring our ability to have competition in the local loop even more so.” He said rule changes proposed by HR-1542 were like National Basketball Assn. hypothetically “banning players under 6'1 in the middle of the game.”

USTA Vp-Large Company Affairs Larry Clinton told House members to prepare for Largent’s introduction of line-sharing amendment to HR-1542 when bill goes to House floor, expected before July 4 congressional recess. “Line sharing sounds so friendly,” but it will inhibit fiber deployment and harm broadband competition, he said. “Line sharing is a bad amendment. You want to vote against line sharing if you want competition.”