HOUSE RULES PANEL IN CONSULTATION ON TAUZIN-DINGELL OPTIONS

House Rules Committee is engaging in continuing consultative process that could determine whether previously rejected line-sharing amendment to data deregulation bill could be revived. Amendment, which would have modified broadband legislation (HR-1542) by House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) and ranking Democrat Dingell (D-Mich.), was introduced by Reps. Luther (D-Minn.) and Wilson (R-N.M.) in Commerce markup earlier this year but died. Luther-Wilson amendment, which is supported by CLEC industry, would strip Tauzin-Dingell language that could block CLEC access to ILEC unbundled network elements (UNEs), Luther’s Senior Legislative Asst. Christian Fjeld said Wed. at ALTS conference in Arlington, Va. However, Staff Dir.-Technology Don Green said it was “too early to speak authoritatively” as to when -- or whether -- Rules Committee would act formally on Tauzin-Dingell. Rules Committee “at some point” may consider whether to send to House floor HR-1542 or competing version of bill that received unfavorable referral by House Judiciary Committee.

Although Tauzin-Dingell is “definitely in the mix,” there “may or may not be time” to consider bill before Congress adjourns for year, Green said. Considering that House is focused on moving 5 remaining appropriations bills, movement of Tauzin-Dingell “gets a little murkier,” he said. Panel members generally agreed that issue of negotiating compromise version of HR-1542 could be additional hurdle to consideration of bill. Judiciary Committee Minority Counsel Scott Deutchman said “it is our hope to engage in negotiations… Whether or not that happens in the [session’s] time period remains to be seen.” Fjeld said Luther had “yet to be contacted as far as the love train of negotiations.” Thad Bingel, counsel to Rep. Cannon (R-Utah), said it was “not possible to craft a compromise at this time.”

Dingell counsel Andrew Levin said “our side is willing to negotiate to get there.” However, he said problem was “getting the other side to the table.” Levin, sole staffer from Tauzin-Dingell camp, acknowledged that “more rational approach” to resolving competing concerns of Bell companies and CLECs would have been to negotiate before Commerce Committee markup. Identifying which pieces of Luther-Wilson amendment were most important to ALTS members “without eviscerating” HR-1542 could have accomplished that task, he said. Levin said Dingell shared industry concerns about absence of strong competition in local voice services market. He predicted amendment relating Telecom Act enforcement with competition in the local loop would be introduced when Tauzin-Dingell moved to House floor: “I would expect that when we get to the floor there will be an amendment to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the act.”

Rep. Wilson said in keynote that it might be possible to free up Dept. Of Defense (DoD) spectrum for commercial deployment of 3rd generation wireless services, but said Pentagon had “good reasons to be concerned” about industry’s desire to take control of that spectrum. She said “good- faith effort” by stakeholders could resolve obstacles to allocating military spectrum for private sector 3G use: “I don’t think it’s acceptable for the Defense Department to say, ‘Sorry, we're not going to change. You need to deal with your problem another way.’ Likewise, I don’t think it’s fair for telecommunications companies to say [to DoD], ‘We're taking your spectrum, you solve your own problems.'” Wilson said previous allocations of military spectrum for commercial use had short-changed DoD. In those cases, “they've lost the spectrum, they've lost the capability, they weren’t compensated and they weren’t given alternatives to do the job that they're expected to do.”

Sec. 253 of 1996 Telecom Act “needs clarification” to dissuade govt. entities from overcharging telecom companies for rights-of-way (RoW) royalties, Wilson said. That’s barrier to fiber deployment in areas such as N.M., where federal govt. owns large percentage of land, she said. She criticized proposal by Bureau of Land Management, which no longer is being considered, that would have assessed RoW fees based on volume of traffic transmitted through fiber crossing federal lands: “Royalties from public rights-of-way have been used too often as a 2nd revenue source for bureaucracies, sometimes municipalities, very often the federal government… I believe that rights-of-way should not be the next revenue source to support government and that our policies, in the federal government in particular, should be to promote rural access, and to reduce the royalties charged to get fiber and broadband into rural areas.”

Wilson said promotion of competition was critical in getting telecom and high-speed Internet services to underserved areas. She said that became evident to her in her home state, where in some areas small telcos rather than ILECs were first to launch DSL service: “In Des Moines, New Mexico, there is rural telephone co-op there that has about 800 [DSL] subscribers in an area of about 2,800 square miles. You could get DSL service [in Des Moines, N.M.] before you could get it in downtown Albuquerque. Now, you can mainly get that because of the rural service emphasis in the Telecom Act. But there is something wrong when you can get better service from a rural co-op than you could from the former U S West.” Wilson emphasized that Qwest, which since has acquired U S West, had improved company’s overall focus on customer service tremendously. But she later acknowledged that Qwest, even with its improved corporate attitude, didn’t begin deploying DSL infrastructure in Albuquerque until competitive carriers entered that market.

On later panel, Kyle Dixon, aide to FCC Chmn. Powell, said Commission’s top priorities on common carrier side were: (1) “Develop and evaluate the record for local competition Phase 2” proceeding. (2) Taking look at dominant-nondominant distinction and how it might apply to buildout of broadband infrastructure. (3) UNE review. Panel of legal advisers gave few hints of where Commission was going on those issues, however. Most of them indicated support for facilities-based local competition, which Powell has championed. Matt Brill, aide to Comr. Abernathy, said Abernathy hadn’t made up her mind about unbundled network element platforms (UNE-Ps) but might be interested in geographic or service-based limits. It’s not necessarily “all or nothing” issue, he said.