CQ TODAY
March 23, 2006 - Updated 2:39 p.m.
Telecom 
      Deregulation Talks Break Down 
By Joelle Tessler, CQ Staff 
      
Bipartisan House Energy and Commerce Committee talks over 
      legislation to make it easier for telephone companies to enter the video 
      market broke down Thursday after committee leaders could not agree on 
      several key issues, congressional staffers said. 
The impasse 
      marked a sharp turn of events just two weeks after five committee leaders 
      said they had reached a broad agreement on the legislation after months of 
      on-again, off-again negotiations. Committee Republicans are expected to 
      release a partisan draft and are hoping to hold a hearing next week. 
      
The bill is intended to pave the way for telephone companies to 
      compete head-to-head with cable operators by replacing the existing local 
      franchising system with a national one. 
Phone companies are 
      spending billions to build fiber-optic networks that can deliver voice, 
      Internet and video services. But they argue that requiring video providers 
      to negotiate municipality-by-municipality for the right to offer services 
      locally is slowing their push into the video market. 
The cable 
      industry, which wants to head off new competition, insists the existing 
      rules work well. 
Committee leaders have been meeting since late 
      last year to try to hammer out compromise legislation after two earlier 
      drafts ran into substantial opposition - the first from phone companies 
      and the second from committee Democrats. 
Those participating in 
      the talks include Chairman Joe L. Barton, R-Texas; Vice Chairman Charles 
      W. "Chip" Pickering Jr., R-Miss.; ranking member John D. Dingell, D-Mich.; 
      Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the panel's Telecommunications and the 
      Internet Subcommittee; and subcommittee ranking member Edward J. Markey, 
      D-Mass. 
But this week it became clear Barton could not sell the 
      agreement the five had reached to other Republicans on the panel. The five 
      committee leaders also could not agree on whether the bill should require 
      phone companies to offer video service to an entire franchising region 
      before offering service to anyone in that region. 
A "build-out" 
      requirement had been a priority of committee Democrats, who want to ensure 
      broadband providers do not limit their new services to lucrative suburban 
      markets. But the Democrats had agreed to drop the mandate in exchange for 
      compromise language barring cable companies from cutting their prices in 
      select areas to compete with new entrants - instead requiring them to 
      maintain uniform prices across an entire franchising area - until the 
      phone company has at least 15 percent of the market. 
Commerce 
      Committee members who have not been involved in the talks, however, have 
      objected to this compromise, along with another provision to allow 
      incumbent cable companies to obtain a national franchise only after a 
      phone company captures at least 15 percent of a local market. They argue 
      that both provisions are unfair to incumbent cable companies, which now 
      can selectively drop rates in franchising areas where a satellite 
      competitor has at least 15 percent penetration or where a phone company 
      has entered the market.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this
        website are those of the individual members of Chicago Media
        Action who authored them, and not necessarily those of the entire
        membership of Chicago Media Action, nor of Chicago Media Action
        as an organization.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.