roundtable: Telecom Post #7
roundtable: Telecom Post #7
Telecom Post #7
CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Subject: Telecom Post #7
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <01HSBBRZPTDE000UIU@bentley.edu>
====================================================
################ #############
################ ## #
## #############
## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ###
## # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### #
## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # #
## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
====================================================
Free Speech Media, LLC
June 30, 1995
Number 7
====================================================
Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb
Please direct comments and inquiries to cwhitcom@bentley.edu
====================================================
The Telecom Post is posted to several distribution lists and is also
available from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe, send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG
with the message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME.
The Telecom Post will be published weekly while the U.S. Congress works on
a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S information delivery systems.
======================================================
TOPICS
Regulatory Reform - Good News??
OTA Survives
NEA & NEH Update
Federal Funding and Nonprofits
Government Information at Risk
Setting the Stage for HR1555
Censorship
==================================================================
REGULATORY REFORM - GOOD NEWS?
It's just possible there is some good news to tell for a change.
The Citizens for Sensible Safeguards have sent out some dire
warnings over the last few weeks about the direction regulatory
reform was taking. Simply put, S343, the Comprehensive
Regulatory Reform Act, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bob
Dole (R-KA) and Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) would require
an extensive cost/benefit analysis and risk assessment of every
new regulation and a similar review of every existing
regulation. Sunset provisions would disable regulations that had
not made it through this process in a certain amount of time.
Judicial review would allow endless court battles over specific
provisions and, in the words of CSS, create a "lawyer's and
consultant's full employment act" while eliminating a vast
number of health and safety and environmental safeguards.
Obviously, big corporations have been busy putting the pressure
on any nay votes and we've all learned just how convincing that
"pressure" can be.
There seemed to be no action on the part of Senate Democrats
until, happily, on June 23, the White House weighed in with a
letter from Sally Katzen, the administration's spokesperson on
regulatory affairs, advising a presidential veto. The letter
listed 8 specific points of disapproval claiming that that list
was "not exhaustive" of all that was unacceptable about the
bill. On the heels of the letter, meetings began between
Democrats and Dole on June 26.
Industry does not speak with one voice in support of the bill.
While the general thrust is, of course, the direction they want
to head, small businesses want stronger language, similar to
that already passed in the House.
The good news is that as of June 28, the Dole/Democrat
negotiations seem to have produced a much improved version.
This version will be bi-partisan with John Glenn (D-OH), John
Chafee (R-RI), Will Cohen (R-ME) and James Jeffords (R-VT) as
sponsors. Apparently, John Kerry (D-MA) should be congratulated
as public interest's "white knight" for his thorough study of
the issues and willingness to tackle the details. At first
glance this bill appears based on S291, sponsored by Senator
Roth, and has acquired the nickname of Superroth. The Center
for Sensible Safeguards will be studying the bill today and will
give us an update after the holiday. They felt that this might
actually be a bill public interest could support.
OTA Survives!
The ax to the Office of Technology Assessment fell on June 21
with the defeat of the Houghton (R-NY) amendment which would
have provided funding within the Congressional Research Service.
The vote was 213-214. House Democrats complained that two reps
had not been included in the vote unfairly and lo and behold,
the vote was retaken and the amendment approved by 220-204 on
June 22. FINS reports that the first vote was handled
inappropriately due the Republican rush to "get to a Gingrich
fund-raiser in New York City where $1.7 m was raised".
NEA and NEH Survive!
The House Appropriations Committee has held the appropriations
for the National Endowment for the Arts at $99m, though the
appropriation for the National Endowment for the Humanities was
cut from $150m to $99m. Advocates request that support be given
to this bill when it reaches the House floor after the recess
and then turn their efforts to the Senate in the hope of
increasing the levels of funding.
ON THE OTHER HAND
Federal Funding and Nonprofits
OMB Watch reports that a draft bill by Reps. Ernest Istook
(R-OK), David McIntosh (R-IN), and Robert Ehrlich (R-MD) is
nothing short of a major attack on the nonprofit sector. This
bill would, in effect, eliminate the ability of nonprofits to
perform political advocacy work and receive federal grants.
Organizations receiving federal grants would be severely
restricted to who they could do business with, any expansion of
political activities supported by non-federal funds,
contributing toward coalitions that do advocacy work, and must
undergo new forms of disclosure regarding all their work.
Groups working against this bill are the Independent Sector,
202-223-8100 and OMB Watch, 202-234-8494.
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
In an effort to reduce the costs of printing government
information, Congress is attempting to force the distribution of
that information into electronic formats by cutting
appropriations to the Depository Library Program in half and
eliminating the Joint Committee on Printing that provided the
enforcement oversight for government agencies to bring their
work to the Government Printing Office (GPO). Government
agencies would be required to reimburse the GPO for printing and
distribution costs of paper and microfiche documents. Without
the input of Congressional hearings, libraries were not allowed
the opportunity to officially express their concerns. Those
concerns include the lack of computer equipment, reduction in
information delivered due to reduced incentives for agencies to
comply with information sharing requirements, the transfer of
costs to libraries for public dissemination, and others. HR1854
also eliminates the funding for constituent copies and by-law
distribution of the Congressional Record, and the free
distribution of copies of bills, reports, and other documents to
non-Congressional recipients.
The House passed HR 1854 on June 22. From here the bill moves
to the Senate in the next two weeks. The Senate Appropriations
Legislative Branch Subcommittee is its next stop. Senators on
this committee need to hear from us. In particularly, Connie
Mack (R-FL), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Patty
Murray (D-WA, and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
SETTING THE STAGE FOR HR1555
This was the week the final bill was to be placed on Clinton's
desk for signature.
As telecommunications legislation moves over to the House, it is
worth taking a look at the just where all the players stand.
While cable rate de-regulation was the big issue originally
standing in the way of final passage (triggering rumors of a
presidential veto), it looks as though disputes between the Bell
companies and the long distance industry may now present the
greatest threat to non-passage. These disputes center largely
around the role of the Department of Justice in permitting the
Bells to enter interLATA service (long distance service beyond
their current area). It is thought that the House bill will come
up before the August recess.
Cable Companies
The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) likes the end
result of S652 regarding its non-buyout provisions. S 652 does
not allow cross-ownership of telcos and cable companies within
markets of under 50K populations. Both cable and the
administration would like that number to be lower. While cable
rates are likely to go up with deregulation, the cable industry
claims that they sufficiently fear the competitive potential of
Direct Broadcast Satellite and telco delivery to keep it under
control. The Senate language will phase in higher pole
attachment rates but the House language will raise them to
market value. The cable industry claims that would triple the
rates they currently pay. The Exon Amendment does not sit any
better with the cable industry than anyone else. All government
efforts to control content are seen as negative whether based on
liability or rating systems.
The Telephone Industry
AT&T, MCI, Sprint, CompTel, and LDDS compose the Competitive
Long Distance Coalition (CLDC) and it does not like the outcome
of S652. Howard Baker, chief lobbyist for AT&T stands accused
of failing to win a more decisive role for the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in the determining the Bell entry to long distance
service. S652 gives the DOJ an advisory role only. The CLDC
would like it to have a role comparable to the FCC so that
permission would have to come from both sources. This defeat
means that the long distance industry must not only prevail in
HR1555 but must also insure that HR1555 takes precedence when
the two bills are reconciled.
HR1555 contains no language on a role for DOJ, nevertheless, it
is strongly supported by the CLDC for its checklist provisions.
One provision requires the existence of an actual
facilities-based competitor with the capability of delivering
comparable local exchange service in the RBOC's market. The
Bells protest that this provision would keep them out of the
game indefinitely. Additionally, the Bells would have to wait 18
months after the passage of the legislation before they would be
allowed to seek permission to provide interLATA services.
The Alliance for Competitive Communications is the lobbying arm
of the Bells.
Gingrich's district houses 8000 AT&T employees and 2000 MCI
employees. He is anxious to get competition moving since it will
do much to improve the fiber optics business currently led by
AT&T. AT&T is 2nd largest employer in GA. Bliley (R-VA),
Commerce Committee Chair wants to retain language that requires
the facilities-based competition language as prerequisite to
Bell entry. Without this language Bliley implied that the CLDC
will work to defeat the legislation. It could get ugly.
Apparently, Dole shrugged off long distance concerns over the
role of DOJ in the waning hours of the S652. This folly might
come home to roost as New Hampshire is the home of thousands of
AT&T employees.
Utilities
The Security and Exchange Commission is in support of allowing
registered utility holding companies into nonutility business.
Unsurprisingly, this was hailed by the electric industry. The
Edison Electric Institute has been attempting to convince
Congress that it should be allowed into the telecommunications
business. S652 contains language that supports this move but
HR1555 does not. This change would only affect utilities
regulated by the Public Utility Holding Company Act where the
regulation is meant to protect consumers from costly adventures
of their utility companies.. Non-regulated companies are
already free to enter the communications market.
CENSORSHIP
The Exon Amendment and the wave of emotion that pushed it
through the Senate is bound for rough waters. Gingrich has come
out strongly against this approach to content control. Many
other, more Leahy-like proposals, are surfacing that will
institute technical and rating based mechanisms that will put
control in the hands of the user, not the government.
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)