|
Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C.
Suite 800
1615 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20036
Phone: 202-467-6370
Fax: 202-467-6379
|
|
Communications Law Newsletter: Update on Issues of Interest to Municipalities and Public Utilities
No. C:1 – October 2006
Senate Commerce Committee Reports Out Telecom Bill with Provisions Favorable to Municipal and Public Broadband Providers
After months of delay, the Senate Committee on the last day of September issued its Report on Senator Stevens' telecom bill, approved by the Committee in June. The bill now bears the same name and number as the House-passed version, but differs in important respects. H.R. 5252, the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006,” would preempt any state law that prohibits municipal or public providers from offering advanced telecommunications capability or services to the public, overriding recent anti-municipal broadband legislation passed by some states. The report reflects the compromise that enabled Committee approval of the bill, and "encourages municipalities or public providers to partner with a private provider of advanced telecommunications capability and services before erecting a municipally-owned or public system." The bill would require a public provider, whether or not it intends to partner with a private entity, "to supply notice to the public of its intent to offer advanced telecommunications capability or services and afford private or commercial providers an opportunity to bid on the offering of such capability or services." However, public providers are not required to accept a proposal from the private sector. The bill also rescinds the existing exemption from local cable franchising for municipal cable operators.
COPE Reduces Local Cable Franchising Authority
Prospects for Passage Uncertain Regulatory Framework for Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) Begins to Take Shape Like its House counterpart, the Senate COPE bill moves more control over cable franchising to the federal level. The bill as reported out of Committee would require use of standardized franchise applications prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and limit the time for local approval to 90 days. Localities would still be permitted to require up to 5% franchise fees, PEG channels and support, and I-nets, with some limits. Strong political differences over “net neutrality” provisions requiring non-discriminatory access to broadband networks have held up the COPE bill. However, Congress could approve telecom legislation during the lame duck session after the November elections.
DWGP to present keynote speech at APPA 2006 Community Broadband Conference in October on “Broadband Regulation: The FCC’s Rules and Beyond.”
Elise Dieterich, of counsel to Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C., and an experienced attorney in the field of telecommunications regulation, will speak on the Federal Communications Commission’s wireless, telephone, cable, Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) and BPL rules, as well as state and local requirements applicable to broadband communications systems. If you would like a copy of Elise’s presentation, please e-mail your request to DWGP at the address given below.
Regulatory Framework for Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) Begins to Take Shape
The FCC in late August issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 06-113) acknowledging the significant benefits of Access BPL and largely reaffirming its prior rules. The MO&O: - Affirms emission limits addressing concerns regarding BPL radio interference; - Denies the television industry’s request to exclude BPL from frequencies above 50 MHz; - Affirms the July 7, 2006, deadline for certification of BPL equipment; - Affirms the requirement that information must be provided in a public database at least 30 days prior to BPL deployment. Texas has enacted legislation to formally enable the deployment of BPL systems, and the state utility commissions in New York and California are moving forward with proposals to regulate BPL. California proposes to accommodate a variety of both public and private BPL business models; New York has proposed that electric utilities not be allowed directly to provide BPL services to the public.
For additional information of the topics in this newsletter, please contact: Bhaveeta K. Mody 202-467-6370
Disclaimer: This publication has been prepared by Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. for informational purposes only, may constitute an advertisement under certain state laws and regulations, and is not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. |
|