The Role of States and Cities
in Regulating the Internet
Thursday, April 28, 2005
12:00 -- 1:30 pm
Mike Mansfield Room (Room S-207) of the U.S. Capitol Building
Overview | Panelist Biographies | Video/Audio | Media Advisory
Historically, state and local governments have played a major role in regulating and managing the growth of our national telecommunications infrastructure -- through local cable franchising and common carrier regulation, for example. As technology has advanced, however, the regulatory boundaries between different forms of communications, and those between regulatory roles of federal, state, and local regulators have quickly begun to blur. In recent months, issues surrounding the provision of broadband Internet services and introduction of video over Internet protocol services have brought the debate into the headlines.
The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee hosted a luncheon panel discussion on the role of states, cities, and the federal government in telecommunications regulation. The panel included:
- Deborah Tate, Tennessee Regulatory Authority Bio
- Rick Cimerman, National Cable & Telecommunications Assoc. Bio
- Cheryl Leanza, National League of Cities Bio
- Ed Merlis, U.S. Telecom Assoc. Bio
- Roger Cochetti, CompTIA (moderator) Bio
Commissioner Tate noted that state, local, and federal governments have different roles that each can more ably discharge in regulating telecommunications, and changes in technology should not bring those roles into question. The rewrite of the Act, she said, should be an opportunity to create jobs, encourage greater access to technologies (especially for poor and rural citizens). She also urged Congress to base the rewritten laws on "principles, not words," meaning that regulations of different services should be flexible and based on more than a dense analysis of the technology that is delivering those services.
Mr. Cimerman argued that in "balancing rights and responsibilities" of consumers, regulators should treat like services in a like manner. Different voice services, he said, should all comply with law enforcement access regulations, offer connection to 911 services, contribute to the Universal Service Fund and engage in inter-carrier compensation. Cimmerman asserted that the Telecom Act is not being rewritten because it was a failure; consumers in this country have more choices in telecommunications, at lower prices than they had in 1996, when the Telecom Act was rewritten and passed.
Ms. Leanza agreed that like services should be regulated in a like manner, and pointed out that local governments generally play a positive and enabling role in the deployment and adoption of new technologies, not the other way around. Local governments like, support, and use new technologies, and only seek to maintain a grasp on their own rights-of-way and public assets in their various regulatory roles. She asked that Congress take a deliberative approach to rewriting telecom regulation rules, and try hard to maintain the complementary roles the different levels of government have enjoyed.
Mr. Merlis acknowledged that regulation on some level is probably necessary, but argued that the same developments that are making it harder to define different services and delineate different regulatory roles are also limiting many telecommunications providers from expanding their operations into new realms. He argued that overbearing legislation -- in what amounts to "micromanagement" of the telecommunications realm -- has chilled innovation at the expense of consumers. U.S. consumers are savvy, he argued, and capable of making choices from a wide range of telecommunications options which a lighter, more centralized regulatory approach would engender.
This event is hosted jointly by the Internet Caucus and its Co-Chairs, Senators Burns and Leahy and Congressmen Goodlatte and Boucher, and the Chair of the Wireless Task Force, Congressman Honda.