^{Democracy & Technology Blog} Improved broadband dereg. proposal makes debut

A revised staff draft is circulating in the House Energy & Commerce Committee. The proposal is more deregulatory in several important respects and marks solid progress in the effort to promote investment and foster innovation. For example:

• Although competitors would still be required to file registration statements with the FCC, the agency is given far less latitude to pervert the requirement in order to limit or condition entry.
• Immediate access to public rights-of-way and compatible easements is guaranteed for Broadband Video Services (BVS) and, now, for Broadband Internet transmission services, as well.
• The definition of BVS has been simplified. The first draft contained a definition intended to push technology in a particular direction. That definition was reminiscent of the “Open Video System” provision in the 1996 Act that has been so successful that no one has chosen to build a business around it. Although intended to benefit consumers by ensuring access to many sources of content, OVS actually harmed consumers by delaying competitive entry in the video market. The definition in the second draft is closer to letting the market decide, with further simplification needed.
• The placeholder for a BVS buildout requirement has been removed and the video content regulation that would apply to BVS whould be comparable to multichannel video programming distributors not cable operators. This would be less regulatory for BVS, but there ought to be a single new standard that is less regulatory for everyone. Fortunately, the draft does direct the FCC to revisit the regulations in 4 years and eliminate the ones that are no longer necessary as a result of meaningful comptition. That would be all of them.
• The net neutrality provisions have been improved slightly. The goal of preserving consumer access to lawful Internet content and services is commendable. But “network neutrality” overlooks evidence of the profitability of niche content. It is and should be called “Brand X: Plan B,” because, like the lawsuit, its purpose is to substitute regulation for competition.

Much work remains. The new proposal would still lead the FCC to regulate the Internet, expand bloated Universal Service mechanisms and molest legitimate competition in the name of net neutrality and interconnection. But its moving in the right direction.