I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2637
To protect consumer and community choice in access to Internet providers,
and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 29, 1999
Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce
A BILL
To protect consumer and community choice in access to
Internet providers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer and Com-
munity Choice in Access Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) As cable, telecommunications and Internet
lines of business merge, cable operators are upgrad-
ing their cable systems to offer 2-way communica-
tions on their cable networks, including high-speed
broadband access to the Internet.
(2) Upgraded cable systems are now offering
Internet access up to 1,000 times faster than tradi-
tional phone lines, and up to 100 times faster than
integrated services digital network (‘‘ISDN’’) lines.
(3) Some cable operators are requiring their
customers to obtain broadband access only through
their affiliated Internet service provider (‘‘ISP’’).
(4) Citizens who need or desire Internet access
through the significantly faster cable network, but
who choose not to use the cable operators’ affiliated
ISP must pay twice (once to the cable operator’s
ISP, once to their own ISP), in order to access the
ISP of their choice.
(5) Some in the cable industry, utilizing both
their affiliated ISP and considerable market power,
will not allow open and direct access to unaffiliated
ISPs and their customers via the broadband cable
platform.
(6) The initial design of broadband cable
modem Internet access has also created technological
barriers to open access that need to be addressed.
(7) In their federally recognized roles as local
cable franchising authorities, local communities
across the country are now confronted with the
question of whether to allow their cable operators to
restrict unaffiliated ISP from gaining direct, open
access to their customers on the regulated cable net-
work. In Oregon, the city of Portland and Mult-
nomah County have already faced this situation, and
decided that the public interest requires open access.
This decision has been upheld by a Federal court.
(8) However, some have expressed concern that
allowing localities the ability to promote competition
by requiring open access will delay the deployment
of cable broadband Internet access services.
(9) Local jurisdictions that choose to impose a
procompetitive open access requirement serve the
important public purpose of serving as ‘‘labora-
tories’’ for field trials to develop true competition on
the cable Internet gateway.
(10) Clearly, the possible development of a mo-
nopoly bottleneck to high-speed Internet access is a
critical public policy issue that Congress, the Federal
Communications Commission, and local franchising
authorities need to address.
SEC. 3. NONDISCRIMINATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER-
CONNECTION TO THE INTERNET.
(a) REALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY.—Section 624 of
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 544) is
amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘or other
information services’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section:
‘‘(j) INTERNET ACCESS.—The Commission may re-
quire cable operators that provide interconnection, using
cable system facilities, with the Internet to offer such
interconnection on terms and conditions that are fair, rea-
sonable, and nondiscriminatory. Such requirements shall
include the obligation to provide direct or indirect inter-
connection with the facilities and equipment of any Inter-
net service provider on terms and conditions that are func-
tionally and economically equivalent to the interconnection
provided to any other Internet service provider, whether
or not affiliated with the cable operator. If the Commis-
sion determines, after notice and comment, that a cable
operator is not complying with such obligation, the Com-
mission may establish the terms and conditions of such
interconnection.’’.
SEC. 4. LEASED ACCESS AMENDMENT.
Section 612 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 532) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(5), by inserting ‘‘or other
cable service’’ after ‘‘provision of video program-
ming’’;
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ‘‘or other
cable service’’ after ‘‘over any video programming’’;
and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sub-
section:
‘‘(k) TREATMENT
OF HIGH-SPEED DATA SERV-
ICES.—Until the Commission establishes open access or
interconnection standards and obligations under section
624(j), a service that provides high-speed data service (as
such term is defined in regulations of the Commission)
and that seeks to obtain channel capacity under this sec-
tion may, notwithstanding subsection (b)(5), be treated as
seeking channel capacity for a commercial use.’’.
SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON COMMON CAR-
RIER REGULATION.
Section 621(c) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 541(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ‘‘A telecommunications service
that is provided by a cable system is subject to regulation
as a common carrier service.’’.
SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act—
(1) restricts or limits the authority of a State
or franchising authority; or
(2) shall be construed to affect any civil action
that is pending in any Federal or State court on the
date of enactment of this Act.
Æ