Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 28, 1994 TAG: 9404280233
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: B-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The legislation needed to undo some legal and regulatory restrictions on communications companies seems to be stuck.
The optimism felt by people involved in the legislation has faded, and some are privately forecasting that Congress won't pass any telecommunications legislation this year.
Several factors contribute to this new outlook: The early adjournment of the congressional session for elections, the perception that telecommunications legislation has taken a back seat to health care and crime, fundamental differences among pending telecommunications bills and the threat that some of the companies affected may try to kill the bills if they don't get what they want.
``It's going to take a real push in May, June and July to get this done,'' said Mike Brown, a vice president at AT&T Corp.
``This may be very hard to complete by the end of the year,'' said one House committee staffer, who, like other congressional aides, spoke on condition of anonymity.
The bills would allow regional telephone companies to provide long-distance services and make telecommunications equipment. They also would let cable companies and local telephone companies cross-pollinate.
In the House, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, have yet to reconcile two versions of the bill so that one can be sent to the floor for a vote. They've been trying for more than a month.
A companion House bill, offered by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the Commerce Committee's telecommunications subcommittee, and Rep. Jack Fields, R-Texas, its senior Republican, is not likely to move forward until the other differences are resolved.
Long-distance companies and the Bell operating companies are fighting over how the bills are to be reconciled. Long-distance companies want Brooks' version, which makes it considerably harder for Bell companies to provide in-state long-distance services.
A Senate package, which the nation's largest local telephone companies are intent on changing, is collecting dust in committee.
The Clinton administration, which abandoned plans to offer its own telecommunications measure, is working to amend the Senate bill.
Administration officials continue to maintain the legislation is on track. ``Resolution will be reached and legislation enacted,'' Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a group of investment bankers on April 19.
One of the biggest disputes over the Senate bill, offered by Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., is also between long-distance and Bell companies over entry into the long-distance business.
Hollings' bill requires Bell companies to pass a much harder test to get into the long-distance business than either the Dingell or Brooks bill. Under Hollings' bill, the Bells must show they face ``actual competition across the marketplace.''
That means a Bell company would have to have a competitor in every small town in its region before it could offer long-distance service, said Pacific Telesis' lobbyist Ron Stowe.
by CNB