Charles B
Goldfarb, Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
The statutory framework for the communications
sector largely was enacted prior to the commercial development and
deployment of digital technology, Internet Protocol (IP), broadband networks,
and online voice, data, and video services. These new technologies have driven changes
in market structure throughout the communications sector. Technological
spillovers have allowed for the convergence of previously service-specific
networks, creating new competitive entry opportunities. But they also have
created certain incentives for market consolidation. Firms also have used
new technologies to attempt to “invent around” statutory obligations or prohibitions,
such as retransmission consent and copyright requirements. In addition, firms
have developed new technologies that are attractive to consumers because
they allow them to avoid paying for programming or allow them to skip the
commercials that accompany video programming, but present a challenge to
the traditional business model.
The expert agencies charged with implementing the relevant statutes—the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the Copyright Office—have had to determine if and how
to apply the law to technologies and circumstances that were not considered
when the statutes were developed. Frequently, this has led parties unhappy
with those interpretations to file court suits, which has delayed rule
implementation and increased market uncertainty. The courts, too, have had
to reach decisions with limited guidance from the statutes.
Members on both sides of the aisle as well as industry stakeholders have
suggested that many existing provisions in the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, and in the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, need to be
updated to address current technological and market circumstances, though
there is no consensus about the changes needed. Three broad, interrelated
policy issues are likely to be prominent in any policy debate over how to
update the statutory framework:
-
how to accommodate technological change that already has taken place and, more
dynamically, how to make the framework flexible enough to accommodate future
technological change;
-
given that underlying scale economies allow for only a very small number of efficient
facilities-based network competitors, how to give those few network providers
the incentive to invest and innovate while also constraining their ability to
impede downstream competition from independent service providers that must use
their networks; and
-
given that spectrum is an essential communications input, how to implement a framework
that fosters efficient spectrum use and management. .
Date of Report: September 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 52
Order Number: R43248
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43248 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic
development of rural America, concern has been raised over a “digital
divide” between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to
broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities
with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies
have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and
suburban areas in broadband deployment.
Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and
the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan
and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to
provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and
acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible
rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively
dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband
Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant
Program.
The 110th Congress considered reauthorization and modification of the loan and
loan guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill. The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L.
110-246). Title VI (Rural Development) contains authorizing language for
the broadband loan program.
The 112th Congress considered reauthorization of the broadband loan program in the
2012 farm bill. While the 2012 farm bill was not enacted by the 112th Congress, Title VII of the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended farm bill programs by one
year (through September 30, 2013). In the 113th Congress, 2013 farm bill
legislation passed by the House and Senate (H.R. 2642/S. 954) includes the
broadband program reauthorization provisions previously contained in the
2012 farm bill.
Date of Report: September 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL33816
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RL33816 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Policymakers generally believe that science and technology can and will play
significant roles in improving homeland security. When Congress
established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), it included the Directorate of Science
and Technology (S&T) to ensure that the new department had access to
science and technology advice and capabilities for research and
development (R&D).
The S&T Directorate is the primary organization for R&D in DHS. It
conducts R&D in several DHS laboratories and funds R&D conducted
by other government agencies, the Department of Energy national
laboratories, academia, and the private sector. Additionally, the directorate supports
the development of operational requirements and oversees the operational
testing and evaluation of homeland security systems for DHS. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 provided direction and broadly defined functions for
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and the S&T
Directorate. Within this broad statutory framework, Administration and
congressional policymakers face many challenges, including balancing
funding for R&D activities, which may not result in a deployable
product for many years, with other near-term homeland security needs.
Despite several restructurings and close congressional oversight, the S&T
Directorate continues to face difficulties in meeting congressional
expectations. The 113th Congress may consider several policy issues related to the
performance of the S&T Directorate. These include
• priority-setting mechanisms for the directorate’s R&D programs, such as strategic
planning and targeting high-priority investments;
• the scope of the directorate’s R&D activities, such as balancing
incremental efforts with efforts that offer high risk, but high reward;
• efforts to consolidate or disperse R&D activity in or away from the
S&T Directorate; and
• the directorate’s role in the DHS acquisition process, both in identifying operational
requirements and assessing operational effectiveness.
Date of Report: September 17, 2013
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: R43064
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R43064.pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
