Paul Kapustka's Blog

(First of all -- if you haven't done any required reading, take some time to bone up on where the debate currently stands. For the House bill, we point you to Jeff Pulver's take of a couple days ago, and for the Senate version, this posting from David Hatch at the National Journal is a good updater. Also, Pulver "wartime consigliere" Jonathan Askin has an on-the-scene report with added depth and insight.)

Now, on to Thursday's House performance, otherwise known as the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006: (and that blank spot is not a typo, that's how it's described on the House site)

First off, a caveat: This is far less than a wire-to-wire accounting of the proceedings, mainly because A) I didn't wake up early enough to catch the start of the webcast, and B) the thing ran on so long it was necessary to take breaks for things like breakfast. Such is the drudge of covering these things from the left coast. Now with my apologies out of the way, the best, worst and inbetween...

TOP PERFORMERS

JOE BARTON, R-Texas (committee chairman)
I missed his opening remarks, but during questioning Barton let everyone know who's the boss hog on this bill: He is. School was in when prof. Barton asked the witnesses, with not a small amount of anger, that "I want a definition of network neutrality from each of you gentlemen." Citron (more later) didn't flinch, and neither did Amazon veep Paul Misener. But Barton didn't really listen to their answers -- he already knew the answer, which was (after the panel had answered), "notice, no one's given close to the same definition yet."

Barton is the lead hawg on what is apparently the latest walking order from the Bells on how to deal with network neutrality, which is simply to neuter it by proclaiming it undefinable.

"We're tied up in knots [over net neutrality] and we don't have a universally recognized definition what it is," Barton complained.

Great, we don't understand it, so let's just ignore it! Let's move forward! Pass a bill already!

You may not like Barton's politics, but there is no doubt who is in charge. Hell, he was even passing out grades on the witnesses responses (he liked Misener's the best, and even chided cable lackey Kyle McSlarrow for "not having a definition")! Hey, you trying to put us out of a private-sector job, Joe?
Score: 7.0

ED MARKEY, D-Mass.
Rep. Markey may not have numbers on his side in this battle, but that doesn't mean he can't inflict wounds. His prime whipping boy Thursday was telco tool Walter McCormick, who Markey backed into a corner by noting that telcos want "rules" to force cable and broadcasters into letting telcos carry their programming, while telcos only want "principles" to guide their stewardship of network neutrality and open interconnects.

The great theater was Markey basically not letting MC Walt even begin any of his stock answers, but cutting him off before Walter could even say things like "incentive to invest." "You guys should develop your own programming," Markey told Walt. McSlarrow, a quick learner, didn't even try to slug it out with Markey, instead answering with a curt "no" to a list of questions like, "can you pledge that [cable companies] will upgrade uniformly," etc., etc.

Markey even roughed up Vonage's Citron a bit, trying to push him off his new center-of-the-road stance by asking for a grade "from one to 10" on the network neutrality provisions of the current COPE draft. (he finally coaxed a grade of "5" out of Citron) Markey then finished with a flourish about the weak build-out provisions in COPE, stating that it's clear that the future [of video, I think] in the telco plan will see "the poor side of town subsidizing the rich side of town."

And: "You don't need a business degree from Harvard to know that's the plan," Markey said.(BONUS LINK: Markey's web site already has video of his statement up... yeah, I think he gets this Internet thing.)
Score: 7.5

NEW FACE AWARDS:
STEVE BUYER, R-Indiana
Maybe he's not a nationally known entity yet, but Rep. Buyer is no doubt winning fans in San Antonio for his successful help in passing Indiana's new video dereg legislation (one of the sponsors, state Sen. Brandt Hershmann, works for Buyer). Thursday, he proved as adept as Barton in following the "what the heck is network neutrality, anyway" line, asking rhetorically for people to "write on a piece of paper what network neutrality means" so presumably, he could... what? Belittle it? Buyer then made some veiled references to legislation of his own that he was holding in check in respect to Barton's bid... but if this bill fails, look for Buyer to step into any power breach.

Buyer showed more fire later when he voiced an open-ended question about whether the semantics of "cable service" or "video service" mattered... and when nobody answered, Buyer said, "great, I'm the only one who gives a damn." Yow! Young, well-informed, good presenter, good hair (See Ensign score here for why that matters)... the future is bright for the next fair-haired child of the RBOCs.
Score: 6.75

KEN FELLMAN, Mayor, City of Arvada (Colo.) and rep for some mayor/cities groups:
Fellman, a new face on the scene, gets kudos for trying to dispel one of the bigger myths, that somehow Verizon and AT&T don't have the resources to go get local video franchises all over the country. Fellman, citing a story he read that said Verizon has 50 employees dedicated to evaluating franchise agreements, boldly stated that "if you add up the number of lobbyists they have trying to end franchising, it will add up to more than 50."

Ouch! Maybe he's not the first to suggest that if Verizon and AT&T had redirected lobbying and legislative efforts toward franchising, they might have all they need by now... but what fun would that be? Fellman even took a belated swipe at Barton, following Barton's "define this" performance with a "I was hoping chairman Barton was going to also ask us for a definition of a competitive cable service." (of course, Barton had already left the room, but still -- cheeky!)
Score: 7.25

AND THE REST:

JEFFREY CITRON, Vonage
Still one of the best speakers network neutrality proponents have, Citron is getting to be an ace at this hearings game, never backing down, never unsure of his answers. He's also learned what matters to Congress, spending most of his time talking about E-911 services, and why the bill needs to ensure that the Verizons and the AT&Ts give Vonage access to PSAP infrastructure... sounds reasonable, not whiny, never even says network neutrality anymore. He even talked about how Vonage and Verizon were best buds, since Verizon provided a single tech standard for linking to all its 911 centers! You may not like his new centrist approach, but for a company that needs all the friends it can get, it's sure not stupid.
Score: 6.5

PAUL MISENER, VP for global public policy, Amazon.com
Though he needs to brush up on his technology descriptions of what a router does (hint to Misener: they can do a lot more prioritization of packets than you think), Misener did give voice to what all the Bell suckups seem to want to ignore -- that the CEOs of the big telcos are all saying publicly that they want to charge more for certain applications. "They are going to alter the Internet, unless Congress stops them," Misener noted. "they have already stated their intent to do so."

With a few better stock answers (like, how hard would it be to come up with a "this is what net neutrality means" that Amazon, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft could all agree on?), and some better clothes for his next C-Hill appearance (dark blue button-down shirt under a suit? What's that, business casual/formal?), Misener could help net neutrality proponents a lot, going forward.
Score: 6.25

Tool o' the day award (maybe we should just put his name on it): Walter McCormick, USTA
Even though he was knocked to the floor by Markey (and later took another head-swipe from Rick Boucher), MC Walt still found time to play the China Card -- "what if Google censored public speech, as it has done in China?" Walt asked, though nobody had asked the question. "it's a very dangerous thing to be the first country in the world to regulate the Internet," McCormick added. And people pay good money for this kind of blather?
Score: 1.5

Why Is This Man In A Responsbile Position award: Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Wouldn't you love to have seen whose letterhead was on the piece of paper that Rep. Rush was reading his opening statement from? I mean, this was not someone who appeared to be speaking from the heart or from innate knowledge of the subject. Though Rush said he wants to make sure that the concerns of his African-American constituency "must be addressed," maybe he didn't hear all that stuff about how the bill he's now a co-sponsor of doesn't require telcos to completely build out in the areas where they want to provide video services?

Rep. Rush, meet Rep. Markey. Supposedly, you are on the same side.
Score: 1.0

MORE LATER: Senate smackdown tonight or tomorrow.