Georgia Eyes Telecom Deregulation

January 13, 2006

TelecomWeb

During its 2006 session, the Georgia General Assembly will be considering at least two key pieces of communications legislation currently in the hopper: One effectively deregulates voice telephony regardless of technology and another prevents wireless companies from imposing contract extensions on users.

The Competitive Emerging Technologies Act of 2006 -- a version of Senate Bill 120 on telecom deregulation introduced earlier last year by Sen. Mitch Seabaugh (R-28th District) -- yesterday was passed in a 10-1 vote by the Senate's Regulatory Industries and Utilities Committee. It now moves to the Senate floor.

In a business-favored movement toward less government regulation of the industry, the proposed measure essentially would prevent the state Public Service Commission from regulating wireless, broadband and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology-based telephony offerings. The legislative move is based on recommendations made late last year by an industry/government joint Senate-House advisory committee.

"This bill will increase competition in Georgia by protecting the areas of regulation and non-regulation of broadband and continuing the telecom industry's dedication to consumers," Seabaugh, majority whip in the Georgia Senate and chairman of the committee, told TelecomWeb news break yesterday after the vote.

Meanwhile, Sen. Cecil Staton (R-8th district) also recently introduced a bill preventing cellular operators from requiring subscribers to extend or renew their contracts in order to change their levels or types of mobile wireless services. The proposed Senate Bill 395 ostensibly is in response to citizen complains about cellular business practices that tie longer contracts to service upgrades and changes, handset swapouts and other subscriber-desired requests.

The proposed measure is likely to draw opposition from the industry but Staton, a businessman, indicates some subscribers try to downsize their service plans -- which motivates the cellular contract extensions -- while other subscriber changes have no adverse revenue impact on the operators. "I'm not a big fan of government regulations," he adds. "But I know that when an industry is not willing to self-police, there is a role for government."

For a more comprehensive look at the Georgia story and other state-level developments, read the next issue of Telecom Policy Report. For a trial subscription, please go to

------