A Senate committee—pased bill to overhaul the nation's communications industry could fall victim to a limited legislative calendar and heightened political climate in the period leading up to this November's midterm election.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is considering whether to bring the legislation — which cleared the Senate Commerce Committee late Wednesday — to the floor this fall. But he has first he has ordered Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to confirm that 60 senators would support an effort to overcome a potential filibuster.

However, even if Stevens succeeds, Frist is likely to weigh the political benefits against a potential policy fight before scheduling a vote.

"The clock will be a major factor regardless of whether 60 votes can be found," a Frist aide said Friday, adding that the majority leader "will take it one step at a time."

While the aide said Frist thinks the nation's telecom laws need to be updated for "the age of the Internet and wireless," he noted that Commerce Committee leaders first must write their report on the bill — and then Stevens must get the 60 votes.

After that, Frist will study the legislative calendar "and decide if this giant policy and floor fight is appropriate for the 109th Congress or for the 110th."

Stevens — who said this past week that the measure would be on the floor in September, assuming it makes it there at all — plans to negotiate with fellow senators, and likely will delete parts of the bill to win votes.

But he drew a line in the sand on video-franchising changes and provisions to broaden the universal service fund, which provides communications services to rural and low-income areas.

Before the Commerce panel approved the measure Wednesday, proponents narrowly defeated a so-called network neutrality amendment. That issue could become a major sticking point during debate: Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., already has placed a procedural "hold" on the legislation because the stronger net neutrality language was excluded.

Stevens included limited net neutrality in the legislation to stop the Bell telecommunications firms and cable operators from blocking Web sites based on political affiliation. But it would not bar charging fees to preferred businesses for speedier Internet delivery.

The amendment that was defeated in committee — on a tie vote — would have prohibited Bell and cable companies from treating Internet traffic differently based on source, destination or ownership.