Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 14, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
5728 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
WILLIAM
E. KENNARD
CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
JUSTICE, STATE, AND THE JUDICIARY
SUBJECT - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET ESTIMATES
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you today the
Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Estimates of the Federal Communications Commission.
This afternoon I would like to: summarize our FY 2000 Budget Estimates;
highlight the growing impact of the Telecommunications Act of
1996, and what remains to be done to achieve competition now that the
Supreme Court has affirmed the FCC's authority to implement the core local
competition provisions of the Act; note some of our other accomplishments;
discuss our plans to assist the Congress as it considers reauthorization of the
FCC later this year; report to you on the progress we have made in our Year 2000
remediation program; and share with you my agenda for the rest of 1999. A 21st
Century Vision
Before I address the major points of my testimony, however, I
want to note that this is the final appearance before you this century of an FCC
Chairman seeking your support and funding. Therefore, I want to describe for you
my vision of an FCC for the 21st century.
We are standing at the threshold
of a new century, a century that promises to be as revolutionary in the
technology that affects our daily lives and the future of our country as the
inventions and innovations that so profoundly shaped the past 100 years. Just as
the internal combustion engine, the telephone, and the railroad brought about
our country's transformation from an agricultural to industrial society, the
microchip, fiber optic cables, and satellites are fueling our transition from an
industrial to an information-age society.
With the passage of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, we began the process of
updating the rules for this New Economy, an economy centered on skilled workers,
broad access to technology, and entrepreneurial markets. By opening up the
marketplace to more competitors, we have a communications industry that is the
envy of the world. Every major economic indicator in every sector of the
communications industry is up: job growth, revenue, investment, and stock values
are all at record levels. This growth has enriched the nation, and Americans are
beginning to reap the benefits of competition with more choices and lower
prices.
In the opening years of the next century, the telecommunications
marketplace will change dramatically. Phone wires will deliver movies, cable
lines will carry telephone calls, and the airwaves will carry both. This
convergence of technologies will transform how we live, work, shop, and play. It
will blur traditional industry lines. It will reshape our society.
As the
marketplace changes, so must the Federal Communications Commission. The topdown
regulatory model of the Industrial Age is as out of place in the New Economy as
the rotary telephone, As competition and convergence develop, the FCC must
streamline its operations and continue to eliminate regulatory burdens.
Technology is no longer a barrier, but old ways of thinking are.
As we
re-direct the FCC's focus for a competitive age, the Commission must reform
itself. Already, we have taken some initial steps on the road towards
re-engineering the FCC. We are re-focusing and consolidating our enforcement and
consumer information functions, as well as automating and streamlining our
licensing processes across the entire agency. But these steps are only the
beginning.
Congress' review this year of the FCC presents an important
opportunity to continue the discussion on how the FCC should respond to this
transformation and what its role should be in the 21st century marketplace. Our
primary role must be to continue opening markets to competitors to bring more
choices at affordable prices to all Americans. The Telecom Act requires that
telecommunications monopolies open up their networks to allow new entrants to
compete with them. With the recent Supreme Court decision affirming the FCC's
role in implementing these provisions, we will continue working with the states
and industry to accomplish this task. In addition, we must continue to ensure
that all Americans have access to the wonders of the communications revolution.
As competition develops, we must re-focus our efforts on those functions
that are appropriate for a competitive age. For example, we will take strong
action against those who would rather cheat than compete for consumers. We will
work to ensure that Americans are provided with clear information so that they
can make sense of these new technologies and services and choose the ones best
for them. We will enforce the law, resolve industry disputes, manage the
spectrum, and work on international coordination. And finally, we will monitor
the competitive landscape on behalf of the public interest, implementing
important policies such as universal service in ways compatible with
competition.
Just as the telecommunications industry and other sectors of
our economy are constantly adapting to change and competition, so must we. We
look forward to working with Congress - as well as industry, consumers, state
and local governments, and others -- on a critical assessment of what the "new"
FCC should look like, and how we can get there.
A new century and new
economy demand a new FCC. We must plan for the future, while continuing to work
on the challenges we face today to promote competition, foster innovation, and
help bring the benefits of 21st century telecommunications to all Americans.
Overview of FY 2000 Budget Estimates
To help the FCC begin to realize
this 21st century vision, the Commission proposes a Fiscal Year 2000 budget of
$230,887,000, and a staff of 1,930 funded full-time equivalents (FTEs). This
represents an increase of $38,887,000 over the FCC's FY 1999 funding level, but
no increase in staffing.Of the $38.8 million increase, $20.3 million is directly
related to the FCC's relocation to the Portals Building. This includes $9.6
million for higher rent, $.5 million for increased Federal Protective Service
charges, $1.5 million for extended guard services due to the lease requirement
to allow the public to enter the building at all five entrances, and $8.7
million to reimburse the General Services Administration for the costs it
incurred to relocate the FCC to the Portals.
The remaining increase covers
$6.8 million for mandatory salary and benefit increases, $.7 million for
Consumer Price Index adjustments, in contract services and $11.3 million for
automation enhancements. Without adequate automation funding, the Commission
will be unable to carry out our basic functions of awarding licenses to
applicants for communications services, overseeing the implementation of new
services for the public, and reviewing and updating existing rules and
regulations.
In view of the importance of these services to the economy
of the United States, this investment in technology is critical. Since the
automation enhancements will directly benefit the Commission's licensees, we
propose that all of this increase be paid for by an increase in regulatory fees.
The total amount to be collected from regulatory fees would increase from
$172,523,000 in FY 1999 to $185,754,000 in FY 2000.
The Growing Impact of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Turning now to the
growing impact of the Telecom Act, I am very pleased to report that the Act is
working: consumers are beginning to see competitive choices in local
telecommunications services, competitive deployment of advanced broadband
services is well underway and the stage is therefore set for less regulation as
.competition expands.
I also note that by every measure, the
telecommunications industry is thriving. Since the passage of the Telecom Act,
revenues of the communications sector of our economy have grown by over $140
billion. Stock values of the companies in the telecommunications sector are up,
indicating that Wall Street sees a future of a rapidly enlarging pie that is big
enough for all, not a zero sum game.
One-fourth of our country's economic
growth has come from the information technology sector. For 1998, it is
estimated that the communications sector of our economy will have revenues in
excess of $500 billion dollars. This growth has touched the lives of almost
every American. Now, a growing number of American families across this nation
have a choice of a vast array of high-tech communications services, services
that now cost less.
This growth comes not only from established providers
but, since the passage of the Telecom Act, we can now clearly see benefits
flowing from the new competitors. The revenues of new local service providers
more than doubled in 1997, and they increased substantially again in 1998. And
this growth has meant new jobs for thousands of Americans.In the wireless
industry, capital investment in 1998 has more than tripled since 1993, with more
than $50 billion of cumulative investment through 1998. Similarly, the wireless
industry generated almost three times as many jobs as in 1993. All this while
the cost of service to the consumer has dropped. A cell phone is no longer a
luxury for the privileged, for with the advances in cellular service and the
advent of digital, personal communications services, mobile phones are now a
common communications tool for over 60 million people every day.
AT&T,
BellSouth, MCI Worldcom, Ameritech, Sprint, SBC, Bell Atlantic and US West are
all among the top 20 telecommunications companies, by revenue, worldwide.
Similarly, GE Americom, Hughes, Loral and Panamsat are among the top 20
satellite service providers, by revenue, worldwide. And US satellite
manufacturers such as Hughes, Lockheed Martin, Loral, Motorola and Orbital
Sciences, maintain a strong lead in contracting and subcontracting satellite
systems worldwide.
These are just a few examples of how the
telecommunications economy and market are thriving, and are doing so in an
increasingly competitive environment engendered by the Telecom Act.
From
Courts to Cooperation and Competition
In recent months, the FCC's
implementation of the Telecom Act also has been upheld repeatedly by the courts.
Most recently, in January 1999, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the
FCC's landmark decision implementing the core local competition provisions of
the Telecom Act. In AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court
specifically: affirmed the FCC's fundamental jurisdiction to issue uniform
national rules to facilitate competition for local telephone service; affirmed
the FCC's interpretation concerning new competitors' rights to share parts of
the incumbent carders' networks without having to provide their own facilities;
affirmed the FCC's rule that incumbent carriers may not dismantle their existing
networks in ways that disadvantage new entrants and raise entry costs; affirmed
the FCC's ruling that the Telecom Act enables new entrants to avail themselves
of all or portions of existing interconnection contracts between incumbents and
other competitors; affirmed the FCC's identification of a number of network
elements designed to facilitate entry by new competitors; and directed the FCC
to revisit its rule designating specific network elements that must be unbundled
pursuant to the Telecom Act.
The FCC's legal victories at the appellate
court level also have been significant over the past 14 months. For example, the
Commission worked closely with the Department of Justice to defend successfully
the integrity of the core market-opening provisions of the Telecom Act against
repeated constitutional attacks. Thus, two different federal courts of appeal in
the past year have issued three separate decisions upholding the
constitutionality of specific provisions of the Telecom Act governing the Bell
Operating Companies. In December 1998, the D.C. Circuit rejected contentions
that Section 271 of the Act -- a key provision that governs Bell Company
participation in the long distance market -- was an unconstitutional "bill
ofattainder" or punishment. The Supreme Court also declined to review a similar
decision from the Fifth Circuit.
The Commission has had other court
victories as well. In January 1998, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FCC's
interpretation of two key provisions of Section 271 which will help achieve
Congress' goals to ensure local markets are opened to competition and enhance
competition in the long distance market. In August 1998, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed a Commission decision reforming interstate "access
charges" -- the rates that local telephone companies charge long distance
companies for the right to originate and terminate all long distance calls.
Finally, in January 1999, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the FCC's rules establishing
benchmarks for rates that U.S. carriers pay to foreign carriers to complete
international calls, a decision which should reduce the prices consumers have to
pay for international calls.
Now that the courts have upheld most aspects of
the FCC's implementation of the Telecom Act, we must ensure that the Supreme
Court's decision in AT&T v. Iowa produces momentum behind the market-
opening mandates of the Telecom Act instead of more delay and confusion. First
and foremost, that means making sure that each of the three pathways to
competition spelled out in the Telecom Act are open: facilities-based
competition, resale, and unbundled network elements.
We know that the
Supreme Court's decision requires the FCC to revisit one of these pathways: the
FCC's interpretation of which network elements must be made available to
competitors. We must not allow uncertainty on this point to slow the momentum
toward competition.
This is why the Commission was pleased to learn last
month that each of the regional Bell operating companies and GTE have agreed to
fulfill their current obligations, as set forth in existing interconnection
agreements, to provide unbundled network elements while the FCC revisits its
interpretation of this key provision of the Telecom Act.
The law requires
all of the stakeholders to cooperate. It requires parties to negotiate on
interconnection and collocation. It requires state and federal regulators to
collaborate. So the irony of the Telecom Act is .that cooperation is the
prerequisite to competition. I welcome these good faith gestures of the
incumbent carriers. This pie is big enough for everyone to have a slice.
Now
that the Supreme Court has given us greater clarity on these major outstanding
issues, we must move forward immediately to settle any remaining ambiguities. I
am committed to finalizing the standard for the network elements by early
summer. We must put this matter to rest. The marketplace needs stability.
I
will continue to link arts with my colleagues in the states to implement the
Telecom Act in a fair, clear, and pro-competitive way. We now have three years
of experience on which tobuild the future. It is a strong foundation, and
together, we are going to complete the job that Congress gave us. And, we can
now move quickly.
Other FCC Accomplishments
I would like to turn now
to other areas of accomplishment since I became Chairman of the FCC in November
1997. Throughout my tenure, I have sought to:
transform the agency to assure
that all Americans will benefit from the communications revolution and the
opportunities it brings;
- stress the importance of promoting competition
while making sure it is not at the expense of the disadvantaged and those who
need extra help;
- advocate eliminating unnecessary regulation where
sufficient competition exists; and
- take a market-based, common sense
approach to telecommunications policy that promotes deregulation where possible
while at the same time ensuring that rules are in place and are enforced to
protect consumers.
I believe that during my Chairmanship, the Commission has
stood for promoting competition, fostering new technology and creating
opportunity while streamlining the agency and getting rid of unnecessary
regulation. The Commission is also dedicated to making sure that the burgeoning
digital revolution does not become a digital divide. This is evident in many of
our efforts since I became Chairman: for example, in the Broadband Task Force,
my "opportunity agenda," my views on universal service, my advocacy of the
E-rate, the FCC's outreach to the disabled community, overseeing implementation
of DTV, promoting low ' power FM, my views on implementation of Section 271, the
FCC's efforts to protect consumers against cramming and slamming, greater
inclusion of state regulators, and the FCC's holding field hearings around the
country with different groups.
Recognizing that access to technology is
essential for future jobs and an important step necessary to eradicate the
digital divide, I have also consistently advocated the Congressionally-created
universal service support for service to classrooms and libraries -- the so-
called E-rate. Under my tenure, the Commission finalized implementation of the
E-rate and prioritized assistance so that the most needy would receive the
biggest benefit.
Moreover, the Commission ensured ong program controls were
in place. No funding commitment letters were permitted to be sent until the
program was reviewed both by an independent auditor and the General Accounting
Office. I am pleased to report today that funding commitment letters totaling
$1.66 billion now have been sent to over 30,000 school and library applicants,
which completes the funding commitment process for the first year of the
program. In addition, the Universal Service Administrative Company has begun
accepting applications for the second year of the program. The FCC also is
continuing to work to simplify the application process to make it both simpler
and faster for schools and libraries.
Central to our first year achievements
is the creation of a Bandwidth Task Force, a pro-active, cross-bureau,
cross-disciplinary group whose responsibility is to identify for the
Commissionissues of bandwidth constraint within the nation's telecommunications
infrastructure. I have highlighted the current bandwidth constraints as one of
the most important issues to be addressed in the field of telecommunications
policy and regulation. Current bandwidth constraints include: access to the
information superhighway for the mass market, (the "last mile" issue);
connectivity to high bandwidth backbone by the nation's small- to-medium size
towns and communities; and inside wiring issues (the "last 100 feet"). The
Bandwidth Task Force also has the responsibility of prioritizing achievable
means to facilitate the deployment of competitive alternative high-bandwidth
technologies and the ability of all consumers to obtain broadband
interconnections and assisting the different areas of the agency in realizing
these goals.
We have also created a cross-agency task force to assess how to
stay ahead of the rapid consolidation of industry in the telecommunications
area. I began the Technology Advisory Committee, another intra-agency group
headed up by the Chief of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology and
comprised of engineers, economists, scientists and technologists. During my
tenure, the DTV task force, headed by Commissioner Ness, was established to
address tower siting issues for DTV. The FCC also launched a vigorous effort,
led by Commissioner Powell, to educate communications industries about Year 2000
compliance issues and to monitor industry efforts to address Y2K compliance.
Finally, we established the Opportunity Working Group, a cross-agency task force
charged with ensuring that all Americans receive the benefits of the
communications revolution.
Similarly, I have sought to strengthen the
cross-agency Disabilities Issues Task Force to highlight, among other things,
the importance of making technology available to everyone. For example, we have:
strengthened closed captioning rules so that persons who are deaf or
hard-of-hearing will have access to more programs on television; proposed new
rules for telecommunications relay services and proposed to require the
provision of speech to speech relay service; advocated that industry provide
solutions to the problem of compatibility between digital wireless phones and
TTYs; and proposed rules to make telecommunications services and equipment
accessible to persons with disabilities. Moreover, I have tried to raise the
profile of the needs of persons with disabilities in the telecommunications area
through speeches, statements, and demonstrations at the FCC of equipment and how
persons with disabilities would benefit from it. We have also sought to ensure
that the voices of people with disabilities and their advocates are heard at the
FCC.
Over the past 14 months, the Commission has also focused on ways to
increase competition in the telecommunications area. Toward this end, some of
the Commission's achievements include: beginning a rulemaking to establish a
pro-competitive, pro-innovative framework for advanced telecommunications
services offered by incumbent local telephone companies and by new entrants;
adopting a competitively neutral mechanism for long-term number portability cost
recovery; lowering barriers to non-U.S, licensed satellites providing service
within the U.S.; implementing the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications
Services, lowering barriers to entry by foreign carries in the United States;
adopting rules requiring set top boxes, cable modems and other navigation
devices be available "over the counter" as well as fromcable companies;
conducting 800 MHz, LMDS and 220 MHz auctions, and issuing 1608 licenses;
reopening review of access charges; and issuing a bandplan for the 18 Ghz band,
segmenting the band to allow new satellite services to operate without
interfering with terrestrial operations.
I have also sought to refocus the
Commission on the importance of community and empowering people and the public
safety community. For example, we have: issued technical standards for
implementation of the "V-Chip" and approved industry-developed plans for a
television rating system; allocated and adopted service and licensing rules for
24 MHz of spectrum for use by public safety entities, such as police, fire and
ambulance services; and adopted an Order extending the deadline for compliance
with electronic surveillance assistance requirements of CALEA to allow enough
time to develop the technologies necessary to provide law enforcement officials
with the tools they need to perform authorized wiretaps.
In the area of
consumer protection, the Commission: proposed more than $13 million in fines for
"slamming", including the first slamming fine of over $1 million; for the first
time ever, revoked a carrier's license to provide interstate services because of
slamming abuses; brokered and endorsed industry-developed guidelines to stop
"cramming;" issued rules empowering consumers to protect themselves against
outrageous payphone long distance charges; and issued rules to protect consumer
privacy concerning the use and disclosure of personal information to marketers.
As Chairman, I have also emphasized the importance of strengthening agency
enforcement as essential to protect consumers and enhance competition. As a
result, the FCC since I became Chairman has: investigated and shut down or fined
hundreds of companies that engaged in "slamming;" shut down 261 unlicensed
"pirate" radio operations, including five which were interfering with air
traffic control or were otherwise endangering human life; established a
"fast-track". complaint process for resolution of complaints that are important
to maintaining fair rules of competition; promptly adjudicated and stopped long
distance marketing arrangements that violated .and attempted to evade the
market-opening long distance provisions of the Telecom Act; and issued the
first-ever Temporary Restraining Order halting alleged violations of the
pro-competition provisions of the Communications Act.
Finally, over the past
14 months, I have stressed the importance of removing unnecessary, burdensome
regulations.
Our efforts to streamline regulations include: adopting
rules to auction mutually exclusive applications for broadcast licenses;
streamlining the broadcast application processes to reduce the number and length
of forms; simplifying the equipment authorization process; implementing
electronic filing for authorization requests for common carder tariffs and
comments and pleadings in most notice and comment rulemakings; and, as part of
the 1998 biennial regulatory review, proposing specific streamlining initiatives
in over two dozen areas.
FCC Reauthorization
This year the House and
Senate Commerce Committees have announced their intentions to consider
legislation to reauthorize the Commission. The FCC's last authorization
legislation was signed into law on September 1990 and authorized the FCC through
September 30, 1992. See Public Law 101-396 (H.R. 3265), the "Federal
Communications Commission Authorization Act of 1990."
As a result, since
1992, the FCC has been technically a "non- authorized" agency, dependent for its
congressional policy guidance on annual appropriations legislation and other
major legislation such as the Cable Act of 1992, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
To assist Congress in its current FCC
reauthorization effort, the Commission has already begun re-engineering itself
for the new century. Our actions to date and plans for the future are detailed
in a comprehensive report we plan to submit this spring to you, to our
authorizing committees, and to other Members of Congress as well as to the
public.
Over the next few months, we intend to undertake a comprehensive
self- assessment of our core mission and goals, what steps we must take to
achieve our goals, how to better measure our performance and effectiveness, and
how to use that information to make fundamental improvements in the way we
operate. We want to involve both our staff and our many stakeholders in this
self-assessment, including you and other Members of Congress, companies,
industry associations, consumer groups, academics, state and local governments,
and the public. The result of this effort will be a draft Strategic Plan
covering a five year period which we will release in July 1999, and on which we
will seek additional public comment. The FCC is viewing this reauthorization
process as an excellent opportunity to assess and reform the goals, structure
and processes of the agency as we plan for a new FCC that fits the
telecommunications marketplace of the future.
Moreover, a restructured and
streamlined FCC must be in place once competition arrives so that we can focus
on providing consumers information and protection, resolving industry disputes
and enforcing the law, allocating spectrum and other scarce resources, working
with other nations to open their markets, and protecting universal service and
other public interest objectives that may not be met by normal market forces.
In sum, we will seek to be structured to react quickly to market
developments, to work more efficiently in a competitive environment, and to
focus on bottom-line results for consumers. As competition increases, we must
place greater reliance on marketplace solutions, rather than on traditional
regulation of entry, exit and prices; and on surgical intervention rather than
complex rules in the case of marketplace failure.
We Also Need the Right
Tools
As I testified in June 1998 before the Senate Commerce Committee, we
cannot create a "leaner and smarter" FCC by ourselves. We need Congress to give
us the full range of tools necessary to reshape the Commission and its staff.
This is why we were all pleased to read in the Confessional Record of
February 23, 1999, the following statement by Senate Majority Leader Lott (R-MS)
which he made as part of longer remarks on the third anniversary of enactment of
the Telecom Act of 1996:
"During this continued period of transition, it
will be important for Congress to make sure that the Federal Communications
Commission is properly structured. That it has the right tools to foster and
further the ongoing evolution. Chairman Kennard's analogy--old regulatory models
are a thing of the past, much like the old, black rotary phones-- rings true.
The FCC indeed must change, and Congress should start empowering the FCC rather
than criticizing its individual decisions." (Emphasis added.)
One such
empowering tool is buyout authority for which we have proposed legislative
authority in our FY 2000 draft appropriations language. We need this authority
to buyout 'permanent employees and to replace them with employees who have the
appropriate mix of skills to handle our changing workload demands.
We also
need legislation as again presented in our FY 2000 appropriations language to
ensure that the goals of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act are met, and
that our auctions/ licensing process is not completely undermined by the
bankruptcy courts. Year 2000 Compliance
I am pleased to report to you today
that the FCC has made substantial progress in alleviating Year 2000 (Y2K)
problems for our internal application software systems, networks, and hardware.
The Commission is on schedule to achieve 93% compliance by April 30, 1999 and
has achieved 73% compliance to date. The Commission's ongoing relocation to the
new Portals office facility has had some minimal adverse impact on FCC Y2K
remediation efforts. However, the Portals move has also resulted in major
progress on our achieving Y2K compliance for the FCC's headquarters
infrastructure.
I have continued to stress the great importance of achieving
Y2K compliance for both the FCC and telecommunications industry systems. I also
want to commend Commissioner Michael Powell, who as a member of the President's
Council on Year 2000 Conversion, has lead the Commission's internal Y2K
compliance program while carrying out his important leadership role in the FCC's
industry outreach effort.
1999 Agenda
The transition from monopoly
regulation to open markets, from today's technologies to tomorrow's
breakthroughs, is not yet complete. Therefore, as we look forward to the
upcoming new century, the challenge before this Commission is clear: to promote
competition, to foster new technologies, to protect consumers, and to ensure
that all Americans have access to the wonders of the communications revolution.
These goals are the will of the American people and of Congress, set forth in
the Telecom Act. And we at the FCC will continue to work hard to bring these
benefits to every American.
These goals will guide us as we review the major
mergers now before this Commission. They will be in our minds as we continue our
work in opening local phone markets to competition, so Americans have choice in
local phone service. They will guide us as we work to make our communications
network accessible to all Americans, especially the 54 million Americans with
disabilities.
Our agenda for this year which I have attached to my testimony
is a full one. It is also an important one, fully justifying the resources we
have requested from you in our FY 2000 budget submission.
Conclusion
The
agenda for this year continues on the foundation laid last year -- competition,
community, common sense. We have a lot of work to do, and we have the will to do
it well. With your support of our FY 2000 budget request, we will succeed:
We will promote competition in all sectors of the marketplace. We will
reform access charges, and ensure that proposed mergers are pro- competitive and
benefit consumers. We will continue to deregulate as competition develops,
eliminating any unnecessary regulatory burdens, reducing reporting requirements,
streamlining rules and our own internal functions.
We will continue to
protect consumers from unscrupulous competitors, and give customers the
information they need to make wise choices in a robust and competitive
marketplace. We will continue our policy of "zero tolerance" for those
competitors who would rather cheat than compete.
We will work to ensure that
the Act's provisions on RBOC entry into the long distance marketplace are
implemented in a manner that promotes competition and consumer welfare and that
is fair to all of the parties.
We will ensure broad access to communications
services and technologies for all Americans, no matter where they live. We will
complete universal service reforms,continue oversight of the schools and
libraries and rural health care universal service programs, encourage
accessibility of emergency information via closed-captioning and video
description, and ensure that the 54 million Americans with disabilities can use
and have access to the communications network.
We will foster innovation,
working to ensure that America remains the world's leader in innovation. We will
continue to promote the development and deployment of high speed Internet
access, promote compatibility of digital video technologies with existing
equipment and services, and promote competitive alternatives to cable and
broadcast TV.
Finally, we will advance these concepts worldwide, serving as
an example and advocate of telecommunications competition worldwide. We will
work to encourage the development of international standards for global
interconnectivity, work to promote the fair use of spectrum through the WRC
2000, and aggressively work on the worldwide adoption of the WTO Agreement for
Basic Telecommunications. We will continue to assist other nations in
establishing conditions for deregulation, competition, and increased private
investment in their telecommunications infrastructure so that they too, can
share in the promise of the Information Age, and become our trading partners.
During this time the ground rules we set now will structure competition and
the telecommunications industry for years to come. Decisions we make today will
determine whether or not all Americans - irrespective of where they live, their
race, their age, or their special needs - can share in the promise of the
Information Age.
This concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased to answer your
questions.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 15, 1999