Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 12, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1347 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY April 12, 2000 JOHN D. DINGELL REPRESENTATIVE HOUSE
COMMERCE telecommunications, trade and consumer protection BROADBAND
TECHNOLOGIES
BODY:
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN
D. DINGELL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON THE STATUS OF BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT April11, 2000 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me.
The subject of today's hearing is an important one; in fact, these issues are
likely to drive the debate over telecommunications policy for many years to
come. We will hear from witnesses about the critical role of broadband
technology in building the nation's new economy, transforming our health care
delivery systems, and reinventing the way our children are educated. The
benefits to the American public will certainly be staggering, and I am sure the
ones highlighted today are just the tip of the iceberg. The question, though, is
not simply how we will benefit, but how quickly. What policies will encourage
these new technologies to reach the public in the most expeditious manner? Four
years ago Congress passed the most substantial rewrite of the nation's
telecommunications laws since 1934. That Act was quite an achievement. After
debating for almost two decades whether to deregulate the telecommunications
industry, it was time to break down the barriers to competition once and for
all. To be sure, the Telecom Act has benefited consumers and the economy greatly
since its enactment, but like all legislation, it is not without blemishes. Not
all of our hopes have yet materialized. And like all legislation, the Telecom
Act simply reflected Congress's best policy judgments based on facts we knew or
anticipated at a specific moment in time. But in the Information Age, these
facts change more rapidly than ever before. And for those who operate on
"Internet time," the last four years is more like an eternity. With the benefit
of 20/20 hindsight, perhaps the most glaring oversight of the Telecom Act was
its failure to create, with certainty, the proper environment for the Internet -
one that allows all companies the freedom to innovate and invest in new, more
robust ways to carry the vast potential of digital communications to every
American home. As a result, even with its explosive growth the Internet is
still, in many ways, grinding along in low gear. While we hear a great deal
about the benefits of the "Information Superhighway," the truth is most
Americans are relegated to the slow lane. Too many consumers remain stuck with
low-speed, dial-up service. The consumer eagerly awaits faster access at
reasonable prices, and the future growth of electronic commerce demands it.
Unfortunately, the Telecom Act did little to create the proper environment for
the deployment of broadband Internet services. Worse, it created uncertainty
with regard to how different technologies are treated under the law when they
compete to provide consumers with these advanced services. Do we treat one
broadband technology as a cable service if it comes to the home over fiber optic
and coaxial wires? Do we treat another technology like a telephone service
simply because it travels over twisted copper pairs? What if Web pages are
beamed to pizza-sized dishes from a satellite orbiting above the Earth? Even
though the information service delivered to the consumer is the same, each
method of delivery falls under a different regulatory scheme in current law.
This problem should be resolved, and the sooner the better. The promise of
electronic commerce has catapulted any dot-com stock into the stratosphere, but
precious few have yet to show a profit. The values are staggering, but they are
surviving on vapor. The New Economy will either sink or swim based on the speed
with which broadband Internet services reach the public. In my view, all
broadband technologies should be treated the same from a regulatory standpoint,
regardless of the historical "mission" of the company offering the service. It
should matter not whether the service is offered by a cable company, telephone
provider or electric utility. Each should be free to offer the service according
to the same rules. If we remove the regulatory disparity and uncertainty that
accompanies it, I am confident we will see many competitive platforms flourish,
and the consumer will be the immediate beneficiary. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working on a
legislative initiative to bring these benefits to the American public at the
earliest possible time.
LOAD-DATE: April 20, 2000,
Thursday 
