LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: telecommunications act of 1996, House or Senate or Joint

Document 300 of 383.

View Related Topics

MAY 20, 1999, THURSDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1142 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER IRMA MUSE DIXON
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION SUBCOMMITTEE

BODY:

My gratitude for this FCC, which has been reasonable and eager to work with the States. I would also express my respect and appreciation for the work of the FCC Commissioners and their staff. The FCC is a regulatory body with impressive expertise that is valued greatly by us in the states. We are also very proud of our own staff at the Louisiana Public Service Commission; even though our resources are presently limited. I come here today with specific suggestions for reform or change of the FCC. Further, I am here to give some personal experiences that may be of interest or assist this committee in their re-structuring efforts. Since I have served as a member of the Communications Committee of NARUC, and since much of the recent national legislation has centered on the technical and competitive convergence of local and long distance telecommunications with cable TV and other alternatives, I will confine my comments specifically to the actions over the past years by the FCC.
My major concern for overhauling the FCC is initiated by implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. There was and still is no master plan or total vision as to what and how we allow the telephony direction and convergence to take place in these United States. Competition is a concept of impact pricing and improve services. However, there are no time lines or direction to allow all new technology to unfold systematically or guidance away from corruption by new entrants. Therefore, citizens are slammed, crammed, jammed and deceived. The FCC should provide public service announcements and educational workshops for citizens and industry. There must be a holistic industry approach in development whenever major legislation changes our world as we know it today. Input must be provided by those impacted - Governors, Utility Commissions, Mayors, Education Facilities, Industry Representatives, State Representatives, Consumer Organizations and Minority Businesses to develop a major plan for the implementation of such technology.
The State's role and role of the FCC in any acts or new implementation must be clearly defined. Coming from a state that has twice approved the Bell application for long distance under Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996...only to have it twice rejected by the FCC. As an elected Commissioner of a Public Service Commission with constitutional provisions, I find it difficult to have federal appointed officials reviewing and over reviewing actions and disposing issues voted on by LPSC. The LPSC was intended to have considerable authority over pricing of telecommunications services and elements, and we were to have a significant role in deciding when the conditions for entry into long distance had been met by the Bell Company. I think this role is logical. Who better than the Louisiana Public Service Commission can assess the status of our own markets and consider the impact of expanded competition on our consumers? I think we know far more about our markets and consumers than anyone in Washington, D.C. And let's be clear about one thing. Neither I nor the other Commissioners in Louisiana chose between the Bell company and the long distance companies in making our decisions on the 271 application. We were in it for our consumers. And we made decisions which we felt benefitted our consumers.
Let me give you an example. In Louisiana, sixteen of our parishes (some of you may call these counties) are bisected by the LATA boundaries. As you are aware, as a result of divestiture,the United States is divided into Local Access and Transport Areas (LATAs) within which a local telephone company may offer telecommunications services. This means that significant consumer benefits such as discounted parish-wide calling or state education discounts were unavailable to many of our Louisiana citizens. When we approved the Bell long distance application, one of our reasons was to bring these benefits to all our consumers. I believe that Congressman Tauzin is familiar with at least one of the parishes that is deprived of full benefit of these state calling plans: his own St. Mary's Parish. While Congressman Tauzin has been instrumental in offsetting this loss to some extent, many other people in Louisiana are being deprived of benefits intended by the Louisiana Public Service Commission because of artificial boundaries that can't be seen or explained. These problems were outlined in a recent letter from Dale Sittig, Chairman of the Louisiana Public Service Commission to the FCC.
We take our 271 responsibilities very seriously. Prior to approving the Bell application for the first time, we gathered thousand of pages of evidence and testimony and conducted numerous hearings and technical demonstrations. Let me report to this body today that we in Louisiana have a very comprehensive set of competitive rules that will ensure that fair play continues after Bell's entry into long distance. In short, as a constitutionally empowered body in Louisiana, we are well equipped and well prepared to protect our markets and consumers.
Our final item of frustration ..... While we have labored seriously over our responsibilities under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, others have apparently decided to bypass the process all together. I am referring to the mergers between long distance companies and others to expand their markets while continuing to deprive our citizens of the benefits of long competition. While some of these companies have pursued their marketing strategies through acquisitions and mergers, they have continued to delay our state proceedings by pretending to be interested in unbundled network elements and other aspects of the Telecommunications Act.
In summary, I believe the Louisiana Public Service Commission, other state commissions, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the National Conferences of Governors, State Legislators, and Mayors have valuable input into the process of expanding local, long distance and cable TV competition. For the reasons previously set forth, I would recommend that the FCC and these entities establish additional joint board efforts in deliberating and deciding rules. I also believe that it would be beneficial to both NARUC and the FCC if the FCC would actively participate in the NARUC Action Committees. Lastly, the FCC should hold hearings on critical new changes as technology unfolds, thereby allowing citizen input in the implementation and distribution of these new technical services. It is my belief that such hearings should be held in the region that will be most affected by the FCC's decisions.
Thank you for your attention. It has been my pleasure discussing how the FCC can increase its hands-on cooperation with state commissions through reorganization.
END

LOAD-DATE: May 22, 1999

Document 300 of 383.


Search Terms: telecommunications act of 1996, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: