Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 17, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2492 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
GLORIA
TRISTANI
FCC COMMISSIONER
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
BODY:
I'm pleased to report on our progress in
carrying out Congress' vision that all Americans have the opportunity to share
in the benefits of the telecommunications revolution.
- Universal Service --
As a member of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, I supported
the principal recommendations that the Board made to the FCC on high cost
funding. If these recommendations are adopted, I believe consumers will benefit
because local rates will be kept at affordable levels and competition will be
able to take root in residential areas. Another aspect of universal service that
is particularly important to me is connecting unserved areas. I believe the
federal government, in the interest of advancing universal service, must take a
more active role in connecting all Americans.
- E-Rate -- I am the first to
admit that the implementation of this program has not been perfect. But the
goals of the program are sound and I am convinced that the e-rate funds that
have recently been committed to schools around the country will generate
enormous social and economic benefits for the nation in the years ahead.
-
Broadband Deployment - Our first report on the state of
broadband deployment under Section 706 was guardedly optimistic
while recognizing that it is still early in the process. Indeed, with respect to
rural and other hard-to-serve areas, I remain more guarded than optimistic. I am
not yet convinced that these Americans will have access to advanced services on
a reasonable and timely basis. I believe that there are two ways we can
accelerate the deployment of advanced services: (1) ensure that competitors have
access to the basic building blocks of advanced services that are controlled by
incumbent LECs; and (2) ensure that we are not overregulating the provision of
advanced services by incumbent LECs.
- Slamming -- I strongly supported the
rules we recently adopted to fight slamming. The highlight of our new rules is
that a customer who is slammed need not pay the slammer.
- EEO -- We have
proposed new broadcast EEO rules that we believe address the concerns raised by
the D.C. Circuit in striking down the outreach portions of our previous EEO
rules.
- FCC Restructuring -- (1) we need to become more enforcement-
oriented; (2) we need to continue restructuring the agency to reflect the
continued convergence of technology across traditional industry lines; and (3)
we should initiate a top-to-bottom review to ensure that our staff is deployed
in a way that reflects the agency's current priorities. ******************
STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION MARCH 17, 1999
Good
morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the role of the FCC as we continue to work toward the goal set
forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 of opening telecommunications
markets to competition for the benefit of all Americans.
Last year, I came
before this Committee and talked about my commitment to carrying out Congress'
vision that all Americans -- rural and urban, rich and poor, minority and
nonminority -- have the opportunity to share in the benefits of the
telecommunications revolution. I'm pleased to report that we have made some
progress in the past year. I wanted to update the Committee on a couple of
things we have accomplished and where we might go from here.
First and
foremost is universal service. In rural states like my home state of New Mexico,
universal service permits average Americans to have phone service who otherwise
would not be able to afford it. Right now, we are working to ensure that
universal service support does not erode as competition develops. Last summer,
the FCC referred key issues involving high cost funding to the Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service. As a member of the Joint Board, I was pleased
to support the principal recommendations that the Joint Board made to the FCC
last November. Among the recommendations were to move away from a strict limit
of 25 percent federal funding of universal service. Instead, the Joint Board
recommended that the FCC provide more than 25 percent of the support needed in
cases where a state cannot reasonably bear 75 percent of the cost of universal
service. If this recommendation is adopted by the FCC, I believe consumers will
benefit because local rates will be kept at affordable levels, and competition
will be able to take root in residential areas. I also believe that the recent
work of the Universal Service Joint Board, under the leadership of my colleague
Commissioner Susan Ness and Florida Commissioner Julia Johnson, demonstrates the
increasingly cooperative relationship between federal and state commissioners in
fulfilling Congress' goals for universal service reform.
One aspect of
universal service that is particularly important to me is connecting unserved
areas. In enacting section 254, Congress told us not only to "preserve" but to
"advance" universal service. I see no more worthy means of advancing universal
service than to devise creative solutions to problem of unserved areas. In many
of these areas, customers remain unserved because the alternative is to pay the
local phone company thousands of dollars to have a line extended to their home.
This is unacceptable. I believe the federal government, in the interest of
advancing universal service, must take a more active role in connecting all
Americans.
I would note that many unserved areas are on Indian lands, and
that Indians are among the poorest groups of Americans. Chairman Kennard has
recognized this problem, and I commend his leadership on this issue. Recently,
the Chairman and I held a field hearing in New Mexico where we were joined by
Congresswoman Heather Wilson, a fellow New Mexican. We took testimony and
visited Indian reservations to learn firsthand about the causes of this problem
and some possible solutions. That field hearing marked the beginning of a real
commitment in the area of telecommunications to better fulfill the federal
government's trust obligation with respect to Indians living on reservations.
In addition, I would like to express my continuing support for the e- rate
program. I am the first to admit that the implementation of this program has not
been perfect. But the goals of the program are sound and I am convinced that the
e-rate funds that have recently been committed to schools around the country
will generate enormous social and economic benefits for the nation in the years
ahead.
Another area Of increasing importance to all Americans is
broadband deployment. Access to broadband capacity will be a
crucial tool for our citizens to compete in the information economy of the 21st
century. In Section 706 of the 1996 Act, Congress directed the Commission to
monitor the roll-out of advanced telecommunications capability, and, if
necessary, take steps to ensure that all Americans have access to such
capability on a reasonable and timely basis.
We recently issued our
first Section 706 Report, which was guardedly optimistic about the state of
broadband deployment while recognizing that it is still too
early in the process to declare victory. Indeed, with respect to rural and other
hard-to serve areas, I remain more guarded than optimistic. I am not yet
convinced that these Americans will have access to advanced services on a
reasonable and timely basis. The next several years will be critical. As
advanced services begin to become a marketplace reality in many areas of the
country, we need to improve our data collection and assessment efforts to ensure
that all Americans have reasonable and timely access to these services.
I
believe there are two ways to accelerate the rollout of advanced services. The
first is to ensure that competitors have access to the basic building blocks of
advanced services that are controlled by incumbent LECs. That includes things
like conditioned local loops and collocation space. Competitors can then combine
those inputs with their own advanced services equipment to offer high speed
connections to end users. I believe the Commission will strengthen the
collocation rules at tomorrow's Agenda meeting, and in the near future the
Commission will, I hope, formally reinstate the requirement that conditioned
loops be made available to competitors.
The second way to spur advanced
services is to make sure we're not overregulating the provision of those
services by incumbent LECs. I recognize that there may be markets where, unlike
the market for basic local telephone service, incumbents do not have a
hundred-year head start. We need to think carefully before applying rules that
may be ill-suited for such emerging markets. If we proceed thoughtfully in this
area, I am optimistic that the FCC's policies will provide the right incentives
for both new entrants and incumbents to furnish the bandwidth that millions of
consumers are asking for. On the broadcast side, Equal Employment Opportunity is
one of the things that we have been working on to broaden opportunities for all
Americans. As the Committee is aware, this past year a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the outreach
portions of our previous EEO rules because it believed (wrongly, I think) that
our rules essentially required hiring decisions based on race. We have proposed
new rules to eliminate any confusion on this point and to clarify that all that
the new rules would require is outreach to women and minorities, not hiring
preferences. Outreach requirements simply expand the pool of candidates for
consideration. They do not exclude anyone based on race or gender. Reaching out
to all parts of the community would help ensure true equal opportunity -- giving
everyone the opportunity to participate in, own, and see themselves reflected
in, the media that has such a pervasive impact on our nation's cultural and
political life.
There are those who question whether we can craft new EEO
rules that will withstand judicial review. I do not doubt that any rules we
adopt will be challenged in court, and I have no illusions that some will argue
that even simple outreach requirements require the strictest judicial scrutiny.
But if the burden of proof is high, so are the stakes. I believe we must make
every effort to develop a meaningful EEO program that can and will be sustained.
Although much of the Commission's work addresses the broad structure of the
telecommunications industry, the actions I've drawn the most satisfaction from
are those that directly improve the daily lives of average Americans. That is
why I strongly supported the rules we adopted last December to combat slamming.
The highlight of our new rules is that a customer who is slammed need not pay
the slammer. This is good public policy for two reasons. First, allowing
consumers to withhold payment from the slammer takes the profit out of slamming.
That should substantially reduce the frequency of slamming. Second, allowing a
slammed customer to withhold payment compensates the slamming victim for the
trouble and aggravation of being slammed. I hope and expect that these new
rules, combined with our aggressive enforcement efforts against slammers, will
dramatically reduce the frequency with which consumers are slammed.
Another
consumer issue that I've been intensely interested in is the V-chip. This is the
year that the V-chip will finally become a reality in the lives of average
Americans. By July 1 of this year, half of the new television models with
screens thirteen inches or larger must have a V-chip installed. By January 1,
2000, all such sets must have a V- chip. This will empower parents to protect
their children from material that they deem harmful to their children. I commend
you, Mr. Chairman, for helping to forge a consensus on a useful ratings system,
as well as Congressman Markey, for his long-time leadership in this area. You
have given parents an important tool to help them raise their children even when
they cannot monitor what their children are watching.
Now, I'd like to turn
to the specific issue you asked us to address, Mr. Chairman -the restructuring
of the FCC. I applaud your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to take a fresh look at the
FCC from the ground up. We should not fear such a review; if we are doing our
job, we should welcome it. We are fortunate at the Commission to have a
tremendously talented and dedicated staff. We owe it to them, we owe it to you,
and, most importantly, we owe it to the American people, to create an FCC that
is as smart and efficient as possible. I do not pretend to have all of the
answers as I sit here today, but I do have a few thoughts that I'd like to
share.
First, I agree with those who say that we need to become more
enforcement-oriented. That is, we need to impose fewer rules that burden all
regulatees up front -- the good actors and the bad actors alike -- and develop
the restraint to step in only when a problem emerges. Under Chairman Kennard's
leadership, I'm pleased that we have already been moving in that direction. In
the mass media area, for instance, we are substantially reducing the amount of
paper that broadcasters must file, and instead are relying on the wider use of
compliance certifications and a program of random audits to deter abuse. To make
this system work, we need to ensure that bad actors, when they are identified,
are subject to swift, certain and consistent punishment.
Second, we need to
rethink the way the agency is structured. As the industries we regulate continue
to advance and converge, we have to continually ask ourselves whether our
organizational structure still makes sense. Chairman Kennard has taken some
steps in this regard with the planned consolidation of currently dispersed
functions into new Enforcement and Public Information Bureaus. I fully support
those efforts and hope to see similar efforts to restructure the Commission in
other areas that cut across traditional jurisdictional lines. Third, given that
the mix of expertise needed by the Commission changes over time. we need to make
certain that our staff is deployed in a manner that reflects the agency's
current priorities. If there are subgroups within the agency that were formed to
address a particular need that may have dissipated, we should reassign that
personnel to the many areas within the Commission that are understaffed. There
is no rule that says that an agency subgroup, once created, can never be
disbanded. I do not have any particular subgroups in mind, but I believe that
now is a good time for a top-to- bottom review. Our staff is too valuable to
allocate them in a way that fails to maximize their ability to contribute to the
agency's mission.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 18, 1999
