Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
July 18, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1376 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF REP. ANNA G. ESHOO
BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBJECT -
DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
BODY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and for extending to
me your kind invitation to address the Committee. I also wish to recognize and
thank the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers and every member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Chairman, telecommunications in ancient Greece
consisted of Greek leaders giving speeches to large crowds of its citizens. And
when it came to the great leaders of Greece none was wiser or a better
communicator than Pericles.
In one famous speech, Pericles gave the
Greeks some advice that I believe applies to our work here today. He said, "Time
is the wisest counselor of all." Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of serving in
Congress and on the Commerce Committee when the '96 Telecom Act was drafted and
I served on the Conference Committee that put the Act together.
Our
respected colleague, Congressman Tauzin, was also on the Commerce Committee when
the Telecommunications Act was shaped in 1996. When Congress passed the Telecom
Act, we intended that legislation to deregulate a communications industry in
which competition had been choked off by years of monopolistic practices.
Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Boucher and I agree that open and
rigorous competition among telecommunications companies is the best guarantee
that consumers will receive the broadest range of services at the best
prices--and by definition, it is the most effective means to end monopolistic
practices.
Since the 1996 Act was signed into law, we've seen the
telecommunications revolution occur with breathtaking speed. No sooner does one
technology seem to offer more speed and capability, when along comes another
advancement that offers more data, faster.
We know the Telecom Act has
resulted in a larger menu of broadband delivery options. It has increased
competition and produced lower prices for the consumer.
One of the best
examples of this is seen in the development of the Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers -- or CLECs. These companies -- companies like Covad -- are children of
the Telecomm Act.
And why do I call them this? These companies provide
DSL-based access to the Internet through local loops or on
their own high-speed fiber networks. Before the Telecom Act, these companies
could not exist in a regulated environment. Only the Bells could offer this
technology. It's important to note that the Bells had DSL
technology but did not offer it. Instead, they offered the more expensive "T-1"
lines to businesses.
But the Telecom Act deregulated the industry and
allowed these companies to offer the DSL service. And once the
Telecom Act allowed these companies to offer their services, what happened?
Telephone companies that before had only offered the more expensive T-1 lines,
began to rapidly expand their DSL service -- a service they
could have offered much earlier. The result was increased broadband services to
consumers at a cheaper price.
And more dramatic successes are just
around the corner. For example, there is a company in California called Next
Level Communications offering VDSL that is faster than DSL and
no more expensive for the consumer.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that
Congress will follow the wisdom of Pericles and let time be our advisor on this
issue. We should be patient. We should refuse the temptation to change course in
order to meddle in the marketplace while this revolution in telecommunications
is happening around us.
I don't believe clear or convincing evidence has
been offered that consumers are suffering. Quite the contrary. Consumers are
getting more choices and lower prices. Rather, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that
the evidence points to something else -- namely, the different segments of the
telecommunications industry are using the Internet as a reason to reopen the old
debate that long distance companies and the RBOCs had regarding deregulation.
I believe Congress decided in 1996 the forum for that debate is in the
marketplace, not the legislature. The development of the Internet is not a
reason to reverse this decision.
In fact, the one way to guarantee harm
to the consumer is for Congress to try and re-insert itself into this
competition.
I also want to try and put to rest a myth that some parties
in the telecommunications industry are working hard to create -- and that is
when Congress was writing the Telecom Act of 1996 no one knew about the Internet
and how it would impact the telephone industry. Therefore, goes the argument, we
should re-open the Act to take the Internet into account.
Let me quote
from the transcript of the 1995 Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance. These hearings were conducted for three straight
days in May of 1995. They were part of the primary proceedings used by the House
in gathering information regarding telephone deregulation on the Telecom Act.
First, I want to quote from the statement of Mr. Ken Oshman, the CEO of
Echelon, a Silicon Valley company, who told the Committee to be sure and focus
on the accelerating convergence between the communications and computer
industries.
Oshman said, and I quote, "Computer and information
processing companies, which historically and successfully have operated largely
free from government oversight, are increasingly becoming involved in
communications markets. As computing power and innovation continue to increase,
we will only see more integration of the computer and communications industries,
with applications ranging from the Internet, to telecommuting, to medical and
database-retrieval services, all of which will be delivered on a scale that is
orders of magnitude faster and more diverse than today." (End quote)
Mr.
Oshman went on to note that the convergence of computer and communications
industries were in the news every day in 1995. Specifically, Apple Computer
sought spectrum allocation for wireless mobile computing and Intel and AT&T
joined forces to create a high- speed network technology for personal computer
communications.
This is not the only example. Larry Harris from MCI
Communications testified before the Committee that, "New fiber optic
technologies will soon allow MCI to reach transmission speeds of 10 gigabits and
eventually 40 gigabits -- enough for nearly 500,000 simultaneous 'Internet'
conversations over a single fiber pair."
Finally, I'd like to refer to
my own opening statement on May 10, 1995. To the Committee I stated the
following: "Consider, for example, that in 1972 there were only 150,000
computers in the world, yet this year (1995) Intel Corporation alone will sell
100 million small microprocessers each surpassing the capabilities of those
computers sold in 1972."
I went on to say that, "Unfortunately, today's
twisted copper wire telephone network is unsuitable for modern computers and
software applications which can incorporate voice, video, graphic, and data
transmissions and send them simultaneously in real-time exchanges."
I
submit that the testimony I just recited and which we heard on those three days
in 1995 sounds like the description of today's Internet.
And so I submit
that the legislation being considered by you today may be premature. The
so-called "incentives" for RBOCs to roll out DSL are
unnecessary because clearly there are signals that competition already exists in
this market. Cable companies have two-way high speed cable technology to
potentially compete with RBOCs in the local phone business.
And finally
Mr. Chairman, let me lay an important marker down by asking this Committee how
Internet telephony will effect the legislation you're being asked to consider.
If you're being asked to reopen the Telecom Act because of the Internet, how
will this legislation effect the developing market that allows telephone calls
to be made over the Internet? This technology which is already in use, could
have a dramatic effect on how we define something as basic as what a telephone
call is.
Why not take the Periclean approach and see where this
technological revolution will lead? To do otherwise I believe will engender
marketplace disruption through pre-regulation than is ultimately necessary.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear
before the Committee.
END
LOAD-DATE:
August 17, 2000 
