Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 25, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1236 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
SENATOR
PATRICK LEAHY,
RANKING MEMBER
BEFORE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
ANTITRUST, BUSINESS RIGHTS AND COMPETITION SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - "LOST OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1996"
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
that you and Senator Kohl have convened this important hearing. It is no secret
that I consider the Telecommunications Act of 1996 a missed
opportunity.
We had the opportunity -- then -- to increase consumer choice
for local telephone service, to ensure that cable TV rates did not skyrocket, to
protect the traditional role of local governments in setting land use policies,
and to keep the lid on payphone rates.
We also missed the opportunity, when
this Act repealed the blanket prohibition on the merger of Regional Bell
Operating Companies, to install safeguards to ensure that the old "Ma Bell" did
not come back together again.
I was convinced then, and am still convinced,
that we could! have achieved these goals without interfering with the positive
aspects of that Act.
As one of the Five Senators to vote against the 1996
Telecommunications Act, I remain convinced that the law should not have been
passed as written and should be overhauled now. I intend to reintroduce
legislation in the near future to impose reasonable standards on future RBOC
mergers, to give local governments more control over the siting of
telecommunications towers and to address the huge increases in payphone charges.
The Act has invited consolidation through mega-mergers among the Bell
Companies. The proof is clear: we started with seven Bell Companies and are now
down to four, with no standard in place that would forestall additional
consolidation.
l will introduce antitrust legislation, similar to the bill l
introduced last Congress, to bar future mergers between Bell Operating Companies
or GTE, unless the federal requirements for opening the local loop to
competition have been satisfied in at least half of the access lines in each
State served by the merging carriers. In addition, the bill requires the
Attorney General to find that the merger would promote competition for telephone
exchange services and exchange access services.
To date, not a single
incumbent Bell Operating Company has fully opened its local access lines to
competition as required in section 251 of the Act.
Businesses may choose
from a variety of companies offering local phone service, but most residential
customers can only get service from their existing phone company, l know that I
have no local choices where I live. I still have only one choice for dial-tone
and local telephone service, whether or not the service is good. That "choice"
is the Bell operating company or no service at all.
I want to focus on
payphones for a moment. Compared even to the increases in cable rates, payphone
increases get first prize any day of the week. in Vermont, the cost of a local
payphone call has increased 250 percent since passage of the 1996 Act. in fact,
many Americans are now paying 50 cents for local payphone calls if they cannot
quickly get change for a quarter -- since the typical cost is now 35 cents.
I introduced a bill last Congress, and will do so again this Congress, to
deal with this windfall and allow States to use the change for better pay phone
service for public safety or health reasons.
Boosters for the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 also claimed the new law would
bring consumers lower cable rates and better service. This was slick sales talk
that many of us questioned from the outset.
I was not alone three years ago
in warning that we did "not want to see a repeat of the skyrocketing
cablerates... It is too easy to see what might happen if the cable companies are
not restrained; either by competition or by laws."
I am gratified that our
Committee was able to begin to address this cable rate problem this morning. We
reported out a Hatch-Leahy bill that will allow satellite TV carriers to compete
directly with cable by offering the full range of local television,
superstations, movie channels and everything else. This is a great idea and
Senators DeWine and Kohl deserve a lot of credit for this effort and their work
last year on this.
Another flaw in the Telecommunications Act, in my view,
is that in some respects it has Congress favoring one technology over another.
That is very ant;competitive - especially when Congress guesses incorrectly
on which technology will work better. Congress should not take sides but should,
instead, let the best science dictate our progress.
l first became aware of
the seriousness of the problem when ! was informed about what happened on
Thistle Hill near Cabot, Vermont. A mobile phone company that wanted to offer
analog mobile phone service made a huge mistake. They hired a company to survey
land for their tower. They moved ahead without talking to town officials or the
local homeowners.
They did not bother doing their homework -- they surveyed
sites, pounded stakes into the ground and drove nails into maple trees without
any regard to who owned the land.
They made a mistake because one of the
yards was owned by the Chairman of the Selectboard of the town. When town
residents and officials complained, a lawyer for the phone company said: "We
take these sitings as far along in the process as we can get them before having
to go public" because they know there is a lot of opposition. I certainly would
not want them on my yard in Vermont pounding nails into my trees and stakes into
the ground. There were no prior discussions with the town and no notice to the
landowners whose maple trees were damaged.
What I am concerned about is that
there is a mad dash in Vermont and other rural states -- by analog mobile phone
companies -- to put up a bunch of towers to try to beat out digital phone
service using newer technologies.
For example, mobile phone service using
PCS-over-cable only requires small whip antennas. You do not have to build huge
towers with flashing lights near people's homes.
This service is widely
available in California and other States and works well. Also, satellite phone
service does not require towers. By preempting the traditional local role in the
siting of towers the Telecom Act provides special treatment to one, in this
example, technology that is already outmoded.
l was gratified that Chairman
Kennard came up to Vermont to hear firsthand how concerned Vermonters are over
this loss of control. Congress should not pick analog tower technology over
digital phone PCS technology or satellite phone service.
I introduced
legislation in the last Congress that was designed to halt FCC rulemakings to
override local and state controls concerning the siting of towers. Other
industries do not have a right to build structures wherever they may wish by
running around local authorities -- the analog cellular industry should live by
the same rules as everyone else.
I am working with groups throughout the
nation to update my bill which l will reintroduce with a number of cosponsors
soon.
The Congress should revisit the Telecommunications Act and this time
do a better job promoting competition and protecting consumers from increasing
telephone, payphone and cable rates, and not trying to pick winners and make
others losers.
The Act now has produced a track record that is pointing in
many cases in far different directions than we were promised when it was
enacted, it is time to take a fresh look at the law, and it is time to make
course corrections for those missed opportunities that can help fulfill some of
those earlier promises.
END
LOAD-DATE: February
27, 1999 
