May 11, 2000
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn H.O.B
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), we respectfully urge you to oppose H.R. 1686, the Internet Freedom Act of 1999, sponsored by Reps. Goodlatte and Boucher. H.R. 1686 is unnecessary and would seriously undermine the key market opening requirements contained in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”).
1) H.R. 1686
DAMAGES COMPETITION BY GUTTING KEY
MARKET-OPENING PROVISIONS IN THE 1996 ACT.
H.R. 1686 would diminish the Bell companies’ incentives under the Act to open their local markets to competition before they are allowed to carry data across boundaries. Data services already represent over 80% of the fastest growing telecommunications traffic in the United States.
Sections 271 and 251 of the Telecommunications Act are designed to open local markets. That work is well underway but is not finished. There are numerous examples of collaboration between companies and state commissions making the 271 process work. The New York State Public Service Commission convened an extensive group of parties to work successfully for Section 271 approval for Bell Atlantic in New York. The U S WEST states are now working on a region-wide basis with U S WEST and competitors to solve the technical requirements of interconnection. We look forward to the day when all Bell companies achieve 271 compliance so that everyone can enter everyone else’s markets.
2) NOTHING IN CURRENT LAW PREVENTS BELL COMPANIES FROM PROVIDING ADVANCED SERVICES TO CONSUMERS TODAY.
The Act does not prevent Bell companies from providing broadband services to customers, if those broadband services do not cross LATA boundaries. In fact, Bell companies have already deployed broadband facilities in their home markets and are actively marketing high speed Internet access in many areas.
Bell companies claim they need exemptions from the market-opening requirements in the Act to finance the roll out of advanced services in rural and urban communities. But the passage of H.R. 1686 does not guarantee the deployment of advanced services anywhere. Congress should address broadband deployment to rural and urban areas directly and in a competitively and technologically neutral way – not by removing the Bell’s incentives to open their local markets.
For example, local telephone companies have possessed digital subscriber line (DSL) technology for several years. Only recently and especially in response to competitive pressure have local telephone companies begun aggressively deploying DSL. Local competition is the fastest way for most consumers to obtain broadband services at competitive prices. H.R. 1686 would actually inhibit the deployment of advanced services because it reduces the incentives for RBOCs to open their local markets to competition.
3) MANY
CARRIERS HAVE DEPLOYED ADVANCED SERVICES TO RURAL AND URBAN AREAS ALREADY. DESPITE THE RHETORIC, LEGISLATIVE
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE 1996 ACT ARE HARMFUL TO THE GOAL OF COMPETITION.
Lots of
competitive carriers are already providing broadband services under the
framework of the Act. Where RBOCs
lack authorization to provide broadband services across LATA boundaries, other
companies (including rural carriers) are already doing so. For example, new entrants – not
incumbent Bell companies – were the first to offer DSL services in California,
New Hampshire and New Mexico.
Allowing state commissions to fully implement the 1996 Act will help
consumers benefit from the roll out of advanced services. H.R. 1686 would directly undermine
this effort. RBOCs will be able to
provide interLATA services as soon as they have passed muster under section 271.
There is no urgent need to pass legislation that circumvents the process that
Congress envisioned in 1996.
In addition,
HR 1686 repeals from current law unbundling and resale requirements for
facilities used for broadband services.
These provisions would inhibit competitors from accessing key network
bottlenecks and would prevent them from adequately serving customers. This bill also threatens the
availability of line-sharing to competitors.
In conclusion, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1686 and support the continued growth and innovation stemming from the pro-competitive measures in the law that Congress worked so hard to pass in 1996. Competition will eventually eliminate the need for regulation of broadband services. Exempting these services from Section 271 requirements will delay the arrival of competition. Enactment of this bill would harm the emergence of broadband competition by destroying the Act’s carefully crafted incentives for Bell companies to open their local markets to competition.
We are enclosing a copy of a resolution passed by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in March opposing this legislation. This resolution articulates concerns state public service commissions have about H.R. 1686.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions about the status of broadband deployment or the status of local competition in your district, please do not hesitate to contact any one of us or your state commission. You may call Jessica Zufolo at 202-898-2205 in the NARUC Washington office for further details about how to reach us or your state commission colleagues.
Sincerely,
___________________
________________________
Bob Rowe,
Commissioner
Joan H. Smith, Commissioner
Montana PUC
Oregon PUC
President, NARUC
Chair, NARUC Telecommunications
____________________
________________________
Jim Burg, Chair
Ruth K. Kretschmer, Commissioner
South Dakota PUC,
Illinois Commerce Commission
NARUC Board of
Directors
NARUC Board of Directors
Attachment: NARUC
Resolution