Washington, D.C., – The Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) today urged House lawmakers to refrain from amending the Telecommunications Act of 1996, warning that weakening or eliminating the law’s market-opening incentives for the Bell operating companies (BOCs) will undermine the development of local telecommunications competition and force consumers to forego new technologies.

CompTel President H. Russell Frisby, Jr. testified at a hearing held by the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, chaired by Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, (R-La.), who co-authored H.R. 2420 with Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). That bill would unleash the BOCs into the in-region long-distance market without ensuring that they have opened up their local networks to competition.

Frisby praised the pro-competitive effects of the 1996 Act. "Many of CompTel’s members would not exist were it not for the Telecommunications Act of 1996," Frisby noted, adding that CompTel’s members invest more than a billion dollars a month in "last mile" broadband connectivity alone, not to mention global data backbone facilities and innovative technologies such as wireless MMDS Internet access.

"To deploy these innovative technologies, our companies must have the Bell companies’ cooperation so that they may interconnect with their facilities, especially the vital last mile copper loop. Our members consistently tell us that even with the Act’s market-opening incentives in place, getting timely cooperation from the Bells can be problematic," Frisby said.

Frisby also made the following points in his testimony:

• It was competitors, not the incumbents, who first brought broadband services to American consumers. Only after entrepreneurs had blazed the broadband trail did the BOCs follow, even though they had developed DSL technologies more than a decade earlier;
• Internet backbone networks are plentiful, thanks to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the efforts by CompTel members and other competitive companies. Claims to the contrary by the BOCs are wholly without merit;
• Companies such as McLeodUSA, Touch America, South Dakota Network, and Birch Telecom Inc., among others are bridging the "Digital Divide" in rural areas. Meanwhile, the BOCs and GTE are selling off their rural exchanges. Inner city consumers are receiving DSL services from companies such as Prism Communications Services, Ntegrity TeleContent Services Inc. and Covad Communications Co. In many instances, the Bells and GTE are ignoring these areas, opting instead to target higher-end business customers.
• Additionally, competitors have built 1,000 high-speed Internet points-of-presence, or POPs, in all but two local areas in America. As a result, an analysis by the Competitive Broadband Coalition indicates that 93 percent of all Americans are within 50 miles of a high-speed POP. These POPs are not just in densely populated urban centers, but in areas such as: Owatonna, Minnesota; Ocala, Florida; and Joplin, Missouri. The notion that new entrants are not equipped to offer these facilities is simply wrong. New entrants have set the standard.

CompTel has been extremely vocal about the need for enforcing the pro-competitive provisions and safeguards of the 1996 Act. For example, CompTel recently urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to apply conditions to the SBC-Ameritech merger proposal, warning that SBC’s so-called "Project Pronto" – an overlay network architecture that employs remote terminals – essentially gives SBC certain unfair advantages over local competitors who seek to offer broadband services in SBC’s region.

Furthermore, Frisby stated in his testimony that the Bell companies have never been barred from building long-distance data networks outside of their operating regions, but that none of them has done so. He stated that the Bells have two avenues that they can take to enter the long-distance data market:

1. start competing and building outside of their home regions now — just like the competitors are doing; and
2. comply with the Act’s pro-competitive, market-opening provisions to be able to provide such services in their home region.

Finally, Frisby noted that there is no longer any distinction between voice and data: "It’s all ones and zeroes in this digital world, and Congress’ recognition of that fact is embodied in the Act …

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is working as Congress envisioned over four years ago. Entrepreneurs are leading the way in bringing innovative new technologies to the doorstep of every American consumer. It is working because of the incentives it created for the monopolies to open up their networks to competitors. Let competition take hold. Don’t amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

The full text of Mr. Frisby’s testimony is available by contacting CompTel’s Public Relations Department at 202/296-6650.

* * * * *

Based in Washington, DC, CompTel is the leading trade association representing U.S. and international competitive communications firms and their suppliers who offer a variety of local, domestic and international long distance, Internet and wireless services. The association's members include global and national firms, regional carriers and emerging local competitive companies. Visit CompTel on the Internet at www.comptel.org, or call 202/296-6650 for more information.