Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 23, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2231 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE JUDICIARY
HEADLINE: COMPETITION
AND MERGERS IN THE TV CABLE INDUSTRY
TESTIMONY-BY: MR.
GARRY BETTY, CEO
AFFILIATION: EARTHLINK
BODY: Statement of Mr. Garry Betty CEO Earthlink
April 23, 2002
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to
testify today about the proposed merger between AT&T and Comcast and its
potential impact on competition and consumer choice in broadband internet
access.
I am Garry Betty, CEO of EarthLink. EarthLink is the nation's
third largest Internet Service Provider (ISP) and is the largest independent
ISP. EarthLink serves 4.9 million customers with dial- up, broadband and web
hosting services. In broadband, EarthLink is "platform agnostic" providing
high-speed internet access to over 530,000 customers through Digital Subscriber
Line (DSL), cable, and satellite connections. The majority of EarthLink's
broadband subscribers today have DSL connections as most major cable companies
do not offer cable modem customers a choice of ISPs. All of us here today want
to encourage broadband deployment. "Broadband deployment" is a term that is
frequently used these days. Unfortunately, it is also sometimes misused as an
excuse for activities that benefit network owners at the expense of consumers.
It has been said that you can do just about anything you want in Washington
these days as long as you say it is to promote broadband deployment.
One
example of this has been the refusal of most major cable companies to allow
consumers who want to connect to the broadband internet through a high-speed
cable modem to choose their internet provider. Rather, these cable companies
have forced consumers to use just their cable company's in-house internet
service. This take-it-or-leave-it choice has resulted in higher prices and lower
adoption rates than would be the case if consumers had competitive choice in
their internet provider over cable.
We are therefore here today to ask
that AT&T and Comcast commit to providing customers in all their markets a
choice in broadband ISPs over cable by signing commercially reasonable contracts
with independent ISPs prior to their merger being approved.
AT&T and
Comcast must offer cable modem customers a choice of ISPs
ATT and
Comcast have argued since 1998 to Congress, the FCC, federal courts and local
authorities that they should not be required to offer their subscribers a choice
in internet providers over broadband cable. Rather, they have proposed that open
access should be voluntary and have promised that they would open their networks
by this year. They have couched these arguments in very appealing calls for
market-based solutions for broadband internet access over cable.
Unfortunately, while ISPs have always existed in a competitive
marketplace, cable companies have not. Just as most consumers have no
competitive choice in their cable television provider, so too most consumers
have no choice in their internet provider over broadband cable.
This is
a significant problem since cable is and will remain the primary platform
through which consumers get broadband internet access. In 2001, Cable provided
about 2/3 (6.5 million out of 9.7 million) of all broadband connections. By
year-end 2002, cable will still provide 60% (8.0 million out of 13.8 million) of
all broadband connections. By 2005, cable will still provide more than half
(est. 17.0 million out of 30.7 million) broadband connections.
Notwithstanding calls for ubiquitous competition in platforms (I.e.
cable vs. DSL vs. satellite) the fact remains that cable will remain the only
broadband connection for millions of Americans for years to come. This many
consumers should not be denied meaningful choice in their internet provider over
those cable connections.
Furthermore, broadband is the future of the
internet. While the market for dial-up internet access has matured and reached a
plateau at about 55 million households, broadband continues to grow from about 1
million households at year-end 1999 to an estimated 30 million or more
households by 2005.
Promises Made
In 1999, during the FCC's
review of AT&T's merger with TCI (even then the nation's largest cable
company), AT&T told the Commission that it was committed to an open
broadband platform and that it "would favor the unbundling of the modem in order
to provide consumers with choice and lowest prices."
Later that year, at
the urging of then FCC Chairman Kennard, AT&T signed a statement of
principles with MindSpring Enterprises (now part of EarthLink) in which AT&T
committed to offer its broadband consumers a choice of ISPs when its exclusive
contract with its own affiliated ISP, Excite@Home, expired in June 2002. (Letter
to FCC Chairman William E. Kennard from James W. Cicconi, David N. Baker and
Kenneth S. Fellman, December 6, 1999).
Boston and Seattle: Local
Commitments
In June 2000, AT&T signed an agreement with the
Massachusetts Coalition for Consumer Choice and Competition which was seeking an
open access referendum from the November 2000 ballot. In exchange for removing
the ballot initiative, AT&T committed to conduct a multiple ISP trial no
later than October 2001, and to implement ISP choice statewide by July 1, 2002.
(Memorandum of Agreement between AT&T Corp. and the Massachusetts Coalition,
June 27, 2000).
As part of their acquisition of TCI, AT&T also made
a commitment in year 2000 to the local franchising authority in King County,
Washington to provide multiple ISP choice to consumers once their contract with
Excite@Home expired on June 4, 2002. As Excite@Home expired before their
contract did, King County demanded in February 2002 that open access should
immediately be implemented. (Letter to Janet Turpen, AT&T, from Kevin
Kearns, King Co. Washington, February 19, 2002).
Small Steps Forward
On March 12, 2002, EarthLink announced an agreement with AT&T to
offer broadband internet service to AT&T Broadband cable customers in Boston
and Seattle later this year. AT&T has also suggested that they will open
additional markets in 2003. While we are pleased to have reached the agreements
we have, and look forward to signing others like them, there are still millions
of AT&T and Comcast cable customers who still have no competitive choice in
broadband internet service providers over cable.
Similarly, Comcast
recently signed an agreement with United Online to provide Indianapolis and
Nashville customers with a choice of ISPs. Again, these limited agreements raise
the question as to whether this is a slow trend toward long-promised open access
or merely an effort to forestall open access requirements in the context of a
merger review.
While we would like to believe that AT&T, Comcast and
other cable companies will voluntarily open their systems, promises may no
longer be enough. This merger would combine the nations first and third largest
cable companies into super-size company controlling cable TV and internet access
to over 40% of American homes. We would prefer to be able to sign business
contracts on commercially reasonable terms. But barring such commitments, open
access requirements would be necessary to ensure consumer choice in access.
AOL Time Warner Example
As part of it's antitrust review of the
AOL Time Warner merger, the FTC required open access as a condition of approving
that merger. In order to offer cable internet access through its affiliate AOL,
Time Warner Cable must allow subscribers on its cable systems to choose from
among AOL, Roadrunner (another in- house service), EarthLink, or other two other
unaffiliated ISPs.
While it is still early in our relationship with Time
Warner, we are glad to report significant progress. Beginning in September 2001,
EarthLink now offers broadband internet access to Time Warner Cable customers in
30 of their top 40 markets, with the remainder to come online by the end of this
year.
This open access relationship benefits all involved. Not only can
EarthLink offer broadband service to customers formerly foreclosed to us, but we
have helped drive overall broadband subscriber growth on the Time Warner
systems. Time Warner executives have noted a 20% to 25% increase in overall
broadband take rates. (Chris Bogart, Pres./CEO of Time Warner Cable Ventures, at
Goldman Sachs Communacopia 2002, April 9, 2002). Consumers also benefit as they
now have competitive choice in their internet provider over cable, with price
differentiation and EarthLink service offered at a market-leading
$
41.95 a month.
I urge you today to support the same
basic conditions of open access on the AT&T and Comcast systems that apply
to the AOL Time Warner systems.
The minimum standards for effective open
access are:
Consumers of broadband cable services should have a choice
among multiple ISP's. Cable broadband providers must negotiate at arms- length
nondiscriminatory commercial arrangements with both affiliated and
non-affiliated ISPs (including "first screen" placement). ISPs should have the
choice of operating on a national, regional, or local basis. Both the ISP and
the cable operator should have the opportunity for a direct relationship with
the customer. ISPs should be allowed to provide video streaming and there should
be no discriminatory restrictions on provision of content.
These are the
basic standards that shaped the FTC's requirement for open access on the AOL
Time Warner systems. These same requirements should be met by AT&T and
Comcast as a condition of their merger.
Not regulating the Internet
There's been a lot of rhetoric by cable companies and their surrogates
that open access is "regulatory." But stop for a moment and consider what's
being regulated. Throughout the country, cable companies have had exclusive
local franchises to operate the cable system in any given area. These franchises
were created by government regulations. Actions that seek to limit cable
monopoly power created by these regulations, and to give consumers increased
choices in broadband services are, by definition, de-regulatory.
This is
also not "regulating the internet." The open unregulated competitive internet we
enjoy today exists because of regulations on the underlying largely
non-competitive infrastructure over which it travels. That's why even though
consumers until recently had no choice in local phone service (and may only have
limited choice today), they have never been required to buy the local phone
company's ISP. For example, Verizon's ISP is available as a competitive choice,
but you're not required to buy or use their ISP just because you get your local
phone service from them. Compare this to most cable companies (which are also
regulated, just under different rules) where if you want internet access through
a cable modem, you have no choice but to purchase the cable company's affiliated
ISP.
By comparison, internet access has always been competitive. There
are over 6,000 ISP's across the country. Consumers in major cities can choose
from hundreds of ISP's that serve their local area. And over 96% of internet
users throughout the country, even in the smallest towns and rural areas, can
choose from among at least 4 Internet Service Providers. Compare this to cable,
where over 96% of customers throughout the country have NO choice in who their
cable company is. As high speed internet access becomes available over cable, we
are at a crossroads. Will we follow the open consumer choice path of the
internet, or the closed no choice model of cable?
Cable folks will say
that open access isn't necessary because there are other means of high-speed
access to the internet, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology over
phone lines. But DSL has distance limitations. Once you get more than a mile and
a half from a telephone central office, DSL service starts to degrade. Once you
get beyond three miles, it is essentially unavailable. And technologies such as
satellite, wireless and electric lines will not be widely available for many
years to come. The upshot is that for as many as a third of consumers across the
country, particularly in rural areas, if they get any
broadband
access at all in the next five years, it will only be through a cable
line. These customers deserve choice in broadband internet access as well.
It has been consistent policy in this country for over 20 years to give
consumers greater choice in their telecommunications services. The federal court
decision that broke up the old Ma Bell AT&T in 1984 and allowed competition
in long distance has resulted in rates that are more than 2/3 lower today than
they were then. In passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress
established the framework to bring these same benefits of competition to local
phone service and to wireless. Legislation such as the Satellite Home Viewer Act
and the program access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act sought to end cable's
longstanding monopoly over multi-channel video programming. And consumers have
always had competitive choice in Internet Service Providers in large part
because FCC decisions beginning in the 70's, and 80's and continuing today that
allowed such information services to travel unfettered over phone lines. At
every turn, policy makers have sought to give consumers greater choice in their
communications services. Broadband internet access over cable should be no
exception.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you
today. I look forward to any questions you may have.
LOAD-DATE: April 24, 2002