With my support, the House yesterday passed H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001, widely known as the Tauzin-Dingell Bill.

There is general agreement that the rapid deployment of broadband - high speed Internet access - could dramatically improve communications, electronic commerce, and more easily deliver digital goods to consumers.  However, there is disagreement over how broadband should be deployed.  The House Judiciary Committee, of which I am Chairman, had several days of hearings on these complex and difficult issues, and I have previously written to explain my concerns about this bill.

Although this is not a perfect bill, it is a step in the right direction.  As a result of numerous conversations between myself, the Speaker of the House, and Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 1542 now includes language that addresses the Judiciary Committeeïs concerns about unlawful restraints of trade, and the antitrust problems which led to our modern telecommunications policy.  More importantly, largely as a result of my input, the bill that was brought to the floor yesterday provides more protection and competition for consumers.

This protection and competition is an important part of the bill.  After the 1984 breakup of AT&T, competition in the long distance market flourished.  As a result, rates decreased and service improved.  However, when local telephone competition failed to materialize, Congress in 1996 attempted to open up the local markets by offering companies like Ameritech and other Baby Bells a basic trade.  They were to open their local phone markets to competitors like Sprint, and in return, they were to be allowed entry into the long distance market.  Generally speaking they have not yet done so - choosing instead to pay fines.

As a result, many have argued that there has not been enough progress in the local markets and that the Baby Bells should not be rewarded by being given the unregulated green light to the lucrative high-speed data market.  But, I believe that the benefits of high-speed connections are significant enough to justify Congress moving forward on legislation in an attempt to provide this service for as many people as possible.  Right now, cable companies are the primary providers of high speed data service.  This bill will allow local telephone companies to provide an alternative to cable.  I am hopeful that new technologies, such as those that provide satellite television, will some day be capable of also carrying high speed data, thereby adding another option for consumers - particularly those in rural areas.

I voted for the Tauzin-Dingell bill so that people can enjoy the advantages of high-speed Internet access.  I believe that with the appropriate congressional oversight, H.R. 1542 will provide competition, which is the only way to ensure the most efficient delivery of the highest quality and lowest priced goods and services. 

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and as a Representative of Wisconsin, I will certainly continue to monitor competition in the broadband and telecommunications market on behalf of my constituents and people nationwide.  As I have already said, this is not a perfect bill; but I supported the Tauzin-Dingell bill because I believe that broadband access, especially competitive broadband access, should be made available to everyone so that we can all benefit from an extremely valuable service.

>