|
Telecommunications and the
InternetThe world of telecommunications is
undergoing exciting advances and I believe that,
whenever possible, the federal government should allow
market forces to determine the spread of services. The
worst thing Washington can do is hamper the development
of new technologies. The best thing we can do is
encourage competition which will lead to greater choices
for consumers.
Tauzin-Dingell Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment
Act
H.R.
1542, the Tauzin-Dingell Internet Freedom and
Broadband
Deployment Act, passed
the House on February 27, 2002, by a vote of 273 to 157. I voted
against this legislation because I believe that before
regional Bell telephone companies are allowed to enter
the long-distance business for high-speed data services,
they need to open their own regional networks to
competitors. Opening local markets is the key to
implementing the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996
and achieving its goal of lowering prices by ending
local monopolies in telephone services.
Deregulating the regional Bells in the absence of
true competition would hurt consumers. Without
competition at the local level, regional Bells, with the
enormous capital they have accumulated from years as a
government-regulated monopoly, would have an unfair
advantage in providing Internet services. This, in turn,
would hurt the many companies pouring billions of
dollars into developing a broadband network.
This legislation would have little benefit to
Internet service in Connecticut. The two local phone
companies in our state, SNET and Verizon (which serves
parts of Greenwich) are already able to provide
long-distance Internet service. Defeat of this
legislation would not have affected jobs at these two
companies.
The continued development and growth of the Internet
is vital to the U.S. economy. But, in my judgment, the
marketplace should be the main determinant of Internet
policy. The worst thing Congress can do is interfere
with this development by enacting legislation favored by
particular industries.
The bottom line is, fostering competition between
various segments of the telecommunications industry will
ultimately benefit the entire industry, while ensuring
consumers have greater choices at lower cost. H.R. 1542
would actually stifle this competition and inhibit the
development of the Internet.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
In 1996, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act,
a sweeping bill that overhauled the laws regulating a
wide range of telecommunications industries and
technology by eliminating the legal barriers that
prevented telephone, cable, and other companies from
competing in each other's markets.
I had hoped the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would
have brought competition and lower prices more quickly.
In the near future, however, I believe we will see
increased competition among Internet service providers,
the cable industry, long distance companies, and the
"Baby Bells" so that customers will have a choice of a
number of providers offering high quality services at
competitive prices.
Cable
I am concerned by the lack of competition in the
cable industry. Included in the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 was a provision deregulating the cable industry
on March 31, 1999. I opposed this provision, and offered
an amendment with Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA), to
change the law so that the cable industry would only be
deregulated once competition exists. Unfortunately, our
amendment was defeated by a vote of 148 to 275 and the
cable industry was deregulated before competition
arrived.
As a strong supporter of the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which
provided for deregulation once cable companies faced
effective competition, I voted for safeguards against
unfair price hikes. In my judgment, competition is the
only reason to eliminate all regulation and until it
arrives, consumers should not be subject to monopoly
cable prices.
The satellite bill described below will, however,
allow the satellite industry to challenge the cable
industry's dominance, and I am pleased Congress passed
this bill.
Satellite Competition
On November 9, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright,
Competition, and Consumer Protection Act by a vote of 411 to 8. This new law
- which the President signed on November 29 - allows
satellite television companies to carry the same
local-broadcast network affiliates (i.e., ABC, CBS, FOX,
and NBC) that are routinely provided by their cable
rivals.
This legislation became necessary because the 1988
Satellite Home Viewer Act permits satellite
retransmission of distant network television programming
only if a subscriber meets certain conditions. But under
H.R. 1554, satellite companies will -- for the first
time -- be permitted to carry the signals of local
network stations to customers within that market. And by
2002, satellite companies will be required to carry all
local stations in all markets, thus ensuring a full
complement of stations to the customer.
I am glad Congress was able to address this important
issue in a way that benefitted consumers while allowing
satellite companies to compete with cable.
The Internet
Nothing is more responsible for the growth in our
nation's economy than the growth of the Internet. I
strongly believe that, in order for this rate of growth
to continue, Washington needs to take a "hands off"
approach whenever possible.
A number of bills have been introduced to address the
idea of "open access" and force cable companies to share
their high-speed Internet lines with Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) such as America Online.
I oppose such efforts and believe the recent merger
between Time Warner and America Online underscores the
ability of the marketplace to resolve issues of access
without government intervention.
Internet Access Charge Hoax
Information on
the Internet Access Charge Hoax. | 
