[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    THE FCC'S ACTION ON CABLE RATES

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the Federal 
Communications Commission took a brave stand for America's consumers 
and against the well-heeled special interests when it announced new 
rate regulations for cable television. By its action, the FCC 
reaffirmed that Congress meant what it said when it passed the 1992 
cable act--that it was to be the Cable Television Consumer Protection 
and Competition Act.
  When we passed the 1992 Cable Act, we made a very simple pledge to 
consumers: you will no longer have to pay monopoly prices for cable 
television. Under that Act, the FCC and local franchising authorities 
were given the power and the responsibility to protect consumers 
against being charged more in monopoly systems than they would have to 
pay if there was real head-to-head competition. Where head-to-head 
competition exists, however, there is no rate regulation.
  What the FCC did on Tuesday was to uphold Congress' promise to 
consumers. The initial 10 percent rate cut the Commission had ordered 
last year did not come close to bringing cable rates down to 
competitive levels. Even at that time, surveys had indicated that cable 
prices were nearly 30 percent lower in systems with head-to-head 
competition than in monopoly systems. With the additional rate cuts 
ordered on Tuesday, prices in monopoly systems will finally begin to 
approach those that would exist in a competitive marketplace.
  Mr. President, we have all heard dire threats over the past 2 days 
that somehow the FCC's action will halt construction of the information 
superhighway. The critics argue that by taking away the money that 
would otherwise go to build new services. If these arguments sound 
familiar, it is because these are precisely the arguments that Congress 
considered and rejected when it passed the 1992 Cable Act. It is, once 
again, what Bush administration FCC Chairman Al Sikes once called ``The 
Myth of `Benevolent Monopoly.'''
  The American people know better. They know that monopolies are rarely 
benevolent. They know that competition is their best protection. And 
they also know that they need to be protected against monopoly cable 
prices until competition actually comes. That is what the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 does, and 
that is why it was the only bill passed over the President's veto 
during the entire Bush administration.
  Over the last several months, Mr. President, I have received numerous 
letters from consumers complaining about rate increases under the FCC's 
previous rate regulations. In Connecticut, rates for one or more cable 
tiers actually increased in over half of the cable systems. To these 
consumers, those rate increases were signs of another broken promise by 
the Federal Government, one which many of them believed was the result 
of Washington paying more attention to the special interests than to 
them. Mr. President, it is my hope that the action the FCC took on 
Tuesday will show these consumers that we meant what we said when we 
passed a cable consumer protection act, and that the system can work 
for them.
  Mr. President, I want to congratulate our new FCC Chairman Reed Hundt 
for the strong leadership he has shown on this matter. It was not easy 
to come into the Commission and pursue a reexamination of the rate 
regulations, and to withstand the pressure to maintain the status quo 
put on the Commission by the cable industry. I also want to 
congratulate and commend former acting Chairman James Quello and 
Commissioner Andrew Barrett for their willingness to reassess the rate 
benchmarks in light of additional information and analysis. They have 
all shown great dedication to the public interest in carrying out an 
extremely difficult task, one which will now mean many dollars in 
monthly savings for millions of American families.

                          ____________________