[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 72 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           LOST IN CYBERSPACE

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, telecommunications policymaking is like 
our space program. We are exploring the unknown. But while Houston 
ground control keeps our spacecraft from getting lost, Congress cannot 
seem to do the same for our telecommunications policy. In fact, it 
seems that our proregulator friends are lost in cyberspace. ``Earth to 
regulator. Come in regulator.'' I have been waiting for years, and 
still no answer.
  News stories across the Nation confirm my fears. I came across a 
story in the New York Times entitled, ``Goals Collide in Cable TV Rate 
Plan.'' It is virtually impossible to regulate lower prices without 
stagnating the development of new services. No doubt about it, the FCC 
could have made the process a whole lot simpler. But Congress is to be 
blamed, too. After all, it was Congress which told the FCC to devise a 
regulatory scheme.
  For instance, the cable law requires the FCC to develop regulations 
that would simulate price structures if a cable TV system had 
competition. The idea was we all knew competition brings lower prices 
and better services. However, instead of taking the straightforward 
approach of injecting real competition, which I advocated, Congress saw 
fit to create the most complicated, confusing way of mimicking 
competition imaginable. I guess today they call that virtual reality. 
Well that is fine if we are writing science fiction. But Congress 
writes policy. And to set good policy, we should deal in reality.
  The fact is that technology is developing faster than Congress can 
respond. The fact is that competition should replace monopoly 
regulation. The fact is that current regulatory policy shackles 
American communications companies. The fact is that all forms and 
levels of government have confused communications businesses to the 
point that sound, long-term decisions cannot be made.
  Madam President, we will be judged by how we respond to these 
realities. One thing is certain, we should not use the Cable TV Act as 
the model.


                    cable tv regulations are immense

  Almost 2 years have gone by since we passed that law. Officially, 
cable rate regulations went into effect on May 15. However, most 
consumers will not see any changes until July 14, 1994. It is my 
understanding that the FCC allowed this phase-in period because it 
realized that its rules were so complicated.
  This is amusing in light of FCC Chairman Hundt's assurances that the 
rules were not complicated. In fact, his chief of staff insisted that 
the FCC's cable regulations were only 14 pages long and that I 
mirepresented the Commission's work when I stated that the paper trail 
exceeded 500 pages.
  Well, he would be correct if he was only referring to the 
Commission's 14-page ruling on benchmarks. However, I was also 
including the 11-page ruling on cost of service, the 475 pages of 
supporting documents and new proposals, the 93 pages of forms and 
instructions that every cable operator must read and fill out, and the 
additional 54 pages of forms and instructions for those who choose 
cost-of-service regulation. That is 647 pages of paperwork. Stack those 
pages end to end and they would be taller than the Washington Monument. 
And, it does not stop there. The Commission has released corrections, 
and it is my understanding that form 1211 and its instructions have yet 
to be released.


                    regulations stagnate innovation

  Madam President, the Cable TV Act and our current forays into 
communications policy reminds me of those crazy Rube Goldberg 
contraptions. You know, let us see how complicated we can make a simple 
task like opening a door. The problem is that instead of opening the 
door to future innovation, regulators are slamming it shut.
  We all know the most recent cable TV rate rollback helped scuttle 
major deals. But what is business supposed to do when the Government 
establishes contradictory, arbitrary rules and later changes them? 
Instead, we should establish clear-cut policies that will provide these 
companies the security to make long-term investments. If we do not 
construction of the so-called information superhighway will face 
unwarranted delay.
  In fact, the regulatory road we are heading down right now will wreck 
some companies that would have survived under competition. Chairman 
Hundt was certainly correct when he stated that ``some firms will enjoy 
tremendous success. Others may fail. Our job is not to guarantee 
success. Our job is to make sure that the opportunities are there.'' 
But he should have--and did not say--that it is not the FCC's job to 
drive honest companies out of business. Let us face it, in the coming 
months we will see several cable companies, large and small, go under. 
Not because they were bad operators, but because a 17-percent rate cut 
will eliminate their profits and hinder them from meeting their 
financial obligations. I hope that my colleagues are prepared for the 
backlash when consumers turn on their TV's one day, only to find that 
their service has been cut off--and it will not be coming back any time 
soon.


                establishing clear communications policy

  Madam President, like many of my colleagues I have been concerned for 
some time about the courts setting communications policy. That is our 
role, not theirs. As we move forward on current communications 
legislation, I would urge the Congress to establish clear-cut policy 
and ignore fancy mechanisms that we all know will end up being 
challenged in court.
  As I noted earlier, the cable TV rate regulation went into effect on 
May 15. Ironically, that is the same day that the Supreme Court invoked 
the Sherman Antitrust Act and dissolved Standard Oil 83 years ago. It 
seems to me that as we move forward on future communications 
legislation, we should be thinking more along the lines of the Sherman 
Act, not the Cable TV Act. This will limit the court's role in 
communications, and will reestablish Congress as the policymaker. No 
doubt about it, this will make some proregulators Greene with envy--
Judge Greene that is. But that is what happens when Congress steps up 
to its responsibilities.

                          ____________________