[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         UNFULFILLED PROMISES: THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SCOTTY BAESLER

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 12, 1998

  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Speaker, the etymology of the phrase ``buying a pig 
in the poke'' has a rich linguistic history that can be traced back to 
the 16th century. In those days, as in ours, it refers to ``something 
offered in such a way as to obscure its real nature or worth.'' The 
phrase is used these days to describe the growing sentiment regarding 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  When we voted on this legislation two years ago, we were promised a 
new era on the telecommunications frontier. We were promised better 
values for our consumers, greater competition, a higher level of local 
competition, and increased investments in local service facilities.
  When this chamber passed the bill, we expected prompt and effective 
action from the Federal Communications Commission. We expected the FCC 
to give all consumers more long distance options and a greater array of 
services, in terms of local telephone and video service choices.
  In my view, it seems that the FCC is moving in the wrong direction in 
allowing companies to compete for long distance services. This has been 
done at the expense of consumers and the regional Bell companies.
  Although this is a tad tedious, the record speaks for itself. The FCC 
has attempted to subordinate state agencies through mandatory pricing 
``guidelines'' and other requirements. Regrettably, the FCC has been 
joined by the U.S. Justice Department's Antitrust Division in expanding 
the scope of long distance ``check-list'' items.
  Sadly, all Bell company applications to compete in long distance have 
been denied. This not only hurts the regional Bell companies, it also 
harms middle income and lower-income consumers in my Congressional 
District and across my home state. In Kentucky, for example, more than 
60 agreements have been signed between BellSouth and competitors 
seeking to provide local telephone service to ``re-sell'' local 
service. In contrast to federal regulators, those closest to the ground 
know the value of fostering competition. In other words, state 
commissions continue to foster local exchange competition.
  Across Kentucky we are seeing examples of competitors operating in 
Lexington and Louisville, where they can capture the more profitable 
business markets. Yet, we don't see a rush to introduce competitive 
services for residential customers.
  In my view, it appears that there is a flaw either in the statute 
itself or with the manner in which the FCC is choosing to carry out its 
mandate. There's no doubt in my mind that we sorely need a 
collaborative approach by the FCC on this matter. This is what Congress 
expected when it voted on the Telecommunications Act. We still have 
this expectation.
  In summary, we need an approach that is reasonable, balanced, 
specific and consistent with the clear intent of Congress. To do so, 
allows the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to achieve its intended worth 
and promised value to consumers and telecommunications companies. To do 
otherwise is to delay, or deny, the once-in-a-generation opportunity 
for consumers to benefit from a competitive and rapidly changing 
telecommunications market.

                          ____________________