[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 15 (Wednesday, February 25, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E227-E228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE CABLE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 25, 1998

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cable Consumer 
Protection Act of 1998.
  I am pleased to be offering this legislation today with my good 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays. The purpose of our 
legislative proposal is quite straightforward. We believe that Congress 
must act to continue consumer price controls past March 31, 1999, when 
they are scheduled to end pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 
1996.
  The Telecommunications Act mandates that after March 31, 1999, 
consumer price controls for cable programming services end, a policy 
premised on the assumption that subsequent to enactment of the Act the 
telephone industry would mount a large scale assault of cable markets 
across the country. It is clear that competition to the cable industry 
has not materialized in any significant way after passage of the 
Telecommunications Act and that except for a few exceptions in limited 
areas of the country, the phone industry has largely pulled back from 
entering the cable business. Moreover, the cold reality is that for the 
overwhelming majority of consumers, an alternative wireline competitor 
is not going to show

[[Page E228]]

up in their neighborhood anytime soon to provide price competition to 
the incumbent cable company.
  The effect of lifting consumer price controls 13 months from now in 
the absence of robust competition would be to permit cable monopolies 
to charge what they want for everything but the broadcast-tier basic 
service without an effective marketplace check on their ability to 
raise rates excessively. This means that for the vast majority of cable 
consumers, the expanded tier of service that typically includes CNN, 
ESPN, TNT, DISCOVERY, MTV, and other popular cable programming services 
will be offered without any price limits in place.
  Without a legislative change to extend consumer price protections for 
cable consumers past March 31, 1999, consumers will be hit with a cable 
rate El Nino. Congress must act in time to adjust the law to take note 
of the fact that cable competition has not developed sufficiently to 
warrant lifting consumer price controls. The recent cable competition 
report from the FCC in January underscores this fact. The new Chairman 
of the FCC, William Kennard, noted when releasing the report that 
policymakers ``should no longer have high hopes that a vigorous and 
widespread competitive environment will magically emerge in the next 
several months.''
  Our legislation would simply repeal this sunset date from our 
communications statutes. Cable operators would then be deregulated 
through two underlying provisions that are already available under the 
law.
  The first test for deregulating an incumbent cable operator in a 
franchise area that is contained in the Communications Act of 1934 
would be met if emerging competitors served more than 15 percent of the 
households in a particular franchise area (see Section 623](l)(1)(B)). 
Second, if a local phone company offers a competing cable service 
directly to subscribers in a franchise area then the incumbent operator 
is immediately deregulated, without waiting for the phone company to 
garner 15 percent of the market (see Section 623(l)(1)(D)).
  As I said during deliberations on the Act in 1995, when Mr. Shays and 
I offered a cable consumer protection amendment, and which I continue 
to believe today, sound public policy should compel us to repeal 
consumer price protections only when effective competition provides an 
affordable alternative choice for consumers, making regulatory 
protections unnecessary.
  Until that time, the question boils down to this--do you want your 
monopolies regulated or unregulated?
  In my view, such protections should not be lifted on an arbitrary 
deadline set on the basis of politics instead of economics. I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort on behalf of millions of cable 
consumers across the country.

                          ____________________