[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 143 (Sunday, October 11, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2082-E2083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FCC AND TELEPHONE COMPETITION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Saturday, October 10, 1998

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with 
several original cosponsors. They are Mr. Dingell, Mr. Oxley, Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Klink, Mr. Hastert, 
Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Burr. Mr. speaker, this legislation essentially 
begins the process of reviewing the inadequacies of FCC implementation 
of the local competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996. Specifically, our bill amends provisions contained in section 271 
of the Act, dealing with interLATA (long distance) entry by the Bell 
Companies.
  It is frustrating that nearly three years have passed since the 
Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted into law. Five applications for long 
distance service have been received by the FCC, and four have been 
denied. The fifth, an application approved by the Louisiana Public 
Service Commission by a vote of 4-1, is now pending at the FCC. 
Frankly, I am not encouraged that it will be granted when the FCC makes 
its decision on October 13 of this year.
  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to open up 
competition in both the local and long-distance markets; but, the FCC 
appears determined to preserve the long-distance service monopoly that 
traditional interexchange companies have enjoyed since the conception 
of the telephone. Today, only business subscribers are realizing more 
choices from competitors to incumbent LECs.
  This legislation will attempt to codify what the intent of the 
conferees was during their deliberations on the 1996 Act. That is, the 
states should have explicit authority over determining intrastate 
interLATA service in their respective states. In addition, the 
legislation we are introducing today would modify other provisions of 
the law as noted in the attached talking points.
  I look forward to working with all of our colleagues early in the 
10th Congress to loudly send a message to the FCC, the Department of 
Justice, and the administration that the ``status quo'' is no longer 
acceptable. Only true, open competition in all markets will be 
acceptable now, not later.

    Highlights of InterLATA Communications Improvements Act of 1998

       State Jurisdiction Over Intrastate InterLATA Services. The 
     legislation authorizes the state public service commission to 
     grant BOC applications to provide intrastate InterLATA 
     telecommunications services upon satisfaction of Track A/B, 
     the competitive checklist and public interest requirements. 
     If the State fails to act on an intrastate InterLATA 
     application within the 90-

[[Page E2083]]

     day decision period, the application is deemed granted.
       Resale Authority. On February 8, 1999, BOCs would be 
     authorized to resell the InterLATA services of unaffiliated 
     companies.
       Amendments to Track A/Track B. The Track A/Track B 
     requirement would be eliminated effective February 8, 1999. 
     In addition, the legislation removes the requirement that a 
     Track A company provide telephone exchange service 
     exclusively or predominantly over its own facilities. It also 
     provides that Track B is satisfied if the BOC's statement of 
     generally available terms and conditions (``SGAT'') has been 
     approved by the state public service commission or if the 
     state public service commission has permitted such SGAT to 
     take effect.
       FCC Consultation with State PSC. The legislation directs 
     the FCC to affirm the evaluation of the state public service 
     commission concerning BOC compliance with Track A/Track B and 
     the competitive checklist unless the FCC determines by clear 
     and convincing evidence that the state evaluation is clearly 
     erroneous.
       Public Interest Determination. Effective February 8, 1999, 
     the public interest requirement of Section 271 is deemed to 
     be satisfied upon a finding that the BOC has satisfied the 
     competitive checklist.
       Incidental InterLATA Services. The legislation would expand 
     the definition of ``incidental InterLATA services'' to 
     include data communications and international 
     telecommunications and information services.
       Section 271 Approvals and Denials. Decisions approving or 
     denying Section 271 applications must include a written 
     determination of whether the BOC has complied with the 
     statutory standard for InterLATA relief.

     

                          ____________________