[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1773-S1774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF '96

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is 
another year older and another year stronger. As Congress recognizes 
the third anniversary this month, it now becomes appropriate to reflect 
on some of the Act's goals and on some of its accomplishments.
  First, let me remind my colleagues that the Telecommunications Act 
was 10 years in the making. It took time for Congress to understand 
exactly what was needed to reach consensus and balance among all 
sectors of the industry and to update America's telecommunications 
public policy. Congress took a deliberate path to make sure that, at 
the end of the day, consumers would have new and real choices. Time is 
still needed before passing final judgment, but clearly the Act has 
produced positive, tangible results.
  I am proud to say that I worked closely with Senator Pressler, then 
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens, Senator 
Hollings, and others on the act. It took time, it took patience, it 
took compromise. But in the end, the act boldly embodied Congress' 
vision for competition and for choice. More choices and better choices 
in a new age of communication.
  When the act was drafted, a number of delicate balances were struck 
to transform our monopolistic market into many competitive ones. The 
bottom line for Congress was based on a simple principle: consumers 
benefit from competition. As simple as this sounds, creating 
competition in the local telephone market is a fairly complicated 
process. Competitive carriers require things like collocation, dialing 
parity and unbundled network elements. Congress knew it would not be 
easy. That is why the act was structured to provide a centerpiece, a 
set of instructions on ways for opening the local markets to force 
competition.
  Mr. President, the act is working. Americans are beginning to see the 
fruits of the seeds sown three years ago.
  Many critics point to the lack of local competition or the absence of 
incumbent local carriers in long distance as the only way to measure or 
grade the bill. This is wrong. Consumer choices, new choices, and new 
technologies are the true tests of success.
  As far as local competition goes, several state public utility 
commissions are working closely and collaboratively with incumbents and 
new entrants. A multitude of competitors have gained authority to 
provide local telephone service. This choice is a reality for 
businesses nationwide, and it will be a reality for residents too--not 
just for basic dial tone but for advanced services such as broadband 
access to the Internet. It takes significant capital and commitment to 
build the necessary infrastructure, but numerous companies and Wall 
Street are answering the challenge by investing billions of dollars to 
build this foundation for competition. This level of resource 
deployment does not happen overnight, but it is happening, and in ways 
Congress intended--with cable television companies revamping their

[[Page S1774]]

networks to provide two-way telephone service and with utilities and 
fixed wireless companies getting into the business. In fact, I would 
say this shifting of assets in under three years is a fitting testament 
to the act's ability to move America's telecommunications policy 
forward--a true commitment and investment by Wall Street.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe the act's goals of local competition 
and consumer choices will be fulfilled, and America will be better off. 
The best way to ensure that investment continues is to keep the law in 
full force.
  When the act passed in 1996, Congress also knew that it would take a 
while to sort out the rules to produce local competition. More 
importantly, Congress knew that whatever rules the FCC adopted would be 
challenged in court. Congress was correct on both counts. This does not 
mean the law is flawed. To the contrary, this reflects the complexity 
of the issues and the intensity of the competition. Remember, it took a 
decade to write the law, and it will take time to implement it. I 
believe, though, that the majority of Members who worked on the act 
understand its success cannot be measured over a one or two year 
period. Courtroom battles did cloud the course toward local 
competition. This litigation did slow the pace for customer choice, but 
I am pleased to report that just 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court upheld 
most of the FCC's local telephone interconnection rules and affirmed 
that the local phone companies must open their markets in a meaningful 
way. It is my hope that opportunities for competition will now move 
forward swiftly and be afforded a proper chance to flourish in the 
marketplace.
  Mr. President, Americans today are witnessing a convergence of 
technologies that was but a dream in 1996. Cable lines will provide 
American households with local telephone service and high speed 
Internet access. This is good. Traditional telephone companies will 
offer cable video service. This is good. More Americans are using 
wireless phones for personal and professional convenience. This is 
good. More Americans have personal computers with an ever-growing range 
of capabilities. This is good. The Internet is exploding as a means of 
commerce, research, or for just saying hello to a far-away friend. This 
is good. Television viewing will become an interactive experience with 
digital transmission, enabling consumers to personalize their own video 
programming or to go directly to a web site. This is good.
  Mr. President, all of these significant and solid activities tells me 
something--Congress got it right 3 years ago. Patience will lead to 
other applications in the future that I, and some of my other 
colleagues, cannot even imagine right now. Mr. President, this is the 
kind of communications marketplace Americans deserve.
  During this continued period of transition, it will be important for 
Congress to make sure that the Federal Communications Commission is 
properly structured. That it has the right tools to foster and further 
the ongoing evolution. Chairman Kennard's analogy--old regulatory 
models are a thing of the past, much like the old, black rotary 
phones--rings true. The FCC indeed must change, and Congress should 
start empowering the FCC rather than criticizing its individual 
decisions.
  Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act is beginning to deliver the 
benefits of competition to the American consumer. The process of 
achieving the act's central goals is well on its way. I do not believe 
any of us want to turn back the clock to 1996 and take away all the new 
technologies, new companies, and new choices that have emerged and are 
now coming our way. Let's not put stumbling blocks on this path to 
progress. Let's keep America moving forward.

                          ____________________