[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 97 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5337-H5338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PORTLAND ACCESS SITUATION

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is to make sure that 
the Federal Government is a constructive partner in promoting livable 
communities. Today, increasingly, an important part of promoting 
livable communities deals with the Internet connection that our cities 
and counties have with the rest of the world.
  The Federal Government has played a very constructive role in 
assisting schools and libraries with the E-Rate. It has provided an 
important resource for over 32,000 communities over the last 3 years 
and potentially up to $4 billion in these first 2 years.
  Just as important as the leadership for schools and libraries with 
the E-Rate, Congress and the FCC now has the opportunity to ensure that 
communities have access to the Internet service providers of their 
choice with cable broadband networks.
  This leadership is going to be increasingly important in the future 
as cable systems are concentrated around the country. Only L.A. and New 
York are expected to have more than one cable system provider in the 
next year.
  An important chapter of this discussion is being played out in my 
community where the city of Portland and Multnomah County became the 
first local jurisdictions in the country to require competition on this 
high-speed Internet connection. As part of an approval for AT&T's 
purchase of the local TCI cable, the city and the county required that 
they allow nonaffiliated ISPs access to their broadband network.
  They argue that this step was necessary in order to preserve consumer 
choice. Without open access, consumers who wish to use high-speed

[[Page H5338]]

cable modems for their Internet access, and who did not want to use the 
AT&T Excite at-home service, they would have to pay double, in effect 
paying twice.
  AT&T sued our local governments, arguing that they had no right to 
break AT&T's monopoly over this access. The Federal court has ruled 
that the city was entirely within its power and could promote 
competition. Now AT&T is appealing that decision.
  Now, most people feel that the local jurisdiction is expected to 
prevail. But it appears that the FCC, based on recent comments from 
Chairman Kennard and an article recently in the Wall Street Journal, 
that the FCC is not yet ready to argue against AT&T's proposed 
monopoly.
  As a result, I am exceedingly concerned that consumers across the 
country may be in the bizarre situation where they have competition on 
the horse and buggy aspect, the two wires that come in over the 
telephone; but that they will have only one choice when it comes to the 
90 percent that is the communication of the future the broadband. The 
whole point behind the judge's ruling was that we ought to have this 
competition.
  Some are arguing that we need a uniform system to prevent 30,000 
jurisdictions from around the country to have the possibility of each 
having their separate technical specifications. If that is indeed a 
problem, then let us deal with that problem specifically by providing 
technical standards through the FCC.
  Solving the problem of technical standards by granting only one 
company monopoly status sounds a lot like using communism in order to 
assure that there would be uniform gauges for the train tracks. We can 
do better.
  I urge that the FCC and Congress keep an open mind on the question of 
the impact of this local decision on the development of broadband 
communication infrastructure. Let us work to solve the real problems 
with the goal of ensuring consumer choices.
  We do not have to limit the access simply to the 10 percent where 
there is the technology of the past on the telephone wires; and we 
certainly do not need to use a Communist approach in order to make sure 
that we have full access for technical standards.
  I hope that we will be able to support local governments in this 
important aspect of promoting livable communities.

                          ____________________