[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1449-S1450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address an urgent issue
in the rural parts of my State regarding a problem we are having with
the digital divide being created. What is taking place is that in urban
and suburban areas, they are getting access to high-speed Internet
access so people can get on and get large quantities of data about
which they can communicate back and forth rapidly. That is occurring
and it is a good thing.
In the rural areas of my State and in many places across the country,
they are not getting access to high-speed Internet. They have the old
type of carrier that can get Internet access. They have Internet
access, but they cannot get the high speed. Less than 19 percent of
rural areas across the country have that high-speed Internet access
compared to over 80 percent of the suburban areas across the country.
I will shortly be submitting a bill to try to address this inequity
that is taking place and to keep this digital divide from further
exacerbating the economies in suburban areas versus rural areas. The
bill I put forward last year was the Regulatory Relief Act. It provides
regulatory relief for those companies operating in rural areas to go
ahead and deploy high-speed Internet access, and then not have to sell
this new equipment at a reduced market price. It provides a regulatory
relief to them to be able to do so.
I have worked on this issue for some period of time. We have worked
on it in the Commerce Committee. There have been hearings held in the
Commerce Committee on this. In the past, typically in the United
States, when one of these sorts of situations starts to develop where
rural areas get hindered because of their population being spread over
wide areas versus urban areas, the Congress has frequently stepped in,
the U.S. Government has frequently stepped in. Rural electrification
and rural telephony come to mind, where you wouldn't have gotten
distribution in the rural areas because it was just so far between
people and the private companies could not make money. In this
situation, we are not going to have to put resources forward but,
rather, we have to put regulatory relief forward for the investment
that will take place.
I have contacted a number of private sector groups that are looking
at this and saying they will invest if we will provide them some
regulatory relief. We will get that number up from 19 percent to a much
higher number.
Last year, in the bill we put forward, and what we will put forward
this year as well, is a requirement that, to get the regulatory relief,
there has to be an increased deployment into the rural areas. That will
be part of this as well.
It is a common theme in Washington today that broadband Internet
access is revolutionizing the ways in which ever greater numbers of
Americans are using the Internet. No longer a domain of simple data,
graphics, and pictures, broadband access and its faster transmission
speeds are transforming the Internet from a 56 bit-limited medium into
a multi-megabyte medium, the practical outcome of which are functions
such as video on demand, invaluable real-time telemedicine, improved
distance learning, and powerful new tools for consumers and businesses
alike on the e-commerce frontier.
Yet, as we revel in this technological marvel, we continue to find
ourselves faced with the reality that there has been and continues to
be a growing digital divide in our Nation--a separation
[[Page S1450]]
of our urban and rural communities into broadband haves and have nots
respectively. While it may have become fashionable for us to recognize
the threat of this disparity it has not been so fashionable to actually
do something about it. So, as we introduce legislative proposals, hold
hearings, and generally acknowledge the difficulty in advancing any
particular plan to help rural America, the digital divide continues to
grow.
Last year the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration in conjunction with the Rural Utilities Service
concluded that broadband deployment in rural areas was indeed lacking.
NTIA and RUS found that cable TV companies and local telephone
companies were focusing on deploying cable modems and DSL in markets
with the highest population densities in order to maximize revenues. It
is no wonder then that the Federal Communications Commission's most
recent report on the status of broadband deployment found that a mere
19 percent of our most remote communities had at least one subscriber
to high-speed Internet access.
During the 106th Congress I introduced legislation, the Broadband
Regulatory Relief Act of 2000, to serve as a vehicle for overcoming
this divide. My legislative efforts last Congress reflected the real
and pressing need for action to insure that all Americans have access
to broadband. My legislation's answer to this problem was to create an
incentive for local telephone companies--already providing telephone
service in our rural and remote communities--to deploy these advanced
services. By providing these companies with regulatory relief we can
counter the high cost of deploying broadband facilities in rural areas
where populations are more dispersed than in densely populated areas.
Currently, the cable TV and competitive local telephone industries
find their advanced services unencumbered by regulation. But because
they have coalesced around our more densely populated regions, their
marketplace freedom has not translated into rural broadband access.
Yet, some members of the competitive community continue to argue that
competition alone will ultimately drive broadband deployment into rural
areas. As the FCC's deployment statistics bare out, this is not
occurring. We can ill afford to hurry up and wait for the day when
these companies see fit to include rural America in business plans
currently dominated by a focus on urban businesses. The economics of
broadband deployment in rural areas simply do not facilitate the type
of competition we are currently witnessing in urban and densely
populated suburban areas.
Meanwhile, contrasted with cable TV and CLECs, we continue to
regulate broadband services offered by incumbent telephone companies as
if they are part and parcel of their traditional telephone businesses.
This simply is not the case. Broadband facilities being deployed
throughout our cities and towns require billions of dollars of new
capital investment in new infrastructure. Under the current regulatory
regime, the sparse populations of rural communities diminish the return
on broadband investment to such an extent that incumbent phone
companies are not deploying them in those areas. By removing these
incumbent regulations on what is new infrastructure in a nascent
market, we will be providing local phone companies with the incentive
to deploy broadband in exchange for the opportunity to pursue new
revenue streams.
Let me be clear that my legislation in no way seeks to upset
competition developing in our urban markets. The Broadband Regulatory
Relief Act would have removed voice regulations from the advanced
service offerings by incumbent local telephone companies, while
preserving those same competitive measures for their traditional
telephone services. The bill simply recognizes that broadband, as
opposed to traditional voice service, is a new service in which no one
competitor should be given a government-mandated advantage. Incumbent
telephone companies started from the same zero broadband-subscribership
levels as the cable TV and CLEC industry, and each of them should go
forward in broadband deployment on a level playing field.
These are the principles embodied in the legislation I introduced
last year, and will be embodied in legislation I intend to introduce
shortly. I remain convinced that, before seeking out alternative
solutions, we must look to deregulation as the best, most expedient
means of insuring rural America is not left behind. The power of
industry to innovate and deploy products and services to the public
once government is removed from the marketplace is awesome, as proven
by the impressive growth of the wireless industry, the Internet and e-
commerce--both representing industries largely spared from Government
interference.
Some have suggested alternatives such as tax incentives or fixed
wireless solutions to achieve rural broadband deployment. While we can
and should seek out alternative means of deploying these services
throughout the Nation, we cannot afford to delay in enabling currently
available solutions from working now. We can always seek out new
alternatives and when confronted with marketplace developments that
threaten the interests of consumers, we can certainly enact measures to
protect them. But the challenge facing us most immediately in this
matter is to be unafraid to rely on our industries, responsible for the
long period of economic growth we have enjoyed, to do what they do
best: innovate, and offer new products and services to the public.
I recognize that others have differing views and there exists a range
of opinions on how best to promote broadband deployment in rural areas.
While I may disagree with some of the views and proposals existing in
the marketplace of ideas on this matter, I remain keenly interested in
working with those who advocate them in the further interests of rural
America. I am heartened by the knowledge that whatever our
philosophical or policy-based disagreements, we all share the common
goal of extending this vitally important technology to rural America. I
look forward to working with all interested parties to seek a solution
on how best to deliver these important services to rural and remote
communities, and I am confident we can work together to achieve our
common goal.
The kind Senator from West Virginia has been willing to allow me to
come here, even though he has patiently waited on the floor to make his
statement. I appreciate his generosity in allowing me to do so. I
appreciate his kindness and generosity and I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have some remarks to make in connection
with the reconciliation process, but I understand the leadership wishes
to proceed with a little business transaction, so I shall yield the
floor and not proceed with my statement until the leadership has been
able to transact that business.
In the meantime, I ask that I have control of the time until my
speech has been completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________