[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 16 (Monday, February 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S995-S996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the communications bill by Congressmen 
Tauzin and Dingell that the House will vote on this week is blasphemy. 
Hailed as a way to enhance competition, it eliminates it. Touted as a 
way to enhance broadband communications, it merely allows the Bell 
companies to extend their local monopoly into broadband.
  I know the Bells' tricks, based on past performance. In 1984 when 
Judge Harold Green broke up AT&T's monopoly in long distance, he 
required AT&T

[[Page S996]]

to sell long distance services at wholesale. This resulted in brisk new 
competition among MCI, Sprint, and GTE that lowered prices for 
consumers. AT&T's local business was split into seven Bell companies. 
But they retained their monopoly in local service, guaranteeing no 
competition, but a guaranteed profit for them.
  In the early 1990s the Bells decided they, too, wanted to compete in 
long distance. Congress agreed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but 
first we employed the Judge Green approach by requiring access to the 
Bell network by competitors. For one full year, the Bell lawyers 
hammered out a step-by-step process how to open their networks. They 
came up with a 14-point checklist, and once they complied, the Bells 
could offer long distance in their region. They were so eager, they 
told us they would comply within a year. Thus, the 1996 Act passed in 
the Senate by a vote of 91 to 5 and in the House by a vote of 414 to 
16.
  But instead of moving into long distance, the Bells immediately 
launched a 6-year stonewalling in the courts against competition. 
First, they claimed unconstitutional what their lawyers had just 
written. They lost at the Supreme Court. And instead of competing, they 
extended their monopoly by combining: Southwest Bell bought Pacific 
Bell and Ameritech calling it SBC; Qwest bought US West, Bell Atlantic 
bought NYNEX and GTE calling it Verizon; and BellSouth joined in 
holding off competition.
  Time and again the FCC and State commissions fined the Bells for 
violating the checklist they wrote. So far they have been fined upwards 
of $1.8 billion. But what do they care? The Bells merely write off 
these fines in their rates and continue their monopolistic conduct.
  To their credit, Verizon and SBC moved to qualify for long distance 
in a few States, but today the Bells control roughly 93 percent of the 
last lines for communication into every home and business in America. 
They contend that they are forced to provide access to their network 
while cable is not. But the move should be toward competition, not 
monopolization; and the Bells should simply comply with the law they 
wrote.
  Now comes the Bells' grand maneuver--Tauzin-Dingell. It veritably 
repeals access requirements and the roadmap for opening the Bell 
markets to competition. Worse, the FCC and all State commissions' 
safeguards as to pricing and service by the Bell companies are 
repealed, further strengthening their monopoly control.
  Pass Tauzin-Dingell and long distance companies will have to either 
submit or sell to the local Bell monopoly. The competitors spawned by 
the 1996 Act are already on the ropes. Just the threat of enactment of 
Tauzin-Dingell has caused the capital markets to freeze their 
financing, and some 200 companies have dropped like flies. Passage of 
Tauzin-Dingell will squash them totally and the country will return to 
an AT&T-like monopoly control of communications.
  At present, there is no legal restriction upon the Bells or anyone 
from providing broadband. The problem is not availability, but demand. 
In fact, broadband is already available to 80 percent of Americans.
  But only one in four Americans who have Internet in their homes are 
signed up for broadband. Who wants to pay $50 a month for faster access 
to their e-mail? Content providers are awaiting copyright protection 
legislation before they render more content for broadband users, and 
the lack of legislation protecting privacy on the Internet keeps users 
away.
  Where there is an availability problem, of course Congress should 
assist in extending broadband to rural and economically depressed 
areas. Bills for rural subsidies and tax credits are now pending in 
Congress. But the first order of business is to defeat the monopoly 
grab of Tauzin-Dingell, and then enforce the intent of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act.

                          ____________________