[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2094-2096]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 2095]]

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 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 ensure 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 bear 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.

[[Page 2096]]


  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.

                          ____________________