[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 11649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 H.R. 5252: THE COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT 
                                  ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 16, 2006

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Federal telecommunications 
law was last reformed in 1996. Many new technologies have been 
developed since then that have changed how Americans receive and seek 
information. This reform legislation is long overdue. I support 
reforming telecommunications law that will encourage investment, 
innovation, and competition in both telecommunications software and 
hardware. The delivery of telecommunications services to consumers, 
such as universal service, community access, and public safety must be 
protected. And, most importantly, any changes to telecommunication law 
intended to enhance competition must ensure consumer protections.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today does little to meet those 
goals and instead the consumer protections and community access we have 
come to expect could be in jeopardy. In addition, this bill forces 
unfunded mandates onto State and local governments and does little to 
prevent businesses from discriminating against consumers in order to 
enhance profit margins.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that intergovernmental 
mandates on State and local governments would increase over time--
adding up to $100 to $350 million by 2011. This cost will ultimately be 
passed along to the families who use these services. And, while the 
bill maintains the rights of cities to manage rights-of-ways 
requirements, such as where telecommunications infrastructure can be 
laid and what city streets can be disrupted, this legislation prevents 
State and local consumer protection laws from applying to national 
franchise holders.
  While the bill includes some ``anti-discrimination'' requirements 
intended to prevent providers from servicing areas based on income 
levels, these provisions are weak because the bill does not require 
companies to offer service to all communities within a specific area 
within a certain period of time. Weak anti-discrimination policies 
undermine the universal service principles that have been the pillars 
of fair access to U.S. telecommunications. I am concerned that the 
anti-discrimination policy contained in the bill does not go far enough 
in ensuring fair access to service and in allowing fair access to group 
claims and protections in the event that consumers feel that they and 
their neighbors have been discriminated against.
  I also continue to remain concerned that this bill does not contain a 
stronger network neutrality provision--which would prevent Internet 
providers from discriminating against Internet content--whether through 
pricing or speed of delivery. The Internet has been a communication 
medium that has flourished due to the fact that content has moved 
freely and equally without interference from network providers. 
Financial incentives to move some content through the Internet faster 
than other content would undermine the innovation that has spurred 
competitive Internet content and services. It is my opinion that the 
network providers should not be the ones in charge of favoring one 
application over another--consumers should be in charge of that.
  A broad coalition of groups opposes this bill for a variety of 
reasons, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Association of Telecommunications Offices and Advisors, and 
the National Governors' Association. Other groups share in the concern 
about the need for strong network neutrality provisions, including a 
broad coalition representing AARP, the American Library Association, 
colleges and universities across the country, and many others. I share 
in their concerns and that is why I rise today to oppose passage of 
this bill.

                          ____________________