    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1996, Book I)]
    [February 8, 1996]
    [Pages 188-190]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Statement on Signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    February 8, 1996

        Today I have signed into law S. 652, the ``Telecommunications Act of
    1996.'' This landmark legislation fulfills my Administration's promise
    to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to
    competition and private investment, promotes universal service and open
    access to information networks, and provides for flexible government
    regulation. The Act opens up competition between local telephone
    companies, long distance providers and cable companies; expands the
    reach of advanced telecommunications services to schools, libraries, and
    hospitals; and requires the use of new V-chip technology to enable
    families to exercise greater control over the television programming
    that comes into their homes.
        For nearly two decades, Vice President Gore has worked to spur the
    creation of a national information superhighway. This Act lays the
    foundation for the robust investment and development that will create
    such a superhighway to serve both the private sector and the public
    interest.
        Over the past 3 years, my Administration has worked vigorously to
    produce legislation that would provide consumers greater choices and
    better quality in their telephone, cable, and information services. This
    legislation puts us squarely on the road to a brighter, more productive
    future.
        In the world of the mass media, this Act seeks to remove unnecessary
    regulation and open the way for freer markets. I support that
    philosophy. At the same time, however, my Administration has opposed
    measures that would allow undue concentration in the mass media. I am
    very pleased that this Act retains reasonable limits on the ability of
    one company or individual to own television, radio, and newspaper
    properties in local markets and retains national ownership limits on
    television stations. My Administration will continue its efforts to
    ensure that the American public has access to many different sources of
    news and information in their communities.

    [[Page 189]]

        The Act increases from 25 to 35 percent the cap on the amount of the
    national audience that television stations owned by one person or entity
    can reach. This cap will prevent a single broadcast group owner from
    dominating the national media market.
        While the Act removes the statutory ban on ownership of a cable
    system and a broadcast station in the same local market, it does not
    eliminate the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulatory ban
    on such cross-ownership. This ownership restriction continues to be very
    important in maintaining competition in local markets and should be
    maintained by the FCC. In addition, while certain regulatory cross-
    ownership bans are no longer necessary and have been eliminated, others
    that are critical to maintaining the diversity of local news and
    information sources have been retained. For example, the Act maintains
    the regulatory ban on common ownership of a newspaper and a broadcast
    television or radio station.
        With regard to the ban on ownership of more than one television
    station in a local market, the Act directs the FCC to conduct a
    rulemaking to review its regulation and its waiver policy. Currently,
    the FCC allows ownership of more than one television station only in
    narrow and compelling circumstances, such as when a station would
    otherwise go dark, and where local diversity would not be reduced. Any
    changes in this policy should allow ownership of two stations only when
    doing so would clearly not reduce the diversity of independent outlets
    of news and information in a community. My Administration will continue
    to support a fair balance between economic viability and diversity.
        Rates for cable programming services and equipment used solely to
    receive such services will, in general, be deregulated in about 3 years.
    Cable rates will be deregulated more quickly in communities where a
    phone company offers programming to a comparable number of households,
    providing effective competition to the cable operator. In such
    circumstances, consumers will be protected from price hikes because the
    cable system faces real competition.
        This legislation also places a strong emphasis on competition in
    both local and long distance telephone markets, making it possible for
    the regional Bell companies to offer long distance service, provided
    that, in the judgment of the FCC, they have opened up their local
    networks to competitors such as long distance companies, cable operators
    and others.
        To protect the public, the FCC must evaluate any application for
    entry into the long distance business in light of its public interest
    test, which gives the FCC discretion to consider a broad range of
    issues, such as the adequacy of interconnection arrangements to permit
    vigorous competition. Moreover, in deciding whether to grant the
    application of a regional Bell company to offer long distance service,
    the FCC must accord ``substantial weight'' to the views of the Attorney
    General. This special legal standard, which I consider essential,
    ensures that the FCC and the courts will accord full weight to the
    special competition expertise of the Justice Department's Antitrust
    Division--especially its expertise in making predictive judgments about
    the effect that entry by a Bell company into long distance may have on
    competition in local and long distance markets. This Act also allows the
    Attorney General to use any available evidence, including evidence
    acquired under the Modified Final Judgment, and make a recommendation
    under any legal standard the Attorney General considers appropriate.
        Further, when a regional Bell company establishes a long distance or
    manufacturing affiliate, the Act bars it from discriminating in favor of
    its own affiliates and against the interests of competing long distance
    providers or manufacturers, when such outside companies seek to do
    business with the regional Bell's local network.
        The Act's emphasis on competition is also reflected in its antitrust
    savings clause. This clause ensures that even for activities allowed
    under or required by the legislation, or activities resulting from FCC
    rulemakings or orders, the antitrust laws continue to apply fully.
        I am also pleased that the Act requires interstate
    telecommunications carriers to contribute to a fund to preserve and
    advance universal service. The fund would be spent to provide and
    upgrade facilities and services, as prescribed by the FCC. And carriers
    would receive credit toward their contribution by providing discount
    service to schools, libraries, and health care providers in rural areas.
    In addition, equipment manufacturers and service providers would be
    required to address the needs of individuals with disabilities if
    readily achievable.
        I am especially pleased that the Act requires new televisions to be
    outfitted with the V-chip,

    [[Page 190]]

    which will empower families to choose the kind of programming suitable
    for their children. The V-chip provision relies on the broadcast
    networks to produce a rating system and to implement the system in a
    manner compatible with V-chip technology. By relying on the television
    industry to establish and implement the ratings, the Act serves the
    interest of families without infringing on the First Amendment rights of
    the television programmers and producers.
        I do object to the provision in the Act concerning the transmittal
    of abortion-related speech and information. Current law, 18 U.S.C. 1462,
    prohibits transmittal of this information by certain means, and the Act
    would extend that law to cover transmittal by interactive computer
    services. The Department of Justice has advised me of its long-standing
    policy that this and related abortion provisions in current law are
    unconstitutional and will not be enforced because they violate the First
    Amendment. The Department has reviewed this provision of S. 652 and
    advises me that it provides no basis for altering that policy.
    Therefore, the Department will continue to decline to enforce that
    provision of current law, amended by this legislation, as applied to
    abortion-related speech.
        The Telecommunications Act of 1996 will strengthen our economy, our
    society, our families, and our democracy. It promotes competition as the
    key to opening new markets and new opportunities. It will help connect
    every classroom in America to the information superhighway by the end of
    the decade. It will protect consumers by regulating the remaining
    monopolies for a time and by providing a roadmap for deregulation in the
    future. I am pleased to have signed this historic legislation.

                                                          William J. Clinton

    The White House,

    February 8, 1996.

    Note: S. 652, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 104-104.