[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 6 (Monday, February 12, 1996)]
[Pages 218-220]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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.
    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 serv- 

[[Page 219]]

ices 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, 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.

[[Page 220]]

    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.