Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND THE INTERNET HEARING ON H.R. ____,
THE COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY,
PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006

March 30, 2006

This is a very important bill for American consumers and the American economy. I am supportive of a national video franchise, and I am a long-time friend of the Bell companies. But I do not support the legislation being discussed today.

As drafted, this proposed legislation would allow the creation of the broadband equivalent of gated communities in our cities, towns, and countryside, as well as on the Internet. Public rights-of-way could be hijacked for the profits of large private companies, which are, under this draft, freed of important obligations to serve the public. I support fair competition, but this bill would not create fair competition. We should not write legislation at the expense of leaving some of our communities behind, and we should not write legislation at the expense of a free and innovative Internet.

Of course, some areas of our country would likely see faster competition and lower cable rates as a result of national franchising. But according to this draft, these benefits will not extend to everyone. Significant areas of our country will be left behind, and not all families in the same community will share in the competitive showdown. So the less desirable or more remote parts of town may see their cable rates increase or watch as providers upgrade other parts of town and pass them by. With many consumers put at risk of paying higher cable bills, or even losing cable service, this bill violates the fundamental legislative principle of, first, do no harm.

So there are tough questions that we must ask of this legislation.

First, why are there no real protections to ensure that communities and neighborhoods will not be left behind as the new communications infrastructure is deployed? When it comes to using public rights-of-way to offer cable service, the current framework has worked in allowing buildout over a reasonable period of time at the local level. Why should we abandon a system of universal service that has been working for all?

Second, when cable operators become national franchisees, and are released from obligations to serve or upgrade certain parts of town, how will that affect residents of those areas? Does this bill create a legal entitlement to differing levels of service depending on the demographics of a neighborhood?

 Third, will the unfortunate result of this bill be years of litigation? The national franchise requirements contain many ambiguities. For example, are new methods of video delivery covered, or should the 1984 constructs be updated to provide a technology-neutral approach to cable service? Will cities continue to receive fees associated with video services when those services are integrated with other capabilities?

Fourth, the proposed legislation contains some curious language regarding the issue of network neutrality. What would be the effect of allowing essentially private taxation of the Internet? Would the digital economy continue to thrive? Would consumer expectations be met?

In some ways, this bill clearly benefited from the lengthy bipartisan discussions held over the course of the past year. In particular, the bill generally reflects the value to our citizens of franchise fees and the continuation and support of diverse public, educational, and governmental programming. It recognizes at least in concept that local governments play a constructive role in the oversight of communications infrastructure and the protection of consumers. But it leaves other areas of local responsibility unclear.

Also troubling, the legislation preempts State and local consumer protection laws without requiring strong and enforceable Federal protections. This Committee has deregulated cable service before, only to have to step in to address poor treatment of consumers.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. This draft raises many questions which must be answered carefully. It is one thing to promise a new day of competition; it is quite another to deliver. We do not want to leave millions of Americans vulnerable, having to cope with no new services, higher cable rates, and fewer competitive choices on the Internet.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)