As I reviewed the testimony of the witnesses before us, three thoughts immediately came to mind. First, the communications marketplace has undergone truly amazing changes during the past several years. Second, the vast array of new products and services has tremendously benefitted America's consumers as has the continuing fall in prices for many basic telecommunication services. Finally, and this is particularly relevant to the work of this Committee, there is virtually no correlation between the regulations that presently govern the communications marketplace and the networks and services that comprise this market today.

Despite all the advances in technology and, in particular, the digitization of modern communications networks, the industry is still governed by laws that were passed before the emergence of the Internet - some even before the introduction of color television.

Of the two major titles of the Communications Act that govern the communications marketplace, the first was written many years ago to regulate the offering of switched analog voice service over a copper wire; the second was written nearly as many years ago to regulate the offering of an analog one-way video service over coaxial cable.

As we all know too well, however, the analog world contemplated by the Communications Act no longer exists. Instead, the marketplace now features a truly impressive array of products and services offered over networks that were barely on the drawing board when we passed the 1996 Act - Fiber-to-the-home, hybrid fiber-coax, 3-G, Wi-fi, E-V-D-O, just to name a few.

And what's even more amazing, in many cases today's digital networks are still governed by that old law.

In contrast with the old networks that were all designed specifically to offer one particular service - such as analog voice - today's digital networks have no such limitations. Voice, video, or data - it simply doesn't matter. In the new digital world, bits are bits, and the only limits on a network's ability are bandwidth and software.  

Mr. Chairman, despite what seems obvious to you and me, many in Congress do not seem to grasp these simple facts. Rather than modernize the Communications Act, we protect those who benefit from outdated laws. Rather than grasp the exciting possibilities of these new technologies, we choose to perpetuate the dying business models of certain politically entrenched companies. Rather than reward capital investment in new networks, we reward those companies - who shall go nameless - who feast like parasites off the hard work and investment of others.

I remain hopeful that Congress will soon change course and fundamentally overhaul the law to reflect the advances in the modern communications marketplace. I am encouraged by recent comments from Senator Stevens that he will look to reexamine the Communications Act during the next Congress, and I intend to push this Committee to undertake a similar endeavor. Such changes are essential if we are to inspire new investments in our networks, create jobs, and rightfully reward those companies who are willing to risk their own capital.

In the interim, I recognize that the FCC may soon commence a proceeding on the regulation of one of the new services being rolled out in the marketplace - voice over Internet protocol or V-O-I-P telephone service. As the FCC moves forward in this proceeding, there are several economic and social implications that must be considered - among the most important are universal service, law enforcement, and 911 services. Based on recent news reports, I am concerned that the FCC Chairman is not sufficiently aware of these issues. I caution the FCC to step back from its apparent rush to reclassify this service as a so- called "Title I Information Service." It may be far wiser for the FCC to regulate this service under Title II - which was written to apply to voice service - and then forbear where appropriate.

I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and to the continuing debate over the many communications issues before us.