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

H.R. 5252, THE “COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY,
PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006”

June 8, 2006

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure. You will hear grand pronouncements that this bill will lower cable bills and bring consumers choice. That is a powerful argument – if only it were true. Unfortunately, this bill threatens to harm many consumers, our communities, and citizens, and commercial users of the Internet.

First: Consumers. This bill could leave many consumers paying higher cable prices for worse service. There is no general promise for lower prices – in fact, the telephone companies have been telling Wall Street that they will price their services higher than cable.

Worse, in a blow to universal service principles on which Congress has insisted since 1927, the bill abandons current law that in exchange for use of public property, cable operators are required to serve all consumers in a franchise area. Both new and existing cable providers will be allowed to cherry pick and cream skim, serving only the attractive neighborhoods and highest value customers. The rest of us may not only be left without competitive choice, but we could face higher cable bills, worse service quality, or even withdrawal of our only provider.

Also, this bill’s redlining provision focused on income is too weak to offer any real protection against discrimination, which is why the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights opposes it. The bill does not stop cable operators from offering inferior service based on a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

Second: Communities. This bill inexplicably takes control over local rights-of-way decisions and hands them to the FCC. The FCC knows nothing about street and sidewalk repairs or local traffic patterns. Yet, the bill lets the FCC overrule the cities’ management of city property. This is one of the reasons the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties oppose it.

Third: Citizens and Commercial Users of the Internet. Another issue that has received nationwide attention is “net neutrality.” Let there be no mistake about it – this legislation permits telephone and cable companies to act as private tax collectors to single out certain Web sites to pay extra fees while giving others preferential treatment. Small and large businesses, schools, libraries, and ordinary citizens running Web sites could get shut out of the fast lane. This could significantly alter the open and innovative Internet that the government has until now protected.

Mr. Chairman, we all want consumers to have more cable and broadband competition. But this bill threatens real harm to consumers, to our communities and to citizens of the Internet. Many people will be worse off after this bill than they are today. I urge a no vote.

- 30 -

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