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

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Hearing on a Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV Transition Act of 2005

May 26, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. The transition to digital television is a complex undertaking with profound implications, and worthy of careful review and consideration by this Committee. As today’s witnesses will describe, there is much for this country to gain if the transition is done right. But there is much to lose if it is not. Although well-intentioned, the draft legislation does not take the steps necessary to ensure a consumer-friendly transition. It also raises several telecommunications policy issues of concern.

And including this legislation in the partisan reconciliation effort causes other problems. Given the stakes involved -- the television sets that Americans depend upon every day for news, weather, and entertainment -- it is of the utmost importance that this complex legislation receives the process it is due. We should not rush a bill through this Committee simply because of budget or other artificial pressures. It is because of the budget pressures in 1997 that we are still struggling to complete the digital transition the right way. Sound telecommunications policy cannot be achieved when a bill is being crafted for budget purposes.

Most, if not all, of us support a hard date to end analog broadcasting so we can return this valuable spectrum for public safety and new wireless uses, and maximize the auction proceeds for the Treasury. I am sure we all want as well to see a hard date established in a way that will focus consumers’ attention and complete the analog to digital transition in as fast and least disruptive manner as possible. But we must recognize that a hard date could have the very opposite effect. It could prolong the transition if it is not accompanied by a proper program to educate and equip those consumers so they are not disenfranchised by Government actions.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that almost 21 million American households, disproportionately low-income, nonwhite, and Hispanic, rely exclusively on over-the-air broadcasting for their television viewing. Millions more may subscribe to satellite service yet continue to receive their local stations using over-the-air antennas. Countless others have chosen to subscribe to cable or satellite for some television sets in their home yet rely on over-the-air broadcasting for other sets. All told, it is estimated that if the Government shut off analog broadcasting today, approximately 73 million television sets would go dark.

This draft legislation does nothing to provide Members of this Committee any assurance that the transition will be smooth and easy for millions of our constituents. This is primarily because the draft bill does not provide a well thought-out program to help affected consumers obtain the necessary equipment for their TVs in order to continue receiving their television signals. Without such a program, the draft legislation imposes an unnecessary and, I predict, a widely unpopular burden on millions of Americans, who will be forced to locate and purchase converter units at $50-70 per television set to keep their TVs working.

The proper action for this Committee to take would be to agree that if we want a hard date to maximize auction revenues, we must be prepared to protect all affected consumers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the auction of the returned analog television spectrum and other provisions in this bill should raise $10 billion. Other private sector estimates show upwards of $28 billion. These double-digit figures deserve some serious dialogue about how this Committee and the Republican Leadership will use that money. Will the proceeds from selling off the public’s airwaves be used to cover the transition expenses imposed on ordinary citizens? Or will the proceeds instead help pay for the $107 billion in new tax cuts for the rich included in the Republican budget?

In conclusion, two fundamental questions must be answered. Why should ordinary citizens pay more because of a governmental decision that makes their television sets obsolete? And why can’t the proceeds from the sale of spectrum, which is a public good, be used to reimburse citizens for their transition costs and for other important telecommunications and public safety needs? I look forward to the testimony today, and to addressing these and other questions as we consider this legislation.

- 30 -

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