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

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Hearing on "How Internet Protocl-Enabled Services
Are Changing the Fact of Communications:
A View From Government Officials"

April 27, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. It is important that state and local officials are at the table as we consider changes to our Nation’s communications laws.

This Committee has long awaited vigorous competition in the markets for voice, video, and data services. Phone companies now appear poised to fulfill their promise to compete head-on with cable. Verizon and SBC have announced major investments in new fiber-based architectures to deliver interactive, high-capacity platforms. These investments will benefit consumers by spurring greater competition, lower prices, and exciting new applications.

As with our ongoing examination of the voice market, these developments raise important questions of how regulations should apply to tomorrow’s video marketplace. Our laws should grasp the exciting possibilities these new technologies afford by rewarding capital investment and fostering a rapid build out to consumers. At the same time, we must not condone end runs around the Communications Act and Congressional intent.

Today’s hearing focuses on our partnerships with state and local governments. I caution this Committee not to get too far ahead of ourselves. We have wrestled with the proper system of Federal, State, and local regulation of communications services before. Balancing these interests is always a delicate task. At times, this Committee has both reined in as well as strengthened the local cable franchise system. Each time we were well focused on protecting the public interest.

Telephone company entry into video raises a host of issues, including questions about franchising; relationships with local broadcast facilities; public interest obligations including carriage of public, educational, and government channels; diversity of information and access to programming; public safety; and disability access. If changes to the 1996 Act are necessary, we must take care to preserve core public policy obligations in video, just as we are doing in voice.

We would all like to see the rapid deployment of new competitive networks. I am therefore sympathetic to the expressed anxiety of new entrants over the time and administrative burden of seeking individual cable franchises. Collectively, all levels of government have a responsibility not to overregulate at the risk of stifling or slowing down investment in technologies that will benefit consumers. The sanctity of local governments in overseeing their public property, however, is not to be altered lightly. Fair and reasonable compensation and terms for the management and use of public rights-of-way remains a valid consideration of local government.

We also must be vigilant to recognize where there may be market failures. We are seeing with broadband that when the private sector fails to meet the needs of a given locality, many cities and towns are stepping in to deploy their own offerings. We cannot ignore the underlying motivations for these initiatives, including economic development and quality of life, nor the tensions they cause.

These initiatives demonstrate just how essential communications services are in our society. States and localities play a crucial role in ensuring a communications lifeline for our constituents. I welcome our State and municipal partners here today, especially our mayors.

Our Committee is responsible for ensuring that our telecommunications laws provide appropriate boundaries and guidance. We should not take any action that would disrupt the ability of States and localities to perform core consumer protection functions. This is especially important as providers offer bundles of services, and an increasing number of third-party applications run on these networks. In considering the appropriate regulatory structures, we should proceed with the same principle that so many of these new technologies proclaim – to empower consumers in tomorrow’s communications world.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about ways to preserve the complementary authority of Federal, State, and local governments to foster new technologies and protect consumers.

- 30 -

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