Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup of H.R. 1542, the "Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act."

At the Full Committee hearing held yesterday, there was much debate about what the bill does and does not do. At times, it seemed like we were discussing an entirely different bill than the one I was pleased to introduce with Chairman Tauzin. I’d like to take this opportunity to briefly clarify some important points about this legislation.

First, the bill deregulates the provision of broadband – or high speed Internet services – provided by local telephone companies. Quite simply, this means that telephone companies will be allowed to offer broadband Internet services according to the same set of rules that apply to cable companies.

Why is this necessary? Cable companies now enjoy a substantial competitive advantage in the broadband marketplace. This advantage is due solely to regulatory disparities that were created at a time when cable and telephone companies provided completely different services.

But today, cable and telephone companies compete head to head for broadband customers, and their services are largely comparable. Yet these regulatory disparities still exist. As a result, more than 70% of the broadband market today is controlled by cable. This is a very troubling statistic, and the bill before us will make sure that these impediments to cable competition are eliminated.

The Committee has worked hard over the years to enhance competition in local and long distance telephone service, equipment manufacturing, and cable television and satellite services. The last thing we need now is to permit the monopolization of high speed Internet access.

Just as important, the bill will not roll back the market-opening provisions of the Telecom Act. All the interconnection, unbundling, resale and co-location requirements contained in that law remain intact for the provision of local telephone service by competitors. The bill simply draws a line in the sand, and establishes that any investment in new facilities for the provision of broadband Internet service is off-limits to Federal and State government regulation.

Second, the bill allows Bell companies to compete in the interLATA data services market. Today this market is highly concentrated and heavily congested. For broadband deployment to really make a difference, we need high speed connections not just in the last mile, but throughout the Internet. Bell companies are best positioned to provide the necessary competition in the Internet backbone market. In fact, these companies alone have over 275,000 miles of fiber already in the ground that are not being fully utilized.

Entering the interLATA data services market does not mean that the Bells no longer will have an incentive to meet the Section 271 checklist. Voice long distance service, though it may be declining in value over time, is still worth nearly $95 billion each year. That is ample incentive for Bell companies to continue applying for Section 271 approval to enter this market.

Furthermore, even if the Bells decided not to enter the voice long distance market via Section 271 of the Act, the market-opening requirements that make up the 14-point checklist are by no means voluntary. They are substantially duplicated in Section 251 of the Act, and the Bells must comply with these provisions as a matter of law, and I certainly intend to make sure that they do.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, again for holding this markup today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and reject any weakening amendments that may be offered. In my view, this legislation is the single best way to get the New Economy back on track, and give the American public a real choice when it comes to faster, cheaper Internet access.