|
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
Providing high-quality telecommunications services at affordable rates to all Americans has long been a cornerstone of our Nation's telecommunications policy and was enacted into law in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As this Committee embarks on a critical examination of universal service and how to ensure that it is sustained in the future, we must be willing to ask tough questions of those companies who have benefitted handsomely from deregulation and make sure that all players are asked to contribute in an equitable manner. In 1996, the Congress believed that universal service programs could be supported by assessing a charge against interstate telecommunications services. As we all know, however, much has changed in the telecommunications landscape since 1996, and these changes demand a thorough reexamination of the manner in which we support the universal service. The explosive growth in the use of e-mail and wireless services has replaced traditional long-distance voice service for many Americans and has dramatically slowed the rate of growth in wireline, interstate minutes. At the same time, cost-per-minute has fallen. These events, have dramatically decreased the pool of revenue available to support universal service and have caused the assessment on consumers' bills to rise to 9.5 percent. Also important, as networks become digital and capable of offering multiple types of services, carriers have begun to bundle products to consumers in attractive commercial offerings. In many regions, a consumer can purchase local and long-distance voice service, high-speed Internet service and wireless service from a single carrier at a single price. This is wonderful for consumers, who are realizing the savings and conveniences of true competition, but it is beginning to wreak havoc on those who must determine which portion of that bundled rate is for interstate service and can thus be assessed for purposes of universal service. Finally, the present system also leads to several marketplace inequities. For example, though cable companies and phone companies offer comparable broadband products to consumers, only telco DSL service offered by phone companies must support universal service. As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and this Committee contemplate action to address these issues, I suggest that we adhere to certain principles: First, all providers - and I mean ALL providers - of telecommunications should contribute equitably to support universal service. There is no reason to exempt certain products offered by particular industries simply because those industries have traditionally provided video rather than common carrier services. Next, all communications and not simply interstate communications, should be assessed. In a world of packetized networks and bundled service offerings, it is simply nonsense for the FCC to determine what communications are interstate rather than intrastate in nature. Finally, as new services come on line - such as voice-over-the-Internet protocol - we should be careful not to play favorites with so-called "new" technologies. Contrary to what some might say, we are not stifling the growth of new services by asking them to play by the same rules as their competitors. Rather, if we allow carriers to evade universal service requirements simply because of the technology of their network, then not only will we be shortchanging universal service support mechanisms, but we will be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and Chairman Tauzin on this issue. We must stand ready to make tough choices to ensure the continued success of universal service.
- 30 - (Contact: Jodi Bennett, 202-225-3641) | |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
