|
Tauzin-Dingell Bill
With Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.)
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2001; 2 p.m.
EST
House leaders decided last week to delay a vote on a bill that would let phone companies sell high-speed Internet access nationwide without opening their home markets to competition. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), has been hotly contested, both on Capitol Hill and through numerous television and radio ads over the past year.
Rep. Tauzin was online to take questions and comments on the Tauzin-Dingell Bill, Congress and politics in general.
And don't miss Washtech.com's special report on the Tauzin-Dingell proposal.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Rep. Tauzin: Hello. I am here, I am completing my first year as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and want to wish everyone a happy holiday season.
Washington, D.C.:
With so many advertisements on the TV about this bill, there are obviously a lot of financial rewards at stake. Can you tell me who the opposing corporate forces are?
Also, who are these advertisements aimed at? They claim to be arguing on behalf of consumers, but aren't these ads so prevalent in Washington, D.C. because congressmembers might be watching the tube?
Rep. Tauzin: Yes of course. The ads are aimed primarily at a congressional audience. If people were asked to define what Tauzin-Dingell is, most Americans probably could not do so -- and understandably so. There are huge dollars at stake. Primarily because we are at the begging of a broadband revolution and market evidence indicates little churn in this business. Once a customer, generally speaking, one stays a long-term customer.
Obviously the major combatants here are the long-distance telephone companies who are attempting to keep the Bell companies out of their business and on the other hand they are allied with the new competitive local telephone companies who want to get into the Bells business. On the sideline are the cable companies who are moving into broadband and who are enjoying watching the telephone companies fight.
San Antonio, Tex.:
What effect will Comcast's acquisition of AT&T Cable have on the broadband market? Does it impact the prospects for your legislation?
Rep. Tauzin: On the one hand the Comcast-ATT merger probably means a more aggressive cable broadband deployment, and that is good. On the other hand this huge cable consolidation argues volumes in favor of the strong telephone competitor in the market. Therefor this cable consolidation argues for Tauzin-Dingell.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
In general, it seems businesses try to show Congress how they should not be regulated while hoping Congress will act so they may earn more money. What is the harm in keeping this industry regulated so the public has some say in preventing monopolistic competition?
Rep. Tauzin: The best friend of the consumer is not monopoly regulation, it is and has always been choice and access. When there is only one store in town, no matter how good the regulations, we get bad service, bad prices and bad products not to mention bad attitudes. When there are two or three stores in town that do not need to be regulated we get better prices, better service, better products and a hell of a lot better attitude.
Sacramento, Calif.:
How would HR 1542 help our economy?
Rep. Tauzin: A not yet released study by one of the major technology trade groups estimates a 1 million to 1.3 million job improvement with Tauzin-Dingell. Simply stated, an aggressive Bell company broadband buildout not only puts people to work deploying fiber systems and new broadband technologies but it creates and urgency on the part of cable and satellite competitors to do the same. It further incentives the whole generation of broadband and hardware and software components. Not to mention speeding the day highspeed connectivity hits a critical mass of say 30 to 50 percent connect rates. When that happens all of a sudden dot-com companies which couldn't survive in a low speed internet world suddenly have high-speed customers to deal with and a new financial underpinning. In short Tauzin-Dingell could well be the best stimulus package debated on the Hill.
Yogaville, Va.:
Chairman Tauzin, how would your legislation help those in rural areas who currently can't get high-speed Internet access? I want and am willing to pay for it but nobody in my area offers it. What gives?
Rep. Tauzin: First off, the bill requires a broadband buildout by the Bell companies so that within the next five years they would be required to establish a broadband capable D'Slam in every central area, including yours. This mandatory buildout compliments the incentives created in the bill for the telephone company to provide broadband services over and around the old restrictions of the telephone world known as latta lines. These latta lines, lines drawn on a map by the federal judge that broke up ATT, are designed to separate local and long distance business and currently impede Bell company broadband deployment. Our bill would change that. Thirdly, the bill gives the Bell companies more incentives to deploy fiber in your community by relaxing the meticulous regulatory rules that apply to products and services offered in the telephone world. Also, remember, if a telephone company is permitted now to bring you the opportunity of broadband, someone else, a satellite company or cable company, may likely feel the competitive heat and do the same thing.
San Antonio, Tex.:
In addition to passing the Tauzin-Dingell bill, what other things need to be done in order to prevent cable companies from controlling high-speed Internet access?
Rep. Tauzin: Obviously getting satellites into play is important as well as licensing new terrestrial broadband technologies. In addition there are still outstanding issues regarding cable's obligation to carry programming. As TV moves into the digital age and becomes, essentially, computer savvy, cable carriage of digital interactive television services will become a significant issue both with the public and with Congress.
Pasadena, Tex.:
Why are you trying to kill competition for
local, regional and national Internet
Service Providers by giving the Bells the
right to be a monopoly? As a representative
from Louisiana, you will be hurting your
own Louisiana ISPs. Competition is what makes
the American Dream work, when you get rid of
it, we might as well be in Russia in the
Cold War!
Rep. Tauzin: Rather be in Pasadena than Russia any day.
First, our bill will not kill the competition nor make Bell companies monopolies. If you believe that I have some great waterfront property in Russia to sell you. The truth is our bill will create the first FCC authority to hammer the Bells for any violation of their obligations to open up their local markets to competitors. The FCC currently does not have such authority except when a Bell company seeks access into the long distance market. Secondly, our bill will preserve for the competitive carriers full line sharing rights to the legacy copper networks and will additionally give local competitors rights to use the Bell companies new fiber and hybrid fiber systems for broadband competition purposes at terms and rates set not by the Bell company but by the FCC. That is as fair as it gets.
Silver Spring, Md.:
Rep. Tauzin, I used to work for Verizon (local service) and was perpetually disgusted by how that company treated customers and other CLECs. Poor customer service, shoddy network leasing -- I've heard and seen it all. Competition is very much needed to help Verizon help itself.
Rep. Tauzin: I totally agree. Any monopoly provider as I pointed out earlier is like the single store that gives you bad products, prices, service and occasionally bad attitudes. De-monopolizing the local Bell loops remains a big part of our plans.
Washington, D.C.:
Even if the House passes Tauzin-Dingell, it's still considered a long-shot in the Senate. How do you hope to win Sen. Hollings and others to your side?
Rep. Tauzin: Have you been watching TV? Everything in the Senate is a long shot! The day we in the House stop leading and instead wait for the Senate is the day everything shuts down over here.
Seriously, the Senate has adopted a wait and see attitude on this issue. When the House decides to pass Tauzin-Dinggell -- and it will -- the Senate will have no choice but to take it seriously. Beyond that no one, certainly not I, should try to predict the Senate.
Orlando, Fla.:
Does your bill indicate that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 failed?
Rep. Tauzin: There was a failure, but it rightfully belongs to the federal regulators who contributed mightily to the slowdown in deregulation of the telephone markets as promised by the act in '96. Had the deregulation occurred smoothly and quickly we would not have these old telephone monopoly arguments complicating the new world of broadband services and technologies. But if you are looking for successes in the '96 act check your latest cellphone rates. Wireless competition is real and working. In my humble opinion with a different FCC we could already be there in wireline telephone competition.
Remember also that the Internet and broadband were hardly dreamed of in 1996. The browser had only entered the market in 1995. The word Internet is found only three of four times in that massive bill and broadband is no where to be found because it didn't then exist. Tauzin-Dingell simply seeks to make rational policy for the broadband world based on competition, consumer choice and less, not more, regulation.
Bethesda, Md.:
The bill seemed to be ready to go to a vote last week -- why the delay? Do we really need another month or two of commercials and lobbying efforts to get this decided?
Rep. Tauzin: Good question.
In the last days of this now contentious session, getting a fair rule for consideration of the bill became problematic. As you may know, before a controversial bill is taken to the floor the Rules Committee proposes a rule defining the terms of the debate. For example -- what amendments if any would be in order. The membership on both sides of the isle were concerned over the adoption of such a rule and a number of members were petitioning the leadership to hold off another controversial vote following so quickly on the heels of the one vote margin Fast Track Trading Authority Bill. The speaker and I, as well as Mr. Dingell, agreed to give all members adequate time to file proposed amendments with a date certain to be announced early next year -- probably late February -- together with a promise of a fair rule. This insures no procedural delays, no procedural killer tactics and a fair up or down vote on the bill. As we have publicly said, this is not a defeat it is simply a delay and we have ordered the champagne.
Rep. Tauzin: Thanks for this interactive chat. Please visit my Web site and know that we appreciate your thoughts and comments on this and other critical legislation before my committee and Congress.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
