|
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
July 21, 2003
3:00 PM
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Debbie Goldman. I am the Policy Chair of the Alliance for Public
Technology. I am also a Research Economist with the Communications Workers of
America. Today, I am representing the Alliance.
For nearly fifteen years, the Alliance for Public Technology, or APT, has
promoted the benefits of universal, affordable deployment of broadband and
advanced telecommunications services. Many members of APT represent
traditionally underserved communities, including rural residents, minorities,
people with disabilities, low-income households, and senior citizens.
It is critically important for the FCC to establish a regulatory framework that
encourages investment in broadband technology to ensure affordable access for
all Americans. High-speed Internet access provides a multitude of social
benefits, from economic development and health care, to education and lifelong
learning for workers, to public safety and independence for people with
disabilities.
I will include in the record a recent APT report entitled "A Broadband
World: The Promise of Advanced Services." The report highlights the many
social and economic benefits of broadband technology. It finds that the benefits
of broadband technology grow exponentially - and prices become more affordable -
as more people are connected to a broadband network. Thus, public policy must
ensure universal, affordable broadband deployment in order to serve economic and
social goals.
It is imperative, therefore, that the FCC gets the regulatory framework right
for broadband services. The FCC must adopt a common regulatory framework for all
broadband services, regardless of the technology. The nascent broadband market
is characterized by fierce cross-platform competition between cable and wireline
telephony. But cable modems are beating DSL 2 to 1, in large part due to
regulatory advantages.
The framework must facilitate a robust marketplace where multiple providers
compete on a level regulatory playing field to offer consumers a variety of
services at attractive prices. It must encourage investment in next-generation
broadband networks.
The FCC took at step in the right direction in its Triennial Review. Freeing
wireline carriers' broadband networks from unbundling and retail price
regulation gets the investment incentives right.
The framework must also continue the openness that has characterized the
Internet in the narrowband environment, where content providers have
nondiscriminatory access to the networks. Regulatory policy must ensure that
broadband networks remain open to all content providers, so that users have
access to diverse information sources of their own choosing. Open networks
foster innovation of new services, and demand for even more network capacity.
The new broadband regulatory framework must also continue consumer protections
that have been so critical in the voice environment. These include accessibility
requirements for people with disabilities. Currently, accessibility requirements
are required only for voice telephony services. Unless these protections are
extended to the broadband environment, many people with disabilities will not be
able to access much of the content available over broadband networks.
Finally, we must update our universal service support system for the
increasingly broadband world. All broadband providers, regardless of the
technology, must be required to contribute to the universal service fund.
In the current debate about the proper regulatory treatment of broadband, APT
has urged the FCC to develop a new regulatory framework for broadband. We have
encouraged the FCC to build upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the
only section of the Act that specifically addresses advanced telecommunications
technology.
Section 706 of the Act establishes in law the goal of universal access to
advanced telecommunications services by all Americans. Section 706 also provides
the FCC with the authority to develop "regulating methods" to achieve
that goal. APT believes that the FCC should use the umbrella language of Section
706 to craft a new regulatory framework for broadband.
Decades ago, the FCC began a series of proceedings known as Computer I, II, and
III. These proceedings were designed to develop a regulatory framework for
computer-enabled services that were transmitted over the telephone network. The
Commission developed a definition of "information services" that
distinguished these unregulated offerings from the regulated, monopoly
"telecommunications services."
As the current definitional controversy demonstrates, it is becoming
increasingly difficult to squeeze broadband into this framework. At the time of
the Computer proceedings, none envisioned cable or wireless as technology
platforms capable of delivering two-way high-speed digital information to homes
and businesses. Yet, today we are experiencing a convergence of different
technology platforms, each capable of delivering digital data over high-speed
networks. But each technology platform is subject to a different regulatory
regime.
Constructing a new regulatory framework, consistent with the principles I have
outlined, provides multiple advantages. It allows for a single regulatory
treatment for all broadband services in a technology neutral fashion. It does
not attempt to force broadband into definitions created for different technology
platforms. It reduces regulatory barriers to deployment and investment, provides
important consumer protections for people with disabilities, and updates the
system of universal service support.
APT believes this framework can provide a manageable regulatory structure that
will increase investment and deployment, create meaningful facilities-based
broadband competition between different technologies, and bring the benefits of
broadband to more Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Printer
Friendly |