The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FCC AND TELEPHONE COMPETITION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E2082-E2083 on Oct. 11, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FCC AND TELEPHONE COMPETITION
______
HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Saturday, October 10, 1998
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with several original cosponsors. They are Mr. Dingell, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Klink, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Burr. Mr. speaker, this legislation essentially begins the process of reviewing the inadequacies of FCC implementation of the local competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Specifically, our bill amends provisions contained in section 271 of the Act, dealing with interLATA (long distance) entry by the Bell Companies.
It is frustrating that nearly three years have passed since the Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted into law. Five applications for long distance service have been received by the FCC, and four have been denied. The fifth, an application approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission by a vote of 4-1, is now pending at the FCC. Frankly, I am not encouraged that it will be granted when the FCC makes its decision on October 13 of this year.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to open up competition in both the local and long-distance markets; but, the FCC appears determined to preserve the long-distance service monopoly that traditional interexchange companies have enjoyed since the conception of the telephone. Today, only business subscribers are realizing more choices from competitors to incumbent LECs.
This legislation will attempt to codify what the intent of the conferees was during their deliberations on the 1996 Act. That is, the states should have explicit authority over determining intrastate interLATA service in their respective states. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today would modify other provisions of the law as noted in the attached talking points.
I look forward to working with all of our colleagues early in the 10th Congress to loudly send a message to the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the administration that the ``status quo'' is no longer acceptable. Only true, open competition in all markets will be acceptable now, not later.
Highlights of InterLATA Communications Improvements Act of 1998
State Jurisdiction Over Intrastate InterLATA Services. The legislation authorizes the state public service commission to grant BOC applications to provide intrastate InterLATA telecommunications services upon satisfaction of Track A/B, the competitive checklist and public interest requirements. If the State fails to act on an intrastate InterLATA application within the 90- day decision period, the application is deemed granted.
Resale Authority. On February 8, 1999, BOCs would be authorized to resell the InterLATA services of unaffiliated companies.
Amendments to Track A/Track B. The Track A/Track B requirement would be eliminated effective February 8, 1999. In addition, the legislation removes the requirement that a Track A company provide telephone exchange service exclusively or predominantly over its own facilities. It also provides that Track B is satisfied if the BOC's statement of generally available terms and conditions (``SGAT'') has been approved by the state public service commission or if the state public service commission has permitted such SGAT to take effect.
FCC Consultation with State PSC. The legislation directs the FCC to affirm the evaluation of the state public service commission concerning BOC compliance with Track A/Track B and the competitive checklist unless the FCC determines by clear and convincing evidence that the state evaluation is clearly erroneous.
Public Interest Determination. Effective February 8, 1999, the public interest requirement of Section 271 is deemed to be satisfied upon a finding that the BOC has satisfied the competitive checklist.
Incidental InterLATA Services. The legislation would expand the definition of ``incidental InterLATA services'' to include data communications and international telecommunications and information services.
Section 271 Approvals and Denials. Decisions approving or denying Section 271 applications must include a written determination of whether the BOC has complied with the statutory standard for InterLATA relief.
____________________
