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.
“H.R. 1555--TELECOMMUNICATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1913-E1914 on Oct. 11, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
H.R. 1555--TELECOMMUNICATIONS
______
HON. MIKE WARD
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 11, 1995
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, in early August this House passed a historic bill to update this Nation's telecommunications laws. H.R. 1555 will change the status quo and allow for full and fair competition in local service, cable, and long distance. Consumers across America will benefit from the new jobs and economic benefits that will be created by this important bill.
While the long distance companies opposed H.R. 1555, there are still a number of advantages they retain if this bill becomes law. I would like to include in the Record the attached paper which outlines these advantages.
Why Bell Companies Need Federal Legislation
The states are opening the Bell companies markets to competition, without Federal legislation. Currently over 60% of all local telephone lines are in states that allow local competition. By year end 1995 it is expected that almost 80% of all local telephone lines will be subject to competition.
Nevertheless, a Federal Court-approved AT&T consent decree absolutely bars Bell companies from offering interLATA services or manufacturing, and seriously interferes with their information services and other offerings (e.g., customer premises equipment, cellular and PCS).
This results in government-mandated advantage to long distance companies that can offer one-stop shopping of local, long distance and information services.
The Bell companies have only two avenues for relief--Congress and the courts. The triennial review process promised by the Department of Justice to lift the decree prohibitions has broken down. The waiver process in the AT&T consent decree has broken down.
Even when it works, the Court process (e.g., information services relief), including appellate review, takes years, creates uncertainty, delays relief, and stifles real competition.
AT&T reneged on its commitment to support Bell companies efforts to lift the ``line of business'' restrictions in the Decree, restrictions that AT&T said it did not support.
AT&T and others continue to use the decree successfully to limit competition in their long distance markets.
With increasing competition from new local exchange carriers, cellular providers and PCS, the Bell companies will increasingly be harmed by the inability to offer the same one-stop shopping alternatives that long distance companies can offer.
Congress should reestablish itself as the principal telecommunications policy maker and open all markets to competition as soon as possible and at the same time.
why long distance carriers can afford to kill federal legislation
There are no Federal restrictions uniquely applied to long distance companies affecting their ability to enter any other telecommunications market including the local exchange market, the intraLATA toll market, the cable TV market, or manufacturing.
Virtually all States already permit intraLATA toll competition, 29 States have opened and 14 others are considering opening the local exchange to competition.
Currently over 60% of all local telephone lines are in states that allow local telephone competition.
By year end almost 80% of all local telephone lines are expected to be subject to competition.
States commissions have years of experience working with carriers on interconnection of local networks, e.g., cellular to local, intraLATA toll to local, and local to local networks, so no new Federal program is required.
Issues of interconnecting local to interstate networks have largely been resolved through FCC-mandated equal access and interconnection rules.
The FCC already has fully adequate powers over interconnection in the communications Act.
Long distance carriers have already announced that they are investing billions of dollars in local networks and services in virtually every major metropolitan market as soon as possible, showing their confidence in existing processes.
Long distance carriers also have access to alternatives to the local loop.
Cellular services through ownership (e.g., ATT/McCaw) or simple resale (e.g., MCI's recently announced strategy).
Personal Communications Services: AT&T spent over $1.68B in 21 MTAs, and will spend an estimated additional $2.5B to build out those properties; Sprint spent $2.1B in 29 MTAs. Cable loops to over 70% of households and businesses in the US.
Long distance carriers have been able to use consent decree restrictions to keep the Bell companies from competing with them. As a result, the long distance companies have been able to raise their rates 5 times and 20% in the last 4 years, while the Bell companies lowered their access charges to those long distance companies 7 times and 40% during the same period.
In other words, long distance companies win if there is no Federal legislation. They keep their markets closed to Bell company competition, maintain oligopoly profits for the Big Three, gain unrestrained access to the Bell companies' markets, and can offer one-step shopping while the Bell companies cannot.
key advantages retained by long distance carriers under revised h.r.
1555
long distance carriers may enter the local telephone exchange market immediately
Bell Companies Cannot Enter the Long Distance Market Until:
They Face Facilities-based Competition in Residence and Business Markets.
They Comply with Checklist.
[[Page E 1914]]
long distance carriers may immediately resell the local services of the bell companies at special rates
Bell Companies Are Barred from Reselling Long Distance Services until They are Granted Full InterLATA Relief, Except Limited Incidental InterLATA Services.
long distance carriers are not required to use separate subsidiaries to offer local services
Bell Companies Are Required to Use Separate Subsidiaries for Long Distance Offerings, Including Incidental InterLATA Service and Grandfathered InterLATA Services
long distance carriers may offer alarm monitoring services
Bell Companies Cannot Offer Alarm Monitoring Services for Years
long distance companies may offer electronic publishing services without separate subsidiary requirements
Bell Companies May Offer Electronic Publishing Services Only Through Separated Affiliate Or Joint Venture Structures
long distance companies may manufacture their equipment
Bell Companies Cannot Manufacture Their Equipment Until InterLATA Relief Is Obtained
____________________
