OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

Date: June 8, 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Technology and Communication


COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Simply put, I support the ends but not the means with respect to this legislation. The goal of increasing competition in the video communication market is worthy. Indeed, it is of great importance. We know that robust competition can improve customer services, reduce pricing, and spark innovation and technological advances. This House is right to take on this critical and timely subject. But I am disappointed the drafters felt the need to use a national cable franchise as the means to achieve these laudable ends.

I see numerous examples of telephone companies, small and large, entering into successful negotiations with local franchise authorities, and I believe that we can encourage new entrants and new competition without moving to a federally managed national franchise.

But, Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations about the national cable franchise, I might view this model more favorably if the legislation contained adequate safeguards and requirements to ensure that the benefits of increased competition are shared as widely as possible. Unfortunately, this is not what happened in committee when we marked up this legislation and we were denied the ability to bring our amendments to improve the bill to the floor this evening.

Instead, H.R. 5252 backs away from the tenet of universal service to all citizens, which has been a fundamental principle of our Nation's communication policies for over 70 years. And while anti-redlining language is included in the bill, other provisions in the bill render it toothless.

The legislation also strips the States and localities of their authority to both establish and enforce consumer protections and customer service standards. It makes the FCC the final arbiter of local rights-of-way disputes.

Most disappointingly, the bill does little to protect what we call the neutrality of the Internet. Neutrality has become crucial to the development of innovative and competitive broadband content and services.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov

arrow_upward