Issue Position: Technology & Telecommunications - Cable Competition

Issue Position

In 1996, Congress made major changes to our nation's telecommunications laws in order to encourage the development and deployment of new technologies and services. The telecommunications marketplace looks very different today than it did in 1996, and reform of our laws is needed to address the new technological environment. In this context, the House of Representatives recently considered the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act which creates a national cable franchise system to be managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I voted against this legislation, because it is bad for communities and consumers. There were five key areas in which this legislation was deficient:

* Universal Service: Cable providers have long been subject to a universal service requirement, providing that they must offer their services throughout entire franchise areas. This legislation grants new cable operators access to a community's public rights-of-way without any obligation to serve the entire community, thus allowing national franchisees to select the most lucrative households to serve while ignoring others. Access should not be limited by location-rural or urban-and strong protections must be in place to prevent this.

* Network Neutrality: no element of the proposal has caused greater public concern than provisions concerning the principle of network neutrality, which ensures that the Internet remains open to all and guarantees everyone equal access The network neutrality provision in the legislation, is so broadly worded that it fails to provide any specific, enforceable protections. I supported an amendment which would have carefully defined what "network neutrality" means and given the requirement the force of law. That amendment was defeated.

* Consumer Protection: This legislation undermines the ability of local governments to protect consumers and enforce local matters, by making the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responsible for handling complaints and request for dispute resolution. I do not believe that this federal commission can provide the same consumer protections that local authorities can.

* Discrimination: Neighborhoods or communities should not be excluded from participating in the information age simply because they are low income areas. This proposal contains very weak protections against such "redlining."

* Unfunded Mandate: Of particular concern to communities in Wisconsin and across the nation, the COPE Act would impose significant financial burdens on local governments, without providing federal funding to cover these losses. I led the unsuccessful effort to remove the unfunded mandate on local governments.

I know that Wisconsinites want telecommunication policy that protects consumers and ensures the Internet remains open to all. I will continue to work for the passage of legislation that meets these standards.

Source