home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- EFF Position Statement on and Summary of Bill HR-3636
- National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1993
- Introduced by Reps. Markey, Fields and Boucher
-
-
- On Monday, November 22, 1993, House Telecommunications and Finance
- Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Minority Chairman Jack
- Fields (R-Tex.), and other cosponsors introduced the "National
- Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act of 1993."
- The legislation, which incorporates EFF's Open Platform philosophy, is
- built on four concepts: open platform services, the entry of telephone
- companies into video cable service, universal service, and competition in
- the local telephone market.
-
- Of all pending telecommunications legislation, Markey's bill is the only
- one with a vision of an open, accessible network which supports a true
- diversity of information sources. The legislation proposes a major
- restructuring of the Communications Act of 1934 in order to account for
- changes in technology, market structure, and people's increasingly advanced
- information access needs.
-
- EFF recommends strong support for the bill. For the bill to realize its
- goals however, the following key changes are necessary:
-
- * Require Open Platform Services to be tariffed at reasonable, affordable
- rates;
-
- * Strengthen non-discriminatory video dialtone access rules and eliminate
- current five year sunset provision;
-
- * Add information infrastructure access to the definition of universal
- service, and ensure public interest participation in redefinition of
- universal service obligations;
-
- * Ensure that all telecommunication providers pay a fair share of
- universal service costs.
-
- These are EFF's primary concerns about the bill. We hope to broaden our
- position and understanding of the bill based on the views of other
- interested groups. This is a summary of the main points of the legislation
- along with EFF positions and comments.
-
-
- OPEN PLATFORM
-
- Open platform service is designed to give residential subscribers
- access to voice, data, and video digital telephone service on a switched,
- end-to-end basis. With Open Platform service widely available, individuals
- and organizations would have ready access to a variety of important
- applications on the information highway, including distance learning,
- telemedicine, telecommuting, the Internet, and many more. The bill directs
- the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the policy changes
- needed to provide open platform service at affordable rates, but fails to
- require telecommunications carriers to tariff the service.
-
- ACTION NEEDED: The Open Platform concept should be enthusiastically
- supported, but the bill as written fails to ensure that Open Platform
- service will be widely available at affordable rates. Those who care about
- affordable, equitable access to new information media should demand that
- local telephone companies be required to tariff Open Platform services
- within a specific timeframe.
-
- ENTRY OF TELEPHONE COMPANIES INTO VIDEO PROGRAMMING
-
- The bill promotes the entry of telephone companies into video cable
- service and seeks to benefit consumers by spurring competition in the cable
- television industry. The bill would rescind the ban on telephone company
- ownership and delivery of video programming that was enacted in the Cable
- Act of 1984. Telephone companies would be allowed to provide video
- programming, through a separate subsidiary, to subscribers in its telephone
- service area.
-
- Telephone companies would be required to provide video services
- through a "video platform," that would be open, in part, to all video
- programming providers. The bill adopts a set of regulations originally
- proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) called "Video
- Dialtone." Under video dialtone rules, telephone companies would be
- required to allow other content providers to offer video programming to
- subscribers using the same video platform as used by the telephone company,
- on a non-discriminatory basis. Other providers would be allowed to use up
- to 75 percent of the video platform capacity. To encourage telephone
- companies to actually invest in new information infrastructure, they would
- be prohibited from buying existing cable systems within their telephone
- service territory, with only tightly drawn exceptions.
-
- However, the video dialtone requirement would end in five years, after
- which telephone companies would have no requirement at all to provide
- non-discriminatory access to their video platform.
-
- ACTION NEEDED: Video dialtone is a useful starting point for structuring
- non-discriminatory video access, but its provisions must be strengthened.
- First, there should be no fixed expiration date for the video dialtone
- requirements. An open platform for video information is critical to the
- free flow of information in society. These requirements should be relaxed
- only when it is clear than there are sufficient alternatives throughout the
- country for distribution of video and multimedia information Alternatives
- would include widely available, affordable Open Platform service capable of
- carrying full-motion, video programming. Second, stronger safeguards
- against anti-competitive behavior are necessary.
-
- Finally, more explicit provisions assuring access for third party video
- servers are needed to ensure the all programmers can use video dialtone to
- disseminate their video programs. Video dialtone rules fail to consider
- how to guarantee third party access to interactive functions of a video
- dialtone platform. Interactive technology is so new and untested that it
- has hard to legislate about it at this point. The FCC should, however, be
- instructed to study this issue as new interactive capabilities become
- available.
-
- UNIVERSAL SERVICE
-
- One of the goals of the bill is to "preserve universal
- telecommunications at affordable rates." To achieve this goal, the bill
- would establish a joint Federal-State Board (made up of FCC members and
- state regulators) to devise a framework for ensuring continued universal
- service. The Board would be required to define the nature and extent of
- the services encompassed within a telephone company's universal service
- obligation. The Board also would be charged with promoting access to
- advanced telecommunications technology.
-
- The FCC is required to prescribe standards necessary to ensure that
- advances in network capabilities and services deployed by common carriers
- are designed to be accessible to individuals with disabilities, unless an
- undue burden is posed by such requirements. Additionally, within one year
- of enactment, the bill requires the FCC to initiate an inquiry to examine
- the effects of competition in the provision of both telephone exchange
- access and telephone exchange service furnished by rural carriers.
-
- ACTION NEEDED: Include an explicit requirement that advanced digital
- access services be included in the universal service definition as soon as
- is practical. Create a mechanism for public interest participation in the
- process of defining the components of universal service in the information
- age.
-
- VIDEO PLATFORM AND FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS
-
- Any telephone company that establishes a video platform would be required
- to meet 1992 Cable Act standards concerning customer privacy rights,
- consumer protection, and customer service. Telephone companies would be
- required to meet the same standards as cable companies for diversity in
- commercial programming, to assure that the broadest possible information
- sources are made available to the public. Like cable companies, telephone
- companies would be required to comply with public, educational, and
- governmental (PEG) access rules. Telephone companies also would be
- required to meet standards concerning re-transmission consent for cable
- systems.
-
- Some Cable Act requirements concerning cable companies would expressly not
- be applicable to telephone companies. These include: general franchise
- requirements; franchise fees; regulation of rates; regulation of services,
- facilities, and equipment; consumer electronics equipment compatibility;
- modification of franchise obligations; renewal proposals; conditions of
- sale; unauthorized reception of cable service; equal employment; limitation
- on franchising authority liability; and coordination of federal, state, and
- local authority.
-
- Instead of Cable Act compliance, the legislation provides that a video
- programming affiliate of any telephone company that establishes a video
- platform would be subject to the payment of fees imposed by a local
- franchising authority. The rate at which these fees would be imposed cannot
- exceed the rate at which franchise fees are imposed on any operator
- transmitting video programming in the same service area.
-
-
- LOCAL COMPETITION
-
- In order to promote competition in local telecommunications
- service, the bill requires that local telephone companies open their
- networks to competitors who wish to interconnect with the public switched
- telephone network. These interconnect rules will enable any other network
- operator to offer basic telephone service as well as advanced data services
- in direct competition with the local phone company. The FCC would be
- required to establish rules for compensating local telephone companies for
- providing interconnection and equal access.
-
- ACTION NEEDED: Local competition can be a benefit to consumers and spur
- the development of innovative new services, as long as all interconnecting
- networks pay their fair share of the cost of using the public telephone
- network. All who interconnect should be required to support the cost of
- basic universal service.
-
- For More Information Contact:
-
- Daniel J. Weitzner, Senior Staff Counsel
- 202-347-5400
- djw@eff.org
-
- Copies of the legislation and this summary are available on EFF's Internet
- FTP site: ftp.eff.org, in the directory pub/eff/legislation/hr3636 and
- hr3636.summary.
-
- Tech assistance: eff@eff.org
- Membership info: membership@eff.org
- General queries: ask@eff.org
-