|
Telecommunications and the Internet
A La Carte Cable *
Broadcast Indecency *
FCC Rules * Telecommunications
Act of 1996 * Internet Access
Charge Hoax *
The world of telecommunications is undergoing exciting advances
and I believe that, whenever possible, the federal government
should allow market forces to determine the spread of services.
The worst thing Washington can do is hamper the development
of new technologies. The best thing we can do is encourage
competition which will lead to greater choices for consumers.
A La Carte
Cable
Although a la carte cable packaging has not been introduced
as stand-alone legislation, I would be inclined to support
it should it come to the floor for my consideration. A la
carte packaging would give consumers the opportunity to choose
the channels they want instead of being forced to choose a
package.
I believe the current system forces consumers to buy a lot
of channels they don't watch in order to get the ones they
want. Today's programming tiers force subscribers to pay for
channels they don't watch and have helped drive up cable prices
56 percent since 1996, or three times the inflation rate.
According to Nielsen ratings, the top 10 cable networks account
for 50 percent of viewing and the top 20 for 75 percent.
Satellite Competition
I am a cosponsor of H.R.
998, the Local Emergency Radio Service Preservation Act.
This legislation would the codify the original Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) ruling which states that satellite radio
is unable to provide local programming into different markets.
H.R. 998 would also instruct the FCC to reconsider the effects
on local broadcasting that may occur from the current offering
by satellite radio licensees of locally-based content on their
national distribution channels. Currently, satellite radio
is allowed to provide local information such as traffic and
weather, but only if it provides it nationally.
Broadcast Indecency
On February 16, 2005, I voted for H.R.
310, which passed the House by a vote of 339
to 38. H.R. 310 increases the penalties for violations by
television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against
transmission of obscene, indecent and profane language. This
legislation is awaiting action in the Senate.
I support increasing fines because I believe we need to have
strong deterrents so broadcasters do not act inappropriately
on the airwaves. I do not support legislation such as the
Clean Airwaves Act, however, which was introduced in the last
Congress and would ban eight specific words from the public
airwaves. While I don't think these words should be used,
I believe these provisions would be an infringement on Freedom
of Speech. It seems to me that if Congress approves the legislation
it will be overturned by the courts.
While it may be inappropriate to use profane language and
indecent material on television and radio, I believe the ultimate
responsibility for monitoring what children are exposed to
lies with their parents. With parental guidance children can
learn what material is appropriate for them to watch and what
is not.
FCC Rules
On December 8, 2003, I voted for the Conference Report on
H. R. 2673, the
fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill,
which among other provisions instructs the FCC to modify its
rules to set a 39 percent National Television Ownership cap.
This compromise strikes a balance by raising the previous
limit of 35 percent without extending it as high as 45 percent,
as proposed by the FCC. The Conference Report was approved
in the House by a vote of 242 to 176 and the President signed
it into law on January 23.
On July 23, 2003, I voted for
H.R. 2799, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and
the Judiciary Appropriations Act, which contained
a provision prohibiting the FCC from adopting the new ownership
cap. The bill passed by a voted of 400 to 21.
While I voted for this legislation and am sensitive to the
concerns of those who fear the new rules will allow a dangerous
consolidation in ownership of local media outlets, I think
the new rules strike an appropriate balance between the need
to protect consumers and the need to update existing regulations
to reflect the vastly increased number of information resources.
The old rules were sorely outdated and did not reflect the
explosion of cable television, web sites, and satellite television,
which provide consumers with more sources of information than
when the rules were developed years ago.
Telecommunications
Act of 1996
In 1996, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act, a sweeping
bill that overhauled the laws regulating a wide range of telecommunications
industries and technology by eliminating the legal barriers
that prevented telephone, cable, and other companies from
competing in each other's markets.
I had hoped the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would have
brought competition and lower prices more quickly. In the
near future, however, I believe we will see increased competition
among Internet service providers, the cable industry, long
distance companies, and the "Baby Bells" so that
customers will have a choice of a number of providers offering
high quality services at competitive prices.
Internet Access Charge Hoax
There is a completely false rumor circulating on the Internet
regarding bill 602P, legislation that would impose charges
on e-mails. No such legislation exists. The bottom line is
there are no bills pending before Congress that will result
in increased prices for Internet use.
Furthermore, neither the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) nor the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) have the authority
to assess per-minute charges on Internet traffic or of making
any changes in the way consumers obtain and pay for access
to the Internet. The USPS's website states, "the U.S.
Postal Service has no authority to surcharge e-mail messages
sent over the Internet, nor would it support such legislation."
You may also be interested to know, in order to ensure such
a tax is not imposed in the future, in the last Congress,
I supported H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act.
The bill, which passed the House on September 17, 2003 by
voice vote, permanently extends the moratorium enacted by
the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 and prohibits any State
or political jurisdiction from imposing taxes on Internet
access services.
Information on the
Internet Access Charge Hoax.
|
