From: DDeBar (spikey@BestWeb.net)
Date: Thu May 03 2001 - 22:22:09 EDT
Before acting to lobby for passage or defeat of a proposed law, it's always
a VERY good idea to read the text of the proposed law from cover to cover
FIRST.
"Talking points" don't really cut it, do they? I mean, you can't litigate
based upon someone's talking points, can you?
Would someone (Norm, do you have it?), anyone, please provide the text of
the proposal?
DDeBar
87 Ferris Place
Ossining, NY 10562
(914)649-6597
debar@bestweb.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman J. Jacknis" <norm@jacknis.com>
To: <watpa@westnet.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:20 PM
Subject: WATPA: FW: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access
> Thought you might be interested in this.
>
> Regards,
> Norm
>
> ----------
> Published by NetAction Issue No. 70 May 2, 2001
> Repost where appropriate.
>
> ACTION ALERT: Bill Threatens Broadband Internet Access
>
> Contents of this alert:
> 1) Oppose H.R. 1542 (The Internet Freedom and Broadband
> Deployment Act of 2001)
> 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access
> 3) Talking points
> 4) Who to contact in Congress
> 5) More background
>
>
> 1)Oppose H.R. 1542
>
> NetAction is urging Internet users to contact members of the House
> Commerce Committee and urge them to vote "no" on H.R. 1542, the
> Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill
> would eliminate a key consumer protection in telecommunications. It
> poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband
> and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging
> the digital divide. The House Energy and Commerce Committee could
> vote on the bill as early as next week. Call committee members TODAY
> to urge them to vote "no" on H.R. 1542.
>
>
> 2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access
>
> H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies from
> their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy
> Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell
> of Michigan, has put the bill on a fast track to passage in the House.
>
> Despite its name, H.R. 1542 will not ensure Internet freedom or
> broadband deployment. What it will do is eliminate a key consumer
> protection that Congress included in the Telecommunications Act of
> 1996: the requirement that the Bells open their local phone markets
> to competition before they are allowed into the long distance
> markets. Although this requirement is the only incentive the Bells
> have to treat their customers and competitors fairly, H.R. 1542 would
> waive this requirement for long distance data markets. Ludicrous as
> it sounds, Tauzin claims that this will ensure meaningful
> competition. But it won't. H.R. 1542 will put the four remaining
> Bell monopolies in control of the nation's telecommunications and
> technology infrastructure, threatening the future deployment of both
> broadband and dial-up Internet access and of competitive telephone
> service. The result for consumers would be less choice, lower quality
> service and higher prices for everything from basic phone service to
> Internet access.
>
>
> 3) Talking points
>
> * H. R. 1542 will not promote competition.
> The Bells sat on DSL technology for years, deploying it widely only
> after competition developed.
>
> * H.R. 1542 does not ensure that broadband services will be available
> in rural communities.
> Despite Tauzin's rhetoric, there is nothing in the bill that
> would require the Bells to deploy broadband service in rural areas.
> In fact, the Bells have been selling off their rural assets as fast
> as possible in recent years.
>
> * The Bells can't be trusted to offer broadband service if the current
> restrictions are lifted.
> In the 1990s the Bells promised to deploy high-speed fiber optic
> networks in exchange for relaxed rate-of-return regulation. But
> instead of delivering on those promises, they pocketed the profits.
>
> * H.R. 1542 will make it more difficult to bridge the digital divide.
> With less competition, the cost of Internet access will increase,
> making the service even less affordable to low-income consumers.
>
>
> 4) Who to contact in Congress
>
> The House Energy and Commerce Committee may be voting on H.E. 1542 as
> early as next week. Calls to committee members are urgently needed. A
> list of committee members and their office phone numbers is included
> below.
>
> Republican Members: Phone Number
> W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman 202-225-4031
> Michael Bilirakis, Florida 202-225-5755
> Joe Barton, Texas 202-225-2002
> Fred Upton, Michigan 202-225-3761
>
> Cliff Steans, Florida 202-225-5744
> Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio 202-225-6405
> James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 202-225-4276
> Christopher Cox, California 202-225-5611
> Nathan Deal, Georgia 202-225-5211
>
> Steve Largent, Oklahoma 202-225-2211
> Richard Burr, North Carolina, Vice Chairman 202-225-2071
> Ed Whitfield, Kentucky 202-225-3115
> Greg Ganske, Iowa 202-225-4426
> Charlie Norwood, Georgia, 202-225-4101
>
> Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 202-225-2311
> John Shimkus, Illinois 202-225-5271
> Heather Wilson, New Mexico 202-225-6316
> John B. Shadegg, Arizona 202-225-3361
> Charles "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi 202-225-5031
>
> Vito Fossella, New York 202-225-3371
> Roy Blunt, Missouri 202-225-6536
> Thomas Davis, Virginia 202-225-1492
> Ed Bryant, Tennessee 202-225-2811
> Robert Ehrlich, Maryland 202-225-3061
>
> Steve Buyer, Indiana 202-225-5037
> George Radanovich, California 202-225-4540
> Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire 202-225-5206
> Joseph Pitts, Pennsylvania 202-225-2411
> Mary Bono, California 202-225-5330
> Greg Walden, Oregon 202-225-6730
> Lee Terry, Nebraska 202-225-4155
>
> Democrats:
> John D. Dingell, Ranking Member 202-225-4071
> Henry A. Waxman, California 202-225-3976
> Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 202-225-2836
> Ralph M. Hall, Texas 202-225-6673
> Rich Boucher, Virginia 202-225-3861
>
> Edolphus Towns, New York 202-225-5936
> Frank Pallone Jr., New Jersey 202-225-4671
> Sherrod Brown, Ohio 202-225-3401
> Bart Gordon, Tennessee 202-225-4231
> Peter Deutsch, Florida 202-225-7931
>
> Bobby L. Rush, Illinois 202-225-4372
> Anna. G. Eshoo, California 202-225-8104
> Bart Stupak, Michigan 202-225-4735
> Eliot L. Engel, New York 202-225-2464
> Tom Sawyer, Ohio 202-225-5231
>
> Albert R. Wynn, Maryland 202-225-8699
> Gene Green, Texas 202-225-1688
> Karen McCarthy, Missouri 202-225-4535
> Ted Strickland, Ohio 202-225-5705
> Diana DeGette, Colorado 202-225-4431
>
> Tom Barrett, Wisconsin 202-225-3571
> Bill Luther, Minnesota 202-225-2271
> Lois Capps, California 202-225-3601
> Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania 202-225-2135
> Chris John, Louisiana 202-225-2031
> Jane Harman, California 202-225-8220
>
>
> 5) More background
>
> H.R. 1542 was introduced on Tuesday, April 24, was the subject of a
> hearing on Wednesday, April 25, and was approved on Thursday, April 26,
> by a 19-14 vote of the Internet and Telecommunications Subcommittee of
> the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The full Energy and Commerce
> Committee is expected to hear the bill next week.
>
> Tauzin's claim that allowing the Bells into long distance data markets
> before local phone markets are truly competitive is necessary to ensure
> widespread deployment of broadband, particularly in rural communities,
> is an old ploy. In fact, it's one the Bells have used before.
>
> In June 2000 NetAction released a comprehensive report describing how
> the Bells had broken the promises they made to regulators in the
> 1990s to deploy high-speed fiber optic networks. (See
> http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells.) In many instances the
> promises to deploy fiber optic networks were made in exchange for
> relief from important pro-consumer regulations. In many states where
> regulators went along with these schemes, traditional rate-of-return
> regulation - intended to protect consumers from profit-gouging - was
> replaced with incentive or price cap regulation.
>
> The new regulatory schemes gave the Bells more profits, ostensibly to
> be used to build the promised fiber optic networks. But instead of
> building the networks, the companies simply pocketed the higher
> profits. This is one of the reasons that the four remaining Bell
> monopolies - SBC Communications, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest
> Communications International - are among the most profitable
> companies in the nation.
>
> If the Bells had made a good faith effort to meet the conditions
> spelled out in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we might already
> have vigorous competition in both broadband and local phone service.
> But the Bells chose instead to stonewall competition by engaging in
> protracted legal and regulatory maneuvers, and by lobbying Congress
> to change the law. Changing the Act now would reward the Bells for
> failing to follow the rules.
>
> In addition to threatening the future availability of affordable
> broadband and dial-up Internet access, H.R. 1542 could lead to higher
> phone bills. The bill broadly preempts state regulators, leaving the
> states with only limited authority over voice phone services.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Copyright 1996-2001 by NetAction/The Tides Center. All rights reserved.
> Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided
> NetAction is cited as the source. NetAction is a project of The Tides
> Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 31 2002 - 23:55:01 EDT