September 8, 2010
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Fall 1996 Vol. 5 No. 3
Public Interest Issues in the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Sidebar for Universal Service Brings Fiber to Their Doorsteps
The following analysis of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the legislation, but an evaluation of specific sections of the bill that have received little coverage elsewhere and are of importance to public interest advocates. The Benton Foundation's Communications Policy Project promotes public interest values and noncommercial services for the National Information Infrastructure through research, policy analysis, publishing, and outreach. The complete analysis is available online at http://www.cdinet.com/cgi-bin/text-only/Benton/Goingon/telecom-post.html and from The Benton Foundation at 1634 Eye Street N.W., 12th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 638-5770.
On August 4, 1995, the House of Representatives approved its version of telecommunications reform legislation, H.R. 1555, by a vote of 305-117. The Senate passed a companion bill, S.652, in June. A conference committee convened in September to reconcile the House and Senate versions. After a series of delays and negotiations between both houses and the administration, a reconciled version of the telecommunications bill was completed in late December. On February 1, 1996, the Congress passed the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. The House voted on the bill first, passing it 414 to 16. The Senate voted on the measure two hours later. The tally was 91 to 5. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996.
The legislation will fundamentally affect the emerging “information superhighway,” shaping how it is built as well as the scope and control of its content. Basic features of the bill include extensive deregulation, relaxed restrictions on concentration of media ownership, and a preference for private market forces over public responsibility guarantees in ensuring access to telecommunications services.
Although the legislation includes some acknowledgement of public interest concerns, such as universal service, implementation of the bill's many provisions may undermine public interest values of access and equity. Our analysis focuses on the low probability that a universal service package will include advanced telecommunications services or any acknowledgment of public interest uses of technology.
Universal Service
The Conference Committee version of the bill directs a Federal-State Joint Board to recommend a definition of and funding mechanisms for universal service to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The main provisions within the universal service section of the bill describe the board, the principles upon which universal service will be based, and a baseline definition of universal service.
Composition and purpose of the Federal-State Joint Board. The bill calls for a Federal-State Joint Board comprising three federal representatives, four state representatives, and a state-appointed utility consumer advocate to recommend actions to the FCC and state commissions for the preservation of universal service. The board must submit its suggestions to the FCC within nine months of the legislation's enactment. The FCC must complete any proceeding to act on the board's initial recommendations within 15 months of enactment.
Universal service principles. The legislation directs the joint board to base the preservation of universal service on six general principles, but stipulates that the board may consider additional principles in making its recommendations. These principles are (1) quality and rates, (2) access to advanced services, (3) access in rural and high-cost areas, (4) equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions by providers to the preservation and advancement of universal service, (5) specific and predictable support mechanisms, and (6) access to advanced telecommunications services for schools, health-care facilities, and libraries. The board, the FCC, and state commissions should promote in all regions of the nation rates “that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.”
The Senate language which includes the broad assertion that “access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation,” was retained over weaker House language. Similarly, the Senate concept that “[e]lementary and secondary schools and classrooms, healthcare providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services” was retained. Further, the bill retained a Senate provision that would give rural health-care facilities and most schools and libraries special rates for access to telecommunications facilities.
Funding. The Conference bill contains language modeled on the House version, providing that “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service.”
Definition. When defining the telecommunications services included in universal service obligations, the bill directs the joint board to consider the extent to which such telecommunication services have, through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers; are essential to education, public health, or public safety; are being deployed in public telecommunications networks by telecommunications carriers; and are consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Because each of these factors is to be considered in conjunction with the others, and because it is unlikely that any advanced telecommunications service will be widely subscribed to and defined as essential to the public health, safety, or interest in the foreseeable future, it is improbable that the board or the FCC will include any advanced telecommunications or information services in universal service plans. Unlike the House bill, however, the Conference bill anticipates ongoing review of universal service obligations.
The Conference bill does not include the Senate language that those who define universal service should consider the potential of telecommunications technology to affect civic life, health, and education. The bill does retain the Senate requirement that, in addition to considering consumers' market choices, the FCC's determination of the services to be included in universal service should take into account “advances in telecommunications and information services.” However, absent from the bill is language that the Commission should determine which services “are essential for Americans to participate effectively in the economic, academic, medical, and democratic processes of the Nation.” This enumeration of the potential benefits of telecommunications would have allowed for a broader interpretation of which services should be considered essential enough to be included in universal service schemes.
| The Benton Foundation acknowledges the contribution of Robert Cannon, Esq., a Washington, D.C., attorney, who practices in the areas of telecommunications, interactive media, online services, and the Internet. Mr. Cannon can be reached via e-mail at cannon@cais.com. |
Return to the Universal Service Brings Fiber to Their Doorsteps TECHNOS Quarterly article by Steven Vedro.