ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, December 29, 1995 TAG: 9512290121
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
HOUSE AND Senate negotiators have hammered out a good compromise on a telecommunications reform of great import. It promises to have far greater impact on Americans' everyday lives than did, for example, the breakup of AT&T in 1984.
In particular, the changes will allow competition among cable operators and local and long-distance phone companies, freeing each to pursue the customers of the others - and spurring all to offer ever-more sophisticated services at competitive prices.
The bill's carefully balanced provisions to deregulate the telecommunications industry are more consumer-friendly than the bills passed in either the House or Senate, and most industry groups appear satisfied with the balancing of interests - despite grumbling from some House Republicans that the measure doesn't go far enough in cutting government controls.
GOP objections may have as much to do with chagrin over Clinton administration crowing about the bill as with substantive matters. Neither side, meantime, has voiced much concern about the bill's major flaw: a provision seeking to police cyberspace with a vague prohibition against "indecency."
The compromise bill appears to succeed, in any case, at providing a framework for market competition to drive technological advances, while temporarily extending some consumer protections to prevent price-gouging in the short term.
For example, the compromise would put off deregulating most cable rates for three years while other information-service providers gear up to compete. And it would require the Federal Communications Commission to consider an antitrust review by the Justice Department before deciding whether regional Bells can expand into long-distance phone service.
The greatest advantage to consumers, however, promises to come not from continued regulation, but from better services and prices in the long run - after competitive cable and phone systems have invested in equipment upgrades necessary to create and continue improving the most sophisticated telecommunications network in the world.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-9th District, who has been working for these reforms for the past five years, points out another price advantage: The bill will allow Bell companies to manufacture telecommunications equipment, making the U.S. market far more competitive. What difference will that make? In 1993, 60 percent of the telecommunications equipment bought in the United States was made by foreign-owned companies.
A major premise of the legislation, which makes sense, is that competition will prove better than regulation in protecting and extending the freedom and diversity of information sources available to Americans. This premise should not be taken as an article of faith, however. It needs to be closely monitored in the implementation. There will need to be new legal protections strictly enforced, for example, assuring that phone and cable lines will be open to competitive programming.
Testy Republicans who are threatening to quash the bill are right when they say it doesn't go as far as they would like in deregulating the industry. But it does go a long way. At the same time, it tries to phase-in deregulation and cushion the impact on consumers who won't benefit from aggressive competition immediately.
Eventually, the competition will take over. And all those options for long-distance service that have created stress and confusion in households across the land? They will be nothing compared to the choices Americans one day will enjoy.
LENGTH: Medium: 66 linesby CNB