Home > Issues & Legislation > Steve On the Issues > Telecommunications

Telecommunications

It is important to strike a balance between competitive rates and quality services provided to consumers by the telecommunications industry. Prior to my tenure in Congress, landmark legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to decrease the regulation of the telecommunications industry in order to encourage competition among cable television companies and other telecommunications service providers.

The 1996 Act greatly opened up markets to competition by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to entry. At that time, the industry was characterized by service-specific networks that did not compete with one another. It was hoped that this deregulation would lower the price of cable television and lead to new services and programs for consumers. Unfortunately, the touted benefits of deregulation have not yet been fully realized by cable television consumers. Cable rates have instead gone up dramatically.

In Support of a Competitive Telecom Industry

I have consistently supported a competitive, level playing field across the telecom sector. That is why I have fought against efforts to relax media ownership rules that would permit the same company to own multiple media outlets in the same market, such as newspapers and radio and television stations. The community as a whole suffers when a few large media conglomerates unacceptably control the free flow of information that is critical to the success of a free press and, in turn, democracy. In addition, relaxing media ownership rules may well have a serious and negative impact on the accuracy and diversity of national and local media that would limit an individual's access to well-founded, though different, points of view and comments on the workings of our government and the news of the day.

Standing Up for Public Broadcasting

In 2005, I helped successfully defeat attacks on public broadcasting, in the form of proposed cuts in federal funding and partisan intimidation and pressure. I voted for, and the House passed, legislation to preserve funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), eliminating a proposed cut to its budget. CPB is a private, non-profit corporation that supports public television and radio stations, such as the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), which are owned by local community organizations, universities, and state and municipal authorities. As an institution that receives public funds, CPB has a responsibility to present all content in a balanced way, giving due diligence and consideration to a range of viewpoints. It is critical that we continue to support CPB, an organization that consistently produces excellent, nonpartisan news, current affairs, arts, science, and children's programming.

Preventing Indecent Programming, While Protecting Civil Liberties

Just as it is important to continue funding excellent programming in public broadcasting, it is also important that we remain vigilant against indecent programming on television. Following the broadcasts of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards and the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, I came to believe -- as a Congressman and the father of two school-age children -- that we needed stronger protections to ensure that children would not be subjected to indecent materials. Even though the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be entirely banned, indecent material may be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when children may likely be in the audience. Therefore, indecent material aired between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm is subject to indecency enforcement action. That is why I have voted for legislation that would increase the allowable penalties for intentional or recklessly negligent violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against airing obscene, indecent, and profane material.

At the same time, I have concerns about the potential for curbs on indecency to infringe on individuals’ civil liberties. I am a strong defender of our First Amendment rights, which we must uphold. I believe that the Constitution (and our Founders) meant for "reasonable" lines to be drawn, limiting some forms of "speech" such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, public obscenity, threatening a person or a group with bodily harm, and child pornography, to name a few examples. For these reasons, I will continue to closely monitor the implementation and effectiveness of indecency regulations, keeping concerns for free speech protections very much in mind.

Monitoring the Transition to Digital Television

In another area, I am watching the impending transition to digital television (DTV). Congress has set a hard date of February 17, 2009 for broadcasters to cease broadcasting their analog signals and return their existing analog television spectrum to be auctioned for commercial services, such as broadband Internet service, or used for public safety communications. Congress is now debating how to implement the hard date for the digital television transition. A key issue in this debate is addressing the problem faced by the millions of American households with over-the-air, analog televisions that will require converter boxes in order to receive digital signals, when the analog signal is turned off. I encourage my constituents to share their views on this change with me.

Protecting Consumer Privacy

I also support efforts to decrease the number of unwanted telephone calls and faxes, including the creation of the Do-Not-Call list, which has signed up more than 100 million phone numbers in order to stop harassing telemarketing calls. To avoid receiving unwanted telemarketing calls, a consumer may call 1-888-382-1222 toll free or register online at www.donotcall.gov to place their phone number on the national “Do-Not-Call” list. Telemarketers are required to scrub their lists, removing the numbers of all consumers who placed themselves on the national registry. If a consumer is added to the list but is called anyway, the Federal Trade Commission can investigate and fine a telemarketer up to $11,000 for each banned call.

I also support the Junk Fax Prevention Act in order to reduce the number of junk faxes my constituents receive in their homes and businesses. This law prohibits a person or company from faxing unsolicited advertisements to individuals who have requested to not receive these advertisements.

The Future of Telecom

Although only a decade has passed since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, existing laws that govern the complex telecommunications and broadcasting sectors have become inadequate to meet the nation's changing telecommunications environment. Technological changes such as the advancement of Internet technology to supply data, voice, and video, the transition to digital television, as well as the growing convergence in the telecommunications sector have made it necessary to consider another revision of the laws governing these markets. As Congress is likely to consider a rewrite of some or all of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, I will continue to closely monitor these issues.

Posted May 3, 2006