U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–101 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–689

COMPETITION AND CONVERGENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 30, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 30, 2006 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 3

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 2

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES

Comstock, Earl W., President/CEO, COMPTEL ................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Cooper, Dr. Mark, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America; 

on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, and the 

Consumers Union ................................................................................................. 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Ellig, Jerry, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason 

University ............................................................................................................. 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Largent, Steve, President/Chief Executive Officer, CTIA—The Wireless Association® ................................................................................................................. 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

McCormick, Walter B., Jr., President/Chief Executive Officer, United States 

Telecom Association (USTelecom) ....................................................................... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

McSlarrow, Kyle, President/CEO, National Cable and Telecommunications 

Association ............................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Trent Lott to: 

Earl W. Comstock, ............................................................................................ 64

Dr. Mark Cooper ............................................................................................... 74

Jerry Ellig, Ph.D. .............................................................................................. 72

Walter B. McCormick, Jr. ................................................................................ 66

Steve Largent .................................................................................................... 69

Kyle McSlarrow ................................................................................................ 61

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to: 

Earl W. Comstock, ............................................................................................ 62

Dr. Mark Cooper ............................................................................................... 74

Jerry Ellig, Ph.D. .............................................................................................. 70

Walter B. McCormick, Jr. ................................................................................ 65

Steve Largent .................................................................................................... 68

Kyle McSlarrow ................................................................................................ 59

(1)

COMPETITION AND CONVERGENCE 

TUESDAY MARCH 30, 2006

, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Over the course of our series of 14 hearings, our 

Committee has heard from the wireless, wireline, competitive, 

cable, Internet, satellite and content industries as well as consumer 

groups and academic groups on a wide range of communications 

issues. 

Today, we want to discuss the phenomenon of convergence and 

how it is changing the competitive landscape in today’s market. 

Cell phone companies, Bells, CLECs, cable companies and satellite 

providers are capable of providing the same or similar services. 

Our Committee wants to look at what that means for each of these 

industry segments and their consumers. 

Already, consumers are clamoring for a quadruple play of local, 

long distance, video, and data service on a single platform. 

Soon, consumers will be able to reach their video recording devices from their cell phones to either watch or record TV programs 

while on the move. 

These technological changes will impact how regulations are applied. Certainly, we have all heard about the importance of setting 

a level playing field as phone providers move into the video marketplace. Currently, the same bundles are often regulated differently depending on the platform that delivers it. 

It is our hope that as we level the playing field, we will seek the 

most deregulatory approach possible consistent with the public interest. 

Going forward, it will be necessary to ensure that regulations are 

flexible to readily allow for the innovation that consumers demand. 

Convergence and other forces are also contributing to the mergers we have seen in the communications marketplace. Wireless, 

wireline, and cable have all seen significant transactions in the last 

couple of years with the combination of Sprint-Nextel, VerizonMCI, SBC–AT&T, AT&T-BellSouth, and the Comcast-Time Warner-Adelphia deal. 

2

With respect to the wireline mergers, one concern that has been 

raised is not just the impact for residential users but the impact 

on the business market. The special access lines that provide high 

capacity access to businesses are largely controlled by the Bells, 

but are crucial to competing in the business market. This is one 

area where intermodal competition may not be enough. We plan to 

schedule a hearing on mergers in the future, so we can examine 

all of them in some detail. 

This is the last communications hearing scheduled prior to that 

mark-up of our ‘‘Communications Package.’’ I have appreciated the 

participation of all you here at the table and I look forward to your 

testimony here. I don’t know when we’ll be able to look at the 

intermodal competition subject, but we will do our best to do so before we ask the Committee to report the bill. Our Co-Chairman, 

sir? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much. While transformation of 

the communications services in our country is encouraging and 

bringing new benefits to consumers, as the Chairman indicated I 

think it’s important that this Committee keep a close watch on the 

state of competition in the communications marketplace. 

As the Chairman noted, the proposed AT&T-BellSouth merger 

would certainly alter the communications landscape in this country, and is likely to trigger additional transactions. Whether or not 

such transactions or consolidation would improve competition remains to be seen. Given the enormous impact of this merger, I 

would like to see the Committee examine it specifically. 

Nonetheless, convergence is creating a new generation of communication service providers and a new set of options for consumers. 

In many respects, this is what we had envisioned when we drafted 

the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The law was premised on convergence. Cable companies would offer phone services, phone companies would offer cable services and, both would offer data services. With the explosion of satellite video services and wireless 

technologies, the options have expanded even further. 

In addition to this competition between different types of network operators, the rapid evolution of the Internet and the steady 

growth of broadband technology has also resulted in new, non-network communications service providers like Vonage, Microsoft, and 

Google, who are beginning to offer consumers new ways of transmitting information and communicating with each other. 

But while convergence promises great benefits, we should similarly recognize that it is performance, not promise that matters. 

Despite the development of alternative broadband platforms, cable 

and phone platforms are clearly the dominant players in this market controlling 98.7 percent of today’s broadband market. 

We need to be mindful that the most important type of competition is the competition that occurs in a consumer’s backyard. In too 

many parts of the country, Americans still lack a real choice of 

competitive broadband alternatives. As the marketplace changes, 

we need to be sure that rural areas and tribal communities that 

currently lack services do not fall even further behind. We have 

3

heard promises in the past that competition would lead to service 

in these communities only to see those promises go unfulfilled. 

We also need to be sure that broadband network operators play 

fair and do not use their control over physical infrastructure to disadvantage their competitors. 

We often forget that it was not a ‘‘hands-off’’ government policy 

that gave birth to the Internet. Instead, it was nurtured by principles of openness and nondiscrimination that have been part of the 

Communications Act since 1934 and that have prevented network 

operators from seizing proprietary control of its operation. As a result, this hearing allows us to get beyond the sounds bites and dig 

a little deeper to determine what statutory changes will ensure 

that communications policy continues to promote vigorous competition in all communications markets. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and hope that our witnesses 

can shed some light on these challenging questions. I thank you 

very much sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Senator. Senator DeMint. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Co-Chairman 

Inouye, for holding this very important hearing on the impact of 

convergence on competition in the communication marketplace. 

We’re looking at the telecommunications industry at a time in history when the industry is undergoing tremendous change due to 

the rapid introduction of new technologies. We must decide how to 

regulate not just one, but multiple new and highly interrelated 

communication technologies. We need to recognize that there’s been 

a paradigm shift in technology which has created new problems 

and opportunities related to the regulation of our telecommunications industries and their products. 

The computer chip, advances in transmission technology and the 

digitization of content have fundamentally altered the marketplace. 

These innovations have attracted new entrants, and greatly increased competition. Although we are in a new world, the old paradigm that views telecommunications through a monopoly lens is 

preventing us from doing what needs to be done to reform communications policy. These old paradigm filters are preventing many 

people from seeing the technological changes leading to service substitution was revolutionized the industry. 

This communication paradigm shift is more dramatic, fast paced 

and technologically daunting than almost anything we’ve experienced in the past. Massive change is happening simultaneously on 

multiple fronts, making decisions involving communication regulations difficult, if not impossible when viewed through the existing 

monopoly lenses to which we are accustomed. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe, and I am firmly convinced that there 

is no practical way for Congress to anticipate future changes in this 

industry and to effectively regulate the industry. I hope that the 

distinguished panel today will help us here in Congress understand 

the new paradigm and how to develop a new regulatory structure 

that protects the consumer without presuming that we can manage 

your business. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We’re honored to have the 

series of witnesses, as I’ve said have been here before. We can just 

go down the table in the way you’re lined up if that’s agreeable. 

The first witness would be Kyle McSlarrow, President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the National Cable and Telecommunications 

Association, Washington, D.C. Glad to have you back, Kyle. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE MCSLARROW, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First let 

me congratulate all of you and your staff for what’s been a pretty 

intense road here the last couple of months. I have only testified 

at a few of the hearings but you have been at all of them. And I 

think an enormous amount of work has gone on and it’s to your 

credit. And it’s necessary. I think we all agree this is the time to 

take a fresh look at the 1996 Telecommunications Act. 

Because we’ve talked about video in the past, just for the purposes of my opening statement I’m just going to confine some observations to the voice competition market, and start with this 

point. Competitive voice services cannot survive without physical 

interconnection to the Bell-controlled public switch telephone network, the PSTN. 

There is Mr. Chairman, very simply nothing like the public 

switch telephone network in the video or data worlds. 

The PSTN was built by a regulated monopoly which had access 

to captive rate-payers and guaranteed rates of return on its investments. For many years, the PSTN was the only voice network in 

the country and had no competition from other local or long distance telephone service providers. Interconnection to other domestic phone networks was not an issue. That changed in 1984 when 

under the terms of an antitrust consent decree, the original AT&T 

divested its local telephone networks and kept control of long distance operations. The consent decree created seven separate different regional telephone networks, and suddenly issues like interconnection became important. The significance of interconnection 

only increased as local competitors joined long distance providers 

in the telecommunications marketplace. 

Unlike the PSTN, cable did not develop as a regulated monopoly, 

and alternative video distributors like satellite did not need interconnection in order to provide services to our customers. And the 

Internet is a ‘‘network of networks’’ that is distributed rather than 

centralized. So voice is different in that sense. 

The 1996 Telecommunications Act addressed the central challenge and it provided interconnection rights to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) so they could exchange traffic with the 

Bells on an economic basis, without glitches or delays, in order to 

promote local voice competition. 

Ten years after Congress enacted interconnection rules, the Bells 

still own the only ubiquitous phone network—serving more than 85 

percent of the local residential and small business market. 

So today, with the beginnings of facility based and non-facilities 

based IP-enabled voice services, we have a real opportunity for increased competition in voice competition. Congress, we would urge, 

should ensure that the rights to interconnection, collocation, and 

5

numbering guaranteed in the 1996 Act are available to all competing voice providers regardless of the technology used. Facilitiesbased IP-enabled voice providers should have the right to interconnect with the PSTN directly—like a traditional CLEC—or indirectly through arrangements with a CLEC if they choose. 

And we would urge you to make clear that the right is not technology-dependent and that digital voice is not relegated to secondclass status. We think right now the time to act is with the bill 

that you are moving forward. As you have all noted in your opening statements we’re talking about convergence, we’re talking 

about providers who are offering all these services together. 

So even as we look at video, we should be thinking very clearly 

about the voice competitive market place. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McSlarrow follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KYLE MCSLARROW, PRESIDENT/CEO, NATIONAL CABLE AND

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

I. Introduction 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Kyle McSlarrow and I serve as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. NCTA is the principal 

trade association for the U.S. cable industry, representing cable operators serving 

more than 90 percent of the Nation’s cable television households and more than 200 

cable program networks. The cable industry is the Nation’s largest broadband provider of high speed Internet access after investing $100 billion over ten years to 

build a two-way interactive network with fiber optic technology. Cable companies 

also provide state-of-the-art digital telephone service to millions of American consumers. Thank you for inviting me today to comment on the state of competition and convergence in the telecommunications industry. In response to a growing number of 

competitors and the deregulatory environment created by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, cable operators invested over $100 billion of private risk capital to embark on a nationwide upgrade of their facilities. They did so without any government subsidies, programs, or guarantees that they would get a return on their investment. As a result, cable companies now provide consumers with a wide variety 

of advanced services, including digital video, High Definition Television (HDTV), 

high-speed Internet access, and telephone service—both traditional circuit-switched 

voice service and digital telephony using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). 1 In 

each of these markets, cable faces vigorous competition from several different service providers. 

With regard to our core business, the video marketplace is more competitive than 

ever before. Fifteen years ago, cable commanded 95 percent of the multichannel television market. Today, because of fierce competition from Direct Broadcast Satellite 

(DBS) and other broadband video providers, cable’s market share has fallen to 68.3 

percent of multichannel video households according to November 2005 statistics 

from Kagan. As the FCC noted just a few weeks ago, ‘‘almost all consumers have 

the choice between over-the-air broadcast television, a cable service, and at least two 

DBS providers’’ as well as ‘‘emerging technologies, such as digital broadcast spectrum, fiber to the home, or video over the Internet.’’ 2 And now the Regional Bell 

Operating Companies (RBOCs) are entering the fray, bringing with them annual 

revenues of $153 billion—more than twice those of the entire cable operator industry. 

New service providers are deploying new video technologies every day, including 

Internet-based services, cell phone providers, wireless computer manufacturers, and 

consumer electronics suppliers. For example, companies like USDTV have created an 

over-the-air digital video service (featuring dozens of DVD quality broadcast and 

cable program networks) using spectrum leased from local broadcasters. Similarly, 

consumers now have access to video through their wireless phones, IPODs, and 

laptops and can customize their viewing experience at home and on the road. For 

example, on March 15, 2006, AOL and Warner Studios announced the launch of 

In2TV, an Internet-based broadband television service which allows consumers to 

select from among 30 different television series and program their own on-demand 

6

TV channel. 3 Similarly, Verizon Wireless’s V-Cast video service, which is ‘‘available 

to more than 148 million people in 181 major metropolitan areas and is expanding 

coast to coast,’’ allows customers to use their cell phones to ‘‘watch broadband-quality movie trailers, sports highlights, news and video on demand,’’ play games, and 

listen to music. 4 Using Digital Video Recorders for cable and broadcast sources or 

Internet-based video technologies like Akimbo and Slingbox, Americans today can: 

(1) watch television at home ‘‘real time’’ or ‘‘time shift’’ a variety of programs for 

later viewing; (2) ‘‘space shift’’ programming on a home network to view it on another device in another room; or (3) ‘‘sling’’ it to the Internet for viewing on a laptop 

in a hotel room or conference center anywhere in the world that has a connection 

to the Internet. Consumers are the beneficiaries of this highly competitive landscape, where they now have a growing number of choices of advanced services from 

several different providers. 

With regard to new services, cable pioneered residential high-speed Internet access. 

At a time when telephone companies left DSL technology sitting on the shelf so they 

could sell customers extra lines for faxes and dial-up access to the Internet, cable 

introduced broadband Internet access at speeds 50–100 times those of dial-up. After 

upgrading their one-way analog facilities to interactive digital platforms, cable operators now offer broadband access to 109 million households and serve 25.4 million 

of them—a penetration rate of more than 23 percent. 

Using its new broadband facilities, cable also entered the telephone market, providing consumers with their first-facilities based alternative to the local telephone 

companies which have dominated the voice market for almost a hundred years. Cable 

currently provides traditional circuit-switched analog telephone service and VoIPbased digital telephone service to more than 5.5 million customers, offering these 

and millions more consumers a ‘‘triple play’’ of video, data, and voice services and 

the benefits of ‘‘one-stop shopping’’ with their local cable company. 

The introduction of interactive broadband services by cable operators has prompted 

a competitive response from other industries. Telephone and DBS companies, for example, initially joined forces to offer their own packages of video, voice, and data 

services. DBS obtained exclusive sports programming such as NFL’s Sunday Ticket 

and increased the number of channels they offered and the types of service available, including HDTV. The phone companies took their DSL technology off the shelf 

and deployed it to compete with cable modems; DSL now serves about 17 million 

customers. Today, Verizon and AT&T are investing billions of dollars to enter the 

video marketplace around the country. 

The bottom line is that these are all signs of a competitive marketplace: several 

different providers of a wide array of services vie with each other for customers, 

each trying to differentiate themselves with unique offerings while trying to match 

those of their competitors. 

II. Convergence in the Competitive Marketplace 

The cable industry supports reviewing and updating the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996 and further reducing unnecessary economic regulation. We favor a level 

playing field where like services are treated alike and necessary social obligations 

(such as the Universal Service Fund, CALEA, E–911, Equal Employment Opportunity, nondiscrimination, privacy rules, and access for the disabled) apply equally 

to all providers. We are opposed to attempts by one industry to secure legislation 

that would have the government pick winners and losers or that favors one technology over another. 

Although there is already vigorous competition in the video marketplace, the prospect of major new competitors with the resources of the Bell Operating Companies 

should be beneficial to consumers—as long as competition is governed by marketplace forces and is not artificially skewed by rules and regulations that give some 

competitors an unfair advantage over others. The marketplace—not government 

regulation—will impel all competitors to innovate in the packaging and pricing of 

new services to maximize value to consumers. 

Moreover, in taking a fresh look at the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the video 

marketplace is only one piece of a larger puzzle that should be addressed by this 

Committee in its entirety. Perhaps the bigger challenge is how best to increase voice 

competition at a time when incumbent telephone companies (ILECs, including the 

RBOCs) still control 85 percent of the residential and small business markets, and 

more importantly, the public switched telephone network. In an era of rising telephone rates, $1.50 directory assistance calls, and burgeoning ‘‘regulatory cost recovery fees’’ on our phone bills, legislation to promote competition should include all 

markets, especially the voice market. As this Committee moves forward with the 

drafting of a bill this spring, I would encourage it to also focus on the problem of 

interconnection so that incumbent telephone companies cannot lock out alternative 

7

voice service providers—including cable, broadband overbuilders, and wireless companies. 

Interconnection 

Competitive voice services cannot survive without physical interconnection to the 

Bell-controlled public switched telephone network (PSTN) at reasonable rates. Interconnection is necessary to reach customers on the Bells’ lines, and these customers 

constitute the vast majority of wireline users in the United States. 

There is, very simply, nothing quite like the public switched telephone network 

in the video or data worlds. The PSTN was built by a regulated monopoly which 

had access to captive rate-payers and guaranteed rates of return on its investments. 

For many years, the PSTN was the only voice network in the country and had no 

competition from other local or long distance telephone service providers. Interconnection to other domestic phone networks was not an issue, and the PSTN even 

provided all of the equipment that consumers were allowed to attach to the network. 

That changed in 1984 when under the terms of an antitrust consent decree, the 

original AT&T divested its local telephone networks and kept control of long distance operations. The consent decree created seven separate different regional telephone networks, and suddenly interconnection of separate networks and independently-owned telecommunications equipment became important. The significance of 

interconnection only increased as local competitors joined long distance providers in 

the telecommunications marketplace. 

Unlike the PSTN, cable did not develop as a regulated monopoly, and alternative 

video distributors used different technologies like microwave relays and direct 

broadcast satellite. DBS operators did not need to interconnect with cable systems 

in order to compete, and the ‘‘network of networks’’ architecture of the Internet is 

distributed rather than centralized. However, as long as the PSTN maintains its 

unique position for voice services, the Bell companies who control it will have a correspondingly unique incentive and ability to frustrate competition by impeding 

interconnection with other voice providers, regardless of whether those providers 

use IP or some other technology. 

The 1996 Telecommunications Act addressed the central challenge posed by the 

PSTN by providing interconnection rights to competitive local exchange carriers 

(CLECs) so they could exchange traffic with the Bells on an economic basis, without 

glitches or delays, in order to promote local voice competition. 

Despite their claims that the phone market is ‘‘competitive,’’ ten years after Congress enacted interconnection rules, the Bells still own the only ubiquitous phone 

network—serving more than 85 percent of the local residential and small business 

market. And they still serve as the ‘‘hub’’ to which all other carriers must connect 

in order to reach each others’ customers. 

With IP-enabled voice services providing a real opportunity for increased competition in the voice market, Congress must ensure that the rights to interconnection, 

collocation, and numbering guaranteed in the 1996 Act are available to all competing voice providers on a technology neutral basis. Facilities-based IP-enabled 

voice providers should have the right to interconnect with the PSTN directly—like 

a traditional CLEC—or indirectly through arrangements with a CLEC that already 

has an interconnection agreement with an incumbent local exchange carrier. Congress must make clear that the right to interconnection is not technology-dependent 

and that digital voice is not relegated to second-class status. Limiting interconnection and related rights to providers of voice services using traditional technology 

will, perversely, penalize the introduction of new technology and ensure the Bells 

retain their continuing dominance in the voice market. 

The time to act to ensure voice competition is now. Some states and incumbent 

telcos have already sought to limit interconnection rights to providers using traditional voice technology. Indeed, the files are replete with examples of the Bells stalling on any number of reasonable interconnection requests from even traditional 

competitors. 

The Bells’ consolidation makes the need for interconnection protections even more 

urgent. When the two largest CLECs in the market (AT&T and MCI) merged with 

the two largest Bells (SBC and Verizon), the most experienced and well-funded negotiators of interconnection agreements were removed from the competitive voice 

market. The AT&T/BellSouth merger would only solidify the Bells’ monopoly market 

power and make it more difficult for competitors to get a fair shake in interconnection negotiations. 

8

III. Cable Has Invested $100 Billion to Meet the Challenges of a

Fast-Changing and Fiercely Competitive Video Marketplace 

Cable is one of the great American success stories. Born in the foothills of Pennsylvania and Wyoming around 1950, cable started as a relay service for broadcast 

television in areas that had trouble receiving over-the-air signals. At that time, 

American television consisted of two networks: NBC and CBS (followed by ABC in 

1954 and National Education Television—later PBS—in 1966). Over the past 50 

years, cable operators and programmers have revolutionized American television. 

There are now over 530 national cable programming networks which bring diversity, 

choice, and quality programming to American consumers. 5 Similarly, cable operators transformed one-way analog distribution systems into high speed broadband 

platforms that currently provide interactive digital services, including video, high 

definition television, high speed Internet access, and digital telephony. Cable entrepreneurs did all of this with private risk capital, not government funds. With an investment of $100 billion since 1996, cable operators have replaced coaxial cable with fiber optic technology and installed new digital equipment in homes 

and system headends. The fruits of cable’s investment in a two-way broadband network are evident in the number of advanced services offered on virtually every cable 

system today. 6

Cable is Leading the Way to the Digital Transition 

The cable industry continues to aggressively roll out and market high definition 

television service to the majority of American households, with a growing array of 

programming choices. As of September 2005, 96 million U.S. television households 

were passed by at least one cable system offering HDTV service, which represents 

all of the top 100 designated market areas (DMAs). Of all 210 DMAs, a total of 198 

markets were served by at least one cable system that offers high definition programming. Local cable systems also were carrying the digital signal of 681 broadcast stations, a six-fold increase from January 2003, when cable began rolling out 

HDTV with carriage of 92 such stations. 

Cable customers are already enjoying a full complement of digital programming 

and advanced information services independently of the broadcasters’ conversion to 

digital. Today, over 40 percent of U.S. cable customers (approximately 28 million) 

subscribe to digital cable services, which include a diverse array of program networks and music channels. Digital cable also gives subscribers the ability to block 

access to programming they believe is inappropriate for their children. All of cable’s 

digital services can be enjoyed by consumers with analog TV sets who use digital 

set-top boxes that convert digital signals to analog. Cable companies are also deploying innovative interactive video services, along with Internet and digital telephone 

services. 

Cable customers with HDTV sets have even more options and can receive 23 HD 

cable programming networks. 7 Cable operators are also voluntarily carrying the digital channels of a substantial number of over-the-air broadcast stations in addition 

to those stations’ analog signals—either through retransmission consent agreements 

with individual commercial stations 8 or under a recent carriage agreement with 

public television stations. In particular:

• As of September 2005, cable operators were carrying commercial broadcasters’ 

multicast programming in over 100 markets, including all of the top 10 markets 

and numerous small-to-midsized markets across the country. In Washington 

D.C., Comcast is carrying WJLA’s local Weather Now channel (ABC) and WRC’s 

Weather Plus channel (NBC), as well as WETA’s Prime, Kids, and Plus channels (PBS).

• In January 2005, NCTA and the Association of Public Television Stations 

(APTS) entered into an agreement that ensures that local public television stations’ digital programming—including multicast channels—is carried on cable 

systems serving the vast majority of cable customers across the Nation. In April 

2005, public television stations serving markets comprising over 80 percent of 

U.S. TV households and MSOs representing over 80 percent of cable subscribers 

ratified the agreement, and MSOs are adding digital PTV stations to their channel lineups across the country.

Significantly, cable’s contractual carriage agreement with public television stations 

was reached through private negotiations—not Federal legislation or FCC regulations.

The vast majority of cable customers have analog television sets, and most of 

those sets—as in over-the-air households—are not equipped with digital set-top 

boxes. Today, cable operators provide the analog signals of virtually all local television stations, which can be viewed by all customers—those with and without digVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
9

ital boxes, and those with and without digital television sets. Operators also provide 

the digital signals of some, but not all, broadcast stations—especially those that provide compelling digital programming that is likely to enhance the value of cable 

service for the growing number of customers with high definition sets. 

Cable’s Video-on-Demand and Digital Video Recorders Put Customers in the Driver’s 

Seat 

As cable operators upgrade their systems with digital and two-way capabilities, 

they are offering more sophisticated interactive services. Such services are increasingly putting the control of media directly into the hands of consumers—allowing 

them to watch what they want, when they want. 

With video-on-demand, consumers have virtually thousands of viewing options at 

their disposal. For instance, in March 2005, Comcast announced that digital cable 

customers viewed more than 100 million ON DEMAND programs, three times the 

number of ON DEMAND programs viewed in March 2004, and a 40 percent increase from the fourth quarter of 2004. 9 Comcast has expanded its library of ondemand programming to approximately 2,000 hours and recently signed a deal with 

Sony to provide a total lineup of about 100 movies a month from the Sony pictures 

and MGM libraries. 10 Comcast aims to boost its library to 10,000 hours in 2006. 11

The cable industry has a distinct advantage in the video-on-demand marketplace. 

According to one analyst, ‘‘VoD is another arrow in the quiver of cable companies 

to retain existing customers and keep them from defecting to satellite.’’ 12 Kagan Research estimates that at the end of 2005, 23.9 million U.S. households had access 

to VoD from their local cable provider and that number is likely to increase to 45.6 

million by 2009. 13 Analysts expect VoD revenues to approach $1 billion this year 

and nearly $6 billion by 2013. 14

Cable companies have accelerated deployment of digital video recorders (DVRs), 

which enable customers to capture video programming onto a hard drive in the settop box and pause, fast forward, and manage other functions and applications. Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, and Time Warner Cable all widely deploy DVRs. 

At the end of 2005, 4.5 million digital cable customers used a DVR service, an 

increase of 150 percent from 1.8 million customers at the end of 2004. 15 The directto-home satellite industry once commanded a sizable lead in DVR users, with 3.6 

million customers at year-end 2004, but analysts expect the cable industry to aggressively grow its share of the market. 16 Kagan predicts 20 million cable DVR 

households by 2009, while DBS providers will have 14.5 million. 17

Cable is Competing on Speed and Value in the High-Speed Data Services Tug-of-War 

Cable’s leadership in creating and developing the market for affordable residential 

high-speed Internet access has led to a profusion of competitive offerings. That leadership spurred the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) in recent years to 

aggressively deploy digital subscriber line (DSL) service (which they had developed 

years earlier but kept on the shelf in order to sell customers second and third phone 

lines for fax machines and dial-up access to the Internet). The cable industry is now 

facing competition not only from DSL providers but also wireless, satellite, and 

broadband over power line providers. 

Overall, the market for broadband continues to expand. High-speed lines serving 

residential and small business subscribers increased by 36 percent during 2004 to 

35.3 million lines. 18 Leichtman Research Group estimates that by the end of 2005, 

the number of broadband homes surpassed 40 million. 19

By the end of the fourth quarter of 2005, cable’s high-speed Internet service had 

attracted 25.4 million customers (see Chart 1). More than one-quarter of all cable 

households today subscribe to cable’s high-speed data service, and among those 

cable households with Internet access, nearly 30 percent are cable modem customers. Cable’s broadband services will be available to more than 117 million 

homes, or 96 percent of U.S. households passed by cable, by year-end 2006 (see 

Chart 2).

10

The high-speed Internet access market is far from saturated. For 2004, the FCC 

reported a 30 percent increase in cable modem connections, from 16.4 to 21.3 million 

lines, affirming similar estimates from the private sector. 20 Data from Leichtman 

Research Group reveal that total cable modem customers of the top ten multiple 

system operators grew 28 percent in 2004, from 15.3 to 19.6 million. 21 Morgan 

Stanley reported a 28 percent increase in cable modem customers last year, from 


mcsla1.eps
11

15.0 to 19.2 million; it is forecasting annual customer growth rates of 22 percent 

for 2005 and 18 percent for 2006. 22

Phone companies remain formidable broadband competitors with their DSL offerings. Though cable continues to have the largest installed base—25.4 million lines—

compared to the Bells’ nearly 16.4 million DSL lines, the phone carriers have been 

adding new lines at a furious rate. According to the FCC, advanced higher-speed 

DSL lines—defined as 200 Kbps for both upstream and downstream—increased 88 

percent during 2004, compared to 36 percent for advanced cable lines. 23 An NCTA 

snapshot of second quarter data for 2004 and 2005 reveals Bell DSL net additions 

grew 40 percent, while cable modem subscriptions grew 25 percent. 24 The RBOCs 

together have been adding about one million DSL subscribers each quarter (see 

Chart 3).

Cable operators have responded to this competitive marketplace by offering consumers a bundled package of services, which has enabled them to attract new customers and retain existing subscribers. Cable has been promoting increased access 

speeds, superior content, and other online enhancements. 

When cable modem service was introduced in 1999, the majority of customers experienced downstream access speeds up to 1.5 Mbps. Since 2001, multiple system 

operators have regularly boosted those speeds at no additional cost. Most operators 

are now offering 4 to 6 Mbps, with additional pricing plans for speeds in excess of 

6 Mbps. The cable industry is also focusing on developing the commercial market 

for high-speed Internet access. For example, Cablevision is marketing 50 Mbps service (expandable to 100 Mbps) for commercial customers in Oyster Bay, New York. 25

Boosting speeds has not posed any technical problems for operators and the process is neither cost nor labor-intensive. No additional consumer equipment is necessary to move from 1.5 Mbps to 3, 9, or 15 Mbps. Usually, just a simple software 

download to existing modems can upgrade the speed capabilities. With other enhancements, high speed Internet access could increase to 160 Mbps downstream and 

60 Mbps upstream. 

In addition to speed, cable operators are offering a variety of features (at no additional fee) that increase value. These features include integrated security suites, 

with anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall protection; pop-up blocking and spam filtering; video e-mail; and specialized content from partners such as Major League 

Baseball, NASCAR, Disney, and Movielink. 

Though a smaller subset of the broadband access market, alternative technologies 

including Broadband over Power Line (BPL), fixed wireless and satellite will continue to make inroads as a viable alternative to DSL and cable modems. BPL service allows the delivery of IP-based broadband using the communications capabilities 

of the Nation’s power grid. According to the United Telecom Council, there are a 


mcsla2.eps
12

number of trials underway nationwide, and a small number of commercial deployments have been launched. Adding new momentum, three technology behemoths—

Google, IBM, and Motorola—recently announced major investments or trials involving BPL. 26

Cable’s Digital Telephony is Primed for Explosive Growth Resulting in Better Service 

Bundles and Additional Benefits for Consumers 

Nearly 4.5 million customers are taking telephone service from their local cable 

operator, both traditional circuit-switched telephone service and, increasingly, cable’s new digital phone (VoIP) service. Some cable operators have offered traditional 

circuit-switched telephone service for years. More recently, many companies have 

launched IP-based services. Circuit-switched telephony subscribers may be 

transitioned to digital telephony in the years ahead. Meanwhile, the two largest providers of traditional phone service—Cox and Comcast—will continue to support 

their roughly three million circuit-switched telephone customers. 

Kagan Research reported significant growth in cable’s digital telephone 

subscribership for 2005. Between year-end 2004 and year-end 2005, the industry 

grew from 587,000 to 2.6 million customers, a growth rate of over 300 percent. 27

Kagan estimates the penetration rate for cable’s VoIP services and, to a lesser extent circuit-switched telephony, will reach 18 percent of occupied U.S. households 

by the end of 2009, while 88 percent of homes passed by cable will be able to receive 

VoIP service the same year. 28 Morgan Stanley reported that 90 percent of telephone 

homes should be passed by digital telephone services by 2007. 

Both Cablevision and Time Warner have established a strong beachhead in the 

digital phone marketplace, and Comcast is now in full deployment mode. Those operators, along with Charter, Insight, Bright House, and Bresnan are effectively competing against a range of independent VoIP providers, including Vonage, Packet8, 

and Lingo, as well as the RBOCs. During the fourth quarter, Time Warner continued its strong growth in new customers, adding 246,000 VoIP users. Cablevision, 

Comcast, and Charter added 548,300 combined customers during the same quarter. 

VoIP is having a positive impact on the other two service offerings in cable’s ‘‘triple play’’—video and high speed data. Operators offering VoIP are experiencing 

lower churn rates for basic cable and increased growth in high-speed Internet subscribers. Cablevision, Cox, and Time Warner all exhibited faster growth rates—almost 20 percent—in their high-speed access businesses than those operators not offering voice service. 29

IV. Cable Continues to Invest in Original, Compelling Programming to Win 

and Sustain Customers in a Highly Competitive Video Marketplace 

With regard to video programming networks—including children’s programming 

and locally-originated programming—the cable industry continues to invest in general interest and niche programming to attract customers. 

Programming Investment 

Cable’s original, compelling, and high-quality content is the direct result of increased investments by both cable networks and operators. In 2005, cable networks 

invested more than $15.88 billion in producing new programming (see Chart 4), 

while cable operators invested $15.8 billion to purchase quality programming for 

customers (see Chart 5). As noted above, with the deployment of services such as 

VoD and digital video recorders (DVRs), viewers can watch their favorite programming at their convenience.

13


mcsla3.eps
14

Programming Quality 

Cable is increasingly recognized as the premier outlet for high-quality, cuttingedge programming by television critics and viewers. For example, the 56th Annual 

Primetime Emmy Awards in September 2004 marked the first time that cable networks surpassed the broadcast networks in honors received, with 11 cable networks 

collectively garnering 50 awards compared to the broadcast networks’ 37 awards.

• In January 2005, FX, Showtime and HBO won Golden Globe Awards.

• In April 2005, cable organizations won 12 George Foster Peabody Awards out 

of 32 awards granted.

• HBO and ESPN each won five Sports Emmy Awards in April 2005, followed by 

ESPN2, NFL Network and TNT tied with one award each.

Programming Viewership 

More viewers are tuning into cable’s diverse offerings than ever before, even compared to the collective viewership of the major national commercial broadcast networks. For example, more than half of all primetime television viewers watched adsupported cable networks during the official 2004/2005 TV season (September–May), 

the second consecutive time that cable has topped all national broadcast networks 

combined during an official season. Cable-plus households tuned in on a weekly 

basis to more than 35 hours of ad-supported cable programming versus an average 

of 26 hours per week for all commercial broadcast programming combined. 

An analysis of Nielsen data by the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau (CAB) 

shows that for the official 2004/2005 TV season, ad-supported cable networks outpaced the ‘‘Big 3’’ (ABC, CBS, NBC) broadcast networks on a total day basis by 23.9 

share points—with cable posting a 48.3 share to broadcast’s 24.4 (see Chart 6). 30

Programming Choice. Cable’s investments in new channel capacity have resulted 

in a growing number of cable networks. As the FCC reported on February 10, 2006, 

the number of national cable networks increased from 145 in 1996 to 531 by yearend 2005—growth of 266 percent in less than a decade (see Chart 7. Note however 

that vertical integration has fallen by half over the past decade—see Section VI.)


mcsla4.eps
15

Children’s Programming 

Cable networks are continuing to provide many hours of quality programming 

suitable for children and the whole family. In addition to the positive viewing options that are provided, the industry has taken steps to help parents manage what 

their families watch. Free blocking technology is available, and programming networks have enhanced their on-screen ratings information. 

Basic cable networks such as ABC Family, Animal Planet, Boomerang, Cartoon 

Network, Discovery Kids, Disney Channel, The Hallmark Channel, Nickelodeon, 

Nickelodeon GAS, Noggin/The N, and Toon Disney, as well as premium networks 

such as HBO Family, Showtime Family Zone, Starz Kids & Family, and Encore 

Wam continue to attract a growing audience share of children and families. Total 

day viewing by kids (ages 2–11) of advertising-supported cable networks increased 

from a 28.3 share in 1993/1994 to a 56.4 share during the 2004/2005 official TV season. 

Family Tiers 

Beginning in December 2005, several leading cable operators (including Comcast, 

Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Insight) announced that they would voluntarily offer 

family programming tiers. The program networks included on these tiers vary by 

company, but all feature primarily G-rated content suitable for family viewing. The 

tiers, which can be purchased with the broadcast basic tier, became available in 

early 2006, and additional MSOs are deploying family tiers this spring. 

V. Cable Faces Vigorous Competition in the Video Market 

In its 12th annual report to Congress on the state of competition in the video market, the Federal Communications Commission found that: 31

Competition in the delivery of video programming services has provided consumers with increased choice, better picture quality, and greater technological 

innovation . . . We find that almost all consumers have the choice between 

over-the-air broadcast television, a cable service, and at least two DBS providers.

Today, consumers can choose from a variety of multichannel video providers, including Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), alternative broadband providers like RCN/


mcsla5.eps
16

Starpower, local telephone companies, and utilities. As a result of this competition, 

29.7 million consumers (more than one out of four video subscribers) now obtain 

multichannel video programming from some company other than their local cable operator (see Chart 8).

Chart 8—Subscribers to Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), November 

30, 2005 

Subscribers 

(in Millions) 

Percent of 

Total MVPD 

Subscribers 

DBS (high power satellite) 27.20 28.97

C-Band (low power satellite) 0.20 0.21

MMDS (microwave) 0.10 0.11

SMATV (private apt/condo) 1.00 1.06

Broadband Competitors 1.20 1.28

Non Cable MVPD 29.70 31.63

Cable 64.20 68.30

Total MVPD 93.90 100.00

Sources: NCTA estimates based on data from Kagan Research LLC, Kagan Media Money, January 4, 2006 

at 7; and Nielsen Media Research. 

Direct Broadcast Satellite 

DBS companies currently have more than 27 million customers compared with 

none 12 years ago. The two nationwide DBS providers now serve 29 percent of all 

multichannel video households and their penetration is 25 percent or greater in at 

least 25 states. DIRECTV (15.13 million customers) and EchoStar (12.04 million 

subscribers) are now larger than all of the cable companies in the United States except Comcast. Cable made significant gains in digital telephone and high-speed 

Internet customers in 2005, but its share of multichannel video customers has fallen 

well below 70 percent. 

DBS operators continue to experience strong subscriber growth in virtually every 

market where they offer local channel service. 32 Indeed, DIRECTV and EchoStar 

report that their total number of subscribers increased from 24.85 million to 27.17 

million between December 2004 and December 2005, an increase of 9 percent. 33 According to Strategy Analytics, ‘‘DBS has robbed cable of the slow-but-steady growth 

it enjoyed up until the late 1990s, but its broader impact has been to expand the 

total base of multichannel TV homes.’’ 34

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated in 2005 that ‘‘DBS penetration rates have been and remain highest in rural areas, but since 2001, DBS penetration has grown most rapidly in urban and suburban areas, where the penetration 

rates were originally low . . . In short, over the 2001 to 2004 time frame, the DBS 

penetration rate grew about 50 percent and 32 percent in urban and suburban 

areas, respectively, compared with a growth rate of 15 percent in rural areas.’’ 35 As 

Chart 9 shows, DTH penetration of television households, as of November 2005, exceeded 30 percent in 9 states, 20 percent in 36 states, and 15 percent in 46 states.

Chart 9—States with Direct-To-Home (DTH) Dish Penetration of More than Fifteen 

Percent, November 2005 

State 

Penetration Rate Percentage 

State 

Penetration Rate Percentage 

Vermont 42.73 South Carolina 25.38

Montana 38.03 Oregon 24.77

Utah 37.73 Wisconsin 24.61

Idaho 36.80 Arizona 24.42

Wyoming 35.56 Illinois 23.04

Mississippi 34.01 North Dakota 23.61

Missouri 33.94 South Dakota 23.51

Arkansas 32.50 Maine 23.07

Georgia 30.69 Michigan 23.00

Colorado 29.57 Nebraska 22.81

New Mexico 29.55 Washington 22.28

Oklahoma 29.44 Kansas 22.15

17

Chart 9—States with Direct-To-Home (DTH) Dish Penetration of More than Fifteen 

Percent, November 2005—Continued

State 

Penetration 

Rate

Percentage 

State 

Penetration 

Rate

Percentage 

Alabama 27.93 Florida 22.05

Indiana 27.84 Alaska 19.29

Iowa 27.31 Delaware 19.26

California 26.94 Louisiana 18.61

Virginia 26.71 Maryland 18.58

Tennessee 26.62 Ohio 18.54

Kentucky 26.45 Nevada 17.86

West Virginia 26.42 New Hampshire 17.30

Texas 26.33 New York 16.69

North Carolina 26.05 Pennsylvania 16.16

Minnesota 25.62 New Jersey 16.00

Source: The Bridge, November 1, 2005 www.mbc-thebridge.com; TV Household data from A.C. Nielsen. 

Partly in response to the competition posed by DBS, cable invested more than 

$100 billion in new equipment and facilities between 1996 and 2006. These capital 

expenditures allowed cable to offer new digital services and digital tiers—including 

HDTV, interactive program guides, video-on-demand, personal video recorders, and 

CD quality, commercial-free music channels. 

Cable’s upgrades have provoked a competitive response from DBS, which is good 

for consumers. For example, DIRECTV’s CEO Chase Carey acknowledges that many 

cable operators have improved their video service in recent years, ‘‘which is why we 

have to continue to improve.’’ 36 In an effort to keep pace with cable’s video-on-demand movie offerings, DIRECTV and EchoStar have stepped up marketing and promotion of their pay-per-view movie services. 37 In addition to EchoStar’s stand-alone 

pay-per-view channels, the company’s Dish on Demand service launched January 

2005 with 30 titles downloaded to subscribers using the company’s DISHPlayer Digital Video Recorder (DVR). DIRECTV has promoted its pay-per-view business with 

discounts on recent Hollywood releases. EchoStar is rolling out the first portable 

DVR device, called the Pocket-Dish, in an effort ‘‘to get a leg up in its battle with 

cable and satellite TV rivals.’’ 38 It has also teamed up with Frontier, a telecommunications provider, to offer a bundled package of satellite television, Internet 

and telephone service in 24 states. 39 This is in addition to the joint marketing arrangements DIRECTV and EchoStar have with Bell companies. 

Broadband Service Providers and Municipal Overbuilders 

Although DIRECTV and EchoStar are cable’s largest MVPD competitors at this 

time, cable operators continue to face competition from other facilities-based providers in major U.S. markets. Broadband service providers (BSPs)—which include 

independent, municipal, and CLEC overbuilders—are offering bundles of video, 

voice, and data services over a single network. 40 RCN, the largest BSP, has 371,000 

cable subscribers and ranks as the twelfth largest MSO. It operates in major metropolitan areas, including San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. RCN’s video, telephone, and high speed data service passes nearly 1.5 

million homes. 41

Wide Open West (WOW), the fourteenth largest MSO, serves an estimated 

291,200 subscribers, and passes an estimated 1.4 million homes. Knology Holdings, 

the twenty-first largest MSO, reports 175,300 cable subscribers, and passes 783,000 

subscribers. Grande Communications, the thirtieth largest MSO, provides cable 

service to 87,800 subscribers and passes more than 328,000 homes. 42

Municipally-owned cable systems, in selected areas, also continue to compete with 

cable systems and other MVPDs. According to a survey by the American Public 

Power Association (APPA) of its members, conducted at the end of 2004, 102 municipally-owned utilities offered cable TV service. 43 The APPA survey also reported that 

81 municipally-owned utilities were offering cable modem or DSL service, and 52 

municipal utilities offered telephone service. 44

Mobile Video 

Digital video recorders and video-on-demand services have fueled consumer demand for watching TV shows whenever people like. The next goal for video providers 

is to offer consumers the ability to watch TV wherever they like. The market for 

video over cell phones is growing quickly and is being developed by major players—

18

including service providers like Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and Cingular as well as 

major technology companies like Qualcomm, Microsoft, and Nokia. 

For example, Verizon Wireless rolled out V Cast, a service that offers video programming to cellular telephone users, in February 2005. 45 V Cast currently provides news updates, sports highlights, celebrity news, stock quotes and market information, weather, and games for $15 per month. Its television-like video, at high 

bit rates, allows customers to download music videos and other high quality content. 

It is also reportedly working on its own original, reality programming. Verizon asserts that its V Cast service is ‘‘available in 118 major metropolitan areas covering 

more than 148 million people.’’ 46 Industry experts estimate that Verizon Wireless 

has signed up 500,000 customers since the service was launched early this year. 47

Similarly, Sprint Corporation began broadcasting live video over its wireless 

phones in August 2004. 48 Sprint PCS customers can now see news, video clips, and 

other content real time over their cell phone. Sprint/Nextel has also announced that 

it will ‘‘offer 2–3 Mbps mobile broadband service to the top 100 U.S. markets at 

$20–$40 a month in 2008.’’ 49 Qualcomm recently introduced its TV-cell phone service, MediaFlo. 50 In addition, MobiTV, a video service made available by Sprint and 

Cingular in the United States, now has 500,000 subscribers and an Emmy Award 

from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for its streaming TV broadcast 

service. 51

The drive to deliver TV content to portable devices is picking up steam, as some 

providers prepare to launch Hollywood films and short format cinema in the near 

term. 52 HBO and Cingular Wireless recently entered a pact for wireless content distribution. 53 In addition to making the network’s existing programming available, 

HBO may create new entertainment channels for the service. 

Meanwhile, Sony’s new portable PlayStation game device, known as PSP, is another mobile video play. It is capable of downloading TV shows and video information. It has been called ‘‘a plasma screen in your pocket.’’ 54

Although still a nascent business, some financial analysts on Wall Street are predicting the following about wireless video services: 55

The U.S. mobile video user base may balloon to more than 20 million by the 

end of 2007, up from less than 1 million today, says Albert Lin, an analyst at 

American Technology Research (ATR). Assuming each subscriber pays $5 a 

month for such services, that would translate to a $1.2 billion market. Worldwide, more than 250 million people are expected to be watching mobile video 

by 2010, generating some $27 billion in sales, vs. with $200 million today, according to market consultant ABI Research.

Internet Video 

The video landscape is marked not only by intense rivalry among cable, satellite 

and telephone providers but also Internet-based video delivery systems. Consumers 

now have new ways to access video content—from digital cell phones and other portable devices to interactive websites to enhanced in-home consumer electronics and 

computer equipment with high definition DVD or streaming video-capability. Not 

surprisingly, Internet companies such as Yahoo! and Google have declared themselves to be media companies offering multiple services to compete with cable. 

As one observer put it, the ethos of New TV can be captured in a single sweeping 

mantra: anything you want to see, any time, on any device.’’ 56 Another stated it 

this way:

It’s the key battleground in what promises to be one of the most bruising—and 

important—global corporate fights in the next couple of years. Telephone giants, 

cable titans, computer companies and consumer electronics makers are all vying 

to provide the next generation of high-tech entertainment—a single network or 

gadget that lets you view photos, listen to music, record DVDs and tune into 

whatever TV programs you want to watch, whenever you feel like watching 

them. 57

There is no denying that this proliferation of new delivery modes—the combination of digital communications and computers with entertainment and immediate 

access to worldwide information—is making all industry players compete more aggressively to stay in the game. As one media analyst recently said, ‘‘from an investment standpoint, I don’t think we’ve ever before seen such a competitive landscape.’’ 58

The FCC has recognized that video provided over the Internet has grown and 

promises to become an increasingly strong participant in the video programming 

marketplace. 59 As broadband Internet offers broadcast-quality video, consumers are 

increasingly turning to Internet-based means of accessing video content, including 

19

downloading movies and other high value video content traditionally available only 

through broadcast, cable, satellite or home video outlets. Libraries of video content, 

containing thousands of hours of video programming, are becoming available to consumers on a personalized, customized basis. 

Internet companies are providing their own unique content or partnering with 

other established content providers and video distributors. New entrants, like Akimbo Systems, offer a mix of established TV programming and unique content via the 

Web. Akimbo charges $10 a month and offers about 1,600 programs, some for an 

extra fee. The company’s chief executive predicts that Akimbo ‘‘will do what eBay 

has done for retailing.’’ 60 Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft are developing video search 

engines to harness video content via their portal service. 61 Over the past year, 

Yahoo! predicted a one billion subscriber base for its multiple media services by decade’s end. 62 BitTorrent, an Internet file-sharing method enables video enthusiasts 

to trade video files online. iFilm and other websites offer video clips to millions of 

customers. Wi-FiTV, a broadband website that features more than 200 TV channels 

from around the world, recently began service. 

Program networks are enhancing their Internet presence to gain viewers and advertising dollars. These web ‘‘channels’’ contain specially made programming, short 

videos targeting niche interests, and repackaged TV content. 63 MTV Overdrive, a 

mix of news, live performances and on-demand music videos launched in April 2005. 

Networks such as Home & Garden Television, Food Network, CNN, Fox News 

Channel, and MSNBC are offering more video content on their sites. According to 

one analyst, Internet advertising is headed toward a 25 percent increase over the 

last year, to upwards of $8.8 billion in 2005. 64

AOL saw a jump of 120 percent in its on-demand video streaming in 2004 and 

drew in five million viewers for its exclusive live coverage of the July 2, 2005, Live 

8 concert. 65 ManiaTV.com, the interactive television website, had 1.6 million users 

in July alone. 

As Internet companies and website operators grow their on-line video businesses, 

consumer electronics manufacturers are developing ways to exploit the World Wide 

Web via equipment. Toshiba and Matsushita, for example, offer digital TVs that 

allow users to download and store online video, along with DVD recording capability. 66 PC makers are developing new ‘‘media center’’ PCs that can play and 

record movies, television, and music accessed on-line. As described by PC magazine 

online, ‘‘there is going to be a big battle for dominance in people’s living rooms. 

What we’ve seen is a mini-explosion of set top boxes for Internet television.’’ 67 This 

flurry of announcements and deals in recent months shows that all players in the 

video marketplace are positioning themselves to compete in the IPTV arena. 

Broadcasting 

Broadcasters are still strong competitors to cable and other multichannel providers. The competition for viewers is manifested in the battle for advertising dollars. After a 10-year decline in viewers aged 18 to 49, the broadcast networks posted 

an increase in this key demographic for the 2004–2005 television season. It all came 

down to the big four broadcast networks’ crop of breakout hit shows. Some network 

shows turned in performances ‘‘akin to the days before cable became a serious competitor.’’ 68 This has boosted advertising commitments for the coming year on all 

broadcast networks. 

While the broadcast share of television viewing has declined in recent years as 

television viewers have increasingly opted for the multitude of choices available on 

cable, broadcast television remains a potent force. Broadcasting’s share of the viewing day continues to exceed 40 percent. 69 Moreover, approximately 15 percent of television households do not subscribe to any multichannel service. These television 

households continue to find broadcast television alone or in combination with nonMVPD video sources (such as DVDs) to be their preferred means of receiving video 

programming—and a significant percentage of MVPD households include television 

sets that are not connected to multichannel service. 

Home Video 

DVDs, video cassettes, and laser discs continue to provide competitive alternatives 

to MVPD viewing options. There are approximately 47,000 DVD titles available for 

purchase or rental today, compared to 30,000 a year ago. 70 Consumers spent $24.5 

billion renting or purchasing DVDs and VHS tapes last year, while generating $9.4 

billion in domestic box office revenue. 71 In addition to theatrical releases, many 

highly popular previously broadcast television series are now available in DVD format, frequently accompanied by major advertising campaigns. Popular cable network shows are also available on DVD. 

20

The growth in sales of DVD-formatted programming has been facilitated by gains 

in the sale of DVD hardware. U.S. consumers purchased 37 million DVD players 

in 2004, an eight percent increase over the previous year. During the first half of 

2005, nearly 14 million DVD players were sold to consumers, more than a six percent increase over the same period last year. Household penetration is expected to 

reach 80 percent by year-end 2005, with over 45 percent of DVD owners having 

more than one player. When accounting for computers with DVD-ROM drives and 

DVD-enabled video game consoles, an estimated 79 million households currently 

have the capability to play DVD, approaching three-fourths of all U.S. TV households. 72

With regard to DVD software, on-line provider Netflix recently teamed with retail 

giant Wal-Mart to offer their customers access to more than 40,000 titles of video 

programming. 73 Overall, consumers spent $15.5 billion in 2004 on DVD sales, an 

increase of 33 percent over 2003, while revenues from DVD rentals increased 26 

percent over 2003, as consumers spent more than $5.7 billion. 74

VI. Vertical Integration 

Vertical integration in the cable industry has declined dramatically over the past 

decade. For example, in 1992, half of all cable program networks were vertically integrated with cable system operators. 75 Since 1992 the percentage of programming 

networks in which cable operators collectively have any ownership interest has 

dropped to 21.8 percent. No single cable operator has a financial interest in more 

than seven percent of the more than 475 national program networks (counting each 

multiplexed pay-per-view network only once) identified in the FCC’s Twelfth Annual 

report on competition in the video marketplace. 76 Consequently, the vast majority 

of channels carried by any one cable operator—including Comcast, Time Warner, 

and every other member of NCTA—are not affiliated with that operator. 

Even with over 530 national program networks, including several 24-hour allnews channels, the video marketplace is open to new independent networks. 90 

cable channels have launched since January 2000 which are not affiliated with a 

cable operator, according to the FCC. This belies the complaints made by some critics that cable operators are refusing to carry independent programmers. 

VII. Telephone Company Entry Into Video 

Now that DBS has transformed the video marketplace so that virtually all television households have choice, it is easy to forget that only a decade ago, it was the 

large local telephone companies that were promising to provide a competitive alternative to cable—just as cable operators were promising to provide a new source of 

telephone service. Congress took those promises seriously and cleared a path for 

both the cable and telephone industries to enter each other’s business. The 1996 

Telecommunications Act immediately removed the statutory barrier for telco entry 

into video. 77 It also allowed cable to provide local exchange service, 78 assuming that 

cable operators met the regulations for providing competitive local exchange service. 

The cable industry delivered on its promise to provide facilities-based competition 

to incumbent voice providers. By contrast, the telephone companies did not fulfill 

their promises to enter the video marketplace. Instead, they spent ten years focused 

on the long distance market and thwarting the efforts of their competitors—especially the CLECS—to provide local telephone service. 

The telephone companies are now reviving plans to provide multichannel video 

programming services. 79 For example, AT&T/SBC is spending $4 billion over the 

next three years to install fiber optic cable to serve up to 18 million homes and 

plans to deliver television services using Internet protocol (IP) technology. 80 Verizon 

is spending $6 billion over five years to lay fiber directly to 16 million households 

in its service areas. 81

VIII. Conclusion 

As Congress drafts changes to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we urge you 

to treat like services alike, preferably in a deregulatory environment. We will do the 

rest by raising private risk capital, investing in new technology, offering better customer service, creating innovative programming, and competing with other multichannel video providers in order to provide consumers with the best voice, video, 

and data services possible. 

ENDNOTES 1Some cable operators are also beginning to add wireless telephone service to 

their bundle, as Time Warner did recently in its partnership with Sprint. 2Twelfth Annual Report on the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 06–11 (released March 3, 2006) at paragraph 5. 3PCMag.com Productwire: In2TV. 

21

4 Verizon Wireless Connect magazine, Spring 2006 issue, pp. 2 and 10, and 

verizonwireless.com. 5Twelfth Annual Report on the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, FCC 06–11 (released March 3, 2006), paragraph 21. 6 In return for deregulation, the cable industry promised Congress and American 

consumers that it would provide: (1) facilities-based competition to the telephone 

companies, and (2) a new generation of advanced information and video services—

both of which we have done. 7The networks include Cinemax HDTV, Comcast SportsNet HDTV, Discovery HD 

Theater, ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD, FSN HD, HBO HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, INHD, 

INHD2, MSG Networks in HD, NBA TV, NFL Network HD, Outdoor Channel 2 HD, 

Showtime HD, Spice HD, STARZ! HDTV, The Movie Channel HD, TNT in HD, Universal HD, and YES–HD. 8 As of September 30, 2005, cable operators voluntarily carried 681 digital broadcast signals—a 124 percent increase over the 304 stations carried in December 2003. 9 ‘‘Comcast’s Got Game,’’ The Street.com, August 1, 2005. 

10 ‘‘Who’s going to win the living room wars?’’, The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 

2005. 11 ‘‘Cable in full flower: On Demand Makes Content Easier to Access—and Ads 

Easier to Target,’’ The Denver Post, April 11, 2005 at F–01. 12 ‘‘VoD Squad Takes on Satellite TV,’’ Chicago Sun-Times.com, May 31, 2005, 

(available at http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-vod31.html). 13 ‘‘2005 Broadband Cable Financial Databook,’’ Kagan Research, at 12. 14 ‘‘Cable Talks, Wall Street Listens,’’ Broadcasting & Cable, April 11, 2005, at 18. 15Kagan Research, LLC, ‘‘MSOs Fast-Forward DVR Purchases,’’ Broadband Technology, May 12, 2005, at 1–2. 16 Ibid. 17Overall, the total number of MVPD customers with DVR functionality is likely 

to grow. The Yankee Group is forecasting 25 million DVR households by 2007 and 

Forrester Research is estimating 35.7 million DVR households by 2008 ‘‘Satellite, 

Cable Give DVRs a Boost,’’ Advertising Age, June 27, 2005; ‘‘Cable Firms Embracing 

Digital Video Recorders,’’ Investor’s Business Daily. 18 ‘‘High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2004,’’ FCC 

Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, July 2005 

at 3. 19Leichtman Research Group, Research Notes, 4Q2005, at 7. 20 ‘‘High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2004,’’ FCC 

Industry Analysis and Technology Division, July 2005, at 6. 21 Research Notes, 1Q2005 (http://www.leichtmanresearch.com) at 7. 22 ‘‘Downgrading Cable & Satellite: Content Looks Cheaper on EPS,’’ Morgan 

Stanley Equity Research, July 20, 2005, at 29. 23 ‘‘Federal Communications Commission Releases Data on High-Speed Services 

for Internet Access,’’ Press Release, FCC, July 7, 2005, at 2. 24 NCTA estimate based on data from company reports, Leichtman Research 

Group, and Kagan Research. Cable modem data based on top 10 cable MSOs. DSL 

data based on four Regional Bell Operating Companies. 25 ‘‘Cablevision Revs Up 20-Meg Trial,’’ Communications Engineering & Design, 

September 1, 2005, at 6. 26 ‘‘Are Power Lines the Internet’s Future? ’’ The Austin American Statesman, July 

17, 2005, at J1. 27 ‘‘Cable Poised to Add Four Million IP Voice Subs in 2006,’’ Kagan Broadband 

Technology, February 17, 2006, at 1. 28 ‘‘IP Voice Posed to Become Major Player,’’ Kagan Broadband Technology, February 18, 2005, at 1. 29 Ibid. 30Moreover, in cable-plus homes, ad-supported cable networks outpaced the Big 

3 on a total day basis by 31 share points, with cable posting a 53.7 share to the 

broadcasters’ 22.2. 31Twelfth Annual Report in the matter of ‘‘Annual Assessment of the Status of 

Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,’’ released March 

3, 2006: FCC 06–11 at paragraph 5. 32 ‘‘Cable’s Unique Market Opportunity,’’ Investment Dealers Digest, February 21, 

2005. 33 NCTA estimates based on data from Kagan Research LLC. 34 ‘‘US Multichannel TV Update: Satellite Gains, But Does Cable Lose? ’’ Strategy 

Analytics, Inc., April 1, 2005. 

22

35Statement by Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office, Congressional Quarterly, GAO Report, April 2005 at 

3. 36 ‘‘Further to Fly; DIRECTV Continues to Grab Market Share Despite Stepped 

Up Competition,’’ Multichannel News, May 23, 2005. 37 ‘‘DBS Tries PPV Discounts, Downloads,’’ Multichannel News, May 23, 2005. 38 ‘‘EchoStar to Roll Out Portable DVR Device,’’ Investor’s Business Daily, May 26, 

2005. 39 ‘‘Frontier, EchoStar Form Strategic Alliance,’’ Satellite News, April 5, 2005. 40 11th Annual Report at 2801, n. 362. 41 ‘‘Cable TV Investor: Deals and Finance,’’ Kagan Research, Inc., November 30, 

2005, at 13. 42 Ibid. 43 ‘‘Powering the 21st Century Through Community Broadband Services,’’ American Public Power Association, Sept. 2005. 44 Ibid. 45 ‘‘On-Demand In The Palm Of Your Hand: Verizon Wireless Launches ‘VCAST’—

Nation’s First And Only Consumer 3G Multimedia Service,’’ Verizon press release, 

January 7, 2005. 46http://getitnow.VZshop.com/index.aspx?Id=Vcastlcoverage. 47 ‘‘Narrowcasting Video: Can Mobile Mimic Cable’s Model?’’ Wireless Week, Oct. 

25, 2005, http://www.wirelessweek.com/article-mobilecontent/CA6277594.html. 48 ‘‘Sprint Will Start TV Service for Wireless,’’ Kansas City Business Journal, August 13, 2004. 49 ‘‘Sprint Plans $20–$40, 2–3 Mbps Mobile Service in Top 100 Markets Starting 

2008,’’ Communications Daily, Warren Communications, January 20, 2006, p. 4. 50 ‘‘Qualcomm Goes with the MediaFLO; Armed with New Chip, company to join 

the TV-cell phone scramble,’’ Broadcasting & Cable, May 16, 2005. 51 ‘‘MobiTV, Cingular to Put Radio on Cell,’’ Inside Bay Area, Nov. 15, 2005,

http://insidebayarea.com/search/cil3217487. 52 ‘‘The Movie Theater in Your Pocket; Direct from Cellywood: Cell-phone cinema 

isn’t exactly like the bit screen kind, but its potential sure is attracting attention,’’ 

Business Week Online, June 22, 2005. 53 ‘‘HBO Unplugged,’’ MSNBC.com, August 9, 2005. 54 ‘‘The Handy Future of TV; With Internet Uploads to Portable Players, the Airwaves are Wide Open,’’ Kansas City Star, April 20, 2005. 55Olga Kharif, ‘‘The Coming Video Deluge,’’ BusinessWeek Online, October 11, 

2005. 56 ‘‘Television Reloaded,’’ Newsweek, May 30, 2005. 57 ‘‘Who’s going to win the living room wars?’’ The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 

2005. 58 ‘‘Panelists See Communications Services Converging,’’ Communications Daily, 

June 2, 2005, quoting Richard Greenfield of Fulcrum Global Partners. 59 12th Annual Report at paragraphs 135–139. 60 ‘‘Merger of TV and Web May Hit Cable Industry Before It’s Prepared,’’ The Wall 

Street Journal, April 18, 2005. 61 ‘‘Next Via the Internet: Tailored TV,’’ Associated Press Online, May 16, 2005. 62 ‘‘Mermigas on Media,’’ The Hollywood Reporter, April 5, 2005. 63See e.g., ‘‘CNN.com plans Internet live news service,’’ Financial Times, May 16, 

2005. 64WSJ On-Line, May 16, 2005. 65 ‘‘Extreme TV; ManiaTV.com offers college kids a broadband barrage of chat, 

sport, music and film. Is this the perfect media for the digital generation?’’ 

MSNBC.com, August 24, 2005. 66 ‘‘Format Wars,’’ Financial Times, Comment & Analysis, March 3, 2005. 67 ‘‘The Web: Internet TV Ready for Prime Time,’’ Gene Koporwski, UPI, March 

9, 2005. 68 ‘‘Desperate No More? Networks See a Rebound in Viewers,’’ The Wall Street 

Journal, May 26, 2005. 69 Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau, 2005 Cable TV Facts, www.onetvworld.org/

?modula-displaystory+storylid=1257xformat=html. 70The Digital Entertainment Group, ‘‘DVD Household Penetration reaches 75 Million,’’ (press release), July 26, 2005. 71The Digital Entertainment Group, ‘‘Industry Boosted by $21.2 Billion in Annual 

DVD Sales and Rentals,’’ (press release), January 6, 2005; ‘‘Movie Income Rises in 

2004, but Ticket Numbers Sag Slightly,’’ The Associated Press, January 5, 2005 at 

http://www.post-gazeette.com/pg05005/437134.stm. 72 Ibid.

23

73 ‘‘Walmart.com and Netflix Announce New Promotional Agreement,’’ Press Release, May 19, 2005. 74 Ibid. 75 Even then, most of each of those networks’ customers were cable operators that 

did not have an interest in that particular network and would have no reason to 

carry it instead of an independent programmer. 76 Id. at paragraph 157. 77See generally Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act establishing new sections 651–653 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 571–573. 78See Section 303 of the Telecommunications Act, establishing Section 621(b)(3) 

of the Act, 48 U.S.C. § 541(b)(3), to facilitate cable provisions of telecommunications 

services. 79 ‘‘SBC Communications to Detail Plans for New IP-Based Advanced Television, 

Data and Voice Network,’’ SBC Press Release, Nov. 11, 2004; ‘‘Verizon’s New HighFiber ‘Diet’ for New Jersey, Blazing Fast Data, Crystal Clear Voice, Video Capability,’’ Verizon Press Release, Sept. 15, 2005. 80 ‘‘SBC and Comcast Want it All,’’ San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2005. 81 ‘‘Verizon, DIRECTV Get Closer,’’ Boston Globe, February 22, 2005.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I’ll hold off questions. The 

next is Earl Comstock, President and Chief Executive Officer of 

COMPTEL, a stranger in our midst. 

STATEMENT OF EARL W. COMSTOCK, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

COMPTEL 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes indeed. Nice to be here, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you all for having me here. Let me just comment for a 

minute and in one part agree, and another part disagree with the 

statements that Kyle just gave to you. A couple of observations. 

We’re looking at the 1996 Act, and the first thing I would point out 

is that a lot of the 1996 Act did work. There’s a lot of talk about 

reforming it, there’s a lot of talk about gutting it, but we need to 

keep in mind that it did succeed in many areas. And I think it’s 

worth the Committee’s time to go back and look at those areas 

where it did succeed. 

Cable is a good example of the success of the 1996 Act, because 

of provisions included in, the provisions that Mr. McSlarrow just 

referenced, having to do with interconnection and access to the 

telephone network. The 1996 Act succeeded and we now have 

broadband deployment to over 90 percent of the homes in this 

country. You often hear about the need for regulatory relief on the 

part of the Bells so that they can bring broadband to America. Well 

cable has already done that, and they did it through not regulatory 

relief, but through the threat of competition. Competition that this 

committee helped engender in the 1992 Cable Act, when they made 

program access provisions available. Program access provisions, 

that interestingly enough USTA is busy supporting over on the 

House side, and said are necessary for there to be video competition. You’ve got to have program access. Those rules came about 

from Congress in 1992, and in 1996, Congress followed up with 

interconnection. Where I would differ with Mr. McSlarrow’s testimony is he talked about the telephone network being built as a 

regulated monopoly, which is absolutely true. But the cable network was also built as a regulated monopoly. And then eventually 

it was de-regulated when part of the 1996 Act removed rate regulation, which Congress had imposed in 1992, from the cable industry. 

Why? So that they could invest in their networks to bring digital 

cable to the country, which they’ve done, which is why cable 

24

modem service today according to NCTA’s own statistics is available to 90 percent of the homes that they pass. So broadband is 

available today. The reason you don’t see greater broadband penetration, which is the purchasing of broadband services, is because 

the price is still too high. 

America today pays more for broadband than any other developed country in the world. And the reason is because we don’t have 

competition. There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal

yesterday talking about how France has gone in and told their incumbent entity France Telecom that they must provide access to 

competitors on their network. As a result they’re able to get 25 

megabits at about $30 a month. That’s far faster than anything we 

have today. And this is over the existing copper loops that France 

Telecom has. The cable industry in France isn’t very well developed, so they don’t have a cable alternative. But I think the idea 

that somehow cable built their network in a competitive environment and the telephone companies built theirs in a regulated environment is a complete myth. 

Cable also got a protected environment in which to build their 

networks. And I think that’s the point everybody needs to look at. 

Convergence is here, Mr. Chairman, and people are looking for the 

quadruple play. Voice, video, data and wireless. There’s only one 

entity in the country today that has that capability over their own 

facilities. And that’s the incumbent telephone companies. Why? Because they also own wireless licenses, cable doesn’t have that advantage. So if competitors are going to be there, you need to give 

access to the incumbent networks that are there. Cable and telephone. And I’d just like to point out that it was Section 251 which 

allowed that kind of access, and lead to a lot of innovative services. 

DSL is one of those services which two COMPTEL companies, 

Earthlink and Covad offer. These two companies are bringing line 

powered voice to Americans, right now in three cities and they’ll 

be rolling out in eight more soon. You can use your traditional telephone, it stays operational even if the power goes down, just like 

the traditional telephone network, but it’s a broadband system. It’s 

eight megabytes per second. That’s over DSL and that’s possible 

because of the 1996 Act. 

The problem we have today is that the FCC has abandoned the 

1996 Act. It’s walked away from it on the false premise of facilities 

based competition. We’re not going to build new ubiquitous networks in this country. And I think the Committee needs to take a 

hard look at the facts, and recognize that if you want the consumer 

competition, as I think Senator DeMint very rightly focused on, as 

did both of the Co-Chairman, you’re going to have to give access 

to those facilities. That access is not going to come from market 

forces. It’s going to come from a competitively neutral set of rules, 

and that’s what we hope you’ll take up as you draft your bill. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Comstock follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EARL W. COMSTOCK, PRESIDENT/CEO, COMPTEL 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Earl Comstock. I am 

the President and CEO of COMPTEL, the communications association of choice, 

which represents all types of competitive communications providers. COMPTEL has 

25

more than 180 members and is celebrating its 25th year representing competitors 

in the communications marketplace. 

The topic of today’s hearing is competition and convergence, and COMPTEL members are on the cutting edge of providing converged communications services to both 

business and residential users. Our members brought local Internet access numbers, 

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services to 

small businesses and residential users long before the incumbent carriers would 

offer them, just as COMPTEL members brought competitive long distance offerings 

to businesses and consumers years before AT&T ever did. Likewise, COMPTEL 

members are at the forefront of offering competitive cable services through overbuilding and through use of Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). It is thanks to the 

innovation of competitors, and not incumbents, that consumers enjoy new, lower 

priced, and ever expanding service offerings. 

When Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ten years ago, one 

of the primary goals of that Act was to bring about convergence—namely the offering of voice, video, and data services over a common transmission platform. While 

it has taken longer to reach that goal than many might have expected when the 

1996 Act was adopted, this hearing today can attest to the fact that convergence 

has finally arrived. The Members of this Committee who helped craft the 1996 Act 

should be proud of this result, and should take credit where credit is due. 

Notwithstanding the many myths that the Bell companies and cable lobbyists 

spread daily—for example that Congress was not aware of the Internet when the 

1996 Act was adopted—the Act has worked as many of those who drafted it intended. For example, the cable industry has successfully used the cost based interconnection rules established in sections 251 and 252 to interconnect their cable networks with the telephone networks of the incumbent telephone companies to provide 

broadband Internet access and, more recently, local voice services using VoIP. Interestingly, the cable industry’s ability to provide broadband Internet access and local 

voice service was made possible by upgrades the cable industry undertook starting 

in the early 1990s in order to meet the threat of competition that Congress helped 

create in 1992 through the enactment of program access rules that are still in effect 

today. Those rules allowed Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) operators to successfully 

offer a competitive alternative to cable, and Congress included specific provisions in 

the 1996 Act to further spur cable network upgrades by allowing the Bell companies 

into cable and by including interconnection requirements that cable needed to enable them to provide Internet access and voice services. 

It was in response to FCC actions, court decisions, and rules adopted by Congress 

that made competition likely, rather than in response to regulatory relief, that cable 

made its investment. The threat of competition, and not regulatory relief, is what 

led cable to upgrade their networks so that roughly 90 percent of the homes in this 

country are passed by cable networks capable of providing cable modem service—

a broadband service that is several times faster than the DSL service offered by the 

Bell companies today. Taking into consideration cable modem service availability, 

America ranks near the top globally in broadband deployment. Congress should 

carefully consider this successful prior precedent as it evaluates the present requests by the Bell companies for regulatory relief as a means of spurring further 

broadband deployment. 

Where America lags behind many other countries is in broadband penetration, i.e., 

in the number of homes that subscribe to broadband service. Broadband penetration

is largely a function of price. America today pays more per megabyte of transmission 

speed than most of our European or Asian trading partners. This high price will 

only be reduced by competition or government price regulation. COMPTEL believes 

that competition, rather than price regulation, is the preferable approach to reducing the price Americans pay for broadband services. 

Unfortunately, the proposals before Congress today are not designed to spur competition. Instead, each of the proposals introduced so far in this Committee—S. 1504 

and S. 2231—are roadmaps to disaster. They each would take huge strides toward 

reinstating the old Bell monopoly based on the mistaken assumption that facilities 

based competition is well established and growing. While it is true that cable facilities pass roughly 95 percent of American homes, those facilities reach less than 1 

percent of businesses in the United States. Likewise, while many COMPTEL members have some of their own facilities to businesses and a few residential customers, 

COMPTEL members rely extensively on access to incumbent telephone company 

networks to reach most business and almost all residential customers. The same is 

true for wireless companies, some of whom are also COMPTEL members. Wireless 

companies link their cell towers to their mobile switching centers using wireline facilities—in most cases lines leased from the incumbent telephone companies under 

special access tariffs. 

26

The truth is that there is only one entity in this country that has facilities reaching 100 percent of businesses and residences in any given area, and that entity is 

the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC). 

In many areas of the country the ILEC is also a Regional Bell Operating Company that was formerly part of the Bell System monopoly. Particularly now, in light 

of the recent mergers, and the further proposed merger, involving former Bell entities, as well as the FCC Chairman’s unilateral action last week to further deregulate Verizon, it is essential that the common carrier rules Congress reaffirmed and 

strengthened in the 1996 Act be put back in place. It is those rules, and not unregulated market forces, that have produced the competition that the Bells and their 

supporters point to as a justification for eliminating those very regulations. Without 

the rules, the competition that America sees today—competition that is not yet robust enough to drive down residential broadband prices to levels that will allow 

America to enjoy the same broadband penetration rates that consumers in other developed nations enjoy—will dry up and disappear, placing Americans at a serious 

competitive disadvantage in the global information economy. 

The 1996 Act was forward-looking and competitively neutral. Unfortunately the 

FCC was not up to the task of following the roadmap that Congress provided it. Entrenched in its own precedent and captive to the industries it was supposed to regulate, the FCC has step by step demolished the pro-competitive, technology neutral 

framework that Congress constructed in 1996. Starting with Chairman Hundt’s decision in 1996 not to tackle access charge reform so that the FCC could continue 

its policy of favoring Internet data services over voice services, followed by Chairman Kennard’s decision to exempt the telecommunications component of Internet 

access services (and other information services) from contributing to Universal Service and Chairman Powell’s decision not to treat the transmission component of cable 

modem service in the same common carrier fashion that the FCC had previously 

treated the transmission component of DSL based Internet access services, until finally Chairman Martin decided to reverse 25 years of prior precedent and treat 

common carrier transmission services bundled with an information service as entirely an unregulated service (as opposed to a regulated transmission service and 

an unregulated information service). With these actions the FCC has unraveled the 

core premise of the 1996 Act—namely that transmission services provided to the 

public would remain subject to common carrier regulation, regardless of the facilities used. 

Despite Congress’ clear instruction in the 1996 Act to regulate based on what 

service was being provided rather than the technology used or the historic box in 

which a company started, the FCC to this day insists on classifying services based 

on technology and history. If left unchecked, this misguided policy will result in the 

re-monopolization of business communications services in this country, and, at best, 

a duopoly in the provision of residential communications services. 

In considering now how to approach communications law reform, it is imperative 

that the Congress act to undo the damage being done by the FCC’s policies. Congress faces an historic choice as it moves forward with new legislation. Congress can 

choose to re-instate the historic legal framework that led to the incredible growth 

and success of the Internet—the choice most governments are following in the rest 

of the world—or it can chose to continue down the path the FCC has been following, 

a path that will lead to the creation of a cable duopoly or even a cable monopoly—

depending on whether or not AT&T and Verizon are successful in eventually running the incumbent cable operators out of business. 

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Re-instating the rules that led to the success of the 

Internet will mean continued innovation, growth, and competition, which will keep 

America as a leader in the Information Age. Continuing down the path toward a 

cable duopoly will mean stagnation, higher prices, and the loss of our leadership position as innovators and entrepreneurs move overseas in search of countries that 

have rules that enable them to get their products and services on the Internet without having to go through the cable or telephone company gatekeepers. 

The cable rules set forth in Title VI of the Communications Act are in fact the 

polar opposite of the Title II common carrier rules under which the Internet and 

competition evolved. The cable rules grant the operator of a cable network exclusive

control over the content and services offered over that network, subject to only a 

few requirements to carry public, educational, and governmental channels and a 

limited amount of unaffiliated programming. Using those rules, over the past thirty 

years no major cable operator has voluntarily allowed any other company to purchase capacity on its network to offer content or services, even content or services 

that the cable operator itself is not yet offering. The former AT&T bought two cable 

networks, and still it could not get agreement from its fellow cable operators to 

allow AT&T to offer phone services, even though the other cable operators were not 

27

then offering those services. Likewise, AOL bought a cable network, yet AOL was 

also unsuccessful in getting agreements with the other cable operators to allow AOL 

to offer competing cable modem service over their networks. Now Verizon and the 

new AT&T are both filing papers with the FCC suggesting that they intend to protect much of the capacity of their broadband networks from competitors by claiming 

those networks are cable networks subject to the exclusive cable rules. 

The fundamental premise of the cable rules is that one person—the network operator—has the exclusive right to offer video programming to consumers over the 

cable network. The entire cable business model is predicated on rules that give network operators’ control so that consumers are only able to access whatever package 

of video programming the network operator offers. Yet this business model is diametrically opposed to the Internet business model, which is predicated on common 

carrier rules that limit network operators’ control so that consumers are able to access any content and services, including video content, which they choose. The two 

cannot co-exist, which is precisely why the cable companies, closely followed by the 

Bell companies, are working so hard at the FCC and in Congress to ensure that 

common carrier rules do not apply to their networks. In the aftermath of the FCC’s 

recent decision to reverse its prior precedent and not apply common carrier rules 

to the transmission facilities underlying Internet access and other information services, Verizon and AT&T, like the cable operators before them, have both announced 

plans to limit the bandwidth available to consumers to speeds far less than what 

would be needed to access or provide independent packages of high quality video 

content. 

The Bells are making their plea for video franchise relief based on the argument 

that consumers deserve greater competition in the video marketplace. They rightly 

point to the fact that cable rates have been going up roughly eight percent per 

year—several times the rate of inflation—ever since Congress enacted the 1996 Act. 

Yet the Bells do not propose getting rid of the cable rules that have led to these 

abuses. Instead, what the Bells have proposed is simply allowing them faster entry 

so that they can share in the profit taking at consumer expense. If Congress really 

wants to give consumers competition in the video marketplace, the far more effective remedy would be to apply basic common carrier rules to all network operators. 

That would provide consumers with the greatest level of choice, and the greatest 

level of price competition. 

Eliminating the cable rules would also have other benefits. It would eliminate the 

messy debates that Congress, the FCC, and the courts all get dragged into over 

First Amendment rights, must-carry, and ala carte programming rules. While the 

only fair way to eliminate the cable rules is through a transition plan—after all, 

the cable industry legitimately relied on the existing rules—the time for such a plan 

is now. Particularly in light of the capacity that will eventually be freed up on cable 

networks with the analog to digital TV transition that Congress has slated for 2008, 

there is a short window of opportunity for Congress to enact a transition plan that 

could take advantage of that fact. 

Establishing a transition plan to eliminate the cable rules and apply basic common carrier principles to all network operators is an ambitious undertaking, but it 

is what is needed for America to remain as a world leader in the Information Age. 

COMPTEL stands ready to work with this Committee to fashion such legislation. 

This legislation should adopt technology neutral requirements that apply to all companies that construct their networks over public rights of way, using public spectrum, or other public resources (for example numbering resources). These requirements should include the duty to provide non-discriminatory transmission service 

upon reasonable request, to interconnect their networks with other providers of 

transmission service on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, 

and not to interfere with content and services transmitted over their networks. In 

addition, Universal Service obligations and benefits should apply to all such companies in a competitively neutral manner. 

The legislation should also recognize the considerable barriers to entry faced by 

new network operators. New network operators must construct their networks in a 

competitive environment, without the benefit of an existing infrastructure and customer base. In addition, every customer the new network operator hopes to serve 

is already being served by at least one incumbent. As a result, the new network operator must win that customer from an established provider, a task far more difficult than signing up customers who have never been served. 

In the alternative, if the Committee would prefer to leave in place the existing 

cable rules and build instead on the framework of the 1996 Act, COMPTEL urges 

the Committee to: (1) apply the cost-based interconnection and unbundled network 

element requirements of sections 251, 252, and 271 of the Act to both copper and 

fiber facilities; (2) require incumbent LECs to provide cost-based special access servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
28

ices under sections 201 and 202 of the Act; (3) require all facility based providers 

of Internet access services (including cable operators) to offer the transmission component of such services to others on the same terms and conditions as it provides 

such transmission to itself; (4) treat cable operators as common carriers to the extent they provide transmission services; (5) strengthen the program access rules in 

Title VI of the Act by closing the terrestrial loophole and improving access to video 

programming by small providers (6) improve the language in section 224 regarding 

access to rights of way to ensure competitive neutrality and eliminate discriminatory practices by franchising authorities; (7) establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of traffic between carriers; (8) modify 

Universal Service mechanisms so that all facilities based providers contribute in a 

competitively neutral manner and are eligible to receive Universal Service support 

in a competitively neutral fashion; and (9) prohibit cable operators and common carriers from interfering with or degrading content or services transmitted over their 

network, or from favoring their own content and services (other than video programming offered as a cable service) over other content and services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The next witness is Walter McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer of USTelecom in 

Washington; you too are a stranger, yes sir. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR., PRESIDENT/

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES TELECOM

ASSOCIATION (USTELECOM) 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

Inouye. Thank you to the staff that’s done so much work on these 

hearings. They’re very timely. They’ve been very comprehensive. 

And as my two colleagues have stated, with regard to voice services, what a record of success since the 1996 Act. When we were 

here in 1996, it was my industry that provided voice telephone 

service. If the telephone rang, you would stand up and you would 

go to the corner of the room to answer it. Today you can have one 

of Kyle’s cable phones, or one of Earl’s Internet phones, or one of 

my wireline phones, or one of Steve’s wireless phones. My guess is, 

probably almost everybody in this room is carrying a voice telephone in their pocket. And so the consumer now has the ability to 

choose the voice services they want from the companies that they 

trust. It’s a record of success. Similarly, consumers can choose 

Internet access from cable modem, from DSL, from wireless access, 

satellite access, or from broadband over power line. It is a marketplace characterized by competition. And I think about this industry, this committee having established a regulatory model for this 

industry that was modeled on the Interstate Commerce Act. The 

Federal Communications Commission was modeled on the Interstate Commerce Commission. And late in the 20th Century, you 

said with regard to railroads, that if a consumer can choose between a truck and train, it’s time for government to get out of the 

way and let’s let those industries compete. And today when consumers can choose between wireline phones and cable phones, and 

Internet phones, and wireless phones, or DSL, or cable modem or 

satellite, Internet satellite, it’s time for government to step back 

and get out of the way and let consumers get the products they 

want from the companies they choose. Nowhere is this more important than with regard to video. Cable began as a monopoly that offered video. Technology has made it possible for cable to now offer 

voice service. Similarly, we began by offering voice service and 

29

technology has brought us to the place where we can now offer 

video. We believe that we should be free to offer video over our networks and to provide consumers with this choice. And we would 

suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Committee, that this is 

the one area where competition has not yet taken hold. The Chairman of the FCC has said that the price increases we’re seeing in 

cable are contrary to the price decreases that we’re seeing in every 

other area under his jurisdiction. So it’s our hope, Mr. Chairman, 

that Congress will act this year to move forward with competition, 

video competition to cable, by letting us offer that service over our 

networks. And that Congress will do so in a comprehensive way, 

that as it addresses these issues, it will do so with an eye toward 

the appropriate role of government to guarantee the continuation 

of Universal Service, so that individuals—no matter where they 

live in this country—will have access to services—telecommunications services of comparable quality and price. That it will do so 

with an eye toward societal obligations like 911, access for individuals with disabilities, and the continuation of societal responsibilities related to customer privacy—consumer proprietary network 

information. 

Again Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding these hearings, and we’re honored to be a part of them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR., PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION (USTELECOM) 

Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee, I am Walter 

McCormick, President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom). 

At the outset, let me thank you for conducting this comprehensive series of hearings. USTelecom and its members have been honored to testify on net neutrality, 

Universal Service, video franchising, municipal networks, and rural issues. As this 

impressive fact-gathering process draws to a close, it is only fitting that you bring 

it all together with convergence and competition—two words that capture perfectly 

the environment in which telecom firms now operate. 

For a century our organization was known as the United States Telephone Association. But the word ‘‘telephone’’ is becoming less and less descriptive of the business models and competitive strategies of our 1,200 member companies. Whether it’s 

AT&T or the Epic Touch Company in rural Kansas, companies are rapidly transforming. They are diversifying into high-speed Internet, wireless services, VoIP, and 

broadband television. 

This is a significant change for these companies, some of which have been familyrun telephone companies for a century or more. This diversification is the most farreaching change in our industry today. It’s sweeping the country, almost without regard to population density or geography. 

Our companies are racing to change the way they operate, and they need Congress to embrace change as well. We urge you to use two tools when you think about 

the future of our communications laws—a fresh perspective and a clean sheet of 

paper. 

When the 1934 Communications Act was written, providing phone service was an 

expensive undertaking. Congress acknowledged the existence of a monopoly and created the FCC and a body of laws to ensure quality service and reasonable rates. 

When the 1984 Cable Act was passed, Congress again accepted a monopoly arrangement and again established government as the one to protect consumers. 

Today, there are a variety of networks, and the barriers to entry in voice, video, 

and broadband are relatively low for all but your local telecom service provider. For 

Internet access, consumers are using: DSL, cable modem, satellite, wireless, and 

electric power lines. The range of video networks includes co-axial cable, satellites, 

wireless, and fiber-optic lines. 

In fact, these days, it’s not even necessary to build a network to compete in voice 

and video. Companies like Vonage, Skype, and Sun Rocket have millions of phone 

30

customers. A variety of new websites allow anyone with an Internet connection to 

download movies, TV shows, or amateur video. Major sporting events are online now 

as well. In fact, you may recall the spate of media reports earlier this month regarding a possible drop in office productivity because employees could watch the NCAA 

basketball tournament on their computers. 

Against this backdrop, the USTelecom board of directors met in November 2004 

and unanimously adopted principles that we believe should serve as the foundation 

for updating our Nation’s telecom laws. These principles call for Universal Service 

reform and for a new regulatory approach, an approach geared to the creation of 

a competitive, consumer-driven market for communication services. 

As I alluded to a few moments ago, a serious concern of USTelecom is legacy regulation that either prevents competition or creates a competitive disadvantage for 

those who invest in networks. For instance, the marketing materials of Sun Rocket, 

the Internet phone company, say subscribers can avoid Universal Service charges. 

And, online video providers are winning customers and gaining market share every 

day—with no thought of having to apply for a local franchise agreement. 

Competition has already arrived in voice communication. But it is only emerging 

in video. The most significant communications policy challenge of the 109th Congress is how to hasten the development of full and fair competition in video. 

If you are fortunate enough to be a cable television provider, you have effectively 

operated as a monopoly for 20 years, albeit with some competition from satellite. 

In the 1996 Act, cable received authority to enter the telephone business—free from 

any legacy regulation, a position we did not oppose, since we believe consumers are 

better served—seeing more choice, innovation and lower prices—when companies 

are allowed to compete head-to-head in the marketplace. We hope that the cable industry will today urge the Committee to take this same free market approach of 

lowering barriers to entry for new video entrants as local telecom service providers 

try to enter the video business. 

Based upon its recent actions, we expect that cable will argue against our entry 

into video. Why compete in a free and fair marketplace when you have such a lucrative business arrangement as the cable companies currently do? Their pricing power 

has enabled them to raise rates 86 percent from 1995 to 2004. That’s a figure generated by the FCC. 

When USTelecom called attention to these increases the cable industry responded 

by refusing to run our factual ads in the DC area and many other places around 

the country. In an awkward attempt to try and justify these soaring prices, the 

cable industry insisted that we take into account the rising number of channels. If 

you factor in additional channels, cable prices still have risen a whopping 57 percent 

from 1995 to 2004. 

Whether you prefer to look at it as an 86 percent price increase or a 57 percent 

price increase, it’s still a substantial number. And the cable companies fear new 

entry into video, because we are their most formidable competitor. 

Time is money for consumers. Postponing franchise reform until the next session 

of Congress, that one year of delay, will cost consumers $8 billion. A two-year delay 

would cost Americans nearly $16 billion. This comes to about $75 per household per 

year. This figure has also been broken down on a state-by-state basis, and the numbers are substantial. One year of delay in franchise reform would cost:

• Alaska consumers $12 million; 

• Hawaii consumers $31 million; and 

• Montana consumers $22 million.

Consumers will pay a steep price for delay. 

The GAO has studied trends in cable pricing and the effects of competition. It 

found that cable faces wireline competition in only 2 percent of its franchise areas. 

But wireline competition had an impact that satellite competition did not. The GAO 

found that prices were 15 percent lower where cable faced a wireline competitor. 

Local franchising requirements impede our entry. They extend the period during 

which consumers will pay artificially high prices. Let me give you two examples:

• Ben Lomand Telephone Cooperative in McMinnville, Tennessee, has upgraded 

its network, and has the capacity to offer video service to approximately 60 percent of its 42,000 customers. However, in order to offer video, it must apply for 

and receive 25 different franchise agreements, some of which are required for 

areas in which it serves just 100–200 customers. After 18 months of trying, the 

company has received only 15 franchises.

• In the case of Verizon, one year after engaging in franchise negotiations with 

95 local franchising authorities, only 10 have granted franchises and 85 remain 

in negotiation. Typically, the process takes 18 to 24 months.

31

Technology has created vigorous competition in voice and broadband. Unleashing 

the forces of competition and convergence in the video sphere will require a little 

help from Congress. 

Consumers want a simpler life. They want one communications provider who can 

package their voice, video, and Internet into one bundle. And consumers want lower 

bills. 

USTelecom members all across the country are hustling to give consumers what 

they want. We realize we cannot rely on old business models and old practices. The 

digital age has changed everything for our industry. Unfortunately, the benefits of 

this change will be halted or delayed for millions of consumers unless Congress removes legacy regulations adopted in a different era and takes action to update our 

communication laws.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Our next witness is Steve Largent, 

President and Chief Executive Officer of CTIA, The Wireless Association of America, Washington, D.C. Another stranger in our 

midst. You guys have been here so often, I probably should be just 

able to use your names, but I can’t because of that tube that’s behind you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE LARGENT, PRESIDENT/CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CTIA—THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION®

Mr. LARGENT. Well thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity 

to be here, and Co-Chairman Inouye, and Senator DeMint, we appreciate the opportunity to testify. I have to tell you that I guess 

I’m somewhat biased, but I sincerely believe that our industry is 

the poster child for the topic of this hearing, competition and convergence. 

The wireless industry has had tremendous success in providing 

our customers and your constituents with the greatest array of 

choices they have ever received from any segment of the communications industry. American wireless subscribers have a myriad of 

opportunity when it comes to choosing a service provider, when it 

comes to choosing devices, service plans, and applications, be it 

video, data, music and much much more. 

American consumers,—rural and urban, rich and poor—have 

benefited enormously from Congress’s farsighted decision in 1993 

to limit regulation of this industry. 

Last year the FCC’s 10th Annual Competition report which highlighted the fact that, ‘‘97 percent of the total U.S. population lives 

in counties with access to three or more different wireless operators.’’ Today there are more 180 wireless licenses, providing service 

to 200 million plus customers in this country. 

As a result of the numerous choice of providers, wireless subscribers are the beneficiaries of lower prices, more reliable service, 

and a variety of new features on their handsets. 

Just to give you a brief perspective on the economic impact of the 

wireless industry, in 2004, approximately 3.6 million jobs were directly or indirectly dependent on the wireless telecom sector. That 

same year the wireless industry contributed $92 billion to the gross 

domestic product, and as of mid-2005 the industry had spent more 

than a $187 billion to create and upgrade networks and facilities. Moreover the industry spent an additional $20 billion to acquire 

spectrum at auction. This tremendous investment in infrastructure, 

coupled with a continued commitment to bring the best and most 

cutting edge services to Americans has resulted in wireless consumers being able to obtain a converging array of mobile voice, 

32

data, and video. These services have profoundly changed the way 

we communicate as well as the way we live our lives. The wireless 

industry is on the verge of a renaissance as carriers obtain access 

to more spectrum and deploy faster technologies and even more innovative services. CTIA and our member companies believe the 

best is yet to come for American wireless subscribers. Wireless 

Internet and broadband capabilities are in their infancy, but such 

things as viewing real-time video over a handset is happening 

today. Unfortunately however, we see storm clouds on the horizon. 

Continued regulatory and legislative creep, at the state and local 

level is undermining the national framework that Congress established in 1993 for the wireless industry. 

Under the guise of consumer protection, states are beginning to 

enact inconsistent and conflicting regulation on the wireless industry. A patchwork quilt of state by state regulation threatens to chip 

away at the ability of wireless carriers, suppliers and developers to 

collectively bring new services to consumers and business users 

across the country in a time efficient and affordable manner. It 

would be understandable if these state laws and regulations were 

a result of growing consumer dissatisfaction and rising prices. But 

that is not the case. Last year based on FCC data, wireless-related 

complaints fell 46 percent the last 5 months of 2005 to 24 complaints per million customers or less than 3 one-thousandths of 1 

percent. Correspondingly, wireless rates have fallen 84 percent the 

last 13 years. I know of no other way to put it, than states are 

seeking solutions in search of a problem. Each instance of state 

regulation will add unneeded cost to the consumer and exponentially complicate the provision of mobile services that are inherently interstate in nature. 

Even regulation by a small handful of states threatens to undermine the nationwide and regional calling plans that are so common-place in the wireless market. 

What can this Committee and Congress do to stem the rising tide 

of inconsistent and conflicting state regulation? CTIA and the companies I represent strongly believe that because of the interstate 

nature of wireless services, Congress should preempt state laws 

that would conflict with its national framework for carrier practices 

and regulate only in instances necessary for public health and safety or demonstrated market failure. Finally Congress got it right in 

1993 when it amended section 332 of the Communications Act to 

create a Federal deregulatory framework for commercial mobile 

radio services. Wireless consumers have come to expect that they 

will receive more minutes, more reliability, and more features for 

less money. But in order for wireless to grow, flourish and experience its next renaissance, it needs a strengthened deregulatory national framework to foster innovative, efficient, and convenient 

wireless devices and services. 

Again I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 

to appear before you this afternoon and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:]

33

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE LARGENT, PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

CTIA—THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION®

Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you to testify on two important issues, 

Competition and Convergence. My name is Steve Largent and as President and 

CEO of CTIA—The Wireless Association® (CTIA), I am pleased to be here today to 

discuss with this Committee the tremendous success the wireless industry has had 

in providing American consumers with the greatest array of choices they have ever 

received from any telecommunications segment—choice of providers, service plans, 

devices, and much, much more. American consumers—rural and urban, rich and 

poor—have benefited enormously from your decision in 1993 to limit regulation of 

the industry. I urge your continued leadership in helping the wireless sector to continue being able to provide American consumers with the kinds of wireless services 

they want at prices they can afford. As we enter our third decade, the industry is 

poised to bring the Internet to its more than 200 million mobile subscribers. We are 

at a critical juncture in our evolution and need your leadership to help us stay the 

course in providing maximum benefits to the consumer. 

The significant growth and expansion of the competitive mobile wireless industry 

has also had a profound impact on the U.S. economy. In 2004, approximately 3.6 

million jobs were directly and indirectly dependent on the U.S. wireless telecommunications industry. In that same year, the wireless industry generated $118 

billion in revenues and contributed $92 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. 

The wireless industry has continued its ongoing investments in the networks and 

other facilities needed to deliver increasingly sophisticated wireless services—with 

almost $174 billion in cumulative capital investment reported as of year-end 2004. 

Over the past five years, the wireless industry invested on average more than $20 

billion annually in new facilities. In addition, carriers have bid in excess of $20 billion in winning spectrum licenses from the FCC. In the first six months of 2005, 

wireless carriers invested another $13 billion in capital, further demonstrating their 

commitment to improving and expanding the reach of existing services and also increasing the delivery of advanced capabilities to consumers across the country. 

This tremendous investment in infrastructure, coupled with a continued commitment to bring the best and most cutting edge services to Americans, has resulted 

in wireless consumers being able to obtain a converging array of mobile voice, data 

and video, profoundly changing the way we communicate and the way we live our 

lives. Indeed, the wireless industry is on the verge of a Renaissance as carriers obtain access to more spectrum and deploy faster technologies and more innovative 

entertainment services like games, mobile television (including news and sports), 

movie clips and music. 

The Wireless Competition Story 

In 1993, Congress amended Section 332 of the Communications Act and created 

a federal, national regulatory framework for ‘‘commercial mobile radio services,’’ recognizing that a nascent industry like wireless needed air to breathe and develop. 

Congress wisely and pointedly decided not to subject the wireless industry to the 

economic regulation typically applied in the landline context at the Federal and 

state levels. As a direct result of this historic Congressional high-tech, and pro-consumer initiative, industry growth exploded and consumers began realizing benefits 

rapidly. Over the next ten years, more than 160 million wireless customers signedup for service. Today, the wireless industry provides service to more than 200 million consumers nationwide through more than 180 facilities-based providers, Mobile 

Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) and others. 

The FCC’s 10th Annual Competition report to Congress last year noted that, ‘‘97 

percent of the total U.S. population lives in counties with access to three or more 

different operators offering mobile telephone service, the same level as in the previous year, and up from 88 percent in 2000, the first year for which these statistics 

were kept. The percentage of the U.S. population living in counties with access to 

four or more and five or more different mobile telephone operators also remained 

roughly the same as in the previous year.’’ Furthermore, the FCC also concluded 

that wireless companies are competing effectively in rural areas. In rural markets, 

the report notes, ‘‘there is no evidence in the record to indicate that’’ the existence 

of somewhat fewer competitors than in urban areas ‘‘has enabled carriers in rural 

areas to raise prices above competitive levels or to alter other terms and conditions 

of service to the detriment of rural consumers.’’

Competition in the wireless marketplace has resulted in the cost of wireless service to consumers dropping 33 percent since 1997, and by more than 80 percent since 

1994. Wireless service leads all U.S. telecommunications services in price declines 

34

since 1997. Consumers are getting more for less and doing more with it. In 1996, 

consumers used their mobile phones for an average of 125 minutes per month. In 

2005, they used their mobile devices for more than 680 minutes per month. If the 

average wireless consumer in America spends $54 per month on wireless voice and 

data services, that same consumer would pay approximately $125 U.S. for the same 

services in the European Union. 

Hyper-competition among carriers has produced tailored service plan features and 

options, improved customer service, declining cost of service, ease of billing, and improvements in call performance. Dozens of rate plans are available in practically 

every market, from prepaid or pay-as-you-go plans, to family plans, and big bucket 

plans—almost all of which offer options like national, no-roaming, free or discounted 

nights and weekends, or in-network calling, as well as a wide variety of wireless 

phones and devices. In effect, there’s a service plan and device tailor-made for you. 

In 2005, Harris Interactive found that 90 percent of wireless consumers are ‘‘very 

to somewhat’’ satisfied with their wireless service, and three-quarters of wireless 

consumers thought wireless a good value for the money. The highly competitive nature of the wireless industry is focusing carriers’ attention on improving customer 

service, with increased numbers of customer service representatives and more training, as recently reported by the New York Times. The industry’s focus on customer 

care is reflected in the small number of complaints filed with the FCC. In the FCC’s 

latest report on Consumer Complaints released in February of 2006, the FCC noted 

that wireless complaints fell 28 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005. (In fact, the 

monthly number of complaints fell 46 percent between August and December of 

2005.) The total wireless complaints for the fourth quarter amounted to 24 complaints per million subscribers, equal to 0.0024 percent. That’s 24 ten-thousandths 

of one-percent. 

Although a number of high-profile mergers have occurred in the wireless industry 

over the past few years, the total number of commercially operational wireless companies has remained relatively constant, with more than 180 facilities-based companies identifiable as directly offering wireless service to consumers in markets across 

the country. The facilities-based companies include national, regional, affiliate, and 

independent operators. Additionally, numerous MVNOs have launched or announced the launch of service, including Disney, ESPN, TracFone, and Virgin Mobile, among others. Last year, RCR Wireless News published a list of 19 active 

MVNOs and resellers, estimated to serve a minimum of 10.6 million customers, indicating they offered prepaid, postpaid, and hybrid service plans to consumers. 

Facilities-based licensees continue to announce the initiation of service, expansion 

of networks, and the construction of new cell sites in markets—including rural markets—across the country. They also continue to modify their market holdings in 

order to establish footprints they believe will allow them ‘‘to more effectively provide 

value and services to customers,’’ as well as more robust spectrum holdings in order 

to deliver more spectrum-intensive services to more people. The FCC’s Memorandum Opinion and Order approving the merger of Sprint and Nextel noted the 

potential benefits to customers from the combination, including faster data rates 

and interoperability between push-to-talk capabilities. Likewise, Cingular Wireless 

has noted its on-going upgrading of the combined network resulting from the acquisition of AT&T Wireless’ operations, and the greater capabilities offered by its increased spectrum holdings. 

Convergence: The Wireless Perspective 

The proliferation of IP-based networks has clearly pushed industry segments 

away from silo models to a more integrated delivery system. Where does wireless 

fit in? Mobile voice has begotten digital mobile voice and data which has given rise 

to e-mails away from the office, mobile photography, mobile music and mobile 

media. The fully converged wireless network will permit consumers to access voice, 

video, and an extraordinary array of data services—at home, at work, in cafes, and 

on the move. The wireless platform offers a solution that overcomes some of the 

technological and economic challenges inherent in any wired environment, extending the reach of broadband technologies to traditionally underserved communities, 

including rural areas and less affluent urban markets. Mobility, however, is the factor that separates wireless from other broadband services, and mobility is the primary reason wireless broadband has the potential to grow at unprecedented rates. 

Mobile broadband services are already spreading across the country. In December 

of 2005, Cingular Wireless announced that subscribers could access its 

BroadbandConnect service through Cingular’s new 3G network. Verizon Wireless 

has launched a broadband network based on evolution data only (EV–DO) technology available in 171 metropolitan markets covering more than 140 million people. Sprint Nextel began to roll out its EV–DO technology in mid–2005 and now ofVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
35

fers wireless broadband services in 208 markets. Alltel offers both its Axcess 

Broadband service which feature bursts up to 2.4 Mbps and average speeds of 400 

to 700 Kbps, and its Axcess Mobilink service which lets customers use the Internet 

with bursts up to 144 Kbps and average speeds of 40 to 70 Kbps. In addition to 

its extensive network of wireless hotspots, T-Mobile offers mobile Internet access 

though its GPRS service. According to CTIA’s own semi-annual wireless industry 

survey, as of mid-2005, half of all wireless customers had mobile devices that were 

capable of web-browsing. 

These and a host of other applications and advanced services are being offered 

in rural and urban areas across the country by these and other carriers, including: 

Alaska Communications Systems’ ACS Mobile Broadband service, and the 

broadband and mobile Internet services of Cellular South, Cellular One of Amarillo, 

Dobson Cellular, First Cellular of Southern Illinois, and Midwest Wireless, and U.S. 

Cellular’s array of easyedgeSM data services. Many other wireless applications 

(such as mobile television, multimedia messaging, text messaging, and wireless email) are now being offered across the country. 

Mobile television is an application that has attracted the attention of both wireless carriers and network programmers, and is the basis for competitive offerings 

both inside the CMRS space and between CMRS and other providers. Informa 

Telecoms & Media, a British consultancy, predicts that in just five years, there will 

be more users of broadcast mobile television worldwide—124.8 million—than there 

are currently U.S. television homes (110 million). It has been reported that 2.4 million wireless customers in the U.S. viewed some form of mobile video in September 

2005, and that 10 percent of wireless users expect to view some form of mobile video 

in 2006. 

MobiTV, Inc. (formerly known as Idetic, Inc.), a third party provider of video programming, offers a multitude of program networks, including The Discovery Channel, ESPN, MSNBC, and the Weather Channel. Sprint Nextel, Cingular Wireless, 

Midwest Wireless, Alltel, and Cellular South all currently offer MobiTV service in 

the U.S., while Centennial Wireless and Verizon Wireless offer MobiTV service in 

Puerto Rico. Subscribers to Verizon Wireless’ V CAST service also have access to 

content from NBC, CNN, Fox Sports, and ESPN, among other content providers. 

These are just some of the offerings that demonstrate we are in the midst of a 

wireless Renaissance. In addition to video applications, other applications or features now available with wireless devices include a variety of competing music services, and the broad suite of functions included on Smartphones and other advanced 

handheld devices. The iTunes-equipped wireless phone, the satellite-radio equipped 

phone, and the potential for the m-commerce and proximity payments enabled by 

wireless handsets—all figure in the evolving wireless converged marketplace. 

The Wireless Renaissance: Bringing the Internet to You 

Today, wireless carriers are the standard bearers for competition and are in the 

process of rolling out a wide variety of mobile broadband services. From a once local 

and high-priced voice service, wireless has become an unbounded array of affordable 

national and regional service offerings as the competitive landscape has driven ongoing innovation in services and technologies, and lowered prices for consumers. Although CTIA believes the best is yet to come, storm clouds are on the horizon. A 

patchwork quilt of state-by-state regulations threatens to undermine the ability of 

wireless carriers, suppliers, and developers to collectively bring new services to consumers and business users across the country. 

State legislation regulating carrier billing practices threatens to balkanize the 

regulatory environment for wireless services. The wireless industry has developed 

sufficient guidelines that ensure customer billing information is clear and non-misleading while enabling carriers the flexibility to differentiate themselves in the market. State laws would undermine these market-oriented, consumer-focused solutions 

and hinder the industry’s ability to compete in the converging telecommunications 

marketplace. Each instance of state regulation will exponentially complicate the provision of mobile wireless services that are interstate in nature. Even regulation by 

a small handful of states threatens to undermine the nationwide and regional calling plans that now are so commonly purchased by consumers. Consumers in rural 

areas, where the cost of service tends to be higher, are particularly threatened by 

regulation that could put an end to uniform nationwide calling plans. In addition, 

both large national and small regional wireless carriers will be harmed by inconsistent state-by-state regulations. Congress should preempt state laws that would 

conflict with its national framework for carrier practices and regulate only in instances necessary for public health and safety or demonstrated market failure. 

State regulation of CMRS must be preempted in order to facilitate a national regulatory framework. A deregulatory national framework, consistent across 50 State 

36

jurisdictions, is the best way to protect consumers’ rights and promote access to innovative and convenient wireless devices and services. The adoption of even one of 

these bills could immediately impact nationwide service offerings and prices. The 

problems associated with state-by-state regulation would escalate exponentially as 

each new state implements its own laws. Even state laws that appear to be consistent on their face run the very real risk of being implemented or enforced in an 

inconsistent manner. Absent strong Federal action, activity in the states will create 

a patchwork of complex and conflicting regulatory and legal schemes that would 

negatively impact consumers throughout the country. 

Wireless carriers have reduced the number and complexity of pricing plans, reducing or eliminating additional charges for roaming, peak/off-peak, and long distance 

calling. Wireless carriers have also made enormous improvements in how consumers 

are informed about, acquire, and manage their wireless services. Website and instore literature provide details on price, plans and other options. Wireless carriers 

have also developed sophisticated on-line tools to provide more efficient and userfriendly self-care options—from checking minute usage to signing up for new services to paying bills via the Internet and via the mobile phone itself. Wireless companies now list on their bills contact information not only for their own customer service departments, but also for state and Federal regulatory agencies, including TTY 

contact information. 

As the wireless industry strives to become a broadband alternative for millions 

of Americans, the cost of service is critical for widespread acceptance. The significant decline in prices for wireless consumers, that resulted from competition rather 

than regulation, is increasingly threatened by excessive and discriminatory taxation 

at the state and local level. Nearly five years after the National Governors Association (NGA) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) urged states 

to reform and modernize their telecommunications taxes, most states have failed to 

enact meaningful reforms. On average, the typical consumer faces a 16.85 percent 

total of taxes, fees and surcharges on wireless service each and every month: a 5.91 

percent Federal rate and a 10.94 percent state/local rate. One only needs to compare 

the average wireless rate of 16.85 percent to the average tax rate of 6.94 percent 

for other goods and services to see the need for reform. 

State policymakers offer the defense that they need to ensure their citizens, especially those in rural and underserved areas, have access to advanced communication 

services through broadband networks; however, these same states ignore the effect 

sky-rocketing taxes have on consumers (19 states have double-digit transaction tax 

costs). Additionally, some state and local governments tax wireless communications 

at rates that approach those levied by ‘‘sin taxes’’ that were designed to discourage 

usage of a product. This seems an odd approach to facilitate expansion and use of 

wireless broadband across the country and especially in rural areas. The ability for 

the wireless industry to continue its tremendous growth and deliver advanced services to urban and rural consumers depends on reasonable taxation. 

Wireless broadband also can not fully occur without access to a core resource: 

spectrum. I applaud the leadership of this Committee for passing the Commercial 

Spectrum Enhancement Act that establishes a trust fund to relocate government 

users in specific bands. As a result, the auction of Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) 

licenses is scheduled to occur this June. The auction for AWS spectrum is, by any 

measure, critical to U.S. mobile wireless carriers and their customers. This auction 

represents the first significant expansion of allocated spectrum for third generation 

mobile wireless systems, and substantially increases the overall spectrum available 

for commercial mobile radio services. CTIA believes that the new services that can 

be introduced using this spectrum—including expansion of broadband data systems 

consistent with the Administration’s priorities—will be of incalculable benefit to the 

American public and to the continued competitiveness of U.S. businesses and industries. This auction also holds the promise of strengthening intermodal competition 

for mass market broadband offerings. CTIA appreciates and supports the FCC efforts to hold this auction in June. CTIA also believes that in the auction context, 

in the absence of compelling reasons, the Commission should use standard procedures. CTIA believes the FCC should be cautious in implementing new auction procedures for the upcoming Advanced Wireless Services auction. CTIA is concerned 

about proposals that would result in increased complexity and potential market confusion for one of the most critical auctions in over a decade. 

I also commend the leadership of this Committee in establishing a hard date for 

the release of valuable analog spectrum. The inclusion of the February 17, 2009 

deadline in the Deficit Reduction Act will allow for improved public safety communications as well as further expansion of wireless broadband opportunities. 

As stated earlier, the success of the wireless industry stems from the wisdom of 

Congress in 1993 when Section 332 of the Communications Act was amended to creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
37

ate a federal, deregulatory framework for ‘‘commercial mobile radio services,’’ under 

which wireless services were exempted from many of the traditional, economic regulation typically applied in the landline context, as well as from state rate and entry 

regulation. The incredible and unprecedented growth of the mobile wireless industry 

over the last decade would not have been possible without the environment of regulatory constraint created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. We ask 

Congress to reaffirm that wisdom and allow wireless to experience its next Renaissance. Our 13 year track record stands second to none in delivering enormous benefits to your constituents. Please let us take that to the next level.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. 

Jerry Ellig, who’s here to sort of coach us on what convergence is, 

from George Mason University. You have a habit now of having 

good coaches, Dr. Ellig. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY ELLIG, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. ELLIG. Well thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify, I appreciate your time. I should issue the disclaimer that I’m certainly not here speaking on behalf of George 

Mason. My remarks represent only my own views, not the views 

of George Mason University, or of its basketball team. In fact I 

guess I’m the only person here not speaking on behalf of any kind 

of members. I’ve spent about 20 years trying to understand industries that were monopolized and are moving toward competition 

and trying to figure out what we can do in terms of public policy 

to facilitate that process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well I have read part of your statement and I 

do hope you do ask the four questions and answer them, but I don’t 

think you can do it in 5 minutes. But go right ahead. 

Dr. ELLIG. No, don’t worry. I’m programmed to speak 50 minutes 

in a shot, but I’ll stay within five. Just defining convergence, actually Mr. Chairman, I think in your opening statement you hit the 

nail on the head. To me, anyway, convergence means that you have 

a piece of infrastructure that can be used to deliver multiple services which previously could only be provided with separate pieces 

of infrastructure. And the great thing about that is that means we 

can now fulfill some of the promise of the 1996 Telecom Act, because it creates a situation where you can have multiple competitors, all getting into each other’s markets. Whether it’s telephone 

cable, wireless, or whatever platform they’re using because of convergence, both competing firms can offer packages, various packages of products and services. And that suggests to me—since all 

kinds of folks will be coming before you asking you to do all kinds 

of things because of convergence—that suggests to me kind of a 

simple rule of thumb, that won’t always be right, but maybe it will 

be helpful in trying to sort out the priorities. 

And that is that if something enhances competition, then it’s 

probably relevant to the convergence issue. And if you’re being 

asked to do something that doesn’t enhance competition, then it’s 

probably not relevant to the convergence issue even if it’s being 

presented as something that you all need to do because of convergence. And if I look at a lot of the various telecom, cable, and other 

issues that are out there today and kind of apply that rule of 

thumb, there are certain things that stick out, well, like sore 

thumbs; there are some things that stick out as obvious opportuniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
38

ties to enhance competition. And I’d like to share a few of those 

real quickly. One of them is spectrum. It’s true that the wireless 

industry has a great success story to tell about the benefits of competition, but it could be a lot better because of the way the Federal 

Government has chosen to allocate spectrum. 

If you want a third, fourth, fifth, sixth broadband pipe into the 

house, if you want to get broadband pipes into places where it’s 

maybe too expensive to run a lot of wire or cable, you want to have 

Federal policy make spectrum cheap, plentiful, widely available, 

easy to transfer, and flexible use. And that’s what a market based 

spectrum policy essentially does. And I understand the Committee’s held hearings on spectrum, and have talked about some of 

those kind of issues. But we did a little back of the envelope calculation, based on some work that one of my colleagues at George 

Mason, Tom Hazlett, has done suggesting that current U.S. spectrum policy costs consumers at least $77 billion a year. Part of that 

is higher prices for wireless service, prices higher than they would 

otherwise be. Part of it is services consumers forego because there 

isn’t enough bandwidth; there isn’t enough spectrum available out 

there to provide it to them. That’s a big number. That’s more than 

any other Federal telecommunications regulation. 

So, making a larger amount of spectrum available to provide 

services to consumers helps us a lot in terms of both convergence 

and competition. Another area that looks like a big priority—again, 

picking off the low hanging fruit, trying to deal with things that 

are over barriers to entry—is the cable franchising issue. When we 

have well capitalized competitors, whose main difficulty getting 

into a market is getting permission from a local government, 

there’s probably an opportunity there to clear that barrier out of 

the way and enhance competition tremendously. 

We estimated that cable franchising costs consumers around $10 

billion a year. About $7 billion of that is due to market power, because a lack of market entry by competitive wireline cable folks, or 

wireline video folks. The $10 billion also includes the cost of franchise fees and other things. 

The final thing I’d want to hit on is, trying to shift our focus in 

public policy from regulatory solutions to solutions that are pretty 

much based on antitrust and competition policy. If we want the 

communications industry to behave like a competitive industry, we 

ought to start treating them like a competitive industry. That suggests things like merger review and the net neutrality debate 

ought to be conducted under the consumer welfare standard of 

antitrust. Either you tell the FCC to do it that way, or you give 

the jurisdiction to the antitrust agencies, rather than the FCC. It 

can be done either way. But I think that would get us a long way 

toward a policy that makes the effects of policy on consumers the 

highest priority instead of leaving it as an open free for all, where 

people can bring in almost anything they want to try to influence 

policy. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ellig follows:]

39

1This testimony reflects only the views of its author and does not represent an official position 

of George Mason University. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY ELLIG, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for your time and the invitation to testify. I am an economist and research fellow with the Regulatory Studies Program of the Mercatus Center, a 

501(c)(3) research, educational, and outreach organization affiliated with George 

Mason University. 1 I have been with the Mercatus Center for the past ten years, 

with the exception of a two-year leave of absence in 2001–2003 when I served as 

Deputy Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. 

The subject of this hearing is ‘‘Competition and Convergence.’’ It’s useful to define 

‘‘convergence’’ before discussing its effects on competition and public policy. I will 

address four questions in this testimony:

1. What is ‘‘convergence’’? 

2. What caused convergence? 

3. What does convergence mean for competition and consumer welfare? 

4. What does this imply for public policy?

1. What Is ‘‘Convergence’’ ? 

‘‘Convergence’’ has become a buzzword in the communications industry that 

means a lot of different things to different people. To me, convergence means use 

of the same infrastructure to deliver multiple services to consumers. A big part of 

the infrastructure is, of course, the physical communications network: coaxial cable, 

copper wire, fiber optics, satellites, cell towers, switches, and various other physical 

facilities. But the infrastructure also includes other assets necessary to provide service to consumers: call centers, the servers that hold account information, etc. 

Convergence is more than bundling. Bundling occurs when the same firm sells 

multiple services as a package. The services might be provided using the same infrastructure, or they might be provided separately but sold together. A good example 

of the difference is the marketing partnerships that some of the phone companies 

have with satellite TV firms. Phone service, DSL, and video are sold as a package, 

but the phone service and DSL are provided over the phone company’s wires, whereas the video comes via satellite. 

Convergence represents a change from past practice, in which the communications 

industry was carved up into pieces that usually provided a single service or closely 

related set of services, such as landline telephone or cable television. 

2. What Caused Convergence? 

Several factors have combined to promote convergence in electronic communications. Moving an electronic communication over long distance no longer involves the 

huge additional cost that it once involved. Cheap fiber and computer chips have replaced expensive copper cable and mechanical switches. As a result, the additional 

cost associated with a long-distance phone call can be measured in tenths of a cent, 

if that much. The ultimate cost-reducing technological advancement, of course, occurred when digital transmission replaced analog transmission. Digital transmission 

using Internet Protocol allows information to be sent around the globe as cheaply 

as it can be sent across the street. As a result, we now have Voice over Internet 

Protocol offering long-distance service within the United States at no additional 

charge. One can even make free long-distance calls internationally, as long as they 

are computer-to-computer calls that do not require termination on the destination 

company’s telephone system. This ‘‘death of distance’’ phenomenon is responsible for 

the convergence—or perhaps ‘‘re-convergence’’—of local and long-distance calling. 

Digital transmission has also fostered other forms of convergence. When a phone 

network moves and stores calls digitally, the phone company can now offer a wide 

array of services that previously required costly, specialized equipment on the customer’s premises—such as voice mail, three-way calling, caller ID, and other features that many consumers now take for granted. 

The convergence phenomenon extends well beyond telephone. When a phone call, 

television program, spreadsheet, or set of video game keystrokes is converted into 

bits, it can be transported on a network capable of transporting bits. Conversely, 

a network capable of transporting bits can support many different services that previously required different types of networks. So cable companies can offer digital 

cable and cable modem Internet access. They can also offer telephone service using 

VoIP rather than cable telephony. Broadband Service Providers offer high-speed 

Internet service and video over the same plant, and consumers can also use that 

40

2 Robert W. Crandall and Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Cable TV: Regulation or Competition?

(Brookings, 1996). 

Internet connection for VoIP. Wired telephone companies can offer voice, data, and 

now even video service using DSL or fiber optic cable. The major wireless companies 

mostly offer voice and Internet service now—but what might they do with video if 

more spectrum were available? 

3. What Does Convergence Mean for Competition and Consumer Welfare? 

Convergence has the potential to increase competition and consumer welfare. 

After all, convergence means that multiple firms which previously offered different 

services can now offer multiple services in competition with each other. Convergence 

means that we are finally achieving the broad vision of the Telecommunications Act 

of 1996: firms that own competing networks are invading each others’ markets. 

The converging firms are often well-established and well-capitalized. Examples include cable, wireline telephone, wireless, and satellite. They thus have the potential 

to be robust and credible competitors, with fewer of the problems that plague small 

startups. They wouldn’t spend so much time asking you to do something about the 

other guy’s ‘‘unfair’’ advantage if they weren’t afraid of each other! 

For consumers, convergence could mean better value for the money. In some cases 

that may mean lower prices for the same services consumers purchased prior to convergence. We saw this phenomenon in long-distance phone service, for example. In 

other cases, better value means consumers might pay more, but the amount or quality that they get improves by more than enough to make the higher price worthwhile. Realistically, I suspect we’re often likely to see both: lower prices for many 

services, plus improved quality. 

The same underlying trends that drive convergence can also facilitate the introduction of new products and services that consumers previously did not even know 

they wanted. One example might be interactive video games. Another might be dating, where I’m told that text messaging and Internet chat are partly substituting 

for actual dates. 

Industry observers today speak of the ‘‘triple play’’ of voice, video, and data—essentially relegating anything that’s not voice or video to the ‘‘data’’ category. But 

perhaps in the future we’ll hear of a rush to offer the ‘‘quadruple play’’ of voice, 

data, video, and interactive entertainment, where the design of networks includes 

special elements that enhance the interactive gaming experience. Or a ‘‘quintuple 

play’’ that adds personal relationship management. Competing on this last attribute 

might require all networks to find a way of adding a high-bandwidth mobility feature. In short, it is difficult to predict how ongoing technological change could affect 

the variety of services available to consumers, and the ways they are delivered. 

You’ll notice that I said convergence ‘‘has the potential’’ to increase competition 

and consumer welfare. 

Realistically, the efficiencies associated with convergence are so large that consumers would likely receive some benefit even if electronic communications were 

monopolized. The history of cable television regulation provides a case in point. 

Cable rates rose significantly when they were deregulated in 1984, but quality (primarily the number of channels) improved significantly as well. After taking the 

value to consumers of quality into account, consumers were better off with unregulated cable rates after deregulation than they were with regulated rates prior to deregulation. 2

Two decades of economic research, however, also demonstrates that cable consumers would have been still better off with competition. Competition will be most 

vigorous, and consumer welfare will be greatest, when consumers are served by 

multiple competitors who have the capability to offer multiple services. 

4. What Does This Imply for Public Policy? 

Two general principles should guide public policy. First, focus on the most important task at hand by removing barriers to market entry. Second, ensure that government intervention in communications meets a consumer welfare test. 

Barriers to Entry 

A variety of factors either prevents firms from ‘‘converging’’ or prevent ‘‘converged’’ firms from serving consumers as expeditiously as possible. 

A firm that wants to sell consumers a conduit capable of handling multiple services must have sufficient bandwidth to do so. Now that the legal uncertainty regarding the regulatory status of cable modem and DSL has been settled, the cable and 

41

3Last year’s Brand X decision settled the issue that the FCC can ultimately determine the 

regulatory status of various services, and the FCC decided that cable modem service is an information service rather than telecommunications. A subsequent FCC decision determined the DSL 

is also an information service. For a discussion of the implications of Brand X, see Jerry Ellig 

and Alastair Walling, ‘‘Regulatory Status of VoIP in the Post-Brand X World,’’ Mercatus Center 

Working Paper (Feb. 17, 2006), available at http://www.mercatus.org/regulatorystudies/article.php/1542.html. The FCC’s DSL decision is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/

edocslpublic/attachmatch/FCC–05–150A1.pdf. 4The results have recently been published in Jerry Ellig, ‘‘Costs and Consequences of Federal 

Telecommunications Regulation,’’ Federal Communications Law Journal 58:1 (2006): 37–102, 

available at http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v58no1.html. 5 Jerry Ellig, ‘‘The Economic Costs of Spectrum Misallocation: Evidence from the United 

States,’’ presented to the conference on Spectrum Policy in Guatemala and Latin America, 

Universidad Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala City, Guatemala, June 9–10, 2005, available at 

http://cadep.ufm.edu.gt/telecom/lecturas/JerryEllig.pdf. 6The results are documented succinctly in Robert W. Crandall and Jerry A. Hausman, ‘‘Competition in U.S. Telecommunications: Effects of the 1996 Legislation,’’ in Sam Peltzman and 

Clifford Winston (eds.), Deregulation of Network Industries: What’s Next? (AEI-Brookings Joint 

Center for Regulatory Studies, 2000): 102–07. 7 ‘‘FCC to Commence Spectrum Auction that will Provide American Consumers New Wireless 

Broadband Services,’’ FCC press release (Dec. 29, 2004), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/

edocslpublic/attachmatch/DOC–255802A1.pdf. The auction cannot occur until June 2006 because the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 requires the FCC to notify the National Telecommunications and Information Administration at least 18 months prior to the auction of any frequencies mentioned in the legislation, so that any public sector users can be relocated to other spectrum. 

wireline phone companies are in pretty good shape in this regard. 3 These firms 

have essentially built their own bandwidth in their cables and wires. 

Wireless 

Other potential competitors aren’t so fortunate. The digital wireless networks 

could play a bigger role as the third, fourth, fifth, and/or sixth broadband pipe into 

the home—but that likely requires more spectrum. 

As part of the Mercatus Center’s ongoing program to assess the costs and outcomes associated with regulation, I recently examined the costs of major Federal 

telecommunications regulations. 4 Out of all Federal telecommunications regulations, spectrum policy has by far the biggest effect on consumer welfare. The costs 

of the current spectrum policy are large in an absolute sense—in the neighborhood 

of $77 billion or more annually. Spectrum allocation is by far the costliest aspect 

of U.S. Federal telecommunications regulation, and it represents a very large share 

of the total. Even if the actual costs of U.S. spectrum allocation policy were only 

one-tenth the size that scholars estimate, they would still account for more than 20 

percent of the total consumer cost of telecommunications regulation. 5

During the past two decades, U.S. spectrum policy has gradually become more 

market-oriented. In 1993, Congress directed the FCC to auction an additional 120 

MHz of spectrum for wireless communications. Consumers have reaped significant 

benefits as a result. 6 Nevertheless, current policy still generates large inefficiencies 

by preventing reallocation of additional spectrum to its most highly-valued uses—

most likely wireless voice and data communications. 

The costs of current spectrum allocation policy can be expected to fall sometime 

after 2006, if the FCC carries through on its plan to auction an additional 90 MHz 

of spectrum. 7 However, the multi-billion dollar cost estimate should only be taken 

as a rough approximation of the negative effects of spectrum allocation policy on 

consumer welfare. 

The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 and last year’s digital TV 

legislation were positive steps that will eventually make more spectrum available 

for wireless communications. But doling out a few more slices of spectrum for a specific use is not the same thing as a comprehensive, market-based policy. A truly 

market-based approach would allow market transactions to allocate spectrum rather 

than licenses. Potential users could buy or lease spectrum, then choose how to use 

it. The amount of spectrum allocated to wireless telephone, broadcasting, 

broadband, and other services would be determined by market transactions and decisions of users, rather than regulatory proceedings. As Ronald Coase noted in 1959;

Certainly, it is not clear why we should have to rely on the Federal Communications Commission rather than the ordinary pricing mechanism to determine 

whether a particular frequency should be used by the police, or for a radiotelephone, or for a taxi service, or for an oil company for geophysical exploration, or by a motion-picture company to keep in touch with its film stars or 

for a broadcasting station. Indeed, the multiplicity of these varied uses would 

42

8 Ronald Coase, ‘‘The Federal Communications Commission,’’ Journal of Law & Economics 2 

(1959): 16. 9Our testimony is available at http://www.mercatus.org/regulatorystudies/article.php/

1540.html. 10Thomas W. Hazlett, ‘‘The Wireless Craze, the Unlimited Bandwidth Myth, the Spectrum 

Auction Faux Pas, and the Punchline to Ronald Coase’s ‘Big Joke,’: An Essay on Airwave Allocation Policy,’’ AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Studies Working Paper No. 01–01 (Jan. 

2001): 43; Coase (1959): 8. 11Michael Crew and Charles Rowley, ‘‘Toward a Public Choice Theory of Monopoly Regulation,’’ Public Choice 57 (1988): 49–67; Richard A. Posner, ‘‘Taxation by Regulation,’’ Bell J. of 

Econ. & Mgt. Science 2 (1971). 

suggest that the advantages to be derived from relying on the pricing mechanism would be especially great in this case. 8

I cannot claim expertise on the recent wireless company mergers, but I can’t help 

asking whether those mergers occurred in part because buying a competitor was the 

most feasible way to acquire a big chunk of bandwidth. 

Satellite 

Another, lesser-discussed broadband conduit is satellite. Currently, high-speed 

Internet via satellite is often more expensive than DSL or cable modem, which 

makes it a good option primarily in rural areas that lack these competitors. Could 

more satellite slots and associated spectrum be made available to increase bandwidth from this source? Could more satellite slots and associated spectrum be made 

available through competitive bidding, so that existing competitors or new entrants 

could acquire more? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are well 

worth asking. 

Cable Franchising 

A final set of entry barrier issues involves cable franchising, which tends to prevent additional providers of video service from entering local markets. This Committee has already held a hearing on the issue. A colleague and I submitted written 

testimony for the record, so I will not rehash our analysis in great detail here. Suffice it to say that we estimated that cable franchising costs consumers approximately $10 billion annually in higher prices and the value of services forgone due 

to the price increases. The costs attributable to anticompetitive exclusion amount 

to more than $6 billion annually. 9 Various new video entrants, including Broadband 

Service Providers and telephone companies, have identified local video franchising 

as a significant barrier to entry. Clearly, the potential gains to consumers from removing the franchising barrier to entry are large. 

Consumer Welfare Test 

Historically, many policy decisions about communications have been made according to a ‘‘public interest’’ standard. Unfortunately, a public interest standard is virtually no standard at all. A number of FCC chairmen, general counsels, and legal 

experts have noted that the ‘‘public interest’’ standard means precisely what its author, Sen. C.C. Dill, said it meant: ‘‘It covers just about everything.’’ 10

‘‘Whatever’’ is not a satisfactory principle to guide merger decisions or other communications regulation. The public interest standard is a relic of the old, regulated 

monopoly mindset. Under regulated monopoly, government tells the firm, ‘‘We are 

giving you a special privilege, and in return we expect you to use some of the monopoly profits to do things that consumers would not normally be willing to pay for.’’ 

Any regulatory decision then becomes an opportunity to extract ‘‘concessions’’ that 

may or may not benefit consumers. Historically, this has occurred at all levels of 

government—at the Federal level at the FCC, at state public utility commissions, 

and on the local level (as with cable franchising). 

This ‘‘taxation by regulation’’ violates fundamental principles of transparency in 

government. Indeed, regulatory scholars have shown persuasively that opaque public interest requirements effectively allow public decisionmakers to confer benefits 

on specific interest groups while spreading the costs among consumers, who may not 

even be aware of the costs. 11

Policy and regulatory decisions should be guided by a more concrete principle, and 

departures from the principle should be transparent and explicitly justified. A more 

specific, meaningful, and consumer-oriented principle is the ‘‘consumer welfare’’ 

standard that guides antitrust enforcement. Antitrust analysis requires public decisionmakers to define the relevant market, determine whether market power exists 

in the relevant market, assess whether the challenged business practice harms consumers, and identify any offsetting consumer benefits. Two examples—merger enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
43

12Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, In re Applications of 

Ameritech Corp. and SBC Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket 

98–141 (Oct. 10). 13Martin Statement (March 6, 2006), at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocslpublic/attachmatch/

DOC–264179A1.pdf.

forcement and net neutrality—illustrate how the consumer welfare standard might 

imply a different approach to key government decisions that affect communications. 

Merger Enforcement 

It is well-known that FCC merger proceedings have, in the past, been used as a 

vehicle to induce ‘‘concessions’’ from merging parties that may or may not promote 

overall consumer welfare. One former FCC commissioner characterized the process 

as ‘‘naked regulatory extraction.’’ 12

In a statement on the proposed AT&T/Bellsouth merger, FCC Chairman Kevin 

Martin declared, ‘‘The FCC’s primary responsibility is to determine whether the proposed transaction is in the best interest of consumers.’’ 13 This is a laudable sentiment, but it is unfortunate that the definition of the goal depends on the views of 

the FCC commissioners, rather than a much more permanent commitment enshrined in legal precedent—as occurs under antitrust law. 

Another disadvantage of current merger review practice is that the FCC is not 

bound by the same predictable timetables that accompany the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

merger review process. As Congress recognized when it created the HSR process, 

the potential for delay can discourage mergers that promote consumer welfare. 

While the FCC has improved the timeliness of merger review in recent years, it remains true that timeliness, like the consumer welfare goal, depends on the priorities 

and goodwill of the commissioners. 

If we expect the communications industry to behave like a competitive industry, 

then the principles and processes guiding merger review should likewise be the 

same as those that apply in other competitive industries. This could be accomplished in one of two ways. One option would be for Congress to direct the FCC to 

review mergers under antitrust rules: employ consumer welfare as the sole standard, assess mergers under antitrust law subject to antitrust precedent, and observe 

the same deadlines as the antitrust agencies. The other option would be to simply 

take merger review away from the FCC and give it solely to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and/or Federal Trade Commission. 

Some communications firms are common carriers. The FTC currently lacks jurisdiction over them. By default, the Antitrust Division would end up reviewing mergers involving common carriers. If Congress believes this result is unsatisfactory, it 

should give the FTC jurisdiction over common carriers. 

Some might argue that antitrust rules would make merger review in the communications industry less thorough, raising the likelihood that mergers harming consumers might slip through. There is no reason that this would necessarily occur. 

Longtime members of this Committee can no doubt recall past instances in which 

regulators at the Interstate Commerce Commission, Surface Transportation Board, 

or Department of Transportation approved railroad and airline mergers over the objections of the Antitrust Division—either because the regulators differed with the 

Antitrust Division’s analysis of competition, or because they believed other factors 

were more important. 

Net Neutrality 

‘‘Net neutrality’’ seems to mean different things to different people. I cannot claim 

to know all the various meanings that different parties attach to that term. But the 

consumer welfare issues in the net neutrality debate are not at all new. Rather, this 

debate is a replay of general antitrust discussions about restrictive business practices. 

If the policy goal is overall consumer welfare (as opposed to benefits for some particular segment of the communications industry, or satisfying some type of ideological objective), then competition could normally be expected to protect consumers. 

In a competitive market, owners of the ‘‘conduit’’ might engage in business practices 

that violate some parties’ concept of net neutrality—but only if the practice offers 

consumers a corresponding benefit. Conduit providers who violate net neutrality 

without offering consumers some other benefit in return will have a harder time 

gaining and keeping customers. Net neutrality should not be a problem requiring 

a public policy solution if there is sufficient competition among providers of 

broadband Internet service. If broadband providers have market power, then a more 

specific and fact-intensive analysis is required to determine whether the benefits to 

consumers justify any harms. 

44

Viewed in this light, the net neutrality ‘‘problem’’ is little different from any other 

antitrust analysis of restrictive business practices under the rule of reason. First, 

define the relevant market. Second, determine whether there is significant market 

power. If there is market power, determine whether the business practice harms 

consumers. If the business practice harms consumers, determine whether there are 

any offsetting benefits. 

Antitrust enforcement agencies have extensive expertise in this type of analysis. 

For example, the net neutrality issue is quite similar to the Internet Service Provider issues that the Federal Trade Commission dealt with in the AOL-Time Warner merger. I see no reason the antitrust agencies are not competent to analyze net 

neutrality as a restrictive business practice. And thus I see no reason that net neutrality deserves special regulatory attention. 

Of course, this approach will not satisfy the purists on either side of the issue. 

There are pro-regulation interests who view any violation of their concept of net 

neutrality as abhorrent—even if it produces an offsetting benefit for consumers. 

There are free-market advocates who similarly view the antitrust approach as abhorrent, because it may sometimes justify government intervention. 

Nevertheless, I see two key benefits to the antitrust approach. First, it avoids reinventing the wheel in terms of analysis. Second, and most important, it is probably 

the most effective way to promote consumer welfare. Treating net neutrality as an 

antitrust issue rather than a regulatory issue would help ensure that overall consumer welfare remains the paramount consideration, since consumer welfare is the 

touchstone of antitrust analysis. 

Conclusion 

Convergence promises consumers enormous benefits. Robust competition is the 

key to ensuring that consumers receive the largest possible benefits. Congress can 

take three steps to help ensure this result:

1. Allow markets to allocate much larger swaths of spectrum, so that multiple 

wireless conduits have the bandwidth to offer consumers a full range of services.

2. Remove local cable franchising as a barrier to entry.

3. Ensure that competition policy decisions, such as merger review and net neutrality, employ consumer welfare as the sole standard, are consistent with antitrust precedent, and follow the same deadlines that antitrust agencies must follow.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Our last witness is Dr. 

Mark Cooper, who’s the Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America, we welcome you, Dr. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK COOPER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA; ON BEHALF OF THE 

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, FREE PRESS, AND 

THE CONSUMERS UNION 

Dr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as the last witness, on 

the last panel, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to bat cleanup. 

I have a rather different view of what has gone on and what needs 

to be done. 

But let me make it clear, I don’t think we need to give up our 

pro-competitive vision of the future. What we must do is build it 

on a realistic assessment of what competition can work, what policies are necessary to promote competition, where it can, and above 

all we have to stick to some very traditional values that are important in telecommunications and in communications, beyond pure 

competition theory. 

So while convergence was certainly contemplated in the Act, 

competition was the crown jewel. And I suggest that to anyone who 

thinks the 1996 Act contemplated the emerging situation in which 

the average consumer has essentially two choices for full scale 

broadband 21st Century communications. One of them being the 

45

incumbent local exchange company which is reconstituting the Bell 

local monopoly with a 95 percent share of voice, 75 percent share 

of long distance, 75 percent share of local transmission and middle 

mile facilities, 50 plus percent in region share of wireless, that’s 

the one company. The other company is the incumbent cable company, which still has a 75 percent share of video, has (doubled) my 

rates in the last 10 years. If you contemplated and suggested that 

that was going to be the competitive outcome of the 1996 Act, I 

think you didn’t read the record. The record promised me an awful 

lot more competition than that. That’s not the way it was supposed 

to work. 

Given that background, the idea that the telephone and cable 

companies are giving you, that their duopoly is sufficient competition to allow you to eliminate fundamental principles like that of 

nondiscrimination and access to telecommunications, and to abandon the vigorous and historic commitment to Universal Service, to 

slash the role of local governments in meeting the needs of citizens—those claims that two is enough competition are simply outrageous, unsupported by economic theory, empirical evidence, or 

practical experience. Two is not enough, three is not enough, in economics there is an expression, four is few, and six is many. And 

the prospect that we’ll get beyond two or three, is very very bleak, 

particularly because we have allowed the incumbent wireline companies through merger, or joint venture to capture the bulk of the 

wireless companies. The three leading wireless companies are now 

either owned by or in a joint venture with the dominant wireline 

companies. We’ve allowed the competition to slip away. 

The fundamental point here is that in reality, communications is 

still substantially a local service; you cannot initiate or terminate 

a communication, voice or data in Anchorage, Alaska, without a 

local transmission medium, a local switch or a router, and local 

transpoint, in Anchorage, Alaska. You cannot initiate or terminate 

a communication in Honolulu without those local facilities, so at 

the core there’s a local component to this industry that has not 

changed. Technology has not changed there. That local network is 

absolutely critical. And what we’re contemplating here is allowing 

the very small numbers of local competition, the very small numbers in those facilities to destroy the vigorous competition we have 

on the Internet, or undermine the competition we might like to see 

in other and related markets. 

Now it was earlier suggested that the critical factor here is when 

the FCC abandoned its traditional values. And I think in communications some traditional values are very important. When it 

failed to stick to nondiscrimination in broadband. When it failed to 

open the local markets. When it allowed mergers to create regional 

giants, fortress hubs of both cable and telephone companies. It really did undermine our hopes for competition. 

Ironically, earlier this month the number two telephone company 

petitioned the FCC, filed a complaint about denial of access, about 

discrimination in access to program, and this very month the number two cable company filed a complaint with the FCC complaining 

about discrimination in interconnection. Yet these companies will 

tell you that they don’t want to be obligated to provide nonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
46

1The Consumer Federation of America is the Nation’s largest consumer advocacy group, composed of over 280 state and local affiliates representing consumer, senior, citizen, low-income, 

labor, farm, public power and cooperative organizations, with more than 50 million individual 

members. 2Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization with over 225,000 members working to 

increase informed public participation in crucial media and communications policy debates. 3 Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1936 under the laws 

of the State of New York to provide consumers with information, education and counsel about 

good, services, health and personal finance, and to initiate and cooperate with individual and 

group efforts to maintain and enhance the quality of life for consumers. Consumers Union’s income is solely derived from the sale of Consumer Reports, its other publications and from noncommercial contributions, grants and fees. In addition to reports on Consumers Union’s own 

product testing, Consumer Reports with more than 5 million paid circulation, regularly, carries 

articles on health, product safety, marketplace economics and legislative, judicial and regulatory 

actions which affect consumer welfare. Consumers Union’s publications carry no advertising and 

receive no commercial support. 

discrimination for Internet services applications or content. We 

simply cannot allow ourselves to abandon that principle. 

The computer inquiries in 1968 were in fact the modern equivalent of nondiscrimination. They required the network to be neutral, 

thereby opening the door to support the growth of the Internet. 

Second of all the clear commitment to vigorous expansive Universal 

Service, the availability to all Americans of an evolving level of 

communications is a commitment that was in the 1934 Act, repeated in the 1996 Act and must not be abandoned. 

And finally Congress can certainly promote the goals of competition and Universal Service simultaneously by making available 

more spectrum. I agree with Jerry, you ought to liberate the spectrum; I would liberate it for unlicensed uses, the WiFi networks 

that have been so successful over the past decade. But we ought 

to liberate more spectrum, and we ought to reserve the right of cities to provide the streets and roads, the onramps, for the information edge. To provide that local link to the global networks that are 

in fact much more competitive than the local market. Thus there’s 

clearly room for a pro-competitive policy based upon the principles 

of nondiscrimination and interconnection and carriage and commitments to Universal Service. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cooper follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARK COOPER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CONSUMER

FEDERATION OF AMERICA; ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, FREE PRESS, AND THE CONSUMERS UNION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee 

The Consumer Federation of America, 1 Free Press, 2 and Consumers Union 3 appreciate the opportunity to testify on the issue of competition and convergence in 

the telecommunications market. My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America. 

This year, the Committee has now heard from dozens of witnesses in a score of 

hearings about the current state of telecommunications policy and the need for reform. It is not a pretty picture for consumers. Previous hearings have dealt with 

specific details of the failure of the competition policy under the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act). The 1996 Act promised an explosion of competition voice, 

video, and data communications, and yet today we are witnessing the reconstitution 

of Ma Bell and the crystallization of a cozy duopoly of cable and telco. The Committee has been told of skyrocketing cable rates and the plummeting position of the 

United States in the global race to the broadband future. It has been presented with 

examples of anticompetitive and anti-consumer behaviors of the giant communications companies that now dominate the market. Despite the perverse anticompetitive results of the ‘‘pro-competition’’ policies in 1996 Act, these companies come before you to demand that you legalize discrimination in the provision of access to the 

communications network of the future, an approach that Congress has rejected for 

a century. 

47

If future prospects are determined by our success in the broadband market (which 

few analysts deny), our current position is untenable. We are now 16th in the world 

in broadband penetration. Virtually none of our broadband lines can sustain even 

1 megabit per second of speed in both directions—up and down the network. We 

pay $15–$20 a megabit for download speed—20 times more than the global leaders. 

We have a pervasive rural/urban digital divide that is increasing as time passes. 

Our Universal Service policies have not been updated and reformed to efficiently address our broadband woes. Insufficient spectrum has been opened to facilitate a legitimate, independent wireless broadband competitor. All we are left with is the 

false promise of competition from 1996 and the farcical declarations from cable and 

telephone giants that a duopoly market is vigorously competitive. 

The parade of horribles with which you have been presented goes on and on and 

I will not regurgitate them in detail today. I have attached a half dozen Appendices 

to this testimony which contain detailed analyses prepared by our organizations of 

the failure of competition under the 1996 Act. I believe that we have been brought 

to this sorry condition because:

(1) the 1996 Act tried to do the impossible in some markets, aiming to build 

competition where conditions could not sustain sufficient competition to protect 

the public from abuse (e.g., local, last mile access);

(2) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the antitrust authorities mishandled the introduction of competition in markets where it was sustainable, allowing the incumbents to drag their feet, engage in all manner of 

anti-competitive behaviors, and mergers (e.g., network opening, program access 

and mergers); and

(3) the FCC misread the 1996 Act in other markets, undermining and threatening competition that actually existed (e.g., Internet access and services).

In amending the Communications Act (the Act) we do not have to abandon a procompetitive vision for the future, but we must fully understand the failures of the 

anticompetitive past. A competition-friendly, consumer-friendly future requires that 

we return to certain key traditional values and fundamental principles that made 

the American communications network the envy of the world throughout most of the 

last century. 

Social, Technological and Economic Principles for Communications Policy 

In order to evaluate competition and convergence in the communications sector 

in the context of a legislative hearing on amendments to the Communications Act 

of 1934, there are four basic principles that must be kept in mind. 

First, the Act has a specific purpose laid out clearly in the first sentence of Title 

I, Section I: ‘‘to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States, 

without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex, 

a rapid, efficient, nationwide and world-wide wire and radio communications service 

with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.’’ This commitment is more important 

than ever because access to communications is increasingly vital in the digital information age. 

Second, today’s analysis must be forward-looking, in the spirit of the Act, focusing 

on the broadband communications network that will be the dominant means of communications in the 21st century. Looking to the future does not mean we should 

ignore the problems or the progress of the past. On the contrary, the right combination of correcting past mistakes and evolving successful policies for the digital era 

is the only means of satisfying the public interest. Certainly, the track record of 

competition and the past behavior of market participants are relevant, especially if 

the same actors play similar roles. These market patterns can give a good indication 

of what is likely to happen under the various policy regimes under consideration. 

However, policies that attempt to segregate the ‘‘legacy’’ network from the future 

network and ‘‘ghettoize’’ Universal Service are unacceptable. The commitment to 

Universal Service needs to include a commitment to an evolving level of service to 

ensure all Americans participate in the future, as the Telecommunication Act of 

1996 (the 1996 Act) explicitly recognized in Section 254. 

Third, at its heart, communications is local. Communications starts and ends with 

a local transmission medium and a local network. In order to make a call from Los 

Angeles to anywhere in the world, you need a wire or spectrum in Los Angeles. In 

order to terminate a call in New York from anywhere in the world you need a wire 

or spectrum in New York. The network in between may be national or global, but 

the last mile is local. Global networks are useless without last mile facilities—the 

local switches/routers and transport facilities that connect the consumer to the 

world. The Act recognizes this as well, in the first two sections of Title II, which 

establish the obligation to provide interconnection and carriage of communications 

48

on nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions. Technology has not changed this 

basic fact. 

Fourth, competition is an operational means to serve public interest ends; it is not 

the end in itself. Further, the state of competition is an empirical question, not a 

theoretical statement of belief or desire. There is an expression in economics used 

to describe competition in markets—‘‘four is few, six is many.’’ When there are fewer 

than the equivalent of roughly six, equal competitors, a market is considered highly 

concentrated because economic theory, empirical evidence and a century of practical 

experience shows that markets that are this concentrated do not perform well. In 

highly concentrated markets, prices are set above costs and innovation declines. 

With so few competitors, it is easy to avoid vigorous, head-to-head competition, especially when each uses a different technology, specializes in a different service, or 

concentrates on a different geographic area or user sector. Where competition is 

lacking, there is little chance that markets will accomplish the goals of the Act. 

Even where there is vigorous competition, there are circumstances in which the 

market will not accomplish the broader goals of the Act. It is the responsibility of 

legislators to conduct a fair assessment of competition thresholds in order to maximize the effectiveness of public interest communications policy. We must not place 

our trust in the rhetoric of special interests without facts on the ground. 

The Current State of Competition and Convergence 

In the emerging, converging world of 21st century communications, prospects for 

vigorous competition in the local segment of the industry are not good. At present, 

there are only two local, last mile communications networks that can provide a fully 

functional broadband network to the residential consumer—the incumbent local 

telephone companies and the incumbent cable operators. Two is not a sufficient 

number to ensure vigorous competition, and both sets of incumbents have a miserable record of anticompetitive, anti-consumer behavior. 

The best hopes for a third, last mile alternative were undercut when regulators 

allowed the most likely candidate—wireless—to be captured by dominant wireline 

firms through ownership or joint ventures. It stretches credible expectation to assume that a wireless provider owned by an ILEC, or in partnership with a cable 

giant, will market a wireless broadband product that directly competes with its 

wired product. They will offer premium, supplementary services to be sure—but it 

will not be a true third broadband competitor. Hope and hype surrounding other 

technologies cannot discipline anticompetitive and anti-consumer behavior. Mergers 

such as that proposed by AT&T and BellSouth will only make matters worse. No 

company with sufficient market power to set monopoly rents will fail to do so absent 

proper public policy protections. 

On the current trajectory, consumers are falling into the grip of a ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ 

of cable and telephone giants, which will abuse its market power, abandon it social 

responsibility and retard the development of our 21st century information economy. 

We can debate whether a regulated monopoly is better or worse than an unregulated duopoly, but we believe the evidence shows beyond any doubt that the feeble 

duopoly we have will not accomplish the broad Communications Act goal of a ubiquitous, nondiscriminatory networks available to all Americans at reasonable rates. 

The danger of relying on a ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ is already apparent. The harm has already been done, and its impact is severe. America has been falling behind in the 

global race to the broadband future, not because there is inadequate incentive to 

invest, not because we are less densely populated than other nations, but because 

there is inadequate competition to push the ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ to deploy attractively 

priced services and unleash the Internet economy to develop consumer-friendly services. The current jostling for upscale consumers with big bundles of services leaves 

the majority or Americans behind. On a per megabit basis Americans pay five to 

twenty times as much for high-speed services as consumers in many other nations. 

Is there any doubt that the primary cause of the broadband digital divide is price? 

Now, after leaving the American consumer in a serious predicament, the network 

giants are insisting on the right to discriminate against content, applications, and 

services on the Internet, as blackmail for building broadband networks. (See Appendix A) 

The failure of penetration resulting from high prices and the threat of discrimination in network access drives innovation out of the American Internet space and 

overseas. We should take note that the world’s most advanced broadband nations 

have instituted policies that are based on last-mile competition, strategic direct investment in infrastructure, and free market principles of nondiscrimination on the 

network to drive innovation. Not only has the FCC failed to institute pro-competitive policies, the Commission has done precisely the opposite, masking it in rhetorically glowing but substanceless reports on the state of the broadband market. 

49

The Past as Prologue: Successes and Failures on the Road to Convergence 

Telecommunications 

The idea behind the break up of AT&T in 1984 was to separate those parts of 

the industry that could be competitive from those parts of the industry that could 

not and use public policy to advance competition in the competitive sector. It worked 

in the long distance industry for most consumers. Requiring the local companies to 

provide ‘‘equal access’’ to their networks and shifting fixed cost recovery onto consumers, Federal regulators created an environment in which long distance companies eventually commoditized long distance—as long as consumers took large bundles—and competed the price down. 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to introduce more competition into 

last mile markets in telecommunications and cable. In telecommunications, it 

sought to promote competition by identifying the various elements of the local exchange network and making them available to competitors on terms that would 

allow competition. The idea was that new entrants would invest in competing facilities where they could, while the monopoly elements were rented from the incumbents. Billions of dollars were invested, but this experiment failed. In the decade 

since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) and the antirust authorities failed to enforce the communications 

and competition laws of this Nation to promote a consumer-friendly competitive environment. The FCC allowed the incumbent local telephone and cable companies to 

avoid their obligations under the law to promote entry into the communications 

field, while the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) allowed them to buy up their actual and potential competitors. (See Appendix 

B) 

The Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) were strangled by the failure 

of the FCC to force the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to open their local 

markets. And when the possibility of voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) arose, the 

ILECs slammed the door by tying high speed Internet to VoIP service. In essence, 

forcing consumers to pay twice, if they wanted an unaffiliated VoIP provider. The 

two largest CLECs were recently absorbed by the two largest ILECs. The same two 

dominant local companies also absorbed the two players in the largest long distance 

service and enterprise market, reconstituting the old Bell system as two huge regional entities that dominate their home territories with about a 90 percent share 

of local service, an 80 percent share of long distance, and over a 50 percent share 

of wireless service. (See Appendix C) 

Cable 

The 1984 Cable Act ended local regulation under the promise of competition. 

Overbuilders were supposed to enter to compete head-to-head, and satellite providers were supposed to provide intermodal competition. It never happened. The last 

mile market for cable proved too difficult to crack. Cable rates skyrocketed and the 

industry was subject to conditions of nondiscrimination in access to programming 

in 1992. Rates stabilized because of regulation, not competition. 

As in telecommunications, the 1996 Act sought to stimulate head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD), but failed. Overbuilders could not crack the market—taking a scant 2 or 3 percent of subscribers. 

Satellite grew, but could not discipline cable’s market power nor effectively discipline prices. The local telephone companies were invited into the cable business 

in a variety of ways, but chose not to enter. 

Cable operators still account for about 85 percent of all MVPD subscribers. Regional concentration has reinforced market power at the point of sale. Monthly cable 

rates have doubled since the 1996 Act and consumers are offered massive, monthly 

packages which afford them little choice in what to buy (see Appendix D). Geographic consolidation has created a huge obstacle to entry into the programming 

sector. Cable operators control the programming that reaches the public and discriminate against unaffiliated programmers. The results of these market trends 

have left consumers and independent programmers at the mercy of the cable giants. 

(See Appendix E) 

Internet 

When cable rolled out a telecommunications service—cable modem service—the 

FCC moved the goal posts, redefining cable modem service into a different regulatory category. It abandoned one of the vital underpinnings of the success of the 

Internet, the ‘‘Computer Inquiries.’’ This was the digital age expression of the principle of nondiscrimination that the FCC applied to computer and data services starting in 1968. As telecommunications in this country have evolved, the FCC established the policy of keeping the network neutral—allowing the intelligence in the 

50

network to stay at the edge. This dovetailed with the end-to-end principle of the 

Internet and provided an arena for free market innovation, competition and consumer choice, that was unparalleled in recent experience. 

When the FCC abandoned this policy for cable modem service, America’s slide 

from Internet leadership began. This allowed the cable operators to discriminate 

against Internet service providers—forcing consumers to pay twice if they preferred 

an Internet service provider other than the cable affiliate (See Appendix F). They 

have imposed all manner of anti-consumer, anti-innovation restrictions in their customer agreements, which have driven applications developers away from this space. 

More importantly, the decision to remove common carrier regulations from cable 

modem service paved the way for a total cashiering of a century of communications 

policy. The immediate result will be nothing short of the destruction of the Internet 

if the Congress does not move to hold the line on the last remaining safeguard—

network neutrality. The fundamental mistake in communications policy, which we 

have made over and over in the last two decades, is to allow a very small number 

of network owners to control the physical communication system. If we duplicate 

that mistake again, the result will be the destruction of the vibrant, vigorous competition and burgeoning innovation of the Internet economy. 

The Future 

The telephone companies now say they are ready to compete with cable in video, 

and the cable companies now claim to be ready to compete with telephone companies for voice. But they have demanded the elimination of the fundamental social 

obligations of the Act—Universal Service and nondiscrimination. The notion that 

Congress anticipated or would ever have enacted the 1996 Act under belief that we 

would end up with a duopoly is not believable. The hope was for vigorous competition among many providers. 

Two competitors are simply not enough to discipline pricing, as the new entrants 

just match the high priced bundles of the incumbents. Two are not enough to ensure 

nondiscriminatory access to the communications network, as the new entrants demand to be allowed to discriminate and exclude Internet service providers and rival 

services. By traditional economic standards, three or four market players are not 

enough to assure competition, certainly not when access to the means of communications are at stake. If both network giants in a market adopt the same anti-competitive practices, where will consumers go? They are trapped. 

The fundamental importance of nondiscriminatory access to networks and services 

embodied in the Communications Act was reaffirmed just this month by key members of the ‘‘cozy duopoly.’’ Time Warner, the second largest cable company, has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to impose an obligation of nondiscriminatory interconnection on the incumbent local telephone companies, under 

Section 251 of the Act. Verizon, the second largest telephone company, has petitioned the Commission to impose an obligation of nondiscriminatory access to video 

programming under Section 628 of the Act. Yet, both of these entities directly and 

indirectly through their trade associations, are lobbying the Congress, and have 

pushed the FCC, to eliminate all such obligation with respect to Internet access and 

services. 

The fact that the anti-competitive and anti-consumer policies come and go, as political pressure or public attention ebbs and flows, is not a justification to abandon 

the principles of nondiscrimination. On the contrary, when innovation depends on 

the whims of network gatekeepers it is stunted and chilled. As Vint Cerf has said: 

the Internet is about ‘‘innovation without permission.’’ When the choices are few and 

the switching costs for consumers are large, innovative activity will go elsewhere. 

Current arguments against obligations to provide nondiscriminatory access are 

based on the claim that competition exists between two networks and that is all the 

American economy needs. That claim is wrong as a matter of historical fact and 

practical experience. The obligation of nondiscrimination came to this country under 

English common law. From the founding of the Republic, public roads competed 

against privately owned canals, but they were both subject to obligations of nondiscrimination. Private railroads were added to compete with canals and roads, and 

when they began to brutally discriminate, refusing to be bound by their common law 

obligations, they brought common carrier down upon themselves with the Interstate 

Commerce Act of 1886. Telegraph and wireline telephone were also expected to behave in a nondiscriminatory manner, but when AT&T refused to interconnect with 

independent companies, common carrier obligations were extended to that industry 

in the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, thus ensuring nondiscrimination in communications. 

In other words, one of the enduring principles of communications in America has 

been nondiscrimination. We have layered alternative modes of communications one 

51

atop another, each using a different technology, each optimized for a somewhat different form of communications and still we imposed the obligation of nondiscrimination. We have accomplished this through both a liability approach and a regulatory 

approach. The layering of networks subject to the obligation of nondiscrimination 

makes even more sense when the importance of the free flow of information is magnified as it is in our digital economy. 

Conclusion 

As this Committee moves forward to construct a new regime of communications 

policy, we urge the Congress to begin from the successful principles of past policies 

and to learn from the problems and failures of past mistakes.

• Nondiscrimination in interconnection and carriage should be the explicit legal 

obligation of communications networks that provide last mile connectivity and 

local network access, as it has been for the last century.

• The commitment to Universal Service should be strengthened, not weakened, 

and we should apply the program beyond the dial-tone to broadband capabilities. We support legislation introduced by Members of this Committee to meet 

this need.

• Congress can promote the goals of competition and Universal Service simultaneously by making available more spectrum for unlicensed uses and protecting 

the right of local governments to build last mile networks. We applaud Members of this Committee who have introduced legislation to accomplish both of 

these goals.

• Congress should recognize the economic reality of the communications market 

and direct public policy to correct for the abuses of a duopoly market structure. 

Without explicit, pro-competitive policy, we cannot expect it to grow of its own 

accord.

APPENDICES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Appendix A: Broadband Penetration 

Expanding the Digital Divide and Falling Behind on Broadband: Why a Telecommunications Policy of Neglect is Not Benign—October 2004. 

Broadband Reality Check: The FCC Ignores America’s Digital Divide—August 

2005. 

Appendix B: Local Competition 

Competition at the Crossroads: Can Public Utility Commissions Save Local Competition—October 2003. 

Broken Promises and Strangled Competition: The Record of Baby Bell Merger and 

Market Opening Behavior—June 2005. 

Appendix C: Wireless 

Petition to Deny of the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, 

In the Matter if Application for the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Authorizations from AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and its Subsidiaries to Cingular Wireless 

Corporation, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 04–70, May 3, 

2004. 

Reply—Federation of America and Consumers Union, In the Matter if Application 

for the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Authorizations from AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and its Subsidiaries to Cingular Wireless Corporation, WT Docket No. 04–

70, May 3, 2004. 

Appendix D: Cable 

Time to Give Consumer Real Cable Choices: After Two Decades of Anti-Consumer 

Bundling and Anti-Competitive Gatekeeping—June 2004. 

Reply Comments of the Consumer Union and the Consumer Federation of America, In the Matter of Comment Requested on a la Carte and Themed Tier Programming and Pricing Options for Programming Distribution on Cable Television and Direct Broadcast Satellite Systems, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket 

No. 04–207, August 13, 2004. 

Appendix E: Cable 

Comments of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Free Press, 

In the Matter of the Commission’s Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits 

and Attribution Rules, Federal Communications Commission, MM Docket No. 92–

264, August 8, 2005. 

52

Appendix F: Internet 

The Public Interest in Open Communications Networks, July 2004.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I’m only sorry the rest of our colleagues 

aren’t here, because I think the six of you really have hit on the 

basic issues connected with this overall subject of convergence that 

we have to address, and we thank you for taking the time to do 

that. I do think, implied in a couple of your comments, there is a 

criticism of my friend and I who started the concept of spectrum 

being available and being auctioned. And I’ve got to tell you that 

I agree with a lot of what you said Dr. Cooper, I still feel that the 

public is right, that those airways are owned by the public and 

somehow or other the public ought to have some return for the use 

of them when it’s done for profit. 

Now your last comment really about opening up more to unrestricted use, is a question I was going to ask you anyway, and that 

is: So we open up a lot more for use, it’s going to primarily be used 

on the local level, but how do we know its really used for anything 

other than profit making? How do we know it’s really used for public use rather than competing with the people who are paying rates 

to have the balance of the spectrum? 

Dr. COOPER. Frankly, I think when you provide unlicensed spectrum to be available to a vigorously competitive marketplace to exploit it; I think the public gets its value back directly. That is they 

get it back directly in the form of using that spectrum. Rather than 

taking the spectrum and giving a license to a single person whether you allocated the license in the past by essentially roulette at 

the FCC or by auctioning, you’re essentially establishing an exclusive right to that spectrum. I think people use the spectrum. 

The CHAIRMAN. I only have so much time. And we are going to 

separate here, and we’re going to have to go back and vote soon. 

But OK, so we give out a bunch of unlicensed spectrum, what’s the 

sanction if they misuse it. And how do we control that, it will be 

pornography, it will be all the stuff we’re trying to prevent in terms 

of misuse of the airways. If you can use it without any permission, 

what’s the sanction to the people who misuse it? 

Dr. COOPER. Unlicensed doesn’t mean anarchy in fact——

The CHAIRMAN. How do you regulate it? 

Dr. COOPER. The FCC will establish rules of non-interference, 

they will protect the primary users and the white spaces, and the 

devices will in fact not interfere, the issue——

The CHAIRMAN. Not interference, it’s use. It’s content. How do 

you control the misuse of that spectrum by unlicensed people? 

Dr. COOPER. Well frankly the same way we control the misuse 

of streets by bank robbers who drive away in automobiles, we don’t 

ban automobiles——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they’ve got cops. 

Dr. COOPER.—and we don’t eliminate streets. 

The CHAIRMAN. They’ve got cops in every town for that. You’re 

not going to have cops for this unlicensed spectrum. I don’t mind 

you talking to us about unlicensed spectrum for public use. Or community use, but when you say just turn anyone loose to use it, unrestrained, unrestricted, and say that the FCC is going to somehow 

have some control over it, from the point of view of what we want 

53

our children to be listening to, or what we want our spectrum to 

be used for, believe me, I’m sorry. We ought to talk about that 

later. 

You know, Kyle, you mentioned digital, two or three times. 

What’s going to happen to all the people that still have analog if 

we give all this freedom to digital? Don’t we have some layover 

here for a few years that we’ve got too much analog in the whole 

system, and you’re talking about freeing up digital people. What 

about the people who still have analog, and still want analog, am 

I off base, technically? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. No. I mean that’s true. I mean interestingly 

the digital age actually helps analog customers. I mean what’s actually happening now, the upgrade to the plant that we did to 

digitize data, even the data, the bytes that are bringing video is reconverted to analog for somebody who has an analog TV. So they 

benefit, they actually get a better picture, even if it’s not a ‘‘digital 

picture.’’

The CHAIRMAN. Isn’t that so, if you don’t adjust it at the beginning, in terms of cable you can serve just your customers, but the 

other people who are picking up are going to pick it up still analog 

isn’t that right? 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Yes, I mean you can convert it back and forth. 

I mean from analog to digital, but ultimately you’re right. There is 

a transitional period. There are right now, probably 40 million 

Americans who are cable customers who have analog TVs. Now 

we’re trying to—from our digital transition. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’re looking at one of them. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. And you probably have five of those right. And 

so——

The CHAIRMAN. No, I’m talking about up home. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. So you’re going to have a transition and our 

hope is that in the next few years, we’re going to get all those customers into the digital age. But in the meantime we have to deal 

with both digital and analog customers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Steve, what do you think about this program of 

spectrum, that Dr. Cooper and I have been talking about? You 

mentioned spectrum too, I think you criticized the auctioning of 

spectrum, is that right? 

Mr. LARGENT. No, sir, we didn’t. We’re not critical of the auctioning of spectrum. In fact Congress has gone a long way over the 

course of the next several years to make more spectrum available 

to the wireless industry and we’re greatly appreciative of that. And 

we pay dearly for it. I did mention spectrum, and we paid over $20 

billion for the spectrum that we utilize today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye. 

Senator INOUYE. I believe all of us have read the Wall Street 

Journal of Tuesday. What is France doing right, or what are we 

doing wrong? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I might take a shot at that. I 

think that the important part about that article from the Wall 

Street Journal regarding France Telecom is that they are applying 

essentially the same provisions that Congress adopted in 1996. 

They’re saying we have an incumbent infrastructure here and that 

that incumbent has to make that service available. That infrastrucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
54

ture, the transmission infrastructure, must be available on reasonable terms and conditions. And that is what has lead to much of 

the competition that you hear mentioned today. And again I don’t 

think it should be lost. There’s a lot of discussion about all the 

available voice competition services you have and that is where 

wireless comes into the fray. But when you’re talking about data, 

it’s down to two in the residential areas, and it’s down to one in 

the business. And so the idea that we’re going to is that the consumer is going to get the benefit of the infrastructure that they’ve 

already paid for by having these reasonable rules. And the rules 

under the existing 1996 Act include a reasonable profit, that’s written right into the statute. 

And it’s through the use of these unbundled network elements 

and special access that much of the competition that consumers 

enjoy today, including wireless competition, is made available. Because at the end of the day all of these networks come back onto 

the wireline infrastructure. And if cable can’t interconnect to the 

incumbent infrastructure, if the wireless companies can’t interconnect, if the CLECs can’t get there then we can’t compete. And 

we can’t offer service, and that’s the important thing. What France 

is doing right, is they are applying much the same rules that Congress adopted in 1996 in Sections 251 and 252 of the statute. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to that. They 

have an entirely different philosophy. It’s a philosophy that’s been 

reflected in that part of Western Europe for a long time. France 

Telecom is a government-owned telephone company. And what they 

have done is that the government has funded the deployment of a 

new network. They don’t have to make money operating it; they 

don’t have to worry about investors investing in it. And what they 

have done, is they have then made that government network available to folks for a price. 

What they have done is they have gone to a government-owned 

and operated model. They do the same thing with regard to their 

airlines. In our country for over 100 years we’ve had a different 

model; it’s been the private-sector model. But what we need to do, 

Mr. Chairman, is not be betwixt and between. We need to at this 

point free up our private sector model from government-managed 

competition and really embrace the free market. We have investors 

who are willing to invest their capital to upgrade the networks, if 

they’re allowed to offer over those networks everything technology 

will allow them to offer. So, for example, in McMinnville, Tennessee, I’ve got a small telephone cooperative that the community, 

the people own their telephone company, and they have upgraded 

their telephone company plan to offer not just voice service, but 

voice and video and Internet access. But to serve that little community of 40,000 people in middle Tennessee, the co-op crosses 25 

franchise areas. And so, for over a year now, they’ve been trying 

to obtain franchises to offer video. What we need to do Mr. Chairman, is if we’re not going to have a government-owned model, then 

let’s really have a free-market model and allow those who invest 

in new infrastructure to use that infrastructure for whatever services they think consumers might want to buy. 

Dr. COOPER. Senator, in fact if you look at British Telecom, 

they’re pursuing the same model. It’s not a government-owned moVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
55

nopoly. In fact the key, in almost every one of the nations that 

have moved past us, in the past half decade in terms of broadband 

penetration is when the regulator said open your local markets, the 

telephone companies did. They started a little bit later than we did, 

their CLECs are competing for the triple player, or the quadruple 

play, actually the triple play, and so they’re competing against the 

bigger pot of money and that made it more doable. The regulators 

also set rates so that it was attracted to competition, they didn’t 

have a half a decade of litigation until death. And so it is a model 

that can work and that has been made to work, essentially by providing nondiscriminatory access to the infrastructure. 

And in almost every one of the cases, only a few of them involve 

substantial government subsidies. Most of them do not involve that 

kind of government subsidies. It’s simply a question of opening the 

network, allowing the incumbent to make the investments recover 

the cost of those investments, and the FCC might have made some 

mistakes on how they allocated the revenues and that model is in 

fact beating the heck out of our approach. 

Dr. ELLIG. I think when we look at these kinds of issues we have 

to be careful to distinguish between some type of mandated interconnection so that the traffic is exchanged between networks, 

versus use—mandated use of other facilities in ways other than 

interconnection. The half decade of litigation unto death, I assume, 

Mark, you were talking about the whole unbundled network element platform controversy, which was a fight over a competitor 

being allowed to use someone else’s network to reach the customer 

instead of building their own stuff. I think that’s a little bit different from the much more limited type of argument and discussion 

you can have over the fair and nondiscriminatory terms on which 

various carriers are going to exchange traffic back and forth so that 

everybody with a phone or an Internet connection can reach anybody else who has a phone or Internet connection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator DeMint. 

Senator DEMINT. I’m with you Mr. Chairman, this has been very 

helpful to see the different perspectives all across the industry. It’s 

interesting though to listen, back up a little bit and see cable wants 

access to phone switches, but doesn’t want to give other companies 

access to cable, and the CLECs want access to cable and phones. 

The phone company wants to compete for video but wants to continue to get the universal subsidies, even though you just gave a 

great example in Tennessee, people will invest in a rural area, but 

to continue to pad the bottom lines with taxpayer dollars is questionable. Wireless seems to want to just be left alone, which sounds 

good. I think the decision gets back the philosophy between Dr. 

Ellig and Dr. Cooper, if the government weighs in, we decide we’re 

going to continue to regulate the technologies; clearly we’re going 

to end up with another hodgepodge of regulation that restricts competition. But in order to move toward the approach where we have 

real good consumer protection, that new license spectrums and let 

this go, I mean it just seems obvious to me that it’s changing, it’s 

so complex we’ve got to let it go, we could sit back and watch for 

a few years if consumers were not getting a good deal, we could 

come back in and do what Dr. Cooper wants and try to regulate 

the industry. But I just want to challenge you and the different inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
56

dustries, if we really want competition we’ve got to figure out how 

not to get this little regulation for this industry so you can have 

access to that industry, by the time we get through we’re not going 

to be better off than we are today. 

Why don’t we just let it go, protect the consumer and just see if 

in a few years we need to come back and create a regulatory structure. We couldn’t do any more harm than we’re doing now. So if 

anybody wants to comment—yes sir. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Senator, I’d like to point out that New Zealand 

gave that a try and they recently reestablished their regulatory authority, because they found it was a complete disaster, and in fact 

one of Walter’s companies, Bell South was an active participant 

down there. So I mean the idea—the problem you’ve got is it’s not 

like we’re all lined up at this table and you shoot the gun and we’re 

all racing for that wall, and may the best man win. You’ve got two 

people sitting on my left and my right here, who already got to 

build ubiquitous infrastructures in a protected environment. And so 

they start out with, in the case of the telephone company, connections that reach 100 percent of the consumers and businesses in 

this country and they’ve already got the customers for at least one 

service, at least voice and probably data in the case of phone companies. In the case of the cable companies, they got to build their 

network in a protected environment, the phone companies were 

told to keep out, and they got to build it and they got 100 percent 

of the customers for video. 

Now, then as I said, the Congress let satellite in through the program access rules. But the reality is the wireless guys couldn’t 

even exist today without mandated interconnection; section 332(c) 

which Steve Largent referred to, includes a provision that Congress 

had to put in in 1993. Why? Because the local phone companies 

wouldn’t give competing wireless companies interconnection. 

So, the idea that you can have a level playing field, in which 

there’s no ref and there’s no rules, and two guys get to start out 

with basically 100 percent of the stack of peanuts, it’s just not 

going to work, and so you really do need some rules. And I think 

what Dr. Cooper and I are saying is look, if you want the continued 

innovation that brought us the Internet, that’s brought all these 

technological changes that you talk about that are applications, you 

need to have some rules. There doesn’t have to be a lot of them, 

but there have to be some basic ones that give people access to that 

infrastructure or you’re not going to have the continued innovation 

in this country, which is what all the consumers like. 

Senator DEMINT. You want access to all the new technology that 

is—Mr. McCormick’s folks are building in Tennessee, they do all 

that investment, you want access——

Mr. COMSTOCK. It’s not new technology Senator, it’s fiber optics, 

which has been around for——

Senator DEMINT. Well not new technology, but new investment. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. That’s right, if I get to start out with a 100 percent of the customers, then it would be fair for somebody else to 

use my network. They’re using public rights of way which are limited—there isn’t enough money in this country for each one of us 

to build our own network to the consumer. So if you want competition you’ve got to share the network. 

57

Senator DEMINT. But somehow it’s true in every other industry 

but yours, how just—a quick comment and I know I need to run. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. You didn’t say this, but the implication was 

that you know we’re all sort of hypocritical here. 

Senator DEMINT. No. No. I’m just saying——

Mr. MCSLARROW. I know it’s not a high bar, I actually try to 

avoid hypocrisy, but let me—let me just say——

Senator DEMINT. I think we live in a glass house on this side of 

the desk too. 

Mr. MCSLARROW. Let me just say this. The question you really 

asked about whether or not we shouldn’t just walk away from all 

of this, I think is a fair one. We are all sort of stuck in a system 

that has quid quo pros, and so you hear that from each of us. And 

there is something attractive about walking away if you will and 

sort of starting over. I mean, I know, I read your bill obviously and 

I think there’s a lot of attraction to a different kind of model that’s 

a pure free market, competitive model. If we’re not in that universe, then we have to deal with the world as it is, and for us what 

we would urge across the board is as little or no economic regulation as possible. And narrowly targeted if there are social obligations that are important, like E–911, and USF, and that kind of 

stuff, then everybody should play by the same rules. And as Earl 

said, when it comes to interconnection, reality is we have a public 

switch telephone network, you cannot exchange traffic unless you 

can interconnect. It’s different from every other part of the telecommunications. 

Senator DEMINT. I’ll probably have to leave as you’re talking. 

Dr. COOPER. I’ll get it on the record anyway. I mean the simple 

fact of the matter is telecommunications is different; it has always 

been treated different. The principle of nondiscrimination is centuries old. Established under English Common law, brought over to 

this country in that law. It applied to every means of transportation and communication we have ever deployed in this country, 

roads, canals, railroads, telephone, telegraph, and steamship lines. 

Everything has been subject to this principle. It used to be a legal 

obligation actionable liability, and then it became regulation when 

the railroads refused to accept their obligation. When Ma Bell refused to interconnect with independent companies, it got slapped 

with common carrier regulation as well. 

But the simple fact of the matter is that we have always had this 

obligation on every means of communication and transportation in 

this country, and there’s no reason to believe that the problem will 

be solved by individuals who have market power if we just let them 

go. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. As you know we have a 

very active young staff sitting behind us, young compared to me 

anyway, and they have questions prepared for both Senator Inouye 

and I to ask you. And we both have to be at a Commission, the 

Eisenhower Commission. So what I’d like to ask you to do is if you 

would reply to these questions. I’m going to limit the staff to two 

questions, from each one of us to each one of you, if you would send 

them back. And I tell you what if you make them no longer than 

one page and get them back to us before next Thursday, I promise 

you I’ll read every one of them personally, OK. But I also want to 

58

ask you another question. And I would like to have each one of you 

give me about one page, maybe a little bit longer, I see Earl reaching for his pen already. It’s a simple question Earl. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. If you were drafting this bill, what would you include in it, that would help promote competition, and what would 

you include that would force consumer prices down? We say promoting competition is designed to bring it down, so it may be that 

there’s one answer for that double question, but I don’t think so. 

What would you include to promote competition, and what you include to really bring consumer prices down? And I think we’ve all 

read the Wall Street Journal article, and I understand your answers to the questions that you’ve had, but it still rings a bell with 

us, that one of the major expenses of the American family now is 

communications. And we’re using it not just in one of the old—as 

you said not the phone on the wall, I can remember when you had 

to go over and you could listen into three or four other people on 

the same line, and you had to ring it, turn it over to make it ring, 

and we had to do three longs, and one short to get on the line ourselves, OK. Now we’ve come a long way since that, and you have 

so many variations now of communications available. And hopefully, as I said this morning, we can talk about communications, 

not telecommunications, it’s total communications again now, we 

want a communications act, not a telecommunications act. We don’t 

want an act that deals one way with information and another way 

with telecommunications and another way with communications 

and another way with satellite. We want a communications act, if 

we can possibly do it. Your suggestions I think are very helpful to 

us, and again I thank you all for coming back I don’t think we’ll 

ask you to come back again to mark up this bill, but once we get 

your suggestions we might, I don’t know. But we’d very much like 

to have your help. You six really have helped address the broad 

spectrum of the problems we face and we appreciate your suggestions. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen, we appreciate it. 

[Whereupon at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned]. 

(59)

APPENDIX

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

KYLE MCSLARROW

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? 

Answer. Voice: Any bill that seeks to promote competition in the telecommunications marketplace would be incomplete without addressing voice competition 

where the Bell companies still control 85 percent of the voice market and still serve 

as the ‘‘hub’’ to which all other carriers must connect in order to reach each others’ 

customers. 

The fundamental problem is that the telephone companies have no incentive to 

give their competitors access to their network, which was funded by rate payers, 

and competitive voice services simply cannot survive without such access. To address this, the 1996 Telecom Act provided interconnection rights to the Bells’ competitors (CLECs) so they could exchange traffic with the Bells on an economic basis, 

without glitches or delays, in order to promote local voice competition. 

Today, there are a host of new technologies—such as Internet Protocol—that are 

capable of providing voice service. And just as they sought to block competition from 

CLECs through litigation, the telephone companies are seeking to block competition 

from VoIP providers arguing that they don’t qualify for interconnection rights based 

on the technology they use. Unless Congress acts to explicitly extend these interconnection rights to ALL voice competitors, on a technology neutral basis, the best 

hope for true competition in the voice market will never take hold. 

Video: Today there exists vigorous competition in the video service marketplace 

with most consumers having a choice among at least three video providers—a cable 

operator and two national direct broadcast satellite providers. Cable now has 68.3 

percent of the multichannel video market as compared to 95 percent twelve years 

ago, further evidence that video competition is thriving. 

To the extent that Congress believes that the franchise process needs to be modernized, we support reforms that:

(1) ensure that a new entrant can get a franchise in as little as 30 days;

(2) ensure a level playing field so that all providers of video services are treated 

equally and play by the same rules; and

(3) ensure local governments have the ability to negotiate and enforce the policies of Congress.

Broadband: Today, competition in the broadband market is strong and continues 

to grow. Cable broadband service is available to 93 percent of households passed by 

cable. DSL service is available to more than 76 percent of households where the 

phone companies offer local telephone service. Based on June 2005 data from the 

FCC, 74 percent of U.S. zip codes have three or more broadband providers. 

The imposition of network neutrality regulations would threaten this robust competition and stifle investment and innovation. With bandwidth usage growing at a 

rapid pace, continued investment will be needed to meet the demands of consumers. 

Broadband providers and content providers need the flexibility to develop business 

models to share the costs of the network investments in order to maintain an affordable retail price for Internet access and promote further broadband penetration. 

Where the marketplace is highly competitive, where no real world problems needing a solution have been identified, and where the pace of technological development 

is breathtaking—as is the case in broadband—government intervention is unnecessary.

Question 2. Cable is very concerned about the terms of video franchising for new 

entrants. What other instances are there where cable is either advantaged or disadvantaged against competitors using other platforms? 

60

Answer. When cable operators offer voice services they have no advantage over 

other voice competitors. (1) In fact, without the right to interconnect with incumbent 

local exchange carriers, they operate at a disadvantage. (2) Claims that cable operators are subject to lighter regulation than incumbent local telephone companies 

when entering the telephone business are false. 

(1) As referenced in the one page response attached, in order to ensure true voice 

competition language must be included to clarify that the interconnection rights 

Congress established in 1996 to promote voice competition apply to all providers of 

voice services on a technology neutral basis. 

The phone companies argue that private negotiations between themselves and 

their competitors will yield voluntary interconnection arrangements. The reality is 

that the phone companies have no incentive to enter reasonable commercial interconnection agreements with their potential competitors. And over the last few years 

the Bells, as well as rural and independent phone companies, have been seeking to 

limit interconnection rights based only on the technology used by a voice provider. 

Limiting interconnection and related rights to providers of voice services using traditional technology will ensure the Bells retain their dominance by hampering the 

introduction of IP-enabled voice services—the best hope for competition in the voice 

market. 

The Bells’ continuing consolidation increases the need for interconnection protections. When the two largest CLECs in the market (AT&T and MCI) merged with 

the two largest Bells (SBC and Verizon), the most experienced and well-funded negotiators of interconnection agreements were removed from the competitive voice 

market. The AT&T/ BellSouth merger would only solidify the Bells’ monopoly market power and make it more difficult for competitors to get a fair shake in interconnection negotiations. And even as they buy their largest competitors and consolidate their market power, the Bells are asking Congress and the FCC to abandon 

the basic interconnection rules established in 1996. 

Basic interconnection rights necessary for all voice competitors include:

a. the right to interconnect to the incumbent phone company’s network anywhere it is technically feasible, including at the incumbent’s switch, at rates 

that are based on the incumbent’s costs;

b. the right to collocate equipment on the premises of the incumbent local exchange carriers, to ensure efficient interconnection;

c. the right to obtain telephone numbers directly from the administrator of the 

North American Numbering Plan;

d. the ability to have access to poles, rights of way and conduits at reasonable 

cost-based rates;

e. the right of customers to move their existing telephone number from one carrier to another (number portability) in a quick and efficient manner and not to 

dial extra digits to reach customers of other carriers (dialing parity);

f. guaranteed access to incumbent phone company databases for E–911, customer service record information, directory listing information and other local 

service requests through established interfaces and systems; and

g. access to incumbent carriers’ circuits at cost-based rates to carry traffic from 

one network to another (transiting).

(2) The phone companies claim that cable operators are subject to lighter regulation when entering the phone business in order to justify their position—that they 

should not be required to comply with social obligations associated with the provision of video service. The fact is, cable operators offering voice services, including 

VoIP, abide by the kind of ‘‘social’’ obligations (i.e., Universal Service, E–911, and 

CALEA) the telephone companies want to avoid in the video business (i.e., providing 

video service to all consumers—not just ‘‘high value’’ consumers). Cable never 

sought, or received, exemptions from the type of fundamental provider obligations 

the phone companies seek to avoid.

• When cable companies rolled out circuit-switched phone service, they complied 

with substantially the same framework as Verizon. Cable and other competitors 

were exempt only from regulations tailored to the monopoly provider.

• When cable companies roll out VoIP service, they compete within the exact 

same regulatory framework as incumbent phone companies or to new entrants. 

Verizon and AT&T, who complain most about ‘‘unregulated’’ competition from 

cable VoIP, are themselves among the largest vendors of VoIP service.

• Cable operators are deploying telephone service across their entire franchise 

areas. Cable operators provide their new digital telephone service over the same 

61

upgraded broadband facilities that they use to provide video and high speed 

Internet access. Because cable operators are already required by their video 

franchise to deploy those upgraded facilities essentially throughout their franchise areas, their new digital phone services will be similarly deployed throughout all neighborhoods in their franchise area.

Question 3. At what rate are you gaining phone customers where your members 

have rolled out VoIP service? 

Answer. Cable operators began the deployment of voice services in 2000 using circuit-switched technology. In 2003, VoIP service was launched. Below are yearly industry-wide statistics for circuit-switched, VoIP and total telephony subscribers.

Year Total

Telephony Subs 

Circuit 

Switched VoIP 

2000 850,000 850,000 ......................

2001 1,500,000 1,500,000 ......................

2002 2,500,000 2,500,000 ......................

2003 2,746,000 2,702,000 42,000

2004 3,500,000 3,000,000 587,000

2005 5,600,000 3,100,000 2,550,000

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

KYLE MCSLARROW

Question 1. I know this Committee has spent a lot of time talking about video 

competition, but what can we do to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

Answer. Any bill that seeks to promote competition in the telecommunications 

marketplace would be incomplete without addressing voice competition where the 

Bell companies still control 85 percent of the voice market and still serve as the 

‘‘hub’’ to which all other carriers must connect in order to reach each others’ customers. 

The fundamental problem is that the telephone companies have no incentive to 

give their competitors access to their network, which was funded by rate payers, 

and competitive voice services simply cannot survive without such access. To address this, the 1996 Telecom Act provided interconnection rights to the Bells’ competitors (CLECs) so they could exchange traffic with the Bells on an economic basis, 

without glitches or delays, in order to promote local voice competition. 

Today, there are a host of new technologies—such as Internet Protocol—that are 

capable of providing voice service. And just as they sought to block competition from 

CLECs through litigation, the telephone companies are seeking to block competition 

from VoIP providers arguing that they don’t qualify for interconnection rights based 

on the technology they use. Unless Congress acts to explicitly extend these interconnection rights to ALL voice competitors, on a technology neutral basis, the best 

hope for true competition in the voice market will never take hold.

Question 2. I have some real concerns about any provider cherry picking the 

wealthiest neighborhoods in my state while leaving the rest behind. There has been 

a lot of discussion about this in the context of franchise reform. Is there anything 

Congress can do to protect all consumers? 

Answer. Yes. The rollout of the fledgling Bell video services have already demonstrated that the telcos will only provide service to high-income areas and their 

current business plans do not suggest that lower-income Americans will receive 

these services anytime soon. The Congress can and must ensure that service providers do not create telecom and video have and have nots by including simple protections for all consumers. 

To ensure effective enforcement of this anti-discrimination principle, we would 

suggest making clear that cable operators may not exclude localities from their service area or deny service to consumers within a franchise area based on income. Additionally, franchise area needs to be carefully defined to ensure that a cable operator cannot cherry-pick among the neighborhoods within a locality that is served by 

its telephone or cable network. 

Given that states and localities are in a better position than the FCC to identify 

violations of this principle, it seems most appropriate to give them the enforcement 

authority to require cable operators to extend service, file a complaint with the FCC 

or otherwise have the ability to correct such violations. 

62

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

EARL W. COMSTOCK

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? 

Answer. Promoting competition is the least regulatory, and most effective, way to 

force consumer prices down. The alternative is retail price regulation, something 

that has been tried before in both the telephone and cable markets with unsatisfactory results. 

Four facts dictate the options Congress has to promote competition and bring 

down consumer prices for all communications services. The first is that the incumbent telephone companies are the only entities in any given area with a wireline 

network that reaches all business and residential customers in that area. The second is that the incumbent cable operators have the only wireline alternative network that reaches nearly all of the residential consumers, though that same network reaches very few business customers. The third, and perhaps most important, 

is that both the incumbent telephone companies and the incumbent cable operators 

were each allowed to build their network over the course of a decade or more while 

protected from competition, with the assurance that they would get all of the customers that chose to purchase their service in that area. Finally, it is clear that both 

here and abroad that wireless services are a higher priced complement to, and not 

a substitute for, wireline network services. As a result, incumbent telephone companies and incumbent cable operators retain at least 70 percent market share in their 

core service more than 10 years after passage of the 1996 Act. 

The reality is that, in both the residential and business markets, the construction 

of additional ubiquitous wireline networks will not occur. No competitor can get the 

financing for such an undertaking, and consumers do not want to pay for yet another network. Even in the wireless marketplace, where incumbent cellular operators had less of a head start, what you see is consolidation and dominance by the 

two incumbents. 

In light of these facts, which preclude the FCC’s preferred model of ‘‘inter-modal’’ 

competition (i.e., each competitor can reach the end user by building its own wired 

or wireless network), Congress needs to adopt rules which require network operators, and in particular the two wireline network operators that were allowed to 

build their networks and establish a customer base while protected from competition, to provide reasonable and nondiscriminatory access to those networks. The 

scarce resource in communications markets is the transmission network. By requiring network operators to allow everyone to use these essential facilities to reach consumers, consumers will receive the benefits of competition—lower prices, better 

service, and greater innovation. 

The key measures needed to ensure reasonable and non-discriminatory access by 

competitors include (1) access to elements of the network so that competitors can 

create their own services; (2) interconnection at any technically feasible point; (3) 

the ability to collocate equipment; (4) the ability to attach devices to the network; 

(5) the right to resell transmission between or among points on the network as part 

of their own voice, video, and data offerings to consumers; (6) the right to use any 

technology and offer any service that does not harm the network; (7) nondiscriminatory allocation of all transmission capacity on the network (i.e., elimination of 

cable rules that allow network operators to reserve capacity for their exclusive use); 

(8) reasonable terms and conditions for each of these measures; (9) a neutral arbitrator to resolve disputes, and (10) efficient enforcement mechanisms to execute 

these rights. Congress must also require the FCC to establish Universal Service contribution and distribution requirements, and inter-carrier compensation rates (including access charges), which treat all transmissions and service providers equally. 

Adoption of these measures would not mean that the network operator could not 

charge consumers and other network operators more money for using more bandwidth. Nor would these measures prohibit a network operator from offering whatever additional services (for example information services or video programming) 

they chose. However, these measures would prevent network operators from using 

their ownership of the network to discriminate in favor of their own content and 

services. They would also prevent the network operator from unfairly cross-subsidizing their own transmission services by charging competitors higher rates for 

transmission or requiring consumers to buy unwanted video or information services 

in order to obtain transmission capacity. 

Adoption of these measures will not discourage broadband deployment. In fact, 

they will do just the opposite. By readjusting inter-carrier compensation and access 

charges so that all traffic is treated equally you eliminate the arbitrage opportuniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
63

ties, and by prohibiting the network operators from reserving capacity and discriminating against other providers you re-align the network owner’s financial interests. 

Adopting these rules will mean that to make more money from the network, the network operator will want to maximize the use of the network. By adding more capacity to the network, the network operator makes more money. As long as Congress 

and the FCC do not regulate the price that network operators charge for transmission, then network operators will be able to recover whatever Wall Street demands 

to support the investment in more capacity. The only price regulation that is required is a nondiscrimination requirement. Whatever the network operator charges 

others for transmission capacity, the operator has to charge himself and his affiliates for the same transmission capacity. To allow the operator to do otherwise will 

result in price distortions that will reduce or eliminate competition. 

Adopting pro-competitive measures that require network operators to share transmission networks that use public rights of way or public spectrum will drive down 

the price paid by the consumer. This model has worked here in the United States 

in long distance and was starting to work in local until the FCC abandoned network 

sharing in favor of its flawed inter-modal competition model. Network sharing is 

working in Europe, not only for broadband Internet and voice services, but for cable 

services as well. By phasing out the cable rules that allow network operators to reserve capacity for their exclusive use, Congress can bring vigorous price competition 

to consumers in all communications markets. Competition through network sharing 

will result in more competitors offering a wider range of services to consumers at 

lower prices, while also providing incentives to network operators to expand their 

capacity in order to increase their own revenue.

Question 2. The FCC recently allowed a forbearance petition from Verizon to go 

into effect that would impact high capacity special access lines. What impact would 

that have on your customers? 

Answer. Special access services are high-capacity connections that link businesses 

via facilities owned by the incumbent local exchange carriers to the facilities of competing carriers. Special access services are at retail to businesses directly by the incumbent LEC, and on a wholesale basis by the incumbent LEC to competing carriers who seek to serve business customers. Because the incumbent LECs own the 

only wireline facilities that reach the vast majority of businesses in the country 

(cable companies do not serve most business customers), competitive carriers have 

no choice but to purchase special access service from the incumbents. Prior to their 

acquisition by the Bell companies, AT&T and MCI offered the only viable alternative to incumbent LEC special access services, but those alternatives disappeared 

as soon as SBC and Verizon bought these two competitive giants. Because they own 

and control the connections to almost all business customers in their respective 

business territories, the Bell companies in particular are now able to raise wholesale 

rates for special access services sold to competing carriers, as well as retail special 

access rates sold directly to business customers, resulting in price increases for 

those customers. 

The FCC Chairman’s decision to grant Verizon’s forbearance petition by operation 

of law has the additional effect of eliminating common carrier regulation of numerous high-capacity broadband services, including ATM and frame relay services, offered by Verizon on a wholesale basis. COMPTEL member companies, including providers of both voice and data services, rely on these Verizon special access services 

as vital inputs into competitive service offerings. In the absence of common carrier 

regulation of its special access services, Verizon can refuse to provide such 

broadband services on a wholesale basis, can choose to provide them only to itself 

or its own affiliates, or can raise the price for such wholesale services to any rate 

it chooses (prior to the forbearance action, Verizon was at least theoretically constrained by the requirements in Title II of the Communications Act that rates not 

be unjust or unreasonable). 

The forbearance petition impacts not only competitive LECs, but also wireless carriers and cable companies as well. In the absence of access to these special access 

services, for example, wireless companies cannot interconnect their services with the 

wireline network. Competitive providers of broadband services, including cable companies and competitive data providers, that depend on special access lines to connect their facilities to the Internet backbone will also be adversely affected. 

As part of its justification for a recent decision scaling back unbundling obligations imposed on the incumbent LECs, the FCC found that where high capacity facilities were no longer available on an unbundled basis, special access services 

would provide an acceptable substitute for competitive providers. Now, the FCC has 

eliminated its regulation of numerous Verizon special access services, effectively 

eliminating the very competitive alternative to unbundled network elements that it 

promised would be available. 

64

Ironically, COMPTEL member companies are still subject to the core obligations 

of common carriage, including the obligation to provide services on a just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis. Verizon is the only telecommunications company 

in the Nation that is not subject to those core principles of nondiscrimination. 

COMPTEL has filed an appeal of the FCC’s decision to free Verizon from common 

carrier obligations. As part of that appeal, COMPTEL will argue to the court that 

the FCC’s failure to issue an order precisely defining the parameters of the relief 

granted to Verizon has left the competitive community without any definitive pronouncement on the exact nature of the relief granted to Verizon.

Question 3. How important are special access lines to your members in terms of 

revenue? 

Answer. Very important, particularly now that the FCC has severely limited the 

availability of unbundled network elements that section 252 of the Communications 

Act made available at cost-based rates. Special access services are vital inputs to 

many of the services that COMPTEL members offer to consumers and small and 

medium sized businesses. In the absence of access to special access services, 

COMPTEL members may be unable to continue offering such services. 

For example, wireless services are really only ‘‘wireless’’ for a short distance: they 

must be connected to the wireline network for the transport and termination of 

wireless calls. In the absence of access to the special access services that provide 

access to the wireline network, or if such access is priced at such a high rate as 

to be effectively unavailable, wireless carriers cannot access their customers. The 

same is true for wireline services. 

Where unbundled network elements are not available because of recent FCC deregulation, special access services are the only means for competitive carriers to obtain interconnection with the incumbent network. If such access to the incumbent 

network is no longer available, or is priced too high to allow effective competition, 

COMPTEL members will be unable to provide service to their customers. Although 

the exact revenue impact is difficult to quantify, it is clear that the majority of 

COMPTEL member companies rely on incumbent LEC special access services as inputs into end user service offerings, and thus would be disproportionately impacted 

by any increase in cost or loss of access to special access lines. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

EARL W. COMSTOCK

Question. What can be done to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

Answer. Competition in the voice marketplace will continue to diminish if Congress does not take steps to reverse the FCC’s decision to rely on inter-modal competition alone. The FCC’s inter-modal approach increasingly requires each competitor to own or control its own connection to the customer, potentially limiting residential voice competition to the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and, where 

cable is present and still has interconnection rights to the ILEC, to cable operators. 

The FCC cites wireless as a competitor in the provision of voice service, but in 

fact wireless voice service is a complement to, and not a direct replacement of, 

wireline voice service. In most cases consumers sign up for both wireline voice service and wireless voice service. If wireless were in fact a replacement, then you would 

see more people choosing one or the other, but not both. The reason people typically 

sign up for both is simple—wireline phone service is generally cheaper (on a perminute basis) and more reliable (you never get dropped wireline calls or have dead 

zones) and wireless phone service, though more expensive, offers convenience. 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, whether offered by a cable operator, 

a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), or a provider (for example Skype or 

Vonage) that uses a CLEC to interconnect calls to the ILEC network, offer the best 

opportunity for increased price and service competition in the voice marketplace. In 

addition, many CLECs, and even a few cable operators, also offer circuit-switched 

voice services in competition with the ILEC. While most providers will eventually 

provide voice services using VoIP, maintaining the option to offer circuit-switched 

voice is important if the goal is to provide residential and business consumers with 

competitive alternatives. 

In order for VoIP to be a viable competitor, Congress needs to adopt Net neutrality requirements in order to ensure that network operators, and in particular the 

ILEC and cable network operators, do not discriminate against unaffiliated VoIP 

providers. Without Net neutrality safeguards, the number of VoIP providers for residential customers could be quickly reduced to two, and for business customers to 

one (because cable networks generally were not built to businesses). 

65

VoIP, like other Internet services and the provision of circuit-switched services, 

requires interconnection with other network operators, and in particular the ILEC 

network, on reasonable terms and conditions in order to work. However, unlike circuit-switched services, which dedicate a particular pathway to each call (whether 

data or voice), IP services make more efficient use of the available capacity by sharing the network. As a result, IP based services like IPTV and VoIP, even more than 

traditional services, need nondiscrimination rules in order to be provided on a competitive basis. Thus, Net neutrality rules need to include not only interconnection, 

but also nondiscriminatory allocation of the transmission capacity and a prohibition 

on network operators’ discriminating in favor of their own content or services (for 

example, by prioritizing their own content and services or degrading or block other 

providers content and services). Net neutrality rules also need to permit providers 

and end users to attach any device that does not harm the network, and to resell 

the transmission capacity obtained from the network operator as part of their own 

service. 

Competition in voice services can best be accomplished by adopting rules that ensure competitors, whether they have their own facilities or not, are able to purchase 

access to existing networks on reasonable terms and conditions. The key measures 

needed to ensure reasonable and nondiscriminatory access by competitors to provide 

voice services include (1) access to elements of the network so that competitors can 

create their own services; (2) interconnection at any technically feasible point; (3) 

the ability to collocate equipment; (4) the ability to attach devices to the network; 

(5) the right to resell transmission between or among points on the network as part 

of their own voice, video, and data offerings to consumers; (6) the right to use any 

technology and offer any service that does not harm the network; (7) nondiscriminatory allocation of all transmission capacity on the network (i.e., elimination of 

cable rules that allow network operators to reserve capacity for their exclusive use); 

(8) reasonable terms and conditions for each of these measures; (9) a neutral arbitrator to resolve disputes, and (10) efficient enforcement mechanisms to execute 

these rights. These rules, taken together, would achieve Net neutrality and promote 

the provision of VoIP and other voice, video, and data offerings. 

Adoption of these measures would not mean that the network operator could not 

charge consumers and other network operators more money for using more bandwidth. Nor would these measures prohibit a network operator from offering whatever additional services (for example information services or video programming) 

they chose. However, these measures would prevent network operators from using 

their ownership of the network to discriminate in favor of their own content and 

services. They would also prevent the network operator from unfairly cross-subsidizing their own transmission services by charging competitors higher rates for 

transmission or requiring consumers to buy unwanted video or information services 

in order to obtain transmission capacity. 

Adoption of these measures will not discourage broadband deployment. In fact, 

they will do just the opposite. By readjusting inter-carrier compensation and access 

charges so that all traffic is treated equally you eliminate the arbitrage opportunities, and by prohibiting the network operators from reserving capacity and discriminating against other providers you re-align the network owner’s financial interests. 

Adopting these rules will mean that to make more money from the network, the network operator will want to maximize the use of the network. By adding more capacity to the network, the network operator makes more money. As long as Congress 

and the FCC do not regulate the price that network operators charge for transmission, then network operators will be able to recover whatever Wall Street demands to support the investment in more capacity. Nondiscrimination avoids the 

need for price regulation, because whatever the network operator charges others for 

transmission capacity, the operator has to charge himself and his affiliates for the 

same transmission capacity. To allow the operator to do otherwise will result in 

price distortions that will reduce or eliminate competition. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. 

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill, what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? We say that promoting competition is designed to bring it down. So, 

it may be there’s one answer for that double question, but I don’t think so. What 

would you include to promote competition and what would you include to force the 

prices down, really, bring them down? 

66

Answer. USTelecom believes the committee draft should include provisions to stabilize Universal Service; to address intercarrier compensation; to unleash the power 

of the free market for traditional voice services now that they face vigorous competition; and to facilitate video competition. 

Much has been made of the need to accelerate broadband deployment. In fact, the 

ability to deliver video via broadband is a major driver of deploying the next-generation networks necessary for providing consumers with advanced services, including 

broadband. Unfortunately, the franchising process—developed in an era of competitive bidding for single providers—creates needless delay and drives up costs, as local 

governments seek to add extraneous requirements such as municipal holiday decorations, street-side flower pots, and community facilities unrelated to the provision 

of video services. Due to the lack of any real competition in the video market, cable 

bills have soared—rising 86 percent in the past decade. 

The GAO has studied the video market and drawn two conclusions:

1. Cable television faces no effective competition. Satellite television is not an acceptable alternative for most consumers, and fewer than 2 percent of the Nation’s households have a choice of wireline video provider.

2. Wireline competition causes prices to drop. The GAO report found that in 

markets with competition from a wireline video provider, prices are 15 percent 

lower.

USTelecom members plan to provide video in thousands of communities, but the 

local franchising process, requiring individual negotiations in over 30,000 local franchise areas, creates needless delay. Negotiating locality by locality creates the very 

thing we are moving away from in other sectors, a patchwork of different regulations and requirements—the cost of which inevitably burdens consumers. 

If Congress fails to reform this outdated process, consumers will foot the bill, to 

the tune of billions of dollars annually. In one recent study, economists found that 

a one year delay in enacting franchise reform will cost consumers nationwide $8 billion.

Question 2. If Congress enacts franchise reform, how quickly will your companies 

deploy video services? Will the time frame be the same for small and mid-size carriers and what does this mean for rural areas? 

Answer. Should Congress approve franchise reform this year, it will accelerate the 

deployment schedule nationwide, because local franchising creates a bottleneck taking 11⁄2 to 2 years to complete. Some of our members, both large and small, would 

begin delivering video to customers almost immediately. For example, Verizon has 

installed fiber optic cable in dozens of communities and could begin service as soon 

as the franchise is received. Likewise, in the Middle Tennessee area, thousands of 

citizens could begin receiving video service immediately; video service is already 

available on their network but must be confined to those communities that have 

granted a franchise to the local co-op telephone company. 

A number of our members have seen uncertainty in broadband investment due 

to the uncertainty of the franchising process, but they would begin investing 

promptly in preparation for going to market with video services. 

More importantly, franchise reform will particularly aid small and mid-size carriers in deploying broadband in their communities. We know from experience that 

video drives broadband deployment. Thus franchise reform will enable operators in 

rural areas to be more assured of a video revenue stream as they provide 

broadband, accelerating deployment significantly. 

For those rural operators who are acutely dependent upon revenue streams from 

Universal Service and intercarrier compensation, stabilization of Universal Service, 

reform of intercarrier compensation, and improved access to a reliable source of capital such as the RUS loan program are essential to accelerated broadband deployment. As a side benefit, video revenue streams may temper demands on the Universal Service Fund, enabling some of these funds to be used for even more sparsely 

populated areas that under no circumstance could ever support services from end 

user and intercarrier revenues. 

For all our member companies, national franchising would dramatically improve 

their ability to invest in broadband network architecture. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. 

Question 1. I know this Committee has spent a lot of time talking about video 

competition, but what can we do to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

67

Answer. In 1996, some important first steps were taken to end government-managed competition. However, since then, the competitive landscape has changed dramatically and much more must be done to create a marketplace controlled by supply 

and demand, rather than government bureaucrats. 

Today we have vigorous cross-platform competition involving cable TV companies, 

on-line providers like Vonage and Sun Rocket, wireless companies, as well as ILEC 

and CLEC wireline providers. Due to this competition, Bell Operating Companies 

lost 4 million residential phone lines in 2005 alone. 

Alone among these competitors, ILECs must comply with a wide variety of Federal and state regulations. For instance, in most states, we must file with state regulators BEFORE we can lower our prices to compete with a VoIP service provider. 

Typically, we have to provide 45-day notice to most competitors before our price 

changes take effect. We have to interconnect with all other providers and offer service for resale to competitors. These and a myriad of other regulations are legacies 

from the age of monopoly phone service. They apply to ILECs, but not to cable television companies or wireless providers. 

Consumers pay a price for these legacy regulations—including higher prices. 

We commend you for co-sponsoring S. 1504, the Broadband Consumer Choice Act, 

which is the best comprehensive legislation in the 109th Congress to create an open, 

consumer-controlled, free market for voice service. We believe enactment of S. 1504 

would lead to a new era in which creativity and investment in the voice market 

would flourish.

Question 2. I have some real concerns about any provider cherry picking the 

wealthiest neighborhoods in my state while leaving the rest behind. There has been 

a lot of discussion about this in the context of franchise reform. Is there anything 

Congress can do to protect all consumers? 

Answer. As USTelecom members seek to compete with a de facto monopoly, we 

urge the Committee to embrace a market-based approach which encourages more 

competition by granting relief from legacy regulation. As we have seen in the voice 

market, this strategy created an explosion in competition and significant price reductions. 

The most important benefit Congress could provide to consumers is a lower bill 

for video services. Cable prices have risen 86 percent from 1995 to 2004—faster 

than almost any other consumer product except gasoline. The GAO found that 

wireline competition is virtually non-existent for cable companies, but where it exists, cable rates are at least 15 percent lower. A new Bank of America study found 

even larger declines. If you consider the amount a household spends annually on 

cable television, these are significant savings. 

USTelecom members have every incentive to serve as many markets as possible. 

They are not developing a boutique product. Rather, they seek to enter tens of thousands of franchise areas to win a significant share of an $80 billion market. A high 

value customer is not necessarily a higher income customer. In fact, lower income 

residences have a higher propensity to purchase video services and are often located 

in more densely populated, less costly to serve areas. 

Our companies have never engaged in red-lining, and they will not start when 

they enter the video market. The first broadband network our companies deployed 

was DSL. In seven years, more than 80 percent of telephone lines nationwide are 

DSL-capable. That was accomplished without a build-out requirement or a government mandate. 

There are powerful market incentives to invest in network upgrades to accommodate broadband video. A larger percentage of Americans want advanced video more 

than Internet alone. Just look at cable rates compared to Internet-only rates. Research shows strong demand for video, without regard to household income. In fact, 

nearly 86 percent of households with a television are cable subscribers. 

To the extent there is a role for government, we support the anti-redlining provisions in current law at 47 U.S.C. § (a)(3):

In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall ensure that 

access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable 

subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which 

such group resides.

While mandating build-out to an entire area may have made sense when cable 

entered as the de facto monopoly provider, it does not make sense with regard to 

new entrants. In fact, creating an all-or-nothing mandate would have the perverse 

effect of slowing deployment. Build-out arrangements have led companies to carefully select which markets to enter and avoid other areas entirely. 

Imposing build out requirements on our deployments when we’ve barely begun 

adds to the tremendous risks and costs we face in a market where cable is already 

68

dominant. Capital investors prefer the path of least regulatory resistance. And there 

is no reason to send the wrong message to Wall Street when the evidence shows 

that build-out mandates are unnecessary and counterproductive. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

STEVE LARGENT

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill, what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? 

Answer. In 1993 Congress made the wise decision to create a competitive environment for wireless services and to regulate only in limited instances. That decision 

has proven to be enormously successful. Since that time competition has dramatically intensified and the natural byproduct of competition, lower prices, is today enjoyed by more than 200 million wireless subscribers. CTIA therefore believes it is 

essential that any telecom legislation remain true to this established framework and 

take any steps necessary to prevent encroachment by state legislatures that threatens the success of the past 13 years. 

Accordingly, the most effective guarantor of true competition and lower prices, 

and thus CTIA’s chief legislative recommendation to this Committee, is the inclusion of clear language that creates a national framework for wireless and preempts 

state action. A patchwork of disparate state regulations will hinder the deployment 

of advanced networks that bring innovative services to consumers. 

A national framework for the wireless industry is both logical and necessary. Because wireless services are not confined by geographical boundaries, and because 

wireless services are with growing frequency global in nature, it should logically be 

examined at the national level rather than state by state. And if the wireless industry is to continue to invest in network expansion and raise the needed capital, it 

is necessary to avoid the uncertainty created by inconsistent regulations at the state 

level. 

Additionally, CTIA would recommend a few other measures as well that would 

ensure continued competition. Spectrum is a valuable and finite resource. It should 

therefore be allocated in a predictable and timely manner and underutilized spectrum should be reclaimed and reallocated for optimal use. Further, timely and efficient tower siting process should be implemented so that networks can be appropriately expanded to meet the demands of the public. Finally, fair interconnection 

rules should be established so that wireless carriers are not subjected to unreasonably high rates by those who have exclusive control of the networks to which wireless carriers must have access. 

CTIA believes that implementation of these recommendations will assure continued competition, innovation, and consumer benefits in the wireless space. Even 

more, it will allow the industry to flourish as a competitive force in the broadband 

market. This can only be achieved, however, if its unique characteristics of mobility 

and accessibility are acknowledged and given separate legislative consideration in 

the manner we have described. A blanket application of legacy regulations on the 

wireless industry which were previously tailored to other parts of the communications industry will stifle innovation and inhibit true competition in telecommunications.

Question 2. Small rural carriers have complained about their ability to negotiate 

roaming agreements with the national wireless companies. In fact, when former 

FCC Chairman Powell visited Alaska his plane went off the runway in an Eskimo 

village. He whipped out his cell phone but it didn’t work. No roaming. How should 

Congress address this issue? 

Answer. Based upon a proven record of success in a limited regulatory environment, CTIA, as the voice of the wireless industry, strongly believes that Congress 

should regulate only in instances where public health and safety are at issue or 

when there is clear evidence of market failure. We believe that in the case of roaming agreements neither of these elements exist. 

CTIA continues to work with member companies on this issue to identify and resolve problems that may arise. Based on what we have learned, we do not believe 

congressional action is necessary. Rather, CTIA believes that commercial negotiations in the marketplace will lead to far better solutions than having Congress step 

into a myriad of circumstances that are constantly changing. 

This may take longer in some locations because of geographic considerations or 

unique business plans, but as networks are continually expanded, and technology 

is constantly changing, carriers will have to continually re-balance the needs of their 

own particular business situations. Additionally, we should be wary of significant 

69

unintended consequences that could reduce incentives to build-out robust competitive networks, and recognize there may be technical considerations of network air 

interface differences that may make roaming more difficult or even impossible to 

achieve in some situations.

Question 3. Wireless service has gained rapid adoption from consumers. As 

broadband services gain popularity, are wireless services going to be able to compete 

effectively against wireline providers in that space? 

Answer. As this question correctly notes, wireless services have enjoyed unprecedented consumer acceptance in daily life. This is a direct result of the sprint toward 

innovation necessitated by the hypercompetition that has been the hallmark of the 

industry since 1993. This innovation will also carry the industry into the broadband 

market and allow it to compete effectively against wireline providers. 

This desired result, however, is based on a legislative and regulatory environment 

that does not automatically saddle the wireless industry with rules that may be appropriate for other parts of the communications industry. Rather, it is paramount 

that the characteristics of mobility and ubiquity that are unique to wireless are 

given special consideration. The wireless broadband market is a nascent but growing segment of the broadband market and the leadership of this Committee in freeing up the valuable spectrum in the 700 MHZ band will be instrumental in allowing 

for continued growth of advanced wireless networks. When this spectrum becomes 

available the wireless industry will distinguish itself through mobile broadband 

services and become a true competitor to the traditional wireline companies by offering customers the types of information and service they demand ‘‘on the go.’’ With 

the assistance of national preemption deregulatory legislation that allows market 

forces to work, the wireless industry looks forward to providing all of the voice, 

video, and date services that its subscribers demand. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

STEVE LARGENT

Question 1. I know this Committee has spent a lot of time talking about video 

competition, but what can we do to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

Answer. As CTIA noted in its response to a similar question from Chairman Stevens, in 1993 Congress made the wise decision to create a competitive environment 

for wireless services and to regulate only in limited instances. That decision has 

proven to be enormously successful. Since that time competition has dramatically 

intensified and the natural byproduct of competition, lower prices, is today enjoyed 

by more than 200 million wireless subscribers. CTIA therefore believes it is essential that any telecom legislation remain true to this established framework and take 

any steps necessary to prevent encroachment by state legislatures that threatens 

the success of the past 13 years. 

Accordingly, the most effective guarantor of true competition and lower prices, 

and thus CTIA’s chief legislative recommendation to this Committee, is the inclusion of clear language that creates a national legislative framework for wireless and 

preempts state action. A patchwork of disparate state regulations will hinder the 

deployment of advanced networks that bring innovative services to consumers. 

A national framework for the wireless industry is both logical and necessary. Because wireless services are not confined by geographical boundaries, and because 

wireless services are with growing frequency global in nature, it should logically be 

examined at the national level rather than state by state. And if the wireless industry is to continue to invest in network expansion and raise the needed capital, it 

is necessary to avoid the uncertainty created by inconsistent regulations at the state 

level. 

Additionally, CTIA would recommend the implementation of a timely and efficient 

tower siting process so that networks can be appropriately expanded to meet the 

demands of the public. Finally, fair interconnection rules should be established so 

that wireless carriers are not subjected to unreasonably high rates by those who 

have exclusive control of the networks to which wireless carriers must have access. 

CTIA believes that implementation of these recommendations will assure continued competition, innovation, and consumer benefits in the wireless space. Even 

more, it will allow the industry to flourish as a competitive force in the broadband 

market. This can only be achieved, however, if its unique characteristics of mobility 

and accessibility are acknowledged and given separate legislative consideration in 

the manner we have described. A blanket application on wireless of legacy regulations previously tailored to traditional wireline industries will stifle innovation and 

inhibit true competition in telecommunications.

70

1 Jerry Brito and Jerry Ellig, Public Interest Comment on Video Franchising, submitted to the 

Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 13, 2006), pp. 7–11, available at http://

www.mercatus.org/pdf/materials/1539.pdf. 2 Jerry Ellig, ‘‘Intercarrier Compensation and Consumer Welfare,’’ University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 2005:1 (Spring ), pp. 98–99. 3 Robert W. Crandall and Jerry A. Hausman, ‘‘Competition in U.S. Telecommunciations Services: Effects of the 1996 Legislation,’’ in Sam Peltzman and Clifford Winston (eds.), Deregulation 

of Network Industries: What’s Next? (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2000), 

pp. 102–105. 

Question 2. I have real concerns about any provider cherry picking the wealthiest 

neighborhoods in my state while leaving the rest behind. There has been a lot of 

discussion about this in the context of franchise reform. Is there anything Congress 

can do to protect all consumers? 

Answer. In CTIA’s view the issue of franchise reform is not applicable to the wireless industry. By contrast with other segments of the telecommunications industry, 

wireless companies acquire their ‘‘franchises’’ through the auction process conducted 

by the FCC. Obtaining licenses so that carriers can operate in a given area requires 

enormous financial commitments and thus provides ample incentives to maximize 

the use of scarce spectrum resources. The wireless industry has always met those 

obligations and indeed would do so even without these mandates, as evidenced by 

the more than 183,000 cell sites that have been deployed throughout the country. 

The inherent mobility of wireless services and their broad demographic appeal have 

driven wireless carriers to create ever broader coverage areas, as demonstrated by 

the record of the wireless industry over the past 13 years of meeting and exceeding 

the needs and demands of its customers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

JERRY ELLIG, PH.D. 

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? We say that promoting competition is designed to bring it down. So, 

it may be there’s one answer for that double question, but I don’t think so. What 

would you include to promote competition and what would you include to force the 

prices down, really, bring them down? 

Answer. The most important thing Congress can do to promote sustainable competition is to adopt policies that facilitate the creation of multiple conduits through 

which customers can obtain a variety of voice, data, video, and other services. As 

I mentioned in my testimony, two of the most significant opportunities are (1) removal of video franchising as a barrier to competitive entry, and (2) continued movement toward a market-based spectrum policy that will make more spectrum available for wireless services. These measures will help ensure that multiple conduits 

are available to as many consumers as quickly as possible. 

Experience suggests that we can usually expect competition to generate substantial price reductions and quality improvements. In cable TV, for example, 20 years 

of economic research consistently demonstrates that prices are 15–20 percent lower, 

and the number of channels is larger, in markets with two wireline video providers. 1 Competition in long-distance telephone service substantially reduced longdistance rates, even after accounting for long-distance access charge reductions 

mandated by the Federal Communications Commission. 2 The explosion of competition in wireless communications, triggered when Congress made an additional 120 

MHz of spectrum available in 1993, led to several years of double-digit reductions 

in the per-minute price of wireless service. 3 More recent years have seen significant 

new wireless services and features, such as camera phones, Internet access via 

PDAs, and wireless broadband cards. In all of these examples, the principal and 

most effective form of competition consists of entrants who made substantial investments in building their own networks. 

Competition can benefit consumers even when it does not generate price reductions. 

If a monopoly is providing only a low-priced, low-quality service, and many consumers would prefer a higher-priced, higher quality service, then competition might 

increase prices while simultaneously increasing quality. Consumers, however, would 

be better off as a result. Competition ensures that consumers receive the combination of price, quality, and innovative new services that they would most prefer. 

Alternatively, if a regulated monopoly is selling one service at a price that is 

below cost and selling other services at prices that exceed costs, then competition 

may lead to a price increase for the service sold below cost, coupled with reduced 

71

4 Jerry Ellig, ‘‘Costs and Consequences of Federal Telecommunications Regulations,’’ Federal 

Communicaitons Law Journal 58:1 (Jan. 2006), pp. 53–54, available at http://

www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v58/no1/ElligPDF.pdf. 5Montrose, CO, White, SD, and Esopus, NY each charge 3 percent. See Jerry Brito and Jerry 

Ellig, ‘‘Video Killed the Franchise Star: The Consumer Cost of Cable Franchising and Proposed 

Policy Alternatives,’’ SSRN Working Paper (March 2006), p. 18, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractlid=893606. 6Thomas W. Hazlett, ‘‘Cable TV Franchises as Barriers to Video Competition,’’ George Mason 

University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 06–06, p. 17, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractlid=889406. 7For a more detailed explanation, see Brito and Ellig (2006), pp. 17–18. 

prices for the services sold at prices that exceed costs. Consumers who used only 

the below-cost service might be worse off as a result of competition, but the consumers who had been over-charged for other services would be better off. Overall 

consumer welfare would increase, because prices would more accurately reflect the 

actual cost of service. This is essentially what has happened in long-distance telephone service, where substitution of the Federal subscriber line charge for excessive 

per-minute access rates increased overall economic welfare by between $8 billion 

and $15 billion annually between 1985 and 1992. 4

In short, we should be cautious about an exclusive focus on price when quality 

is important to consumers or when regulation has held some prices below cost. Even 

in those cases, however, competition can lead to price reductions for some services.

Question 2. You have stressed the importance of encouraging competition unfettered by regulation, but is it sometimes necessary to treat similar services differently? For instance, satellite providers don’t pay a franchise fee but they don’t 

use the rights-of-way either. Is there a problem with those types of distinctions?’’

Answer. Firms that use the public rights-of-way to provide communications services should pay fees that promote efficient use and management of the public rightsof-way. The appropriate fee depends on what kinds of costs the firm’s use of the 

rights-of-way imposes on the public, in terms of congestion on poles, excavation of 

streets, and similar factors. 

Since satellite does not impose these costs, it would be inappropriate to charge 

satellite a franchise fee. For similar reasons, it would not be appropriate to charge 

wireless firms a franchise fee if they used some of their spectrum to provide video 

services. This does not amount to treating a competitor differently. Rather, the competitor is simply not charged for using something that it does not use. 

Having said that, I would also like to point out that the wireline video providers 

probably have a legitimate complaint about franchise fees. It is likely that the current maximum 5 percent franchise fee is quite excessive, compared to the costs that 

cable companies, broadband service providers, and telephone companies impose on 

the public when they use the rights-of-way. Out of approximately 175 local governments that filed comments in the FCC’s video franchising proceeding, only three reported franchise fees substantially different from 5 percent. 5 Data on the actual 

costs imposed by cable firms’ use of public rights-of-way are sketchy, but a study 

of Berkeley, CA, found that these costs amounted to only $30,000 annually. 6 Other 

potential video entrants, such as incumbent phone companies and electric utilities 

that could use broadband over powerlines to transmit video, already have arrangements to use the public rights-of-way for other purposes. The additional costs they 

might impose on the public by adding video services are likely small. 

Firms that do not use the public rights-of-way should not have to pay local governments for something they do not use. However, the excessive franchise fees paid 

by cable, telephone, and electric utilities most likely distort competition, and they 

surely increase consumer costs. Since franchise fees represent an increase in marginal costs, it is likely that they are passed right through to consumers. 7 The proconsumer solution is to find a way to reduce franchise fees so that they reflect the 

actual costs that the franchisees create for the public when they use the public 

rights-of-way. 

On a more general level, these two questions ask whether policymakers should 

seek to ‘‘level the playing field’’ by removing artificial distinctions between competitors created by public policy. The ‘‘level playing field’’ is an attractive metaphor that 

appeals to our sense of fairness. But not all ‘‘level playing fields’’ affect consumers 

equally. 

One can level the playing field either by imposing all of the regulations and requirements faced by each competitor on all, or by removing most of them and then 

making the remaining ones competitively neutral. For example, Congress might 

change existing law so that all voice, data, and video services pay a 5 percent franchise fee to local governments, make contributions to the Federal Universal Service 

Fund, and pay the Federal Government some upfront fee before they can enter the 

72

1 Robert W. Crandall and Jerry Ellig, ‘‘Texas Telecommunications: Everything’s Dynamic Except the Prices,’’ Texas Public Policy Foundation Research Report (Jan. 2005), available at

http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2005–01-telecom.pdf. 2 Id. , pp. 117–118. 3The FCC has discussed increasing or deregulating the Federal subscriber line charge in its 

proceeding on intercarrier compensation, discussed in Ellig, supra note 2, pp. 116–118. 

market (as the wireless firms must do when they purchase spectrum). The playing 

field might be level, but consumers would pay substantially more for these services 

than they do now. Alternatively, policymakers could level the playing field by: 

(1) requiring that local governments charge voice, data, or video service providers 

a franchise or other fee no greater than the costs that their use of the public rightsof-way actually imposes on the public, 

(2) funding Universal Service through a phone-number-based charge, and 

(3) making a large quantity of spectrum available for flexible use, which might 

result in less revenue from spectrum auctions but would substantially increase competition and consumer welfare. 

From a consumer perspective, this second ‘‘level playing field’’ is much preferable 

to one in which all companies bear every burden currently borne only by some. 

Finally, I strongly suggest that a fully ‘‘level playing field’’ should not be a prerequisite before policymakers allow new competitors to enter a market. One of the 

benefits of competition is that it helps reveal artificial advantages or disadvantages 

that public policy confers on some competitors, and it creates incentives to eliminate 

them. Competition, therefore, is an important tool that helps policymakers identify 

when the playing field is not level and find a pro-consumer remedy. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

JERRY ELLIG, PH.D. 

Question 1. I know this Committee has spent a lot of time talking about video 

competition, but what can we do to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

Answer. In the most general terms, the best way Congress can ensure healthy 

competition in voice service is to ensure that multiple conduits capable of delivering 

multiple services (including voice) are available to consumers. (I elaborated on this 

point in answering Chairman Stevens’ first question.) 

One additional, significant barrier to competition solely in voice service is the fact 

that many states still require incumbent phone companies to sell basic local service 

at a regulated price that is below the incremental cost of service in many markets. 

In Texas, for example, Robert Crandall and I found that only about 5 percent of the 

four largest incumbents’ residential lines are sold at prices that cover long-run incremental costs. 1 As a result, new competitors have had to find a way to compete 

against incumbents who are forced by regulation to sell local service below cost in 

many places. Some temporarily succeeded by convincing regulators to force the price 

of the unbundled network element platform even further below cost than the regulated retail price of local telephone service. Sustainable competition, however, came 

only from competitors who could introduce a lower-cost technology (such as Voice 

over Internet Protocol), offer a quality attribute that wireline phone service could 

not match (such as the portability offered by wireless), or sell a package of services 

at a price that covered the cost of the whole package (as cable, wireless, ‘‘broadband 

service providers,’’ and facilities-based competitors using only some of the incumbent’s network elements have done). 2

Congress could arguably prohibit states from setting rates for local telephone 

service below cost, because such price regulation interferes with the Federal goal of 

promoting competition in telecommunications. However, Congress may be understandably reluctant to interfere with state regulation of local telephone rates. The 

next best option would be for Congress to support, or at least avoid undermining, 

any FCC initiative to increase or deregulate the Federal subscriber line charge, 

which helps bring the price of local telephone service closer to cost. 3

There are, of course, some very rural markets in which cost-based pricing might 

make voice service more expensive than policymakers feel is desirable. Federal Universal Service policy is intended to promote affordability in these markets. The most 

important thing Congress can do to promote competition in high-cost markets receiving Universal Service support is to make the support competitively neutral, and 

structure the support so that it creates incentives for continuous improvement and 

cost reduction. Universal service programs should have goals that are defined explicitly enough to guide the design of the programs. They should also have performVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 030101 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\30101.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
73

4 Additional ideas on improving the effectiveness of Universal Service programs can be found 

in a series of comments that Mercatus Distinguished Visiting Scholar Maurice McTigue and I 

have filed in the FCC’s proceeding on management of Universal Service programs. These are 

available at http://www.mercatus.org/regulatorystudies/article.php/1509.html. 5Federal Communications Commission, Report on Cable Industry Prices (2005), p. 3. 

ance measures that identify how well the programs are accomplishing the goals that 

Congress established. 4

Question 2. I have some real concerns about any provider cherry picking the 

wealthiest neighborhoods in my state while leaving the rest behind. There has been 

a lot of discussion about this in the context of franchise reform. Is there anything 

Congress can do to protect all consumers? 

Incumbent monopolists frequently allege that competitors will ‘‘cherry pick’’ as a 

justification for preventing entry or imposing costly requirements that will raise 

competitors’ costs. A common justification for requiring new entrants to serve all 

markets served by an incumbent firm is that ‘‘cream-skimming’’ in the most lucrative markets would erode the profits that subsidize prices in less lucrative markets. 

The less lucrative markets may be higher cost, or they may consist of consumers 

who buy only a basic service package. According to this theory, if the new entrant 

takes the ‘‘cream,’’ the incumbent will have to raise prices to its remaining customers, or perhaps even discontinue service to the unprofitable customers. 

Whatever the merits of the cream-skimming argument in theory, there are two 

practical reasons that it is not applicable to contemporary cable markets. 

First, the cream-skimming theory requires that some customers pay prices that 

are below the incremental cost of serving them. These are the customers in danger 

of paying higher prices or losing service if the incumbent loses some of its profits 

from the more lucrative customers. I know of no economic studies showing that 

cable companies currently sell video, broadband, or telephone service to any subscribers at prices that fail to cover the incremental costs of serving those subscribers. As long as prices cover the incremental costs of serving a subscriber or a 

group of subscribers, they make a contribution to covering the fixed costs of the 

cable system. These customers may be less profitable than other customers, but they 

are not unprofitable. As a result, there is no reason for the cable company to stop 

serving them just because it loses some of its more profitable customers. Indeed, if 

the less profitable customers are willing to pay a price that covers the incremental 

cost of serving them, then new entrants would also eventually extend service to 

them, and competition would likely lower their cable rates too. 

Second, the theory that the incumbent deprived of the ‘‘cream’’ will raise prices 

to other customers makes sense only if regulation effectively constrains the prices 

these customers pay. But cable rates are effectively deregulated, because 90 percent 

of subscribers purchase ‘‘expanded basic’’ service, whose price is not regulated. 5

An incumbent unconstrained by regulation will charge whatever price it believes 

the market will bear (taking into account concerns such as its reputation for fair 

dealing and the possibility that a higher price might attract competition). Such an 

incumbent is already charging its customers the most profitable price. A cable incumbent that lost customers to competition and then tried to increase prices on remaining customers would see its profits fall even further. Since cable rates are effectively unregulated, it is unlikely that cable companies are using profits from lucrative markets to subsidize the prices paid by customers in less profitable markets. 

Therefore, no consumers are harmed if new competitors are permitted to serve only 

part of the incumbent cable company’s customers. Because noncompetitive portions 

of the jurisdiction will not see higher rates as a result of competition elsewhere, 

there is no reasonable justification for forcing new competitors to serve the incumbent’s entire territory. 

On the whole, I believe that concerns about ‘‘cherry picking,’’ ‘‘redlining,’’ and 

‘‘cream-skimming’’ in cable stem from an inappropriate analogy with telephone service. Historically, regulation has forced phone companies to sell basic local service to 

many consumers at a price that is below the incremental cost of providing the service. Urban consumers, business customers, and long-distance users were overcharged to provide this subsidy. Cable companies, on the other hand, do not face 

effective rate regulation that would force them to sell to some consumers at prices 

below incremental cost. Therefore, the conditions that lead to cherry-picking are 

simply not present in cable. 

The principal effect of requirements intended to prevent ‘‘cherry-picking’’ would be 

to prevent or delay entry by new wireline cable competitors. 

74

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS TO

DR. MARK COOPER

Question 1. If you were drafting this bill what would you include in it that would 

help promote competition and what would you include that would force consumer 

prices down? We say that promoting competition is designed to bring it down. So, 

it may be there’s one answer for that double question, but I don’t think so. What 

would you include to promote competition and what would you include to force the 

prices down, really, bring them down? 

Answer. The key to promoting competition is to recognize where vigorous competition is possible and where it is not. Competition at the level of the underlying local 

network facilities (last mile transmission, local switching and middle mile transport) 

is likely to be very feeble because of economies of scale and scope. This is especially 

true for less urban and rural areas. Competition for content, applications and services that flow over the communications infrastructure can be much more robust because they are less capital intensive and can cover a larger market area (i.e., they 

are national and global in scope). This analysis argues for strong network neutrality 

and interconnection provisions in the bill. Without these guarantees, the primary 

arena for vigorous competition and price reduction will be constrained if not fully 

undermined. 

We can maximize competition and discipline prices in consumer access charges by 

ensuring that the local network bottleneck is open and nondiscriminatory. The key 

point is to break the wireline duopoly of cable and telephone giants by restoring 

competition in the market for residential and business connectivity. This is precisely 

how the Internet grew under the Communication Act of 1934, and the digital age 

policy established for data transmission by the Federal Communications Commission in the Computer Inquiries. In the event that particular types of services—such 

as cable services—will be dominated by a duopoly in each market, the law should 

require reasonable build-out of the networks to ensure that every American household (not just the urban and the affluent) reaps the benefits of video competition. 

In addition, as I noted in my testimony, Congress can promote the goals of competition and Universal Service simultaneously by making available more spectrum 

for unlicensed uses and protecting the right of local governments to build last mile 

networks. This is especially true in less urban and rural areas, as discussed in my 

answer to the next question. To truly address our alarming broadband digital divide 

and lack of global competitiveness, we must facilitate low-cost wireless technologies 

to offer universal, affordable broadband service.

Question 2. Should spectrum sales be broken down into smaller geographic areas 

so small carriers can afford to bid on the spectrum and to increase competition in 

the less urban and rural areas? 

Answer. The issue is not geographic area, but population served. Creating smaller 

areas does not solve the business problem, especially in rural areas, since the population served is too small to create a base for viable business. While smaller entities 

might be able to buy spectrum licenses, they would not have the subscriber base 

to build a sustainable business. 

In less urban and rural areas, the best solution is to allow unlicensed access to 

the spectrum that is set aside for television, since it is vastly underutilized. I strongly support the Stevens and Allen bills that would facilitate this goal. Unlicensed 

Wifi and WiMax in these bands with more robust propagation characteristics can 

meet the needs of rural residents for the full range of communications service. Allowing unlicensed spectrum lowers the initial capital outlay dramatically and decentralizes the investment. Not only does the unlicensed approach save on the initial 

outlay for spectrum, but a much larger share of the investment necessary is decentralized in the communications equipment owned by the households (i.e., the smart 

radios that form the wireless network). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TRENT LOTT TO

DR. MARK COOPER

Question 1. I know this Committee has spent a lot of time talking about video 

competition, but what can we do to ensure there is healthy competition in the voice 

marketplace? 

Answer. The key to promoting competition is to recognize where vigorous competition is possible and where it is not. Competition at the level of the underlying local 

network facilities (last mile transmission, local switching and middle mile transport) 

is likely to be very feeble because of economies of scale and scope. This is especially 

true for less urban and rural areas. Competition for applications and services that 

75

flow over the communications infrastructure can be much more robust because they 

are less capital intensive and can cover a larger market area (i.e., they are national 

and global in scope). 

We can maximize competition and discipline prices in consumer access charges by 

ensuring that the local network bottleneck is open and nondiscriminatory. The key 

point is to break the wireline duopoly of cable and telephone giants by restoring 

competition in the market for residential and business connectivity. This is precisely 

how the Internet grew under the Communication Act of 1934, and the digital age 

policy established for data transmission by the Federal Communications Commission in the Computer Inquiries. In the event that particular types of services—such 

as cable services—will be dominated by a duopoly in each market, the law should 

require reasonable build-out of the networks to ensure that every American household (not just the urban and the affluent) reaps the benefits of video competition. 

Thus, vigorous competition in voice can only be ensured through voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) if the underlying facilities are made available on a nondiscriminatory basis. The facility owners prevent vigorous competition in voice by creating 

discriminatory quality of service differentials between affiliated and unaffiliated 

VoIP providers.

Question 2. I have some real concerns about any provider cherry picking the 

wealthiest neighborhoods in my state while leaving the rest behind. There has been 

a lot of discussion about this in the context of franchise reform. Is there anything 

Congress can do to protect all consumers? 

Answer. Cherry picking (choosing to serve some customers or areas ) or redlining 

(refusing to serve some customers or areas) should not be allowed in the deployment 

of infrastructure facilities. Broadband communications networks are clearly the 

communications infrastructure of the 21st century. The Congress should impose reasonable build out requirements. Absent these requirements, a franchise reform bill 

will effectively codify the digital divide into statute—guaranteeing a future with digital have’s and have not’s. A duopoly of cable and telephone companies does not constitute competition, nor is it a free market. Good public policy aimed at bringing 

broadband to all Americans is the proper remedy to close the digital divide and rebuild our strength in global competition. 

Additionally, Congress should reform the Universal Service Program. The 1996 

Act envisioned an evolving level of service and it is time to include broadband in 

that definition. Broadband certainly meets the criteria specified in Section 254 of 

the 1996 Act, but it will be a lengthy process under current conditions. Congress 

would do well to recalibrate the national commitment to Universal Service, using 

the transition to broadband to reform contribution and distribution systems to increase efficiency and rationalize costs. 

Congress can promote the goals of competition and Universal Service simultaneously by making available more spectrum for unlicensed uses and protecting the 

right of local governments to build last mile networks. This is especially true in less 

urban and rural areas. 

In less urban and rural areas, the best solution is to allow unlicensed access to 

the spectrum that is set aside for television, since it is vastly underutilized. Unlicensed Wifi and WiMax in these bands with more robust propagation characteristics 

can meet the needs of rural residents for the full range of communications service. 

Allowing unlicensed spectrum lowers the initial capital outlay dramatically and decentralizes the investment. Not only does the unlicensed approach save on the initial outlay for spectrum, but a much larger share of the investment necessary is decentralized in the communications equipment owned by the households (i.e., the 

smart radios that form the wireless network).

Æ