Date: 2006-06-08
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose. granting a nationwide cable television franchise to provide competition. Today. cable television is a series of local monopolies. Only 2 percent of the United States has competition. companies that those local franchises are aggressively marketing. Voice Over IP. telephone service. broadband. and giving them a triple play of video. broadband and voice services at a flat monthly rate. In Houston. that monthly rate is about $100 and you can get digital cable. high speed Internet and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company. To compete with the cables tripleplay monopoly. telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry the highdefinition cable television service and faster broadband. The FCC has found that cable television rates drop 40 percent after competition. And that doesnt even factor in the consumer benefits from the triple play. so to speak. that you add. also the cost savings from telephone Internet and high speed cable service. definition service. As a result. we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises. then therewill be much less cable and tripleplay competition. The purpose of the bill is great. and I have had a number of concerns about the district I represent that is not a wealthy area. These concerns have been addressed. For example. franchise areas are defined as they are today that would prevent telephone companies from cherrypicking areas out of existing franchises. This means that the bills redlining provisions. drafted by my colleague from Illinois. BOBBY RUSH. would stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to serve. I would have preferred Mr. DINGELLS approach. but again we dont have that opportunity. and it didnt pass in committee even though I voted for it. However. I still strongly support the legislation because We have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in my area. As a result. I am confident that the buildout will increase in all *areas of Houston. and they are not just going to go to the highincome areas. they will come to my lowwealth and my middle class area. Mr. Chairman. I would like to place my full statement into the RECORD. and I would hope that this would be a compromise bill. I am sorry that our leadership and the committee didnt work it. But some day. hopefully. it will be the BartonDingell bill again. Mr. Chairman. the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose: granting nationwide cable television franchises to provide competition. Today cable television is a series of local monopoliesonly 2 percent of the U.S. has competition. Companies with these local franchises are aggressively marketing VOIP telephone service and broadband. giving them a "triple play" of video. broadband. and voice services at a flat monthly rate. In Houston. for $100 a month. you can get digital cable. high speed Internet. and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company. To compete _with cables triple play monopoly. telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry highdefinition cable television service and faster broadband. The Federal Communications Commission has found that cable television rats drop 40 percent after competition and that doesnt even factor in the consumer benefits of the triple play. As a result. we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises. then there will be much less cable and triple play competition. The purpose of the bill is great. but I did have a number of concerns about this legislation and its effects on the middleclass folks in my district. These concerns have been addressed. For example. franchise areas in the bill were defined as they are today. which would prevent telephone companies from cherrypicking areas out of existing franchise areas. This means that the bills antiredlining provisions. drafted by Congressman BOBBY RUSH. will stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to offer service. I would have preferred the approach by Mr. DINGELL. which would have set reasonable. flexible guidelines for companies to build out their networks and offer new services. I wish we could have considered Mr. DINGELLS amendment today. and I am disappropriated -that the Rules Committee rejected it. They did a disservice to one of the most- knowledgeable. respected Members in the history of Congress. However. I can still strongly support this legislation because we have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in the Houston area. As a result of those conversations. I am confident that buildout is going to increase in all areas of Houston and that they are not going to discriminate against our middle class and low wealth areas. To all members who are concerned about the impact of this legislation on your district. I encourage you to contact your incumbent telecom company and meet with their local staff responsible for deployment. not just the DC staff. I think gou will be happy with what you hear. Cities are also concerned with their interests in franchising. but many of these concerns have been addressed. Cities will not lose any revenue as a result of this bill. The COPE Act allows 5 percent franchise fees and 1 percent public access fees. Cities will also not lose any rightofway control and to make sure. I included an amendment in Committee to require companies to certify in writing that they will obey local right of way rules. I do regret that the usual bipartisan telecom process between the leadership of our Committee has temporarily broken down. Today is not the end of the road. so I hope this can still become a BartonDingell bill or a DingellBarton bill before all is said and done.