roundtable: A Short History of Universal Service, 1995 (175K)
roundtable: A Short History of Universal Service, 1995 (175K)
A Short History of Universal Service, 1995 (175K)
W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Mon, 20 Nov 95 18:19:57 EST
Message-Id: <9511202320.AA03388@a.cni.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 18:19:57 EST
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: A Short History of Universal Service, 1995 (175K)
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
Archive: A Short History of Universal Service, 1995 (175K)
Progress of the Snowe-Rockefeller
Amendment for providing Universal Services
for 'Health Care Providers for Ruralareas,
Educational Providers, and Libraries'"
Compiled November 16, 1995
Dr. W. Curtiss Priest
Center for Information, Technology & Society
Presented at Alliance for Public Technology
Panel on Federal Legislation and an Advanced
Universal Service Goal
John Hancock Conference Center
40 Trinity Place
Boston, MA November 17, 1995
Introduction:
What this document is about:
1. A insight into the legislative process over the last half
year about
2. Arguments for and against the provision of Universal Service
3. Current Status in Conference
Why is this important?:
Already there are signs that universal service will be constantly
redefined as we move into new technologies, new services and the
restructuring of existing services.
An example, already, is that the original Snowe-Rockefeller
language to provide services at "incremental costs" were changed
to less defined goals of "affordable costs."
So the stage is being set here for a debate which will not
end whether a bill is signed this year or not. Universal services
is, using "rights language," a fundamental minimum right of an
individual or group to be part of the information infrastructure.
We recognize that those who can't (or won't) afford a minimum
service must be helped by "the Public Hand" (see Appendix A,
Basis for the Public Hand).
What we have difficulty deciding is what level qualifies
as universal service? Is it a "black phone" or a "color phone?"
And does it include broadband video and other advanced telecommunications?
For example, some medical examination procedures use broadband
video as well as the transmission of critical data such as EKG,
blood gas levels, and other health indicator data. It has been
accepted that people in urban areas get better health care than
rural areas because of the "quality of health care facilities."
But is that to be accepted, today? with the possibilities for
telemedicine? A strong argument can be made for a sizeable investment
in rural information infrastructure to support improved equity
in health care services.
The original Snowe-Rockefeller language has an "Advanced Services"
section (see below).
Whatever is not decided in the Bill will become a subject of
the Joint Federal-State Board. This board, overseen by the FCC,
will take its direction from the bill. This will pass control from
the U.S. Congress to the FCC and the PUC commissioners who
will comprise the board (with one public advocate if the House
provision for one prevails).
What are the Arguments Against Snowe-Rockefeller?:
Senator McCain articulated the arguments in the June 8th
Senate hearings.
1. Snowe-Rockefeller is an "unfunded mandate" and, thus,
may not be considered under current rules governing the
Senate
2. The amendment lacks "means testing." I.e. it does
not discriminate between rich libraries, rich schools and
poor libraries, and poor schools.
3. Subsidization for universal service is a "local issue"
that should be considered by "local decisionmaking."
Why is this document so long?:
This document represents a short history about an important
subject. The Senate hearings on the McCain amendment to strike
Snowe-Rockefeller, on June 8th, 1995 was 1/2 megabyte of material
(excluding letters from the coalition supporting affordable
telecommunications access).
In particular, Senator Snowe and others articulated the many
reasons to support universal service for rural medicine, schools,
and libraries. This material is included because it speaks
specifically to the issue.
Summary:
The Snowe-Rockefeller amendment was adopted in Senate committee. Thus,
it does not appear in the original S. 632 Pressler Bill nor
does it appear in the Congressional Record.
The language for providing services at "incremental costs" was
changed in a Manager's amendment to "affordable costs" and
"reasonable rates" (see below)
This document contains a progression of materials taken from
Internet sites and from various List messages.
The House was not successful with a similar provision called the
Morella, Orton, Ney, and Lofgren Amendment in HR 1555. It was defeated
because a "satisfactory funding mechanism did not exist."
At about 12:30 AM on August 3, during US House of Representatives debate on
HR 1555 (the Communications Act of 1995), House Commerce Chairman Thomas
Bliley, Jr. of Virginia promised that he would "work with sponsors of the
House amendment on affordable telecommunications access for schools, public
libraries and telemedicine activities in rural hospitals [i.e., Morella
(R-MD), Orton (D-UT), Ney (R-OH), and Lofgren (D-CA)] to get their
language adopted in the Senate/House conference on the telecommunications
bill(s). (from below)
On Monday 11/6/95, the Congressional Conference on Telecommunications
Reform [began] delibrations on Universal Service and the
affordable access provisions for schools, libraries, and rural telemedicine
providers that are included as a part of Universal Service. (from below)
In summary, it appears that the Snowe-Rockefeller provisions are
prevailing, but the House is having difficulty drafting language
to their satisfaction. The House would rather let the Joint
Federal-State board deal with the issue than include a specific
provision for expanded Universal Service in the bill.
Footnote: SREK is short for Snowe-Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey
========================================================================
CURRENT STATUS REPORTS:
Note: Committee conferences are held behind closed doors, not
open to the public. Information about the current status of
the Telecommunications Reform Bill, therefore, is mostly
rumor. But, like most rumor, the information is likely
to be indicative of what is occuring.
CITS conversation with Bill Wright:
November 16, 1995, 1PM
Bill Wright, Executive Director
Council for School Networking
Washington, DC
Bill had lunch recently with Jill Lesser (People for the American
Way)
Jill had recently given a presentation on Nov. 7th before the
Telecommunications Policy Roundtable in Washington
Discussion of conference committee action involving HR 1555 and S 652.
* Snowe/Rockefeller provision to help link schools/libraries to the NII
(Jill Lesser, Civic Media Project)
1. Senate staff made presentation about universal service
Cheryl Bruner, Rockefeller's aid made a presentation and
it "went well." The house side was to respond.
2. The response was expected last Monday
3. Some heard that the house had responded, some heard that
they hadn't responded, and some had heard the house did
not find Snowe-Rockefeller a "satisfactory provision."
CITS email with Patrice McDermott, OMB Watch
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 17:27:21 EDT
The information at the NEA meeting was kind of conflicting, but it seems
that--as far as anyone knows at this point--it is not in trouble. THe
hang-up is that there is no universal service fund in the House bill & so
they have to come up with language ([refraining from] just tak[ing] the
Senate language!). The people who spoke said that it is anticipated that
the Conference will essentially be SREK. [Four] of the Bells have signed
off on the language. [SREK -- Snowe, Rockefeller, Exon, Kerrey]
The other potential glitch is a provision intro'd by Moseley-Braun that
creates/gives blessing to a nonprofit corporation that will collect
monies from wherever & funnel them to the states for grants, low- or
no-interest loans for infrastructure. The worry is that, as this is a
no-money-from-the-industry provision, they will push it & kill SREK. But
there is no evidence of that so far. It is just something to watch out
for.
CITS email with Anthony Wright, Center for Media Education
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 17:31:25 EDT
Updates from people more involved in the legislation than I indicate that
the Snowe-Rockefeller language has not been decided upon yet. Apparently,
buying into Snow-Rock[efeller] also means buying into the whole universal servic
framework of the Senate bill, which is different than the House. (The House
basically punts the issue to a board.)
On other issues, the conference committee does seem to be mindful of the
President's concerns, seemingly wanting to compromise a little [very little]
on cable/telco cross-ownership and cable rate regulation ... However, since
Snow[e]-Rock[efeller] is on Clinton's wish list, he may well get it.
In terms of timetable, the earliest this bill will get on the floor of the
Congress in early December, but that seems ridiculous at this point.
Rather, I suspect that votes and vetoes might not occur till early next
year.
=======================================================================
The Original Snowe-Rockefeller Amendment
The following was obtained at gopher.ba.com:
(this contains the original Snowe-Rockefeller Amendment)
3.23.95 - Senate Committee Markup
The following document is an electronic version of the Committee Markup.
A complete official printed copy will be available from the Senate
Commerce Committee when the Committee Report is finished.
Calendar No.
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 632
[Report No. 104 ]
To provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national
policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector
deployment of advanced telecommunications and information
technologies and services to all Americans by opening all
telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 23, 1995
Mr. Pressler , from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Technology, reported the following original bill; which was read
twice and placed on the calendar
A BILL
To provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national
policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector
deployment of advanced telecommunications and information
technologies and services to all Americans by opening all
telecommunications markets to competition, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Telecommunications Competition and
Deregulation Act of 1995''.
[text deleted]
SEC. 310. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOR
RURALAREAS, EDUCATIONAL PROVIDERS, AND LIBRARIES.
Part II of title II (47 U.S.C. 251 et seq.), as added by this Act,
is amended by inserting after section 263 the following:
``SEC. 264. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PROVIDERS.
``(a) In General._
``(1) Health care providers for rural areas._ A
telecommunications carrier designated as an essential
telecommunications carrier under section 214(d) shall, upon
receiving a bona fide request, provide universal service at rates
that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar
services in urban areas to any public or nonprofit health care
provider for telecommunications services that permit such provider
to provide health care services, including instruction relating to
such services, to persons who reside in rural areas.
``(2) Educational providers and libraries._ Any
telecommunications carrier shall, upon receiving a bona fide
request, provide universal service (as defined under section 253)
at rates that are affordable and not higher than the incremental
cost thereof to elementary schools, secondary schools, and
libraries for telecommunications services that permit such schools
and libraries to provide or receive educational services.
``(b) Support Payments._ If the Commission adopts rules for the
distribution of support payments for the preservation and
advancement of universal service, the Commission shall include the
amount of the support payments reasonably necessary to provide
universal service to public institutional telecommunications users
in any universal service support mechanism it may establish under
section 253.
``(c) Advanced Services._ The Commission shall establish rules_
``(1) to enhance, to the extent technically feasible and
economically reasonable, the availability of advanced
telecommunications and information services to all public and
nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care
facilities, and libraries;
``(2) to ensure that appropriate functional requirements or
performance standards, or both, including interoperability
standards, are established for telecommunications carriers that
connect such public institutional telecommunications users with the
public switched network;
``(3) to define the circumstances under which a telecommunications
carrier may be required to connect its network to such public
institutional telecommunications users; and
``(4) to address other matters as the Commission may determine.
``(d) Definitions._
``(1) Elementary and secondary schools._ The term `elementary and
secondary schools' means elementary schools and secondary schools,
as defined in paragraphs (14) and (25), respectively, of section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8801).
``(2) Universal service._ The Commission may in the public
interest provide a separate definition of universal service under
section 253(b) for application only to public institutional
telecommunications users.
``(3) Health care provider._ The term `health care provider'
means_
``(A) Post-secondary educational institutions, teaching hospitals,
and medical schools.
``(B) Community health centers or health centers providing health
care to migrants.
``(C) Local health departments or agencies.
``(D) Community mental health centers.
``(E) Not-for-profit hospitals.
``(F) Rural health clinics.
``(G) Consortia of health care providers consisting of one or more
entities described in subparagraphs (A) through (F).
``(4) Public institutional telecommunications user._ The term
`public institutional telecommunications user' means an elementary
or secondary school, a library, or a health care provider.''.
[#end of Sec. 301]
[text deleted]
=======================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 14:44:28 -0400
Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Sender: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@TDRS.COM>
Subject: Re: McCain Amendment to Remove Public Interest Test
X-To: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu, TPR-NE@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list TPR-NE <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
This amendment went down, 68-31, due largely to Pressler's support
for the existing language in the bill.
McCain is presently aiming his blunderbluss at Sec. 310,
"Telecommunications services for health care providers for rural areas,
educational providers, and libraries," the Snowe-Rockefeller
provisions. He is calling the provision an "unfunded mandate."
Note: Dole voted with McCain on his amendment to remove the public
interest test.
=======================================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 20:33:56 -0400
Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Sender: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@TDRS.COM>
Subject: Sec. 310 of S.652
X-To: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu, TPR-NE@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list TPR-NE <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Good news! The Snowe-Rockefeller provisions on reasonable rates for
health care providers for rural areas, educational providers, and libraries
has been preserved in S.652. It was accepted on a 58-36
vote.
Note: The original language referring to "incremental cost"
for provision of services to educational providers and libraries will
be modified to "reasonable rates" in a "Manager's Amendment," agreed to by
the principal authors of the language, Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Kerry.
Craig
=======================================================================
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 13:15:26 -0400
Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Sender: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@TDRS.COM>
Subject: telecommunications access for America's schools in H.R. 1555[FWD]
X-To: TPR-NE%MITVMA.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list TPR-NE <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
As one who sat through the markup, I can tell you that the cite below is an
understatement. The Republicans were very close to backing the Cox
amendment and washing out all universal service obligations except for basic
voice.
> Leading up to this action, there has been a lot of discussion
>on this provision in Congressional offices, hallways, committee
>rooms, and offices/schools throughout Washington, DC and across
>America. Some, wanted much more than "recommendations to ensure
>access" -- perhaps at least "provisions to ensure affordable
>access". Others, wanted affordable access and much broader
>coverage -- perhaps to include "students in continuing, higher
>education, and library settings." But, still others wanted TO
>COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THESE UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROVISIONS altogether.
>
At minimum, public interest advocates should work to get the language of the
Senate bill regarding rural access and universal service (the Kerry,
Snowe-Rockefeller, and Hutchinson provisions) included in the conference
version. Since the House bill will not be brought to the floor probably
until after the 4th of July, the action in the next month will be in the
Senate, which is slated to begin debate on S.652 on June 5. The debate on
the Senate bill will also determine whether the Communications Decency Act
provisions will stay in, or whether something more palatable, like Sen.
Leahy's S.714 will be substituted.
One of the amendments which passed yesterday, euphemistically titled
"Affordable Voice Grade Service," was offered by Rep. Crapo (R-ID) who
strode into the markup with his sights squarely trained on those who would
tamper with states' rights. Crapo's amendment, which passed on a 30 to 13
roll call vote, would call upon state commissions to "permit residential
subscribers to receive only basic voice-grade local telephone service, for a
period of not more than 3 years, equivalent to the service generally
available to residential subscribers on the date of enactment."
In other words, after three years, residential consumers are left to
the whims of their trusty state regulators. During the three-year
period, "any increases in the rates for such services . . . shall be
permitted . . . upon a showing that such increase is necessary to ensure the
continued availability of universal service, prevent economic disadvantage
for one or more service providers, and is in the public interest."
Despite pleas from Democratic lawmakers that adoption would result in "rate
shock" and Markey's admonition that the four-year rate freeze in the
Chairman's mark was "wise prophylactic interim protection," the Committee
majority swallowed Crapo's reassurances that states have been historically
cautious and that nothing in the provision would cause consumers' bills to
go "sky high."
NOTE: This measure, if passed in the final legislation, would effectively
permit states to differentially price ISDN services, and to raise rates as
they see fit. It undermines universal access protections offered in the
Senate bill and runs counter to the "comparable access" and "incremental
cost" language in S.652. If enacted, one is likely to see first, second,
and third-class citizens strewn all over the information superhighway.
The measure may have also serious impacts upon Net access, in that different
states may choose to price offerings at widely discrepant
rates or telcos/cable operators may price "basic voice grade" service used
for data transmission over the Net differently than the same service used
only for voice communications. ISDN services to the consumer are not
covered even in the three-year period, and if offered as part of basic
service during the three-year period, could be priced on a state-by-state
basis, according to "rates generally available" and "pricing rules
established by the States." Further, increases could be sought based on the
claim that they are necessary to continue to provide "universal service" or
that a service provider is being "economically disadvantaged."
The spectre of captive state regulators is vivid and real. ISPs as well as
all consumers should be seriously concerned about this reckless measure.
Craig
=======================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 13:08:17 -0400
Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Sender: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@TDRS.COM>
Subject: Re: time to talk
X-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast
<TPR-NE%MITVMA.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
X-cc: cyber-rights@sunnyside.com
To: Multiple recipients of list TPR-NE <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
On 2 June, Andy Oram wrote:
>There are battles going on across so many fronts that I don't know
>where to start. But I think I'd rank the public-interest issues in
>the following order, from most important to least important:
>
> 1. Defeating the censorship provisions
>
> 2. Ensuring common carrier status (which also means a firewall
> between content provider and carrier)
>
> 3. Promoting rural access
>
> 4. Ensuring interoperability
>...>
>The broad definition of universal service to cover more than POTS
>seems to be assured already; so is low-cost access for PEG
>institutions. Access for the disabled, which I consider important,
>also seems to be in both the Senate and House bills.
Andy, this is a good run at it. I have some comments on all of your
points, but here I just want to address the paragraph above.
Unfortunately, universal service provisions which cover more than POTS are
decidedly *not* assured, even though both bills contain "universal service"
language.
HR 1555, as I have pointed out (and which was recently re-stated by
Coralee) does not contain the language regarding access that S.652
contains. There are no provisions for PEG access at "incremental costs,"
phraseology which was hotly in dispute in the Senate Commerce Committee
debate and will surely be taken up next week when S.652 goes to the floor.
There is a weak-kneed provision catering to public interests in Sec.
246(b). It contains good words describing
principles upon which the Joint Board should "base policies for the
preservation of universal service." The principles include "quality
services at just and reasonable rates," promotion of "access to advanced
telecommunications services," and promotion of "reasonably comparable
services for the general public in urban and rural areas."
But, regrettably, the House bill does not contain the Sec. 310 language (the
Snowe-Rockefeller amendment) in S.652, which:
a) guarantees access for health care providers, educational providers and
libraries; and b)directs the FCC to establish rules to "enhance. . . the
availability of advanced telecommunications and information services to all
public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care
providers, and libraries.," The Senate bill also calls for appropriate
guarantees for "functional requirements," "performance standards," and
"interconnection standards" and provides for the FCC, in the public
interest, to supply a definition of universal service **"for application
only to public institutional telecommunications users."**
None of this is in House bill and Gingrich is saying that HR 1555 is
not deregulatory enough!! His minions are hard at work trying to
whittle away at what few access provisions exist. Moreover, his
think tank, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, this week called for
the dissolution of the FCC (which continues to function in many ways
as the best guarantor of the public trust)
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) tried his hardest during the subcommittee markup
to introduce an amendment to HR 1555 that would limit
universal service guarantees to "voice grade" offerings. Cox branded
the universal service system an entitlement program which "doesn't
work."
Cox is expected, and was assured by Subcommittee Chair Jack Fields
(R-TX), that he would have an opportunity to offer such an amendment
on the floor.
This should be seen in the context of the successful amendment on
"Affordable Voice Grade Service" offered by Rep. Crapo (R-ID), which would
unleash state regulators to price telephone service as they see fit after
three years and would allow rates to be raised in the interim upon such
flimsy pretexts as "ensuring the continued availability of universal
service." Translation: let the telcos run wild with their packaging and
pricing schemes replete with all kinds of add-ons and goodies. Or, more
directly, the amendment states
that rates can be raised to "prevent economic disadvantage for one or more
service providers."
Together with the provisions which would sunset the Federal-State
Joint Board after five years and failure to provide for a process
ensuring interoperability, HR 1555 cannot be said to contain anything
close to sufficient guarantees for competitive access or universal service.
Coralee and Andy are on the right track. Let's get some discussion
going on these bills. I'll try to report relevant issues from the
Senate debate next week, as time allows.
Craig
=======================================================================
>From the Benton Foundation
(CITS filing date: 6/11/95)
WHAT'S GOING ON/UPDATE
INTRODUCTION
April 6th,1995. The first three months of this year have brought new
[text deleted]
Some Gains for the Noncommercial Sector
The noncommercial sector won some victories in the Commerce Committee.
Lawmakers approved an amendment that would allow so-called essential
telecommunications carriers to receive subsidies for serving schools,
libraries, and rural health-care providers. Such institutions would
have to be charged rates deemed affordable and not greater than their
incremental cost. That means rates for these institutions could cover
only the cost of extending service to them, not the telecommunications
companies' underlying capital costs.
The Federal Communications Commission, the K-12 International Society
for Technology in Education (ISTE), the National School Boards
Association and the National Education Association all had lobbied for
the "affordable school access" provision. Nevertheless, the
amendment, which was sponsored by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of
Maine and Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, prompted
heated debate and passed on a narrow 10-8 vote.
An aide to Sen. Snowe conceded it's difficult to determine what
impact the provision would have. In at least some cases, the aide said,
even the incremental cost of service could be quite high. Blau, noting
that telephone rate-setting is an "art performed by a committee of
the politically pressured," said that realizing substantial
discounts as a result of the provision would require some
"constructive fighting" on the part of public interest
groups. The Senate committee also voted to require telephone companies
to offer public, educational and governmental entities access to video
dial tone systems at incremental rates. Local broadcasters already
qualify for such discounted rates. The amendment, sponsored by Sen.
John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, could give so-called PEG channels
a new outlet; they traditionally have been associated with cable
television. But the terms of their entry into telephone companies'
video systems would be less favorable than their current access to
cable systems, which must carry such programming free of charge.
Universal Service
The drive toward deregulation, combined with technological change, is
renewing the debate over what telecommunications services should be
guaranteed to all Americans. The regional Bell companies, which
traditionally have borne the responsibility for ensuring universal
telephone service, say they can't shoulder this burden alone in an era
of deregulation. At the same time, the development of new technologies
has thrown into question the very definition of universal service.
The Commerce Committee voted to establish a Federal-State Joint Board
to recommend to the Federal Communications Commission how to define and
achieve universal service in telecommunications. Lawmakers acknowledged
that the concept of universal service is "evolving," and said
it should take into account "advances in telecommunications and
information technologies and services." that enable all Americans
"to participate effectively in the economic, academic, medical and
democratic process of the Nation." At a minimum, they said, it
must include "telecommunications services that the commission
determines have, through the operation of market choices by customers,
been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential
customers."
That could allow substantial growth in the gap between the
information haves and have-nots before any government intervention
would be triggered.
Some analysts believe such a gap also could be fostered by the new
mechanisms being considered to finance universal service.
Traditionally, the cost of universal service generally has been
embedded in the rate structure of local telephone companies, with the
cost of basic residential service subsidized by revenues from
long-distance and other services. The Commerce Committee bill would
make the cost of universal service explicit; all telecommunications
carriers would be required to contribute "on an equitable and
nondiscriminatory basis" to help "essential" carriers
meet the cost of preserving universal service.
Analysts say there are good economic arguments for making such costs
explicit; but politically, such a change could threaten universal
service by driving a wedge between those who are subsidized and those
who pay the subsidies. "The universal service debate is
transplanting the debate over health and welfare to telecommunications,
and it has a good chance of becoming just as fractious," warns New
York Law School Professor Allen Hammond.
=======================================================================
################ #############
################ ## #
## #############
## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ###
## # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### #
## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # #
## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
====================================================
Free Speech Media, LLC
June 6, 1995
Number 4
6 pages
====================================================
Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb
S 652 - WHAT IS GOOD
>From the public interest perspective, there is one good feature
of this bill - the "Snow-Rockefeller" amendment insuring
incremental cost-based rates for education, libraries, and
health care providers - but even that is contested.
"Affordable" as opposed to the current "cost-based" language has
been suggested. Sen. Dole (R-KA) is circulating an alternative
to the Snowe-Rockefeller amendment that would provide a fund
developed from monies returned from 75 MHz of spectrum sales to
support educational access to the National Information
Infrastructure (NII). While on its face this looks like a
generous effort, the spectrum specified is on the low end of
desireability and unlikely to be freed for auction -ultimately
promising a very small fund. Sen. Lott is proposing that a
seperate fund be developed that would be used for
telecommunications equipment, services and training. It would
be nice if this were to supplement Snowe-Rockerfeller but it is
meant to serve as a substitute.
Universal service language is strong in the bill. Language
promoted by the Alliance for Public Technology that describes
the universal service goal that will "promote and encourage
advanced telecommunications networks, capable of enabling users
to originate and receive affordable, high-quality voice, data,
image, graphic and video telecommunicaitons services" is
included. It also calls for appropriate guarantees for
"functional requirements," "performance standards, " and
"interconnection standards". This language is at risk in the
House counterpart as there are moves to restrict universal
service goals to POTS. A petition to support this language is
included in the followup post, Telecom Post Action Items.
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
CITS Preface: The following is the first opportunity the public
has to have a record of the arguments for and against the Snowe-
Rockefeller amendment. It was triggered by Senator McCain's attempt
to have the Snowe-Rockefeller Amendment stricken from the bill.
Here we have arguments by Snowe, Bingaman, Rockefeller, Robb, and
Byrd in support of the new provisions for Universal Service and
we have McCain's argument against the provision.
In Snowe's final statements she cites 38 organizations that
supported a coalition in favor of her amendment.
Jun-8-95 (SENATE) THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT
Note: This document is the unofficial version of the Congressional Record.
The printed Congressional Record produced by the Government Printing
Office is the only official version.
PART CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (SENATE)
DATE June 8, 1995
PAGE PAGE S7972
TITLE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT
TEXT The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
[text deleted]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the
amendment that has been offered by Senator McCain. It certainly is
disturbing to think that some Members in this body cannot accept a
provision that will provide affordable access to rural schools,
libraries, and health care providers, given that we have become
part of the information age, and this issue is absolutely critical
to our Nation`s future.
The Senator from Arizona has offered an amendment that will
strike the provision that was offered by Senator Rockefeller,
Senator Exon, Senator Kerrey, and myself in the Commerce Committee
which requires telecommunications carriers, upon a bona fide
request, to provide important telecommunications services to
schools and libraries and rural health care providers.
PAGE S7977
This principle of affordable access is not a new concept. The
universal service concept has been embodied in our national
telecommunications policy since 1934, to ensure that all parts of
America had access to the telephone. It was important to ensure
that all Americans had access to the essential service at the time,
telephone service.
But universal service needs to be updated, and in fact, the bill
recognizes that universal service is an evolving concept. The bill
presently ensures universal service for telemedicine, and
educational services, which I believe will make a difference, not
only for America and its ability to compete with other countries,
but also for individuals in preparing themselves for the work force
of tomorrow, which we know will be constantly changing. And
ensuring that our Nation`s children gain access to the important
technologies of the future will make a significant difference in
the standard of living they and their families will enjoy for years
to come. That is what this amendment is all about.
The Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, is offering an
amendment to strike this language. His amendment will result in a
nation of technology haves and have-nots, and that is not an
outcome that I am willing to accept.
PAGE S7977
I do not believe that we in Congress should pass a new
telecommunications policy - I might add, the first revision of the
Communications Act since 1934 - which divides our Nation between
the telecommunications haves and the have-nots. Many of the
telecommunications providers are going to reap enormous gains from
this legislation. Most will, and some will not. But the point is,
in deregulating the telecommunications industry, we must make sure
that we do not deny important areas of our country affordable
access to telecommunications services.
We know the densely populated urban areas will benefit from
deregulation. They will have the benefit of all of the advances in
technology for today and tomorrow and thereafter. But what about
the rural areas? We know now that telecommunications services are
far more expensive in rural areas than they are in urban areas, for
example, access to Internet costs more in rural areas because the
Internet nodes of access often are not in local calling areas,
meaning that rural consumers must pay toll rates.
What is going to happen now? If we do not guarantee some
affordable access to telecommunications services in rural schools,
libraries, and health care centers, where are they going to be
tomorrow? Where will our Nation be? It is in our national interest
to ensure that these areas are part of the information
superhighway.
PAGE S7977
If we want young people to be familiar with technology and to
have it become second nature to them, to understand that it is
their future, I cannot understand why we would support Senator
McCain`s amendment, which would take out the one provision that
provides enormous public gain for all of America.
Look at telemedicine. It is the here and now and it is the wave
of the future. I have talked to many rural health care centers in
my State of Maine. They need affordable access to telemedicine.
They need the help so that they can provide the same kind of
services and health care for their rural constituents as enjoyed by
residents of more densely populated areas.
I received a letter recently from Eastern Maine Health Care
Services, which is located in a rural area of the State. They
write:
PAGE S7977
In the past several months, a network of hospitals have begun to
collaborate in our region of Maine. One of the outstanding issues
within that group is the need to use telemedicine as a tool for
providing cost-effective quality health care from the smallest to
the largest towns in our region. Telemedicine in our region is
defined as the transmission of data - voice, image, and video -
over distance. We have come across many obstacles in this
endeavor, but one of the greatest obstacles is the transmission of
these media over the present telecommunications lines at an
affordable cost. Many of the hospitals and health centers in our
service area have extremely limited funds.
I thank the Senator, the chairman of our committee, Mr. Pressler,
for including important refinements to this language in the
managers` amendment. I know that there are some, such as the
sponsor of the amendment to strike this language, who believe that
the S 7978 marketplace should be free of regulations and that
somehow, someway, affordable telecommunications will be available
for everybody at affordable rates.
Other Senators have mentioned here on the floor today, as an
example of deregulation and the impact that it has had on many
rural parts of our country, the impact of airline deregulation. I
can certainly speak firsthand to that, as far as how it has
affected the State of Maine. It certainly has denied us the kind of
airline service I would have thought might have developed from
deregulation, and it simply has not happened.
PAGE S7977
Many of the areas that at one time had the benefits of airline
service - and I might add jet service - do not even have the
benefits of commercial airline service.
Our largest city in the State of Maine, Portland, ME, is losing
jet service as a result of deregulation. That is occurring this
year.
Since we have had deregulation - this is about 17 years ago - the
situation has gotten worse. It has not improved in the rural areas
of our country. That is a fact.
PAGE S7977
I can speak to it firsthand because I use those airlines every
week. We have commuter services. We do not have jet service for
the most part, anymore, in the State of Maine. Most of the areas,
like Presque Isle and Portland, that used to have jet service do
not have the benefits of commercial airline service.
So that is why I cannot understand why we want to apply the same
notion here when it comes to telecommunication services. What will
happen to the rural area? Who will make sure that our schools,
libraries and health care centers are going to have the benefits of
our national information infrastructure, if we do not provide for
that in this legislation?
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said `If our country doesn`t figure
out a way to bring the information age to the country`s poor, we
are buying ourselves a 21st century of enormous domestic pain.` He
said, `Somehow there has to be a missionary spirit in America that
says to the poor kid, the Internet is for you, the information is
for you.`
PAGE S7977
Well, that is exactly right. But I think that we have an
obligation as a Nation to ensure that our young people have
affordable access to this kind of service.
The National Center for Education Statistics reports - and I
think it is interesting to note these statistics because I think it
proves the point - that 35 percent of public schools have access to
the internet, but only 3 percent of all instructional rooms,
classrooms, labs, and media centers in public schools are connected
to the internet.
Of the 35 percent of the schools with access, 36 percent cited
telecommunication rates as a barrier to maximizing the use of their
telecommunication capabilities.
PAGE S7977
Some would suggest that the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey amendment is
opening a Pandora`s box, a new array of entitlements for schools,
libraries and hospitals. No, it is not.
As I said earlier in my remarks, universal service provisions for
residential consumers existed in the bill prior to the adoption of
this amendment, to this legislation, in the committee.
Those provisions guaranteed access to essential telecommunication
services for residential consumers. Our amendment simply provides
that assurance for key institutions in rural areas. Our objective
is to ensure that rural areas are on an equal footing in terms of
schools, libraries, and health care facilities in urban areas.
PAGE S7977
I should also mention the fact that we have worked with some of
the Bell telephone companies to address their concerns. We made
some changes in the language, to address their concerns about
incremental costs language. The revised language ensures
affordable access to educational services for schools and
libraries, and discounts will be determined, as for residential
consumers, by the joint board in conjunction with the FCC and the
states. The discount must be an amount necessary to ensure
affordable access to use the telecommunications services for
educational services.
Some have suggested that these discounts would be wasted on some
communities with poor schools, low literacy rates, high levels of
unemployment, or other social problems. I disagree. This language
will open doors, not close them. Those communities stand to gain
enormously from the telecommunication network. It will open up a
whole new world to these communities. Senator McCain`s amendment
will deny those gains, benefits, and opportunities for troubled
areas.
We do not know what the future will be all about. We do not have
a crystal ball. We do know, however, that technology and the
information age is going to be very much part of our future, I
think in ways which we cannot now fully anticipate or appreciate
even today.
PAGE S7977
This is the first time we have addressed telecommunication
policies, I mentioned, since 1934. There probably will be years and
decades before we come back to this issue as a Nation and as an
institution.
How can we seek to deprive some areas of the country of the
knowledge that they need in order to thrive and to develop, and to
be productive for the future, for their future and this country`s
future?
Knowledge is power. To cut some areas off from the information
superhighway is not only denying them the future that they deserve,
but it is denying the kind of future this country deserves, because
their future is going to affect America`s future.
PAGE S7977
I hope that the Senate will reject this amendment of Senator
McCain to strike out our universal service language, which, I might
add, is not a new concept. In fact, it is interesting to note that
the Commerce Committee in the last Congress approved a bill by a
vote of 18 to 2 which contained adopted similar language on this
very issue, extending the universal service concept to these key
institutions, schools, libraries and rural health care facilities.
Last year`s bill went even further than this year`s bill - it
contained universal service discounts for museums and zoos and so
on.
We narrowed our language to ensure that we were just addressing
the needs of key entities that are so important to the development
of this Nation.
Funding is a major barrier to access, it is the one that is most
often cited in the acquisition of users of advanced
telecommunications in public schools.
PAGE S7977
Smaller schools, with enrollments of less than 300, are less
likely to be on the internet than schools with larger enrollment
sizes. Only 30 percent of the small schools reported having
internet access, while 58 percent of schools with enrollments of
1,000 or more reported having internet access.
So we know that there is a gap between the high expectations of
an increasingly technologically-driven society and the inability of
most schools, particularly rural schools, to prepare students
adequately for the high-technology future.
Almost 90 percent of K through 12 classrooms lack even basic
access to telephone service. Telephone lines are used to hook up
modems to the internet. When classrooms do have phone lines,
schools are typically charged at the corporate rate for service.
Schools and libraries in rural areas often pay more for access to
information services because the information service providers are
not located in the local calling regions, meaning they have to make
long-distance calls.
PAGE S7977
A recent study conducted by the U.S. National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science found that 21 percent of public
libraries had internet connections. Only 12.8 percent provide
public access terminals. Internet connections were 77 percent for
public libraries serving a population base of more than 1 million,
but declined to 13.3 percent for libraries serving fewer than
5,000. Maine, I might add, has a population of 1.2 million. The
largest city representing Maine has no more than 80,000 people.
I hope that Members of this body would understand the importance
and the value of maintaining the language that we have included in
this legislation. It is so important to our future and to our
children`s future. It is fundamental that we, as a Nation, assure
that all areas in America have access to essential
telecommunication services for the future.
I, for one, will not vote to deprive schools and libraries and
hospitals of the affordable telecommunication services that they
need and require. S 7979
PAGE S7977
I hope that Members of this body will vote to defeat Senator
McCain`s amendment. His amendment will go a long ways toward
denying the important opportunities that we should afford our young
people. No matter where they live in America, everyone should be
entitled to have access to the information superhighway which will
be so much a part of our future. So I urge Members of this body to
defeat the McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
PAGE S7979
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak just briefly on this
amendment that Senator McCain has offered to strike out section 310
of the telecommunications bill and indicate my strong opposition to
that effort. The provision which he is intending to strike was
added by the Senator from Maine in the committee markup with the
help of the Senator from West Virginia and I know with the urging
of the Senators from Nebraska and others. I think the provision
that was adopted in committee is an excellent provision and one we
need to keep in the bill.
I became interested in this set of issues because of the needs in
my own State of New Mexico to provide telecommunications services
to rural schools in particular, but also to rural hospitals and to
rural libraries. In our State, we have one model program which
came to my attention several years ago, and that is at the Clovis
Community College on the east side of New Mexico. It is a 2-year
school. They began a pilot project several years ago to provide
instruction from that community college into nine of our rural high
schools in that part of the State. We still have, today, in this
school year which is just now ending, classes taught at the
community college that students in those small, rural high schools
are able to access in their own classrooms. That has been a very
successful project and it is a model for what we ought to be doing
throughout my State and throughout this entire country.
PAGE S7979
However, we are not able to do it throughout my State and
throughout this entire country because of the enormous cost of
taking advantage of telecommunications services. What is needed is
special provisions, special rates so that educational services can
be provided to schools at reasonable cost; and can be provided to
rural hospitals and rural libraries at reasonable cost.
I am persuaded that technology can either be a great boon to
mankind and to the people in this country in coming years, or it
can prove to be a great divider of our people. Either it will help
us all to pull ourselves up and realize the opportunity that is
present in this country, or it will further divide the rich from
the poor, the urban from the rural, the `haves` from the `have
nots.`
The provision that the Senator from Maine proposed in committee,
which is now in the bill and which we need to keep in the bill,
goes a long way toward helping us ensure that technology brings us
together instead of dividing us. I do think it is essential that
we take some action in this area as a public policy matter. You
cannot leave everything up to the free market system.
PAGE S7979
I heard the Senator from North Dakota speaking, Senator Dorgan,
earlier this afternoon. He was pointing out that left to its own
devices, the free market system will provide technological
opportunity and new technology and benefits to those who can pay
the bill. We want that to happen. But we also want some access to
that technology for those who may not be able to pay as much and
that is what this provision is intended to do.
There is another example in my State which I just would allude to
because it is a very small example but perhaps one that people can
understand. There is a small community in New Mexico called Santa
Rosa, which is east of Albuquerque on our Interstate 40. That is
the community that you have to go to if you live in Guadalupe
County and you want to go to high school. You have to travel to
Santa Rosa.
North of Santa Rosa about 60 miles is the much smaller community
of Anton Chico. If you live in Anton Chico you have school right
there up through the elementary level, and then you have to get on
a bus and travel 60 miles each way to go to high school.
PAGE S7979
What the school district there in Guadalupe County has done very
effectively, is use telecommunications to provide instruction from
the Santa Rosa schools to a classroom in Anton Chico, for those
students who wish to continue past the eighth grade and take
instruction in the ninth grade without having to travel all the way
to Santa Rosa.
This has allowed them to keep students in that school for that
extra year, and in many cases keep those students involved in
education long enough that they will stay in school through twelfth
grade.
This is dealing with a very, very real problem we have in New
Mexico of students dropping out. They drop out for a variety of
reasons, but one of the reasons that students drop out in some of
the rural parts of our State is because of the physical problems of
getting to the high school that they need to attend each day.
PAGE S7979
Modern telecommunications services can help us to solve this
problem. One of the great opportunities that we have as a country,
as we try to improve our educational system, is to take proper
advantage of new technology to keep students interested, to help
students raise the standards that they are achieving in school, and
to eliminate the difference that exists between the quality of
instruction in urban schools and that of rural schools.
In order that technology is successful or is able to help us in
this regard, we need to deal with the problem of the cost of using
that technology. This provision allows that. I hope very much we
will keep it in the bill. It is one of the better provisions in
this telecommunications bill and I think it would be a very sad day
if the Senate were to agree to strike this part of the bill.
I compliment the Senator from Maine, the Senator from West
Virginia, the Senators from Nebraska, and others who have worked
hard to get this provision in the committee-reported bill. I urge
my colleagues to keep it in there and to defeat the McCain
amendment when it comes to a vote.
PAGE S7979
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to try to give a sense of
a little bit of the overview of this, and do it within a relatively
short amount of time. I want to also say that there have been some
very constructive conversations that have been taking place, which
reflect themselves in the managers` amendment.
PAGE S7979
For example, there was a very constructive conversation yesterday
afternoon involving the Senator from Maine, the Senator from
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, myself, and others with, for example,
Bell Atlantic, which represents my State, Ameritech, NYNEX. We were
able to reach accommodation in a very constructive, positive way,
in ways which are reflected in the managers` amendment. So I do
not want people to think this is kind of a pitched battle only.
There have been some people who have been trying to do some good
work on this, on both the corporate and senatorial side.
I have to say we have heard some absolutely amazing statements
from the Senator from Arizona and some of his allies. Make no
mistake about what they are trying to do. They are trying to say
to all of these telecommunications giants: Go ahead and charge
exorbitant rates on the backs of America`s schools and libraries
and rural health institutions, and keep those community
institutions off the ramps of learning and telemedicine. Or go
ahead, in the alternative, and milk schools and libraries for as
much money as you can get.
I can fly, under airline deregulation, from Huntington, WV, to
Washington, DC, in 1 hour. But it is cheaper to fly from
Washington, DC, to Los Angeles. I think you understand the point.
Where people think they can put it to you and they are in a
profitmaking business and they do not have a sense of corporate
responsibility or a broader picture, as some that I have mentioned
do have, they will do it. And they have done it. And it hurts.
PAGE S7979
We should reject that kind of thinking out of hand in this
Chamber. Private telecommunications companies S 7980 are being
given an open ticket in this bill to get into new businesses,
exciting businesses, important businesses, making all kinds of
profits and reaping incredible dividends. And I do not object to
that. I do not object to that. I think what we are looking at is
an extraordinary excitement.
I had dinner with the President of a computer company last night
- with six of them, in fact. He said within a very few years any
citizen of the world will be able to talk with any other citizen of
the world directly, through e-mail or some such, based upon the
name of the person, the service that the person provides, be it a
business or a location. There will be worldwide direct
person-to-person communication in as fast a time and with as much
clarity as you pick up your local telephone to dial your
mother-in-law.
All we are doing in our provision is to say, in return for this
explosion of excitement and opportunity and profits, which create,
indeed, more opportunity for all of that growth, for all of those
profits that you will now be able to get your hands on, make sure
that you bring libraries, schools, and hospitals along with you.
That is called a fair deal.
PAGE S7979
Mr. President, let us be clear about what the Senator from
Arizona is trying to do also with this amendment. This amendment
strikes a dagger into the heart of Main Street U.S.A. Just about
every issue associated with the telecommunications industry sounds
incredibly complicated and confusing. As soon as you start talking
about it, the jargon and the terms are from a world of their own -
cyberspace, internet, on-line, you name it.
The Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey amendment in this bill - and
the one that the Senator from Arizona wants to strip from this bill
- has an extremely simple, basic mission. It is the way to make
absolutely sure that America`s schools, elementary and secondary,
libraries and rural health care institutions are part of this
information superhighway that is unfolding before our eyes. I do
not think anyone is confused about what we mean when we say that
schools, libraries, and rural hospitals should be one of this
country`s and this body`s highest priorities. Without a doubt, I
can say that is how the people of West Virginia feel - that our
schools, our libraries, and our rural hospitals and clinics are a
lifeline that we hold most dear. And that is true for all States.
The provision in this bill, and the one being attacked by the
McCain amendment, which we hope loses, designates these vital
institutions - again, schools, libraries, rural health facilities,
and hospitals - as community users and then requires communications
companies to charge this category of community user affordable
rates for universal service. Through this part of the bill, we
guarantee that America`s children and library users and health care
providers in rural communities can take advantage of the exciting
range of technologies that are in fact the new roads, the new
interstates, to education and lifesaving medical information.
PAGE S7979
I applaud the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, for her work in
incorporating this provision into the telecommunications bill. It
is her amendment. Together we presented this idea to our
colleagues in the Commerce Committee, and her commitment to this
idea helped win the day when we had the vote on our provision.
Both Senators from Nebraska, Senators Kerrey and Exon, have been
stalwart partners in this work. This provision, section 3010 of
the bill, is a major reason to enact telecommunications reform.
Looking at it from my State`s perspective, it is the major reason.
This is a historic chance to ensure that schools, libraries, and
rural health care providers will acquire affordable access to
advanced communications services, not only now but in the future,
and all kinds of possibilities that we can only begin to imagine
today.
The telecommunications bill before us, carefully crafted by
Senators Hollings and Pressler, presents us with an opportunity
that will not come again. It is time to unleash an industry into
the realm of competition, innovation, job creation, product
creation and profit. But in return, Mr. President, we should make
sure that the most basic institutions of our community and our
society can hitch a ride onto this great journey.
Once a few of the kinks and other parts of this bill are worked
out - by that I mean things that are being worked on by the
leadership as I talk - the passage of this bill will be good news
for business, good news for workers and consumers, and good news
for our country as a whole. And it will be great news for our
basic institutions, the institutions through which all of us have
to pass in order to achieve adulthood - schools, libraries, in this
case rural health facilities - because they know they will not be
left behind. If the McCain amendment passes, they will be left
behind. If it is defeated, those schools, libraries, and rural
health facilities will not be left behind.
PAGE S7979
The Senator from Arizona thinks this is a part of the bill that
can be amputated or weakened. If that is what he thinks, let me be
very, very clear about what that means to schools, libraries, and
rural health institutions. You are telling the organizations that
are the bedrock of America that they will just have to stay on the
back roads of communications. The organizations with the big money
and clout can speed their way onto that information superhighway as
fast as they want. But the institutions that educate our children
and our adults, that serve Americans with the keys to knowledge,
that treat and cure the people of rural communities will have to
settle for the back road.
Mr. President, I do not want anybody to be at all unclear about
this. One of the things that we have learned in the Commerce
Committee and in our own conversations is, if we think the world
has begun to change in terms of telecommunications up until this
point, we have not seen anything yet. Remember, I said a moment
ago that every 18 months the capacity of computers has doubled for
the last 30 years. That is going to speed up. So what we are
talking about now is going to be far greater in the future.
Therefore, what we deprive people of now will hurt much more in the
future than we can possibly imagine.
Our provision in the bill says to these institutions that they
will have their place on the modern roads of telecommunications -
schools, libraries, rural health clinics, and hospitals.
PAGE S7979
We intend to open the new worlds of knowledge and learning and
education to all Americans, rich and poor, rural and urban.
Browsing a Presidential library, reviewing the collections of the
Smithsonian, studying science or finding new information on the
treatment of an illness are becoming available to all Americans
through new technologies in their homes or at their schools,
libraries and rural hospitals. And our provision, the one that the
Senator from Arizona wants to strike, is designed to make sure that
these links do get made to our children and citizens.
Mr. President, our provision is targeted. It promises affordable
rates to institutions that are the heart and soul of the
communities of the United States of America, and we all know it.
Our provision deals with the new realities and opportunities that
face schools and libraries and rural health institutions in the
towns and States that we all represent - every single one of us -
rural or urban.
We hear a lot about the explosion of computers in America`s
homes. But let us keep in mind that a lot of families cannot
afford their own computers and equipment for their children.
PAGE S7979
They cannot afford that. This Senator can. Some other Senators
here can. Most people cannot. We are talking, Mr. President,
about thousands of dollars that many, many families in my State of
West Virginia and elsewhere simply do not have for this kind of
purchase. The Presiding Officer may be aware that in 1994, for the
first time, the purchase of personal computers surpassed the sale
of television sets in this country. The Presiding Officer may be
aware that those who are on Internet are now 30 million, and that
that number is growing at 10 percent per month, but it is not
growing in Welch, WV. It is not growing in Alderson, WV, and it is
not growing in the Presiding Officer`s rural areas and some of his
urban areas because the people do not have the capacity to get on
line to join up with that information highway. S 7981
Schools and libraries are the institutions that serve our
communities and that serve our children, no matter what. That is
why we want to make sure that these institutions can count on
affordable rates to get on line, to tap into telecommunications
services and to bring in the learning and the information from
distant places for our children and adults and other users to learn
from.
No matter where one lives, we want every citizen to have a chance
to go to the local library and visit a world of information
available as a result of these new technologies.
PAGE S7979
I am very sorry to hear some talk of different ways to achieve
our basic goal. Let us face it. Some communications companies do
not want to be forced to offer rates to even the most basic
institutions serving our communities. But let me be clear. Our
approach is the simplest way to achieve the simplest goal I believe
that all of us support - affordable access to communications that
these community institutions in fact do need. The
Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey part of this bill provides the way to
ensure that elementary and secondary schools and libraries have
access to essential universal telecommunications services, which
will be defined, incidentally, by the universal service board
described in this bill, at rates that are affordable. The
affordable rate will be determined by the FCC and the State
commission, depending upon whether you are talking interstate or
intrastate.
What does this mean for thousands of elementary and secondary
schools in America? A 1995 study by the National Center for
Education Statistics discovered, to my shock, that only 3 percent
of classrooms in public schools in America were connected to
something called Internet, which is the whole future, a large part
of the future - only 3 percent. Why? One reason has to be the lack
of funds to even buy the equipment.
But another reason, which becomes more serious as schools do
scrape together the money for the one-time expense of buying
equipment, is their inability to pay excessive rates to hook into
those services. It is one thing to have the computer on the table
or the desk. It is another to have that hooked up to the wall and
then through that wall to the other wall. That is expensive.
PAGE S7979
Look at the study of the U.S. National Commission on Libraries.
They found that 21 percent of public libraries are connected to the
Internet. And I thought that was pretty good news. But that figure
then suddenly drops to 13 percent when it comes to public libraries
in rural areas and small communities.
Why does it drop? Because there are libraries that do not have
the money and will not have the money to pay commercial rates to be
on-line. And therefore you just count them out of it.
I described in Pocahontas County - and I see my senior colleague
from West Virginia here - the small, octagonal library that was
barely scraped together, the only library in the county. It is one
of the largest counties east of the Mississippi and it has about
7,000 people in it. And we scraped together the money to put that
octagonal building up, all made of wood and put solar panels on the
outside because fuel is expensive.
PAGE S7979
Now, of course, there is a problem; it rains 45 inches every year
in Pocahontas County so the solar panels do not work, so they have
to spend money on fuel. But that is typical of a rural community,
of a library trying to make it. And then you ask them on top of
that to have to pay money to hook up to these information systems.
It cannot work and it will not work, and it is not fair to those
people. Why is somebody born in a big city any better than
somebody born in a small rural area? The answer is he or she is
not. But I refuse to be a part of creating a two-tier society. We
appear to be on our way to doing that in other ways. I do not want
it to be done in terms of the ability to learn and to grow.
In West Virginia, our schools are determined, by hook or crook,
to get computers into every one of our 900 elementary and secondary
schools because our Governor has made it a priority and so has our
Bell Atlantic company. They have made a special project of West
Virginia. Classrooms in 50 different places already can connect to
Internet. But this is not the way most of it works, Mr. President.
This is a special set of circumstances.
Let us be clear. If the schools of West Virginia cannot count on
affordable rates - and that is what this part of the bill is about
- many of them are never going to be a part of the world that
telecommunications offers regardless of what they have.
PAGE S7979
Teachers in West Virginia cannot wait to use these computers, Mr.
President, and their links to distant places. They are excited
about it. It transforms them as it transforms us as we get into
the business of learning computers. They want to get into
libraries. They want to get into colleges, to courses on every
topic imaginable, to art collections, to whatever for their
students.
They have come before the Commerce Committee and boasted about what
they can do for their children in schools when they have computers.
Think of what this means for children of small schools in remote
towns in West Virginia or South Dakota or Alaska or South Carolina
or Maine. Through their computers, students can take a language
class that is being given in Texas, visit a museum`s collection on
Fifth Avenue in New York, communicate with a computer pen pal in
Asia or Russia or South America, and explore the jungles and the
rivers and the plains of distant places to learn about science and
biology and nature. Extraordinary opportunities, if it will be
provided for them.
Most classrooms in America still look the same as they did 60
years ago when we wrote the first telecommunications act. They
have chalk and blackboards, desks and chairs. Yet, with the tools
of our modern-day office, how can we possibly expect our children
to become productive, informed, innovative contributors to the
economy out there, beyond the schools, when they learn with a
blackboard and they do not have a computer? It will not work. If
our children are to use technology thoughtfully and appropriately,
they must have access to it in their formative years.
PAGE S7979
Our bill also has a special provision to guarantee access to the
health care providers in rural communities, like rural hospitals
and clinics, by promising them universal telecommunications
services at rates reasonably comparable to the rates charged urban
health care providers, language carefully worked out.
Why do we single out our health care providers in rural areas?
Why do we do that? Because their remoteness makes it far more
likely that they cannot afford the cost of telecommunications that
are now being used to save lives and help train health care
professionals and provide other critical services. Most of this is
known as telemedicine. It is the wave of the future. It is what
is going to hold down the cost of health care.
My own home State of West Virginia is a pioneer, as Senator Byrd
well knows, in the frontier of telemedicine. Our mountaineer
doctor television program that we are struggling as best as we can
to make work has created a network using interactive video and
other telecommunications services that hooks up two of our academic
health centers to our large teaching hospitals, two veterans
hospitals - two veterans hospitals are involved in this - and six
hospitals in rural areas, all hooked up and linked together through
this network. Senior medical professors and practitioners are
guiding and training physicians at hospitals hundreds of miles
away.
PAGE S7979
Just about a week ago, a resident in one of West Virginia`s rural
hospitals was confronted with a broken neck. He had never treated
this resident, obviously, and had never treated a broken neck
before. Thanks to that mountaineer doctor program, called
telemedicine, the chief of emergency medicine at West Virginia
University helped that resident through the steps of stabilizing
that patient and preparing a transfer of that patient to a more
sophisticated medical facility.
Through this telecommunications network, West Virginia`s chief of
neurology helped a medical student and primary care doctor in a
Grant County hospital determine if a Medicare patient was suffering
from Lou Gehrig`s disease. This consultation by interactive video
saved that patient a brutal S 7982 140-mile trip, allowed him to
remain comfortable in his own community`s rural hospital, and saved
Medicare about $2,500 in extra costs. Examples like this go on and
on and on just in West Virginia.
I know from listening to statements made by Majority Leader Dole,
by the chairman of our committee, Senator Pressler, and my good
friend, the Senator from Montana, Senator Burns, that they are
among many in this body who know all too well what telemedicine
means to their States. Talk about being rural, you better talk
about Montana, as well as West Virginia and Maine.
PAGE S7979
Again, the Snowe-Rockefeller part of this bill simply ensures
that these institutions can count on affordable rates to take
advantage of telemedicine and other unfolding communications
technologies. Affordable telemedicine will allow patients in rural
America to receive in their own communities the care they need.
They will not have to suffer the costs and the hardship of travel,
and they will be able to receive care at their local hospital, thus
helping to preserve that hospital.
The Snowe-Rockefeller language is an economic development tool
and it is an empowerment vehicle. It ensures that our children
will become productive members in a world that is growing more
technological and competitive every single hour. It ensures that
our citizens in rural America will be able to stay in their
communities and receive quality health care. It ensures that we
will not create information haves and have-nots in our country.
I will close, Mr. President, and I apologize to my colleagues for
the length of what I have said, but I wanted to lay this out. One
of our colleagues who is opposed to this bill and who supports the
McCain amendment, which I hope will be defeated or tabled, said on
this floor earlier that rural hospitals and rural clinics already
have access to affordable rates. That is absolutely without any
merit or basis in truth whatsoever. The lack of adequate
telecommunications infrastructure is a major barrier to the
development of telemedicine and those systems in our rural
communities.
PAGE S7979
Let not that statement get by. Rural areas have the equivalent
of a dirt road when it comes to telecommunications. When Texas
implemented one of the very first telemedicine projects in the
country, they found that people still had party lines in west Texas
- party lines. They had to install dedicated T-1 lines at very
significant costs because T-1 lines are powerful instruments.
Basic startup costs are coming down, but according to all the
experts in this field, transmission costs must be lowered to make
telemedicine economically feasible.
The small rural hospital in West Virginia was told that it would
cost $4,300 a month to hook up with a major, larger hospital for
administrative and quality assurance support. They decided they
could not afford the technology, and so they did not do it. And
there you have it.
The University of Arizona, not a small rural hospital,
established the Arizona international telemedicine internetwork in
1993. They used straight telephone lines and they used compression
to transmit static images. They say cost is a barrier to
upgrading.
According to them, their carrier - in this case U.S. West - has
been inflexible in making any sort of cost concessions.
PAGE S7979
Mr. President, I have said what I want. There are many others on
the floor who want to speak. I was determined to try and give a
broad overlay of what the Hollings-Pressler bill does, and I have
done my best to do so.
I yield the floor.
PAGE S7982
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
PAGE S7982
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the language
that was passed by the committee, which my friend, the Senator from
Arizona, is proposing that we strike. I would like to speak to
that part of the bill that makes advanced telecommunications more
affordable to public schools and libraries.
During the consideration of the telecommunications bill last
year, I offered legislation very similar to the language that we
are considering today, to ensure that every school and classroom in
the United States has access to telecommunications and information
technologies. I proposed an educational telecommunications and
technology fund to support elementary and secondary school access
to the information superhighway.
Regrettably, last year`s telecommunications bill was not taken up
by the full Senate before adjournment. The provision in the bill
before us, introduced by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Kerrey of
Nebraska, will make advanced telecommunications connections more
affordable for schools and libraries. Specifically, the provision
allows elementary and secondary schools, as well as libraries, to
receive telecommunications services for educational purposes at an
affordable rate.
PAGE S7982
Currently, schools all over the country, including those in my
own State of Virginia, are forced to pay business rates for access
to the information superhighway. That means that schools are
subsidizing residential customers. Without more affordable rates,
schools, by the thousands, will not have adequate, and, in some
cases, not have any access to the Internet. As a result, too many
American children will be left by the wayside.
For those of our colleagues that have any doubts about the value
of electronic communications in the classroom, I challenge them to
sit down at a computer with Internet access and surf. They will be
visiting one of the most up-to-date and fastest growing libraries
in the world. You can chat with experts from across the globe.
You can set up the video link with teachers at distant schools
using a small camera costing as little as $100. You can share data
or results in a joint research effort spanning continents. You can
take an electronic tour of the White House, or visit the so-called
web page of a Member of Congress. I have such a page, and many of
our colleagues have those, Mr. President. You can even see images
of molecules or galaxies. The possibilities are endless.
In discussions with school administrators, it becomes clear that
students are fascinated by the Internet. Students that might
otherwise be indifferent are eagerly pursuing new subjects and
sharing their newfound knowledge with the global community of
students.
PAGE S7982
Simply put, Mr. President, the child with access will be at a
distinct advantage and better prepared for future employment. And
those without access are simply going to be left behind.
We cannot afford to let our school systems slip behind those of
our leading competitors when the technology is at our fingertips -
the technology that was pioneered here in the United States.
Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to support the most
cost-effective education we can offer our Nation`s children. I
urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey
provision and oppose the amendment offered by my friend from
Arizona.
PAGE S7982
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
PAGE S7982
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my friend from West Virginia,
Senator Byrd, on the floor. I will be brief, I say to my
colleague. I know he has been waiting for some time.
I just have a couple of comments to make. Our States have done a
lot in this area. I know that, for example, some of the States in
the South have done things.
This describes that in the State of Alabama, there is pending
approval within the next few days where the Educational Network
Service will offer DS-1 and 56-KBP service for any educational
institution at a discount rate.
PAGE S7982
In Florida, there is legislation waiting signature, where the
LEC`s are required to provide advanced communication services to
eligible facilities, including public universities, community
colleges, area technical centers, public schools, libraries, and
teaching hospitals.
In Georgia, the Public Service Commission approved the Southern
Bell reduced rate telephone service for schools, called the
Classroom Communication Service.
In the State of Kentucky, the State government provides
high-volume discount access to schools, hospitals, libraries, and
government agencies.
PAGE S7982
In Louisiana, all schools in Orleans Parish receive an additional
33-percent S 7983 discount, and public and parochial schools pay
residential rates as opposed to business rates.
Mississippi has two special pricing arrangements targeted toward
education in the classroom communications services, distance
learning, and transport services.
South Carolina has somewhat the same thing.
PAGE S7982
Tennessee has in-classroom computer access service, distance
learning, video transport service, et cetera.
Mr. President, the fact is that nearly every State in America has
some kind of accommodation for this. I am appreciative of the fact
that the Senator from West Virginia may not share my view about the
role of the Federal Government versus the role of the State
government, but the fact is that the State governments, who I think
are much better attuned and much more cognizant of the needs of
their respective States, are doing these kinds of things. To my
view, this is vitiating the requirement for, again, another
unfunded mandate, which this is.
Mr. President, I heard the Senator from West Virginia, who makes
some very emotional arguments that there are some libraries that
will never be able to afford a computer, or some hospitals. Who
are they, Mr. President? So to cure the problem we are just going
to give a blanket agreement to wealthy, private schools, wealthy
hospitals, wealthy libraries. There is no means testing. If the
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Maine had, in any
way, brought in some kind of provision for means testing as to who
needs it and who does not before we proposed this unfunded mandate,
I would have been much more open to some compromise or agreement on
it. I am sorry that virtually all schools, all hospitals and
libraries are going to receive this.
PAGE S7982
Mr. President, I think we are being a little discriminating in
our morality here. I would like to see the Disabled American
Veterans have this same kind of facility. They are people who have
fought and served and sacrificed. Do they deserve something? I do
not see them included. What about the Veterans of Foreign Wars and
the Salvation Army? They are organizations I have admired
enormously. They get all of their funds from contributions, at
least about 95 percent of them.
What is it that makes us discriminate with these institutions and
not with others? I understand that - and I was not told this
directly by the Senator from Maine - she intends to make a motion
to table this amendment. If this amendment is tabled, then I may
have an amendment expanding this to other needy and deserving
Americans and groups of Americans that also may be as equally as
deserving as private schools are, for example, or as wealthy
hospitals are, or the Getty Library.
So I think that the flaw here, Mr. President, is who are we
really trying to help, and who are we not? It seems to me that
there are many who are deserving of our help who are not included
in here, and there are many who are not who are included. I would
like to see us be much more discriminating.
PAGE S7982
I believe the whole thrust of the American people is that they
believe local government is best. I would like to see the States
be able to continue what they are doing and tailor what is best for
their respective communities and localities and counties and cities
and towns, rather than the Congress acting in a far more sweeping
and all-encompassing fashion.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
I rise in strong support for the provision authored by my
distinguished colleague from the State of West Virginia, Mr.
Rockefeller. I oppose the attempt to remove it from the bill.
PAGE S7983
It has long been an axiom in the development of America that
rural America be provided basic telephone services, under the
concept of universal service. Universal service is, again, a
central part of the bill before us. Mr. Rockefeller`s amendment,
together with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe,
attempts to ensure that our schools, our libraries, our health care
facilities have access to the best that is available across our
country for the well being of our children, our elderly, our rural
dwellers at affordable rates. This amendment allows a child in
Beckley, WV, to access the Library of Congress to enhance his
education, allows the provision of medicine from the best
facilities in America to be available to health care providers in
communities which cannot afford to have all facilities available at
their fingertips. It is a mechanism to enhance standards
throughout the country. It is a force enhancer, a multiplier, an
advanced bootstrap for rural America at reasonable cost.
I have, for the last several years, supported funding for medical
doctor`s television, so that experts in universities can conference
with doctors in rural remote areas so that they have the best that
medicine has to offer in the State. The Rockefeller provision
extends this concept for all citizens to have access to the best
that is available across the country. This is the fruit of the
technological and telecommunication revolution that is meaningful,
that makes sense, and will build human capabilities and
infrastructure in our land.
I commend my colleague for this provision. It is a builder of
communities throughout our land, a benefit that our technological
progress gives us as a society. I support the provision, and urge
my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
PAGE S7983
I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I just want to address a couple of
points that have been raised by Senator McCain because I think it
is important to address his comments with respect to what would be
provided, and to whom, under the manager`s amendment that was
incorporated in the legislation which Senator McCain seeks to
strike.
I cannot think what would be more in the public`s interest than
schools, libraries, and hospitals. As I said earlier, in the last
Congress, the Committee, on a nearly unanimous vote, sought to
provide universal service to zoos, aquariums, and museums. We do
not include those entities under this language because we think we
should strictly limit it to very essential institutions, schools,
libraries, and rural hospitals.
PAGE S7983
Universal service happens to be a national priority. That is
what this issue is all about. Senator McCain said leave it to the
States. States are involved, in the sense that there is a joint
board in this legislation that will help determine the rates for
the communities under the universal service provision.
But this happens to be a national priority, a national issue, and
it is too important just to leave it to the States on an ad hoc
basis and say whatever happens, happens. The States are certainly
doing their best. They understand the importance of this issue,
and have been very innovative and progressive. But they cannot do
it alone. Presently, there is a disparity between the States.
We all recognize how important the information age is to the
future of this country and to individuals and to families. It is
so important, and therefore I think it requires a national policy
and should be established as a national priority. Certainly,
universal service can be supplemented by the States. The fact is,
they cannot do it alone.
PAGE S7983
This is a major telecommunications policy. If that was not the
case, we would not be here discussing today the amendment before
the Senate.
But it is an important telecommunications policy. It is
essential that we establish some parameters to universal service.
There may be a day when it will not be required. But right now, we
need a transition with respect to telecommunications. That is why
the universal service language becomes an imperative.
We have to recognize the changes that have evolved and will
continue to evolve over time. We have to anticipate the needs of
America. I cannot think of entities with a greater need to
affordable telecommunications services than schools, libraries, and
rural hospitals. I never would have expected anybody to have
questioned that.
PAGE S7983
The language in the bill extends the idea, included in the
Communications Act of 1934, of universal service. That is all we
are saying, with the language in the bill, sponsored by myself and
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kerrey and Senator Exon and adopted
by committee. The language simply extends universal service to
schools, libraries, and rural hospitals.
Under the language, essential telecommunication providers will
get reimbursements. They can recoup the S 7984 discounts given to
these public entities from the universal service fund.
In the case of schools and libraries, the discount is an amount
necessary to ensure affordable access to telecommunications
services for educational purposes. This is a modification we made
in the managers` amendment that was offered last night.
PAGE S7983
By changing the basis for the discount from incremental cost to
an amount necessary to ensure an affordable rate, the Federal-State
joint board in conjunction with the FCC and the States have some
flexibility to target discounts based on a community`s ability to
pay.
The discounts will not be indiscriminate, as the Senator from
Arizona suggested in his previous remarks. There will be some
parameters, because we do not have an unlimited fund.
There have been a number of letters from supporters of the
language in the bill that various Senators have received. I would
like to quote from a couple of them. I think it gives everyone an
idea of the importance of this issue. One letter that I will quote
from is from an education technology specialist.
PAGE S7983
She writes to one Senator, and I received a copy of this letter:
PAGE S7984
Two key issues for rural States like ours are affordable and
equitable access. Cost is the barrier cited. A recent survey
shows only 3 percent of the Nation`s classrooms have access to
Internet or use information services for instructional services.
Preferential rates for school and libraries at cost would be a step
toward eliminating this barrier. As a Nation and as a State, we
must recognize the need for improvement in our educational system
and seize the opportunities offered by technology and
telecommunications. The dream of access, equity, and excellence
for all Americans for life means acting now to ensure these
essential elements for better education, bound in decisions
currently under consideration. We urge you to make certain the
voices of K through 12 educators are heard and their needs
addressed in the drafting and passage of this legislation.
In another letter:
PAGE S7984
I hope that Members of Congress will stop and consider the impact
that schools and libraries had upon their lives. Then, if they
will project what these entities can provide when they are equipped
with appropriate connectivity, we can begin to understand the
quality of true education our young people will possess that will
equip them for bright futures. With your help, thousands of young
lives will be able to experience the rush that comes with free
exploration of knowledge sources.
And then we received a list of different associations that are
supporting this legislation, again, I think, expressing the thought
that this legislation and this provision is so important to the
future of this country. The organizations are part of a coalition
supporting affordable telecommunications access for our Nation`s
schools and libraries, and there are a number of different
associations. I am not going to read them all, but I ask unanimous
consent to have them printed in the Record, Mr. President.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
PAGE S7984
SUPPORT AFFORDABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCESS FOR OUR NATION`S
SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES
Supported by a coalition including:
American Association of Community Colleges.
PAGE S7984
American Association of School Administrators.
American Association of School Librarians, a division of the
American Library Association.
American Council on Education.
PAGE S7984
American Federation of Teachers.
American Library Association.
American Psychological Association.
PAGE S7984
Association for Advancement of Computing in Education.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
PAGE S7984
Center for Media Education.
Coalition of Adult Education Organizations.
Consortium for School Networking.
PAGE S7984
Council for American Private Education.
Council for Educational Development and Research.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
PAGE S7984
Council of the Great City Schools.
Council of Urban Boards of Education.
Educational Testing Service.
PAGE S7984
Instructional Telecommunications Council.
International Society for Technology in Education.
International Telecomputing Consortium.
PAGE S7984
National Association for Family and Community Education.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
PAGE S7984
National Association of State Boards of Education.
National Education Association.
National School Boards Association.
PAGE S7984
Organizations Concerned about Rural Education.
Public Broadcasting Service.
Software Publishers Association.
PAGE S7984
The Global Village Schools Institute.
The National PTA.
Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Ecucation.
PAGE S7984
United States Distance Learning Association.
Ms. SNOWE. For example, the American Association of Community
Colleges, the American Association of School Administrators,
American Association of School Librarians, American Council on
Education, American Federation of Teachers, American Library
Association, the American Psychological Association, the Council of
Urban Boards of Education, the Educational Testing Service, the
National Association for Family and Community Education, National
Association of Elementary School Principals, the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, the National
Association of State Boards of Education, the National Education
Association, the National School Boards Association, the National
PTA, the United States Distance Learning Association.
That gives you an idea of the cross-section of organizations and
associations across America that support this language. Even I was
surprised at the extent to which the language that we incorporated
in this legislation received such strong and widespread support.
PAGE S7984
The FCC Chair, Reed Hundt, recently stated:
There are thousands of buildings in this country with millions of
people in them who have no telephones, no cable television, and no
reasonable prospect of broadband services. They are called
schools.
This all goes to show how important this issue is. I hope that
Members of this Senate will oppose the McCain amendment and will
continue to support the provision that is incorporated in the
managers` amendment and in the underlying legislation that was
supported by members of the Commerce Committee - not a unanimous
vote but a broad vote - because this is so important to the future
of this country.
PAGE S7984
Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment. Mr.
President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
[text deleted]
(ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 244 LEG.)
YEAS - 58
Akaka Baucus Bingaman
Bond Boxer Bradley
Breaux Bryan Bumpers
Byrd Campbell Chafee
Cochran Cohen Conrad
Daschle DeWine Dodd
Domenici Dorgan Exon
Feingold Feinstein Ford
Glenn Graham Harkin
Hatfield Hollings Inouye
Jeffords Johnston Kassebaum
Kennedy Kerrey Kerry
Kohl Lautenberg Leahy
Levin Lieberman Mikulski
Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murray
Nunn Pell Pryor
Reid Robb Rockefeller
Sarbanes Simon Simpson
Snowe Specter Thomas
Wellstone
PAGE S7990
NAYS - 36
Abraham Ashcroft Bennett
Brown Burns Coats
Coverdell Craig Dole
Faircloth Frist Gorton
Gramm Grams Grassley
Gregg Hatch Heflin
Hutchison Inhofe Kempthorne
Kyl Lott Lugar
Mack McCain McConnell
Nickles Packwood Pressler
Roth Santorum Smith
Thompson Thurmond Warner
NOT VOTING - 6
Biden D`Amato Helms
Murkowski Shelby Stevens
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1262) was
agreed to.
=======================================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 05:34:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199506091026.GAA14234@clark.net>
Errors-To: borton@macc.wisc.edu
Reply-To: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu
Originator: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu
Sender: telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: caj@tdrs.com (Craig A. Johnson)
To: Multiple recipients of list <telecomreg@relay.doit.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Sec. 310 of S.652
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Requests (UNSUBSCRIBE/HELP) to: listserver@relay.doit.wisc.edu
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Sheldon Mains wrote:
>
>This is good??? who defines "reasonable rates" and how are they different
>that "incremental cost" (besides probably higher). Without these details,
>who knows if this is good. It could be a desaster--the appearance of
>providing for public interest when there is really no provision.
Your questions are appropriate ones. The answers will not be fully
clarified until the details of the Managers' Amendment by Pressler and
Hollings emerge in the next day or two. However, since the only aspect that
was changed according to Senator Snowe was the phrase
"incremental costs," and given the impassioned debate by Snowe and
Rockefeller in support of retaining the provision, I think overall
it is a win for public access. I presume, that, as in the original
measure, the joint state-federal Universal Service Board would, in
conjunction with the FCC, determine "reasonable rates."
My larger point was that Sec. 310 was in danger of being removed in its
*entirety* which would have resulted in *no* support for schools, hospitals,
and libraries and *no* guarantees on "appropriate functional
"eequirements,", "performance standards," and "interconnection standards."
Craig
=======================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 07:37:47 -0400
Reply-To: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Sender: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
From: CWHITCOM@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject: TELECOM POST #5
Universal Service Provisions - passed
S.652 - ON THE FLOOR NOW
The Snowe-Rockefeller amendment which provides for "incremental
cost-based" access to schools, libraries, and hospitals has been
approved but with a change in language to "affordable costs" and
"reasonable rates". What "affordable" means is clearly a
concern, though many claim that we should be happy that the
amendment passed at all.
=======================================================================
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 11:31:33 -0400
Reply-To: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Sender: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
From: CWHITCOM@BENTLEY.BITNET
Subject: Telecom Post #6
* The Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey-Exon amendment was threatened
by John McCain (R-AZ) with an amendment to strike. This amendment
provides for affordable rates for schools, libraries and rural
healthcare providers to advanced telecommunications services
and, for now, is the most tangible sign of universal service
provisions. The motion to strike was tabled. The amendment's
final form will "provide or receive telecommunications services
for educational purposes at rates less than the amount charged
for similar services to other parties. The discount shall be an
amount that the Commission and the States determines is
appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable access to and the
use of such telecommunications by such entities." It gives the
Federal-State joint board in conjunction with the FCC and the
States some flexibility to target discounts based on a
community's ability to pay. A universal service fund will make
up the difference to the provider. The vote was 98-1
=======================================================================
Center for Democracy and Technology's Comments on a Public Wireless NII Band
[This provides extensive details about the value of a public-domain
wireless spectrum allocation, and also an example of a possible format for
comments, although comments from the lay public are acceptable in almost
any <civil> form. --jim]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 17:38:09 -0400
From: djw@cdt.org (Daniel J. Weitzner)
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
) RM-8653
Allocation of Spectrum in the 5 GHz Band to )
Establish a Wireless Component of the National )
Information Infrastructure )
C. Unlicensed wireless service can be the platform for a vibrant
"public forum" in cyberspace
For some time policy makers [2] have struggled with the question of
how to promote affordable and widely available access to new interactive
media for the nonprofit sector, including schools, libraries, and community
groups. These groups often cannot afford the high cost of currently
available access services, but their participation in the NII is vital both
for their own institutional missions and in order to assure a lively public
forum for the healthly functioning of our democracy. Policy proposals
currently under consideration seeks regulatory means to provide low cost
access to the NII for eligible groups in the nonprofit section. An NII
Band that provides gateway-free, no cost access to the NII could become an
important part of the solution to difficult public access issues that face
communications policy makers as our society comes to rely more and more on
new interactive media.
2 See S. 2195, the "National Public Telecommunications Infrastructure Act
of 1995", sponsored by Sen Inouye and the Snowe/Rockefeller public access
Amendment to S. 652
=======================================================================
Wed, 12 Jul 1995 02:58:08 -0400
Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <TPR-NE@MITVMA.BITNET>
Warning -- original Sender: tag was CWHITCOMB@BENTLEY.EDU
CWHITCOM@BENTLEY.EDU
Telecom Post #8
Censorship
The People for the American Way and the ACLU are working with
Rep. Cox (R-CA) and Wyden (D-OR) to promote content-filtering
technologies as a porno control rather than the producer/carrier
liability approach of Exon. The spirit of the cooperation and
the general direction of user-controlled filtering devices are
encouraging, though both advocacy groups are critical of the
specific language in the "Internet Freedom and Empowerment Act".
Essentially the bill attempts to free both those carriers who
don't want to touch any form of editorial control as well as
those "good Samaritans" who try their hand at keeping the net
"clean". This provision attempts to overturn the Prodigy
decision of inducing liability upon the carrier who attempts to
exercise editorial control. There remains the complication that
several states are enacting "mini-Exon" bills and the Cox/Wyden
bill bows to their authority. Another troubling aspect is the
prohibition on "economic regulation" by the FCC. A potential
result is the dismantling of Snowe/Rockefeller, universal
service related provisions. The ACLU points out that it is
important that die-hard civil libertarians be heard now. The
momentum on the right flank is so strong, only the most extreme
left position will leave room for a satisfactory compromise.
=======================================================================
ALAWON
ALA Washington Office Newsline
An electronic publication of the
American Library Association Washington Office
Volume 4, Number 70
July 26, 1995
In this issue: (132 lines)
REPS. MORELLA AND ORTON SPONSOR LIBRARY AMENDMENT IN HR 1555, THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995
REPS. MORELLA AND ORTON OFFER LIBRARY AMENDMENT IN HR 1555,
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995
Representatives Constance Morella (R-MD) and Bill Orton (D-UT) intend to
cosponsor an amendment to HR 1555, the Communications Act of 1995, when it
comes to the House floor. Their amendment would add in "affordable" and
"users of public libraries" in the pertinent section of the bill. But
first the House Rules Committee must adopt procedures that would allow such
an amendment to be introduced.
The language Morella and Orton propose to be added to HR 1555 is indicated
in capital letters in the text from Section 246, (b) (5) as follows:
(5) Educational Access to Advanced Telecommunications
Services -- To the extent that a common carrier establishes
advanced telecommunications services, such plan should include
recommendations to ensure AFFORDABLE access to advanced
telecommunications services for (A) students in elementary and
secondary schools (B) USERS OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES, AND (C)
TELEMEDICAL ACTIVITIES IN RURAL HOSPITALS.
ALA and other education advocates have sought to strengthen this provision
in Section 246, which many critics argue is grossly inadequate to address
the public interests in terms of schools and libraries. It is
substantially different than its "counterpart" Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerrey-
Exon amendment in S. 652, the Senate telecommunications bill.
=======================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 04:09:37 -0400
Message-Id: <v02120d00ac434e02a28d@[205.197.91.5]>
Errors-To: owner-roundtable@cni.org
Reply-To: roundtable@cni.org
Originator: roundtable@cni.org
Sender: roundtable@cni.org
Precedence: bulk
From: aewright@cme.org (Anthony E. Wright)
To: Multiple recipients of list <roundtable@cni.org>
Subject: Internet Users: STOP THE TELECOM BILL!
* MISSING IN ACTION
While this bill lavishes industry with special
provisions, the public--including children and the
nonprofit community--get little in the deal: no public
interest quid pro quo. There is no equivalent to last
year's provision that ensured access for nonprofit
programmers and information providers.
The Snowe/Rockefeller amendment in the Senate bill to
help wire schools and libraries was severely weakened;
the House bill has no meaningful language to ensure
public institutions' access to the "information
highway."
=======================================================================
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 95 05:30:06 PDT
Message-Id: <950805082528_131047900@aol.com>
Reply-To: nii-teach@wais.com
Originator: nii-teach@scholastic.com
Sender: nii-teach@wais.com
Precedence: bulk
From: BBracey@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nii-teach@wais.com>
Subject: A Message and Update from ISTE Telecomm Bill
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Bliley Pledges Help To Support Affordable Access
From: D. Bybee at ISTE USA National Office ISTEUSA1@aol.com
At about 12:30 AM on August 3, during US House of Representatives debate on
HR 1555 (the Communications Act of 1995), House Commerce Chairman Thomas
Bliley, Jr. of Virginia promised that he would "work with sponsors of the
House amendment on affordable telecommunications access for schools, public
libraries and telemedicine activities in rural hospitals [i.e., Morella
(R-MD), Orton (D-UT), Ney (R-OH), and Lofgren (D-CA)] to get their
language adopted in the Senate/House conference on the telecommunications
bill(s).
I believe that Mr. Bliley's commitment to support affordable access to the
information superhighway may have been the best possible result in the House
of Representatives on this issue. At a minimum, Bliley is commited to the
Morella, Orton, Ney, Lofgren language which gives affordable access to
elem/sec schools, public libraries, and telemedicine activities in rural
hospitals. More broadly intrepreted, it could result in conference
acceptance of the Senate's more comprehensive Snowe, et al amemdment.
In any event, the education community has far succeeded its intermediate
House objective (i.e., to create a basis for conference acceptance of
the Snowe, et al amendment) by geting a commitment from Bliley to SUPPORT its
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE of conference acceptance of "affordable
telecommunications access for schools, libraries, and rural telemedicine
activities" (e.g., as in the MONL and/or Snowe, et al amendments.)
Bliley's promise should be heralded -- so far as it is possible -- as an
"Historic Promise for Education in America"!
******Text of MONL Amendment in US House of Representatives*****
AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1555 AS REPORTED
BY THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
OFFERED BY
MRS. MORELLA OF MARYLAND, MR. ORTON OF UTAH
MR. NEY OF OHIO, AND MS. LOFGREN OF CALIFORNIA
[Universal Service]
In Title I, Section 246 at part (b)(5) --
insert the word "affordable" before "access"
and --
insert "(A)" before "students"
and --
insert the following before the period after "schools":
", (B) users of public libraries, and (C) telemedicine
activities in rural hospitals"
so that the substitute language reads as follows:
"(5) EDUCATIONAL ACCESS TO ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES.--To the extent that a common carrier establishes advanced
telecommunications services, such plan should include recommendations to
ensure affordable access to advanced telecommunications service for: (A)
students in elementary and secondary schools, (B) users of public libraries,
and (C) telemedicine activities in rural hospitals."
End of MONL Amendment*****
For more information on this important matter, please contact Dennis Bybee at
ISTEUSA1@aol.com
=======================================================================
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 15:08:03 -0400
Reply-To: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Sender: Workshop on Information Systems Economics <WISE@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
From: CWHITCOM@BENTLEY.EDU
Subject: Telecom Post #11
HR 1555 - We lose
HR1555 The Bad and the Ugly
HR 1555, The Communications Act of 1995 passed the House on
August 4 by a vote of 305-117. The Congress then broke for
their summer recess and will reconvene in four weeks.
The schedule for the arrival of
HR1555 to the House floor was under considerable question last
week as it collided with the need to deal with a series of
appropriations bills. Appropriations bills must be on the
President's desk by October 1 in order for the government to
stay in business. Given the drastic revisions to many programs
in these bills, and the last minute and highly controversial
changes to HR 1555, it appeared that the American public would
have another month to learn and consider the implications of an
information overhaul. But that was not to be.
Commerce Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-VA), a supporter of the
"checklist" language for Bell entry into long distance requiring
"facilities-based" competition "comparable in price, features
and scope" apparently caved into pressure by subcommittee member
Jack Fields (R-TX) and Speaker Gingrich. In a reversal of the
spirit of that language, he offered an amendment (the 66 page
Managers Amendment covering 42 sections of the bill) changing it
to allow the definition of adequate competition to include the
resale of services of another carrier. This drastically softens
the test needed to prove that competition exists and shortens
dramatically the wait Bells have for entry into long distance.
It served to reverse the support of the long distance industry
to absolute opposition. Many of you are aware of the campaign
subsequently launched by AT&T to drum up support for defeat of
the bill.
On Wednesday, August 2, at midnight, the House agreed by a vote
of 255 to 156 to debate the HR 1555 under a modified closed
rule. This allowed for nine hours of debate and a set list of
amendments to be considered. Specific time allowances were
given for the debate on each amendment and a Thursday, August 3
date was set. An amendment proposed by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA),
Connie Morella (R-MD), and William Orton (D-VT) to provide
affordable telecommunications for schools and rural hospitals
was denied entry into the debate on the grounds that a
satisfactory funding mechanism did not exist. (Though Bliley is
reported to have assured Rep. Morella that the conference
committee proceedings on S652 and HR1555 would allow for the
S652, Snowe/Rockefeller language to be considered.) Disgust was
expressed by several members of the House over debating a bill
of such importance in the middle of the night and out of sight
of the public. Rep. Marcy Kaptur said "I feel tonight as I did
during the savings and loan debate...that we are truly being
muzzled, and that is not what representative democracy is all
about. I feel sorry for America tonight." Vice President Gore
issued a statement on August 3 saying
The telecommunications reform legislation being
considered by the House of Representatives is
abhorrent to the public interest and our national
economic well-being. Without significant changes
to the legislation, the President has said he will be
compelled to veto it.
In the early morning hours, the House today began
debate on HR1555. They are expected to vote late tonight
on the bill. It seems the House does not want the
American people to see or hear what's in this legislation
-- and for good reason. They couldn't support it if they
knew what HR 1555 contained.
One person owning the majority of the media outlets in a
community is a threat to the very system of democracy
upon which our society is built. And it is wrong.
Raising cable rates on American consumers immediately
_after_ the next elections to avoid responsibility is
wrong. Replacing competition with consolidation in the
cable and phone industries is wrong. Preventing parents
from having simple and cheap technologies to block
explicit sex and excessive violence from coming into their
living rooms to young children is wrong.
Unfortunately, HR 1555, as reported by the Commerce
Committee and amended by the managers' amendment, does
all these things. This bill has been sold to the highest
bidder in every telecommunications industry. The losers
are the American people.
Deliberations were set forth to allow general debate for 90
minutes and then a limited number of amendments considered one
after the other with five minutes allotted to the pro and con
arguments for each. The results:
Manager's Amendment -passed 256-149
=======================================================================
Benson Foundation
THE LEARNING CONNECTION
WILL THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY TRANSFORM SCHOOLS AND PREPARE STUDENTS FOR THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?
THE LEARNING CONNECTION
WILL THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY TRANSFORM SCHOOLS AND PREPARE STUDENTS FOR THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?
_________________________________________________________________
The Vision-The Clinton administration has challenged the
telecommunications industry to wire every classroom in the nation by
the year 2000. "It's easily achievable; it can and must be done," says
Vice President Al Gore. He speaks for a growing number of national
leaders, educators, and telecommunications enthusiasts who see
computer-based networking as a crucial boost for education and the
linchpin in efforts to make students ready for the 21st century. The
idea is not a partisan issue. As Republican House Speaker Newt
Gingrich put it earlier this year, "There has to be a missionary
spirit that says to the poorest child in America, 'The Internet is for
you; the Information Age is for you.'"
The Reality-Most schools still have no access to the information
superhighway and would be ill-equipped to take advantage of network
connections. Bringing them online-and creating the conditions in which
they can use their connections in ways that enrich students-will
require a substantial effort at a time of tight federal, state, and
local budgets.
Bridging the Gap-Connecting schools is within our grasp if we agree
it's a goal worth pursuing. But to make the effort worthwhile, four
major issues must be considered: what are our underlying educational
objectives, how do we give teachers the training and resources they
need to use computer networking, how do we develop better means of
assessing the impact of networking and other new media in the
classroom, and how do we ensure that all schools and students-not just
the privileged few-have access to the information superhighway.
What's Going On-Diverse groups and partnerships are seeking to show
the educational potential of networking:
* The federal government. Despite budget constraints, the
administration is pushing networking and other technologies in
demonstration projects and basic research. Look for major reports
this fall from the Department of Education and this winter from
the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council.
* The states. Officials are trying a wide range of strategies for
connecting schools. States ranging from Texas to Minnesota already
have set up statewide teachers networks, and about a dozen require
telecommunications companies to offer schools discounted rates.
* The private sector. As charitable donations of computer equipment
continue, some telecommunications companies are helping build
networking infrastructure and train teachers. Meanwhile, companies
like IBM Corp. and Autodesk, Inc. are helping to finance efforts
at systemic education reform.
[text deleted]
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Regional labs, which address education issues
more gene