Here is a letter I sent on February 10, 1996 to the President of the United States regarding the signing of the Telecommunications Reform Act.
Dear Mr. President, I'm commenting on your statement upon the signing of the Telecommunications Reform Bill. I'm taking the liberty of making this an open letter, and sending copies to some other people who I hope are interested in this matter. > Today I have signed into law S. 652, the "Telecommunications Act of 1996." This landmark legislation fulfills my Administration's promise to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to competition and private investment, promotes universal service I think "universal service" is important for things important to basic life and human safety, but not to luxuries. For example, I think it would be VERY inappropriate to decide that "everyone needs a car" and thus to raise the price of cars to some people, so the government could give cars away at less than cost to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. I'm not convinced that it's right to make the price of providing Internet service ARTIFICIALLY low, which ultimately perverts the corrective mechanisms of the free market, whose purpose is to ensure the efficient allocation of goods and services in an economy. A good example is local telephone service, which is subsidized in the name of "universal service". Sounds good, right? But let's look at what it REALLY means. What it REALLY means is that people end up having to pay for things that simply aren't worth what they cost. Let's say that someone has a vacation home in the Maine woods. And let's say that they only spend a month out of each summer there, and then mostly only use it as a base for camping or canoe trips. Given the low usage and the fact that they're almost never there, it might be a good question whether it would make any sense to have a phone in that vacation home. So what happens? The phone company decides, in the name of "universal service", that local business users and others will be gouged on their phone costs (which of course are passed on back to the consumer in terms of higher cost of living, something they have NO say about... increased costs of rent, gasoline, car parts, groceries, clothing, etc. etc.). Now, with the consumer already paying (in a higher cost of living) 80% of the cost of having a telephone at their vacation home, the question now is "do I pay the other 20%, and actually have a phone there, or pay 80% and still not have one?" Given this rigged question, a lot of people will understandably choose to put in a phone which otherwise wouldn't be worth to them what it costs to have. But it's STILL a perversion of the free market, and the phone company (with government complicity) strong-arming people to put in telephones that aren't worth to the beneficiaries what they REALLY cost to have. > ...and open access to information networks, and provides for flexible government regulation. Sometimes, NO government regulation is *far* better than 'flexible' government regulation. This is certainly the case for the Internet! > The Act opens up competition between local telephone companies, long distance providers and cable companies; How can you say that, when the bill allows the telephone companies to also OWN the cable companies!!! :-((( This ELIMINATES competition, not enlarges it! > ...expands the reach of advanced telecommunications services to schools, libraries, and hospitals; NOTHING has restricted availability of these services to these institutions before! > ...and requires the use of new V-chip technology to enable families to exercise greater control over the television programming that comes into their homes. But in the case of the Internet, *exactly* the opposite tactic was used: instead of encouraging local parental control by use of limiting software and devices at the point of ACCESS, the bill you signed tries to muzzle the PROVIDERS and cripples our MOST cherished and crucial jewel in the crown of a free society: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. It is positively OUTRAGEOUS that this has been done. > Over the past 3 years, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce legislation that would provide consumers greater choices and better quality in their telephone, cable, and information services. This legislation puts us squarely on the road to a brighter, more productive future. How on earth do you think that allowing the telephone companies to own the cable companies, and cable companies to own the direct-satellite program services, provides for greater choices and true competition? > In the world of the mass media, this Act seeks to remove unnecessary regulation and open the way for freer markets. I support that philosophy. At the same time, however, my Administration has opposed measures that would allow undue concentration in the mass media. I am very pleased that this Act retains reasonable limits on the ability of one company or individual to own television, radio, and newspaper properties in local markets and retains national ownership limits on television stations. My Administration will continue its efforts to ensure that the American public has access to many different sources of news and information in their communities. > The Act increases from 25 to 35 percent the cap on the amount of the national audience that television stations owned by one person or entity can reach. Right. This INCREASES consolidation, and allows more of the broadcast industry to be controlled by fewer, bigger media conglomerates. This again cripples choice, reduces jobs in the industry, makes it harder for smaller companies to stay competitive, and reduces any chance of true competition. > This cap will prevent a single broadcast group owner from dominating the national media market. But still enables them to dominate it FAR MORE than they already do. :-( > While the Act removes the statutory ban on ownership of a cable system and a broadcast station in the same local market, it does not eliminate the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulatory ban on such cross-ownership. This ownership restriction continues to be very important in maintaining competition in local markets and should be maintained by the FCC. That's like knocking legs out from under a stool. "It doesn't matter if we knock out one leg, there's still three legs, the stool is still stable." Yeah. Until the next leg is knocked out from under it too, as it inevitably will be. There is no reason to DO this, then, if "it doesn't matter anyhow." > In addition, while certain regulatory cross-ownership bans are no longer necessary and have been eliminated, others that are critical to maintaining the diversity of local news and information sources have been retained. For example, the Act maintains the regulatory ban on common ownership of a newspaper and a broadcast television or radio station. Small comfort, indeed. Like a stage magician, you attract our attention to your hand waving about in the air, while the hand not being watched picks the public's pocket. :-((( > With regard to the ban on ownership of more than one television station in a local market, the Act directs the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to review its regulation and its waiver policy. Right. But without saying which direction that rulemaking will take. :-( > Currently, the FCC allows ownership of more than one television station only in narrow and compelling circumstances, such as when a station would otherwise go dark, and where local diversity would not be reduced. Any changes in this policy should allow ownership of two stations only when doing so would clearly not reduce the diversity of independent outlets of news and information in a community. So why doesn't the LAW say that, instead of just saying "make some rules"? > My Administration will continue to support a fair balance between economic viability and diversity. Unfortunately, that "support" clearly hasn't translated to what the laws you're signing actually SAY. > Rates for cable programming services and equipment used solely to receive such services will, in general, be deregulated in about 3 years. Cable rates will be deregulated more quickly in communities where a phone company offers programming to a comparable number of households, providing effective competition to the cable operator. HOW DOES THIS PROVIDE COMPETITION, WHEN THE BILL ALLOWS THE PHONE COMPANY TO OWN THE CABLE COMPANY??!! And when the cable companies own the direct-to-home satellite service programming companies?? > In such circumstances, consumers will be protected from price hikes because the cable system faces real competition. This is a simple, bald-faced, total, lie. :-( > This legislation also places a strong emphasis on competition in both local and long distance telephone markets, making it possible for the regional Bell companies to offer long distance service, Their designs for doing so are QUITE evident from the positively OUTRAGEOUS pricing that local telephone companies charge for intra-LATA calls... those "near-long-distance" calls which they are not required by law to turn over to consumers' "designated long distance carriers". For example, when I call to Fort Worth from Dallas, which is less than 50 miles away, a daytime (intra- LATA) call through Southwestern Bell costs $0.25 per minute during the business day. My designated long-distance carrier on the other hand (U.S. Republic communications) allows me to call ANYWHERE in the main 48 United States, at the same time of day, for only $0.10 per minute. Note too that the same local carriers here in Texas are also trying to DOUBLE the cost of a pay phone call (from $0.25 to $0.50) despite the fact that not very long ago, it was only $0.10 (and they still made money even at that). Again, their desire to provide efficient service to the public is quite obvious. :-( Rather like the cost of calling Directory Assistance... originally priced at $0.75 (supposedly 'only' to dissuade consumers from abusing the service, just because they didn't want to look up the numbers in their directories). Since the charge was instituted, haven't you noticed how telephone directories at pay phones have simply DISAPPEARED? So much for them trying to "limit abuse". SOMEONE is being abused, that's for sure. > ...provided that, in the judgment of the FCC, they have opened up their local networks to competitors such as long distance companies, cable operators and others. Again, HOW ON EARTH CAN THIS APPLY when the long distance companies and the cable operators are OWNED by the local BOCs? > I am also pleased that the Act requires interstate telecommunications carriers to contribute to a fund to preserve and advance universal service. Yes. I've already commented on just how I feel about this supposedly-noble "universal service" provision. :-((( > ...The fund would be spent to provide and upgrade facilities and services, as prescribed by the FCC. And carriers would receive credit toward their contribution by providing discount service to schools, libraries, and health care providers in rural areas. Again, such cross-subsidies only pervert the free market mechanisms for the efficient allocation of goods and services. :-( > I am especially pleased that the Act requires new televisions to be outfitted with the V-chip, which will empower families to choose the kind of programming suitable for their children. The V-chip provision relies on the broadcast networks to produce a rating system and to implement the system in a manner compatible with V-chip technology. So why not provide a similar "D-system" in software to allow parents to limit access by their little darlings to "indecent" (whatever that means) material? Rather than simply banning such material (or trying to) outright? > By relying on the television industry to establish and implement the ratings, the Act serves the interest of families without infringing on the First Amendment rights of the television programmers and producers. You protect the big media conglomerates this way, but Congress and you run absolutely roughshod over the First Amendment rights of the CITIZENS of this country!!! What you and Congress are forgetting is that those media conglomerate corporations DO NOT GET TO CAST VOTES ON ELECTION DAY... and we CITIZENS DO. > I do object to the provision in the Act concerning the transmittal of abortion-related speech and information. So does ANYBODY who's the least bit concerned about the rights of citizens in a free society!!! So how come this hasn't been brought up before now? > Current law, 18 U.S.C. 1462, prohibits transmittal of this information by certain means, and the Act would extend that law to cover transmittal by interactive computer services. The Department of Justice has advised me of its long-standing policy that this and related abortion provisions in current law are unconstitutional and will not be enforced because they violate the First Amendment. The Department has reviewed this provision of S. 652 and advises me that it provides no basis for altering that policy. Therefore, the Department will continue to decline to enforce that provision of current law, amended by this legislation, as applied to abortion-related speech. This is simply a VERY poor joke. "Let us pass this little law, but don't worry, we won't ever enforce it." Goes right down there with other famous lies like "Don't worry, I'll just put the head in... I promise." :-(( All thinking individuals STRONGLY oppose the passage of laws that "we won't enforce"... since a future change of Administration can suddenly DECIDE to enforce those laws. And like the laws in something like 26 states that make it a FELONY for a man to have oral sex with HIS OWN WIFE, these laws tend to be enforced VERY selectively (when enforced at all) and in a highly discriminatory fashion. > The Telecommunications Act of 1996 will strengthen our economy, our society, our families, and our democracy. No! There is NO way that the abridging of the freedom of the citizens in a democracy to communicate FREELY among each other, and WITHOUT censorship or restriction by the government (not only on issues like abortion, but yes also about issues like human sexuality), strengthens a democracy! > It promotes competition as the key to opening new markets and new opportunities. How does the elimination of competition and increasing consolidation "promote competition"? Answer... it doesn't. > It will protect consumers by regulating the remaining monopolies for a time and by providing a roadmap for deregulation in the future. Eh, excuse me. Either you DO protect consumers by regulating monopolies, or you don't. You don't just "protect consumers... for a time" and then sell them down the river, with a belated effect that will happen after a lot of the idiots that wrote and passed this legislation (and the lobbyists who provided the kickbacks and payoffs) are (hopefully) long gone. > I am pleased to have signed this historic legislation. It is one of the most SHOCKING debacles and abdications of your pledge under oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" that I've ever seen, and you ought to be ASHAMED of yourself for signing it! :-(( I realize that a presidential veto, given the plurality of the Congress, would have probably been overridden... but at least it might have made some Congressmen sit up and take notice of what the legislation they were passing actually SAID. You should NEVER underestimate the power of the 30-some million (and RAPIDLY growing), very-well-connected and highly-networked (literally) movers and shakers who are represented among Internet users... this has BECOME a political force to be reckoned with during the last four years, will become increaingly moreso and more vocal, and politicians in the future who would forget that will learn (very much to their dismay) the perils of doing so. Gordon Peterson [street and Web site addresses were present in the original]
This page and all linked contents originating with me are Copyright (C) 1995-2000 by Gordon E. Peterson II, all rights reserved worldwide. This page itself was last revised January 20th, 2000 (but note that any individual pages linked below this one probably have been revised more recently!).