Double talk

American consumers today have more choices of providers and services, at faster speeds and at lower prices, than ever before. This is especially true if you're a big corporation located in the financial district of a major city.

The following is excerpted from a speech never given by FCC Chairman William Kennard at the National Press Club on Feb. 8, marking the fourth anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Dear friends, colleagues, service providers and vendors who will pay me a small ransom to lobby for them when my chairmanship ends,

Four years ago today, President Clinton signed into law the Telecom Act of 1996. On that day, he said that the new law would "enable the age of possibility in America to expand to include more Americans." Today, on the fourth anniversary of the Telecom Act, I am pleased to report that the act is working - about as well as that AMC Pacer you bought in 1982.

American consumers today have more choices of providers and services, at faster speeds and at lower prices, than ever before. This is especially true if you're a big corporation located in the financial district of a major city. Residential consumers are still stuck with one choice for local dial tone and two poor choices for video service, but we promise to fix that sometime during the next decade.

Because of the act, Americans are using telecom services in their daily lives more than ever, whether they want to or not. At last month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, we got a sneak peek at the home of the future. Not only will you be able to monitor every movement in your home, you also can have an annoying ad pop up onto your Internet-enabled refrigerator telling you when you are out of milk. No more laborious opening of that heavy door again for you.

And who will bring this service to you? Well, unless the company's name is AT&T, SBC, Bell Atlantic or BellSouth, forget about it. Because although the basic idea behind the Telecom Act was to break open the local telephone monopoly, you're up that proverbial creek without a paddle.

And that broadband connection? [Note to self: don't smirk during this part.] If you're lucky enough to live near a CO or in an area that attracted a cable operator in the 1990s, you might have one option.

True, the concept of open access is nice, but look at it from my perspective. You want me to tell the cable guys, who have access to television airtime by the truckload, that they must open their plant to competitors in the same manner as the telcos? Why don't I just go tell Mike Tyson he talks like a sissy?

Creative ideas such as leased access didn't have a chance. Sure, it's a neat concept and even makes some sense, but with only one little company on board and all those others - boasting lots of lobbyists and potential board memberships - pushing a different path, what was I supposed to do?

Let me also take this moment to pat myself and my fellow commissioners on the back. The commission wisely withheld regulation of most advanced services, ensuring that one company could deliver broadband to the home via the same line that another company uses to provide basic telephone service. We refused to do the same with cable access, and we didn't force broadcast networks to pay for spectrum that we certainly wouldn't have given to any telecom operator.

In conclusion, I would like to ask, what will communications leaders say from this podium 100 from now? They will say that they can't imagine a crazy world in which four RBOCs existed, AOL had less than an 80% share of the Internet access market and lowly consumers actually thought they would get a choice of service providers.

Thank you.