Opponents cry foul over Tauzin-Dingell bill

A coalition of organizations representing competitive carriers and Internet service providers are attempting to defeat a bill introduced in the House that it claims would let RBOCs sidestep provisions in the Telecom Act regarding entrance into the long-distance voice and data markets.

Led by Association for Local Telecommunication Services (ALTS), Competitive Telecommunications Association (COMPTEL) and United States Internet Service Providers Association (USIPSP), the coalition believes the bill sponsored by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) would undermine the intent of the Telecom Act. The Tauzin-Dingell bill is scheduled to be reviewed by the House Commerce Committee--chaired by Tauzin--tomorrow.

“[The Telecom Act] promised Americans four things: more choices in phone service, lower prices, improved customer service and expanded access to high-speed Internet service,” said Steve Ricchetti, co-chairman, Voices for Choices, one of the coalition organizations.

“Today, American consumers must be wondering if some in Congress have their phones off the hook, because they haven’t gotten the message that Americans want competition and the benefit it provides.”

Ricchetti said RBOCs have done everything possible to block competition in local telephone markets, instead of adhering to the mandates of the Telecom Act. As a result, the promise of that historic legislation is going largely unfulfilled, and the Tauzin-Dingell bill only promises to make matters worse, he said.

“This is not due to the failure of the Act; it is the result of years of obstruction by the Bell companies in an effort to preserve their monopolistic control of the local phone lines,” Ricchetti said. “The Bells have attempted to build a brick wall around their markets, so that no competitors can get in. The Tauzin-Dingell bill represents another brick in that wall.”

Dave Robertson, president of the USISPA, suggested the bill is a modern-day Trojan horse.

“[The bill] is designed to let the [RBOCs] out from under the laws of the Telecom Act,” he said. “The Bell companies have always had the ability to deploy broadband services; they’ve simply chosen not to.

“Instead, they’ve relied on their barricade over the last mile to America’s homes and businesses [and] … from that perch, have watched countless competitors fall by the wayside. … These companies are not going out of business because they were outmaneuvered on a level playing field but because they were outgunned by the use of typical Bell monopoly weapons of anticompetitive tactics and political favors.”