 |
||||||||
 | |
 | |
 | |
|||
|
||||||||
 | |
 | |
 | |
 | |
 |
|
||||||||
ABOVE: Working on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Tammy is helping craft telecommunications policy for the 21st Century.
Cable Competition and Reform
In 1996, Congress made major changes to our nation's telecommunications laws in order to encourage the development and deployment of new technologies and services. The telecommunications marketplace looks very different today than it did in 1996, and reform of our laws is needed to address the new technological environment. I believe that our telecommunication laws need substantial reform - to address the new technology, the affordability of that technology, access to that technology, and diversity of content provided by that technology. I know that Wisconsinites want telecommunication policy that protects consumers and ensures that the Internet remains open to all. I will continue to work for the passage of legislation that meets these standards.
No element of telecommunications reform has drawn greater public awareness and concern than the principle of network neutrality, which ensures that the Internet remains open to all and guarantees everyone equal access. Discoveries of telecommunication providers blocking Internet traffic based on content and the software application used have spurred both FCC and Congressional action. The FCC adopted an order requiring Comcast to end discriminatory network management practices, and Congress is considering several legislative proposals, one of which will codify the tenets of network neutrality for broadband:
(1) To maintain the freedom to use broadband telecommunications networks for lawful purposes without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators;
(2) To ensure that the Internet remains a vital force in the United States economy;
(3) to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks that enable consumers to reach, and service providers to offer, lawful content, applications, and services of their choosing, using their selection of devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network;
(4) To safeguard the open marketplace of ideas on the Internet by adopting and enforcing baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.
Network neutrality legislation will have significant implications on the future of the Internet, and I take my decision to support any specific proposals very seriously. Any new law must guarantee – but also strike a balance between – consumers’ freedom of content (within existing free speech laws), application, and fees for speed; Internet companies and websites’ equal access to customers and service; and Internet providers’ ability to increase bandwidth and stabilize service.
Connectivity, Broadband, and the Digital Divide
I believe that good quality, high-speed Internet access is becoming a necessary public utility, and that every American should have access to this service. By many definitions, this service is now known as broadband, whether delivered via an installed line or wireless. In June 2008, broadband penetration reached ninety percent among active Internet users. While this milestone is meaningful, the fact remains that approximately one out of every 10 American households simply cannot purchase a wired broadband product at any price. These Americans are finding themselves left on the wrong side of the “Digital Divide.” We must close this divide in order for all Americans to have equal access to information and participation in our democracy.
I support policies that create and enhance connectivity options for all Americans, including faster and more reliable Internet and bringing network neutral content into any home that wishes to receive it. We must not close ourselves off from technological and competitive advances such as fiber-optics to increase bandwidth capabilities and municipal broadband systems that promise to bring the benefits of broadband to more people.
Universal Service Fund (USF)
The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ensure that all Americans are able to afford access to the telecommunications network. The service bill for all current users of the network includes a small fee, which is then returned to the telecommunication providers to be invested in increased access to service for more Americans. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) handles the four distinct funds: low-income, high-cost (rural), schools and libraries, and rural healthcare.
The telecommunications landscape has changed dramatically in the last decade, including technological advances and substantial changes in the marketplace. The Internet can provide date, voice, and video service. Moreover, broadband has become the gold standard for Internet access. However, without reform in the past decade, the Internet remains a small portion of USF support, and broadband does not receive any USF support at all. In addition, the wireless portion of USF support has exploded in cost, because although wireless service is the cheapest and most efficient way to connect rural populations to the existing network, the “identical support rule” reimburses those companies in exactly the same was as the incumbent wireline companies.
It is for these reasons that I hope Congress will consider meaningful and comprehensive USF reform in a timely manner. I will look for it to include requirements for broadband support and service, or at least substantial increases in speed for whatever Internet services telecommunications providers bring to a geographical area, and continued support of low-income, school and library, and rural healthcare recipients of USF support. It must also include a fiscally-responsible proposal to ensure USF support goes to those providers who have accrued the costs to install appropriate telecommunication services and upgrades.
Media Consolidation
Americans must have access to unfiltered information about their government, as well as powerful nongovernmental entities, in order to properly exercise their responsibilities as citizens. We cannot have a government “of the people” if the people are kept in the dark.
Having a truly informed public requires media diversity. Simply put, the American public must be able to access news and entertainment from a variety of sources. That is why I adamantly oppose changes made to the media ownership rules by the FCC in December 2007. These changes would allow one company to own both a daily newspaper and a low-rated broadcast TV station in the 20 largest media markets. At the same time, the FCC voted to approve more than 40 waivers for pre-existing cross-owned combinations in markets large and small, effectively creating a loop hole for the larger media companies to own any station in any market.
I am very concerned about the further damage these changes will do to the already shrinking landscape of media ownership, consolidation, and diversity in our country. As we have seen with radio, these rules will likely lead to media consolidation and a reduction in the diversity of media outlets and content. Ultimately, this concentration reduces the quality and number of providers of information to such a community. Access to diverse and different media voices is important in a free society and a healthy democracy.
It is absolutely critical that we have a broad, public debate about these media ownership rules. To that end, I am a founding member and current co-chair of the Future of American Media (FAM) Caucus. I am also an original co-sponsor of legislation which would block the implementation of the FCC’s 2007 rule changes.
Before their December 2007 vote, the FCC held six public meetings nation-wide, ostensibly to determine the public’s feelings on media ownership and its many impacts. Records of these hearings do not indicate the support one might expect would result in the proceeding vote. While these meetings were a first step towards the broad and open discussion I would like to see, I will continue to work to make others aware of the disastrous results of media consolidation, and gather support for much stricter rules that promote the diversity and discussion for which we should strive.
Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) Channels
Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels bring unique voices, perspectives, and programming to television that may be lacking from commercial television. These stations and channels are locally funded, produced, and viewed, but are locally endangered as well. Telecommunications companies frequently move these channels to digital-only tiers of service with minimal warning, degrade their transmission, or negotiate lower support fees based on “minimal viewership.”
I believe PEG channels bring a much-needed dose of diversity and alternative programming to increasingly corporate and consolidated television service. While state telecommunications laws generally are the highest level of PEG oversight, I support federal protection of PEG channels and local viewers’ ability to view these unique stations.
Digital Television (DTV) Transition
On June 12, 2009, all over-the-air full-power television broadcasts became digital only. These broadcasts were provided by television stations in both analog and digital formats, so the digital television (DTV) transition meant a substantial switch in the way television broadcasts are formatted and viewed nation-wide. As of June 12, 2009, any television viewer who uses an analog television, with or without an antenna, which is not connected to cable or satellite will have to connect their television to either:
1) a digital converter box,
2) a cable video service, or
3) a satellite video service
Otherwise, the analog television will not display any television signals or programming.
IN-DEPTH: Press Releases | Legislation | Links
BACK TO TOP