I am concerned that the Feingold amendment is an inappropriate attempt to continue excessive government regulation of the cable industry. I believe that additional reports on the industry by the Federal Communications Commission would be an unnecessary waster of taxpayer money. Furthermore, any efforts to deal with cable rates should be dealt with in the upcoming hearing we have scheduled before the Commerce Committee this Tuesday. The Cable Bureau is largely a product of the 1992 Cable Act. I opposed that Act because I believed it was overly regulatory and heavy handed. I believe that my concerns were proven to be correct. However, in 1996, Congress responded to some of the excesses of the 1992 Act and to the growing competitiveness of the marketplace by adopting several Cable Act reform provisions as part of the Telecommunications Act. The aim of the Telecommunications Act as it related to cable services was to provide increased choices at lower cost by opening up historically monopolistic, regulated markets to new entrants. In return, cable operators would be allowed to enter new communications markets such as telephone and information services. As we move beyond traditional models of monopolies and excessive regulation to a climate of open competition, exciting new educational and commercial opportunities are beginning to appear. I am also very concerned about the recent spate of increases in cable rates.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about government regulation of the cable industry and the impact of the Telecommunications Act.
Share
More from Joseph T. Burns
Absolutely. So what we are going to do is tax only those people who make over $4,000, a king's ransom at that time, and unfortunately, at least for the Congress, they were trying to use the existing Constitution. Because of its vagueness…
The emergency communications amendment will help ensure that rural America does not fall on the wrong side of a public safety divide.
Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate before. We had it in subcommittee, we had it in committee, and the same rhetoric is here on the floor today. The opposition and the Woolsey amendment would roll back time and take us back prior to 1998…
I have heard a lot of baloney, and there appears to be a good bit in the House. I have great respect for the minority whip, but there is beef in the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) job-cutting proposal. This is about jobs. This is…





