Rapporteur's Summary

Charla M. Rath, vice president of Freedom Technologies, Inc., wrapped up the conference by noting the participants' substantial agreement on several points: Technology is moving rapidly; the existing regulatory system is under stress; government should be a cheerleader, not an obstacle; barriers to competition probably should be removed; applications and interoperability are important. Although there were also disagreements--including how to define universal service and how to remove barriers to competition--the level of consensus suggests that the likelihood of progress is greater now than in the past.

Postscript

Since the conclusion of the conference, major public policy proposals designed to promote the NII have been advanced. President Clinton in his State of the Union Address and Vice President Gore in two major addresses have articulated a broad vision of this information highway. Critical to the Administration's vision of a NII are its articulated policies to ensure all Americans access and reliance on competition to provide incentives for private industry to build this infrastructure. The Administration has also released a White Paper suggesting that a new Title VII to the Communications Act be passed that incorporates a new regulatory regime. The regulations would apply to the new breed of carrier that emerges in a competitive era, where distinctions such as cable or telephony have become anachronistic.

Moving through Congress on a fast track are three bills advanced by powerful members. H.R. 3636 was introduced on November 22, 1993, by Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Jack Fields (R-TX), among others. It promotes equal access and interconnection requirements to the local exchange, preempts state regulation that inhibits this new right of interconnection, and permits telephone operating companies to provide cable television. H.R. 3626 was introduced on November 23, 1993, by Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill establishes a timetable for Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) to enter the long-distance business, frees the RBOCs to enter into manufacturing, and codifies protections associated with RBOC entry into electronic publishing. Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) introduced S.1822, the Communications Act of 1994, on February 3, 1994. This bill addresses the subject of inter-LATA relief for the RBOCs by providing for more immediate out-of-region relief. But it imposes a stringent test based on "actual and demonstrable competition in the local exchange" for in-region relief. The Hollings bill would foster manufacturing relief and would also permit local exchange companies to provide video services, if done through a separate subsidiary.

All of this activity suggests that the first comprehensive revision of the Communications Act of 1934 is likely to pass in 1994. It confirms the general impressions conveyed by this conference: that industry consensus is emerging, that the existing regulatory system is under stress, that barriers to competition should be removed by government, and that customer-driven solutions, rather than government fiat, are much of the answer. But even among these bills and between Congress and the Clinton Administration, disagreements remain. The key disputes focus on how to remove barriers to entry and at what pace.

The central questions raised by this Annenberg Washington Program conference have yet to be answered: Can the Congress and this Administration, together with the FCC, resolve the remaining major differences of opinion on details of the approach to, and timing of, reform? Can these bodies develop a new system of regulation that promotes the benefits of convergence? Most important, will the details of legislation to be passed this year live up to the lofty vision articulated by President Clinton, by leaders throughout the Administration and Congress, and by industry pacesetters at this conference?