5.4. ERMUSR 03-20-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w •~~ ~.- . . ~~ ~ American Public Power Association ` FEBRUARY 2007 Advanced Communications Services tq ~ Revolutionary changes over the past decade in telecommunications and information ~l technology are driving the need to overhaul federal communications laws. In the 109th m Congress, the House of Representatives passed a bill that amended the Communications Act of 1934 to address advanced communications ser~~ces, and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee also passed a broader telecommunications overhaul bill that was not considered by the full Senate before Congress adjourned at the end of 2006. Included in both the House and Senate bills was a provision to protect the ability of municipalities to provide advanced communication services (known as the municipal broadband provision). In the 110th Congress, the 1-douse Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate *~ Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee are again expected to consider the issue r~ of telecommunications reform, but with the change in leadership in both chambers of Congress, the new chairmen of these committees will prioritize different issues than their predecessors in many cases. However, the change in leadership is not expected to impact the broad bipartisan support for the municipal broadband pro~~ision. ~I ~ 1 1 '~ ~ 1 Over 600 public power systems now provide some kind of advanced communication ser~~ce, whether for internal or external purposes. This is a 10-fold increase since Congress last acted on communications policy in 1996, and the number of public power systems pro~~iding or '~ planning to provide services continues to increase. The services delivered by public power systems include high-speed Internet access, cable televrzsion, local and long-distance telephone, and voice-over-Internet-protocol (Noll ). Approximately i0 percent of public power systems in the U.S. are located in cities with less than 10,000 residents. Many of these public power systems were established due to the failure of private utilities to provide electrical service to smaller communities or to provide such service at a reasonable price. In these cases, communities formed public power electric utilities to do for themselves what they viewed to be of critical importance to their quality of life and future economic prosperity. Today, public power systems are meeting the new demands of their communities by providing broadband services where no other providers wZll do so, and facilitating competition where service is inadequate or too expensive. However, in a number of states, units of local government, including publicl}'-owned electric utilities, have been restricted, or even prohibited, from pro~~iding such services. Large, incumbent cable television and telephone companies have successfully pushed legislation in 14 states that r.~ •~1 prohibitor limit public power systems from entry into the communications and cable television markets. To address this issue, Congress included a provision in both the House and Senate versions of ld t h l h i i l i l i id h 109 r C wou t e major te ecommun a cat ons ongress t eg s at on cons ered in t e r r L protect the ability of municipalities to pro«de advanced communications services regardless wWW.APPAnet.Org ~' continued 37