Carolina Power & Light Co., statement.. Cassidy, Lee M., chairman, Delaware Public Service Commission, letter Durkin, Hon. John A., U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, statement.. Dubrow, Morgan D., staff engineer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Hansen, Edward D., attorney, Snohomish County, Wash., Public Utility 289 Helein, Charles H., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, letter of June 22, 1977- 217 tions Commission, letter of August 31, 1977_ 276 Jacobs, Jerold F., Federal Communications Commission, letter of Septem- 285 Malone, William, General Telephone & Electronics Corp., letter of Septem- 286 Rice, Patrick M., executive director, Public Services Commission, letter of 231 Ritts, Frederick H., for Northcutt Ely, letters of September 22, 1977... 275, 284 252 Wallace, Larry J., chairman, Indiana Public Service Commission, letter of Roth, William V., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, letter of June 16, 1977.. Page 209 210 209 145 231 Wheeler, Thomas E., National Cable Television Association, response to testimony 221 Wickert, A. E., administrator, Service and Operations, Public Utility 230 COMMUNICATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977 THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1977 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m. in room 235, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ernest F. Hollings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR HOLLINGS Senator HOLLINGS. Good morning. Today we begin 2 days of hearings to consider S. 1547, a bill designed to strengthen and expand the scope and enforcement powers of the Federal Communications Commission and to create within the Commission a forum for resolving disputes arising when CATV systems seek to attach their cables to utility poles. The purpose of these hearings is to explore the need for this legislation as well as the desirability of the specific approaches suggested in the bill. To date, this subcommittee has been engaged in a series of oversight hearings, exploring the major areas within our responsibility. This exploration process will continue as we acquaint ourselves with the status of our communications network. However, this oversight process should not deter us from considering specific matters when the need for concrete congressional action is clear. Based on our earlier hearings, it appears that the matters which S. 1547 addresses, namely, pole attachments and forfeitures, should be considered now. Cable television's access to utility poles at reasonable rates and upon reasonable terms is a matter of obvious practical concern to the cable industry. To the extent that cable television is impeded from using publicly provided rights-of-way to provide its services to its viewing public, it is also a matter of public concern. The pole attachment problems are real and persistent. Where disputes arise between cable operators and utility companies, there should be a forum to which the disagreeing parties can go to resolve their disputes. Where there is no forum at the local or State level, S. 1547 would create a forum within the Federal Communications Commission. No one would disagree that cable should be required to pay its fair share of the pole costs. The difficulty, of course, lies in determining what is "just and reasonable." (1) The second half of this bill, dealing with forfeitures, is identical to the bill that passed the Senate last June. A strong case can be made for congressional action on this matter. The integrity of the Commission's regulatory authority must be recognized and fostered by giving the Commission sufficient power to insure compliance with its rules. I am not impressed by the argument that those who disagree with some of the rules should not pay a penalty for violating the requirements of a Federal regulatory agency until their disagreements are met. In increasing both the amount and scope of FCC forfeiture powers, I think it is important to assure that adequate protections be written into this legislation to protect the financial viability of small operators from fines which may be excessive when compared to the gravity of the offense, or to the impact on the public and other regulated industries. While no one should be singled out for special treatment, all who enjoy the benefits as well as the burdens of FCC regulation must be treated equitably. We look forward to many useful comments and suggestions over the next 2 days. [The bill follows:] |