On January 9, 1995 Vice President Gore announced that elected and appointed officials responsible for telecommunications policy reform at all levels of government agreed to a number of objectives that will give maximum regulatory flexibility in the coming years. While some have promoted abolishing the FCC entirely, the Administration maintains that efficient, flexible regulation has been one of the reasons for the early technological successes in the United States. Gore has accepted the concept that the market needs to be open for full competition, which should in turn lead to consumer benefits of lower price and better service.
To fully realize the benefits of private investment and more competition in the information infrastructure, regulatory change is needed. Even if the lines between industries and markets were clear in the past, technological and market changes are now blurring them beyond recognition, if not erasing them entirely. Regulatory policies predicated on such perceived distinctions can harm consumers by impeding competition and discouraging private investment in networks and services. The Administration is therefore committed to removing unnecessary and artificial barriers to participation by private firms in all communications markets, while making sure that consumers remain protected and interconnected. [source]Yet, he remains concerned that the government retain the authority to step in and defend the public interest if necessary. He has been critical of the Republican plan, as outlined in the Pressler Bill, to lift all regulation in the next two years. Gore is skeptical that such a policy may be fundamentally redefining the rules of the game in telecommunications policy too quickly, resulting in disastrous consequences for those who cannot afford the new technology. Gore raised some strenuous objections about the cable rate deregulation and cross ownership issues claiming that Senate bill 652 would raise rates and discourage competition. "We cannot relax restrictions from legislation and judicial decisions without strong commitments and safeguards that there will be a "public right of way" on the information highway." [source]
In April, 1995 the White House began circulating a position paper that is very critical of the provisions in the Telecommunications Bill. According to the White House, "unleashing monopolies before real competition exists could cause higher prices for consumers and hinder competition. During the transition, safeguards are needed to bring real competition and all its benefits. While significant portions of the bill work to provide benefits to consumers, spur economic growth and innovation, promote private sector investment in an advanced telecommunications infrastructure, and create jobs, in critical respects the bill does too little to promote competition and too little to ensure that consumers are not hurt by monopolistic behavior." This, the strongest criticism of the bill thus far, is being vehemently challenged by telecommunications companies eager to exist in a less regulated market and by Congressional supporters of the bill.
The partisan squabbling noted above makes it difficult to recall that Gore's view on regulation has actually shifted over the past year. Not too long ago one of his anecdotes was that of the Titanic sinking because there was no regulation insuring that the airways were monitored for distress signals. The free market meant that telegraph operators were only open for business during the most lucrative parts of the day. "The distress signals sent by the Titanic couldn't be heard, in other words, because the airwaves were chaos -- willy-nilly transmissions without regulation." These days, he is far more likely to be heard agreeing with deregulation, though with safeguards for the public.
