My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/4/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:00:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DEC 41990 <br />BOOK 82 FA.GE E`S2 <br />5. An independent survey of more than 24,000 American voters <br />reveals overwhelming support for the removal of certain <br />Competitive restrictions on the nation's regional <br />telecommunications companies. . <br />74 'per -cent say that the seven companies should be allowed to <br />— <br />compete with the companies that. now offer long-distance <br />calling. <br />-78 percent say the seven companies should be permitted <br />to provide new information services. <br />-79 percent of all voters believe the companies should be <br />allowed to -compete in the telephone product market presently <br />offs -limits to them. <br />-74 percent believe that allowing the seven companies <br />to compete inthe telephone equipment marketplace <br />would st.r•engt.hen the U. S. in terms of high technology <br />--mnAt itiveness. e.saecialiv in 1ighi. of foreign competition. <br />Congress has the responsibility to set the national <br />telecommunications agenda, and can do a better job than.the court, <br />because it has a broad, national persoective, wbi.let the court is <br />limited to antitrust mat.t:era. The gteat majority Of those who <br />oppose lift.ina the restrictions benefit from the restrictions <br />beinq in place and do not want additional competition, thus <br />putting their respective market shares at risk. Some of these <br />markets, especially in manufacturinq, are dominated by foreign- <br />based firms. The American economy and consumers are paying for <br />.this protectionist policy. Convress must recognize the difference <br />between a national policy that protects existing markets from full <br />competition and a national policy that bringe about the areatest <br />good for all. <br />Mr. Poe explained that Southern Bell, along with the other <br />22 regional Bell companies in the nation, are hoping to change <br />"the modification of final judgment" made in 1982 that restricts <br />them from originating information, selling telecommunications <br />equipment and providing long-distance services. As a result of <br />the antitrust ruling, Southern Bell had to cut back its employee <br />force from 25,000 in 1980 to 19,000 in 1990 and are now in a <br />position where they cannot expand business because of the <br />restrictions. Mr. Poe stressed that the antitrust settlement is <br />just another example why the United States is losing business to <br />Japanese and European competitors. The Bell companies are <br />proposing that Congress again take over control of telecommun- <br />ications in this country. <br />40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.