The following comments are excerpted from Sen. J. Robert Kerrey’s statements before Congress on Oct. 27, 1993, regarding the proposed Bell Atlantic-TCI merger.

Mr. President, two weeks ago today America witnessed the latest and largest piece of evidence that we are in the midst of a communications revolution. On that day, Bell Atlantic and TeleCommunications, Inc. announced their intention to merge. It is a move which signals the marketplace is aware of the possibility that we could change the way Americans communicate.

The announcement is the most dramatic signal to us that our old regulatory devices can no longer work. If we want to ensure that these new technologies improve our economy, culture and political system, this merger should be a wake-up call that it is time for us to change as well.

For some, the deal raises understandable concerns and in particular creates antitrust questions. In some ways they are right: We do need to think long and hard about what public purposes we want to achieve. For others, there is only excitement about new possibilities, if government will only leave the process alone. In some ways they are right: We do need less, not more, government involvement.

My hope is that we will respond to this merger in a spirit of productive partnership, not reactionary regulation. My hope is that we will address the important antitrust questions without quashing either the bold vision that guided this merger proposal or the energy which has powered the great engine of American entrepreneurship throughout our history.

My preference would be to allow the information companies to compete more openly. To me, the restrictions of the Modified Final Judgment, agreed to in 1983 and enforced for the past 10 years by the Federal Court, should be lifted. Consumers should be allowed to purchase their information needs from any company capable of supplying those needs. Neither the government through regulation nor a company through monopoly power should be allowed to limit our choice… And, where there is competition, the steady march toward improved quality and lower price continues.

My vision of the kind of regulatory structure we should impose is different today than it was before the announcement of this merger. Before Oct. 13, I still thought the important question would be how to manage the transition from a local telephone monopoly and a separate local cable franchise toward an environment where each would be allowed to provide telephone and television service. I thought we would, and should, see competition between the cable companies and the telephone companies to provide video and phone service for the so-called last-half-mile connection to the long distance service of AT&T, MCI and Sprint.

Now, however, I see a different possibility. I see the cable and telephone technologies converging, not competing. And in that convergence, I see the possibility of providing American households with real competitive choices in a much different and far superior fashion.

My idea is this: Allow open competition for all telecommunications services directly to the home and business. This would mean that at my home in Omaha, NE, I would have the option of choosing between a variety of services offered by a host of information companies. My idea is to allow the consumer to choose between purchasing voice, data and video services from US West-Time Warner vs. Bell Atlantic-TCI, or AT&T-McCaw vs. MCI-British Telecom, or CBS, Disney, or any other company.

That vision can be achieved only if we agree that the Old World technologies of telephone, television, radio, publishing and video have been shattered by the blows of the new kids on the block: computers and fiber-optic technology. Prior to development of the computer and fiber-optics, the old technologies were easily and naturally divided. Voice was carried over the phone lines, radio and television signals through the air, and text on paper. Before the advent of computer and fiber-optic technologies, it made sense to divide our regulatory effort into common carrier, broadcast and related ownership issues.

But today where I used to hear the dial tone and the sound of a friend’s voice I now hear sound waves which were once the ones and zeroes of a digital stream of information. Likewise, the video image on my television screen, the video tape in my VCR, the words on my newspaper or book, and text on my computer are all encoded into the ones and zeroes of the digital world.

The significance of this to me as a consumer is that all information — no matter how different its form and look — can and will be converted into the same code and will be transmitted in the same wired or wireless fashion.

There are those who see telephone and cable technologies converging and fear that it will create unfair competition, or unfair pricing. We must understand that the merger of Bell Atlantic and TCI is about marriage of technologies born of science, not corporate greed. We should not attempt to force these technologies to compete. Their convergence is inevitable. What we must do is see that those who provide this combined technology and the services associated with it compete fairly and aggressively.

In fact, Mr. President, this so-called convergence presents an opportunity for more choice and more power for the consumer if we, in our capacity as the makers of regulation, do the right thing.

If we do the right thing, American consumers will no longer buy their dial tone from a phone company, video signals from broadcast or cable companies, content from production companies, sound from radio companies, or text from newspaper and publishing companies. Instead, consumers will buy information from each of these and many more. Instead of being restricted by an old regulatory structure, Americans will be able to buy according to their social, economic, entertainment and educational needs.

The right thing, Mr. President, is to make certain that consumers have genuine choices and that real competition occurs in the marketplace. Our most recent experience in the long-distance market shows that consumers need real choices. AT&T just raised its prices almost 4 percent, and so did MCI and Sprint. Follow-the-leader price competition does not benefit Americans’ wallets. We obviously need to inject more competitors into this market — and the logical choices are AT&T’s seven offspring.

However, we should not try to manage the competition between cable companies and telephone companies, nor between long-distance telephone companies and local telephone companies, nor between networks and producers, nor between publishers and telephone companies. Instead, we should allow all of these and more to come directly to the customer and offer to provide some or all of the information needs of the American consumer.

Our role — particularly as we transform from the monopolistic model to a competitive model — should be to ensure that competition exists. The best way to create real competition is to allow the so-called big guys to have at each other as quickly as possible. Efforts to control the pace will merely preserve the heavy cash advantages these monopolies currently enjoy.

There are five other areas where a public interest exists and where we should direct our attention.

Education. We should challenge the information industry to deliver a plan which will provide every American classroom with affordable access to the Internet. This access could be wired or wireless, but it cannot be funded with property, sales or income taxes. Local schools cannot fight this battle alone. Unless we address the problem faced by the all of America’s 100,000 schools as a group, education will enter the age of information too slowly.

We should also consider creating a communication technology fund for our schools so that workstations and software do not become cost-prohibitive for all but our wealthiest schools. Perhaps we should dedicate a portion of the proceeds from the 160-MHz auction which will begin next year for personal communication systems.

Rural access. We are at a crossroads for enhanced rural service. As we steer onto a path which will provide rural American homes and business with enhanced service, I prefer to use direct spending subsidies instead of regulatory restrictions.

Privacy. We must remain ever-mindful of the easy invasion of privacy which can occur once a connection is made to our homes. The idea of privacy should not be abandoned in the electronic age.

Control. Simply put, we should not allow any owner of infrastructure to use the advantage gained as a consequence of having been granted a monopoly franchise to use this power to strangle innovative and entrepreneurial information services.

Content. Pornographic and violent content must be easily excluded if the consumer does not want such content entering their home.

Mr. President, those who sense that this merger signals a need for government to do things differently in order to avoid an abuse of power are correct. My hope is that we do not react with a regulatory model designed for a technological world which no longer exists. American jobs, American culture and our capacity to govern ourselves all depend on our actions.