Local Exchange Infrastructure Modernization Act of 1993
For Further Action See H.R.3636.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 11, 1993
Local Exchange Infrastructure Modernization Act of 1993 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to exercise its authority to: (1) preserve and enhance universal telephone service at reasonable rates; (2) achieve universal availability of advanced network capabilities and information services; (3) assure a seamless nationwide distribution network through joint network planning, coordination, and service arrangements between and among local exchange carriers (LECs); (4) maintain high standards of quality for advanced network services; and (5) assure adequate communication for the public health, safety, defense, education, national security, and emergency preparedness. Defines "local exchange carrier" as a carrier that: (1) is required to provide upon request, under tariff or subject to other government oversight (by the FCC or a State commission), interstate and intrastate access services and telephone exchange service; (2) is, or was, a participant in one or more interstate pools established by the FCC, or would have been required to participate in one or more such pools had the carrier been engaged in interstate and intrastate access and telephone exchange service while such participation was mandatory; (3) is subject to the requirements imposed by the FCC or a State commission related to the provision of equal access; and (4) conforms with the provisions of the North American Numbering Plan applicable to the assignment of numbering resources for telephone exchange service, as defined by the Plan's Administrator. Requires the FCC to prescribe regulations that require: (1) joint coordinated network planning, design, and cooperative implementation among all LECs in the provision of public switched network infrastructure and services; (2) development of standards for interconnection between the LEC public switched network and others by appropriate standard-setting bodies; and (3) a LEC to share public switched network infrastructure and functionality with requesting LECs which serve a geographic area for which they lack economies of scale or scope for the particular required network functionality.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1312 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1312 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1312 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1312 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.