**Remarks by Commissioner Kevin J. Martin**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**To the National Summit on Broadband Deployment II: Accelerating the
Transition**

**Crystal City, Virginia**

**April 29, 2003**

*As Prepared for Delivery*

**[Introduction]{.underline}**

Thank you Andy for that kind introduction and for the invitation to
participate in today's National Broadband Summit. A very special word of
thanks to Commissioners Bob Rowe of Montana, Brett Perlman of Texas,
NARUC and NECA for their great effort in organizing and sponsoring
today's conference.

The last two days have reinforced the importance of our critical mission
to promote the widespread deployment of broadband in the nation's
infrastructure.

At yesterday's lunch, Verizon's Tom Tauke spoke of the need for courage
to establish a national broadband policy framework. I agree. And, I
believe that the Commission displayed such courage in the Triennial
proceeding, adopting a sweeping deregulation of broadband.

**[Triennial Proceeding]{.underline}**

I believe our Triennial Review decision achieves a principled, balanced
approach. It ensures that we have competition and deregulation.

Where there is competition from cable, we deregulate broadband.

And, we also preserve existing competition for local telephone service,
the competition that has enabled millions of consumers to benefit from
lower telephone rates.

Where competition is still dependent on use of the incumbent's network,
the Order requires that competitors be allowed access to the necessary
parts of that network so that competitors can continue to provide phone
service to consumers.

I believe these steps will benefit consumers and the industry. And we
accomplish these goals in a manner that is consistent with the statute
and the rulings of the courts.

**[Broadband]{.underline}**

I have long advocated making broadband the Commission's top priority.

In fact, the very first conference I participated in was the one where
Tom Tauke first proposed the "old wires, old rules; new wires, new
rules" framework that shaped so much of the broadband debate.

During the following year and a half, carriers and equipment providers
argued for the need to create a regulatory environment that encourages
new investment and the deployment of new broadband infrastructure.

In providing ubiquitous high-speed connectivity, broadband technology
would make possible the next generation of IT innovation and
productivity.

Some even estimated that accelerated broadband deployment could provide
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of economic benefits through
increased efficiencies, as well as through new investment in fiber,
switches, software, and processors.

Such economics benefits would be critical to get the telecommunications,
technology, and manufacturing sectors back on their feet.

Many argued that the Commission's rules were a barrier to such
development, creating an unlevel playing field which favored cable.
Indeed, cable operators and DSL providers compete vigorously for
residential broadband consumers. In fact, unlike in the voice market,
phone companies are not the predominant providers of residential
broadband service; cable operators are.

Yet the incumbent phone companies, not the cable operators, were the
ones that had to unbundle their networks to competitors.

To address this disparity, some advocated changes to our rules based on
several core principles:

> First\-- that narrowband voice rules should not be applied to
> broadband data.
>
> Second - - that the government should not pick winners and losers
> among rival technologies or industries. (i.e., telco's and cable)
>
> Third - - that without incentive, private enterprise will not assume
> risk.

In the end, the Commission agreed with these principles. It agreed to
refrain from applying voice rules to broadband data. It agreed to level
the playing field between phone companies and cable companies competing
to provide broadband services. And it agreed that phone companies, like
cable operators, should have the proper incentives to invest the capital
necessary to make 21^st^ century broadband capabilities available to all
American consumers.

In our recent decision in the *Triennial Review* proceeding, the
Commission tried to take the courageous step to create a National
broadband regulatory framework that would stimulate and promote
deployment of broadband infrastructure.

In February's decision, we altered the regulatory landscape for
broadband facilities. We provided sweeping regulatory relief to promote
new investment. The deregulation and the related investment incentives
many called for has arrived.

I remain hopeful that our Broadband decision will lay the foundation to
help restart investment in next-generation networks and facilitate the
deployment of advanced services to all consumers.

I wish to acknowledge and applaud Verizon for its public statement last
month renewing the company's commitment to the deployment of broadband
technologies.

This is the type of commitment that we hoped for in completing the
Triennial proceeding.

I look forward to your questions as we continue the dialogue.