THE MIND'S EYE

Remarks As Prepared for Delivery

by

Deborah A. Lathen,

Chief, Cable Services Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

At

Town Hall, Los Angeles, CA

November 9, 1999

Good afternoon. Thank you for that kind introduction, and thank you,
Town Hall, for inviting me to speak.

I have long been a fan of Town Hall. I have attended many of these
forums. When I was invited to speak to you, my first reaction was one of
great humility.

This organization has hosted some of the most interesting people of the
late 20^th^ century \-\-- everyone from Kofi Anan to Mikhail Gorbachev,
from Richard Nixon to my former Constitutional law professor, Archibald
Cox. I am really pleased to be here.

I am thrilled to be back in Los Angeles. I lived here for over ten
years, and everyday I miss it. I miss the roar of the ocean, the sound
of seagulls. I miss the mountains. I miss driving along the Pacific
Coast Highway in my convertible with the top down.

I also miss the warmth of Californians.

When I moved to Washington, I traded the Pacific for the Potomac and the
mountains for monuments.

I have lived many places in my life, but California is my favorite.
However, those that know me best know that at my core, I am a Southern
woman.

I have deep Southern roots, going back to my great grandmother, who I
called Little Granny, and my grandmother, who I called Big Granny. These
were Mississippi women. Strong women. The women of the cotton fields of
the Delta. These were the women of Sounder and Beloved.

Following World War Two, they left their Mississippi roots as part of
the Great Migration of Americans from the agrarian South to the
industrial North---all looking for economic opportunity and a better
life.

In 1971, I made my own personal migration from a small town in Illinois
to attend college in upstate New York. When I told Big Granny about my
plans, they did not bring her joy. Instead, they brought her concern.

Although I told her I was going to upstate New York, not New York City,
it just didn't compute. New York was New York, and she had made up her
mind that even though she had never been there, it was a big, bad and
sinful place, and nothing good would come of her grandbaby if she went
to New York.

She was not well enough to travel but she was so concerned about me that
she insisted my grandfather, Granddaddy Dewitt, drive all the way from
rural Missouri to upstate New York so that he could come back and tell
her about my surroundings.

She said she would have no peace until she could see me in her mind's
eye*.*

So Granddaddy Dewitt drove 20 hours, sleeping in his car on the way, and
came to visit me in upstate New York just so he could paint a picture in
my grandmother's mind that assured her of my well being

He drove the twenty hours back and gave her his impressions of my
surroundings and me, and my grandmother kept this picture in her mind's
eye.

Today, Big Granny would be able to stroll my college campus without
leaving the comfort of her own living room. Through the Internet, she
could meet my friends. She could download messages from my college
President. She could see schedules of campus activities. In a virtual
sense, she could see me and my college surroundings anytime she wanted.

She would not have to rely on my grandfather's interpretation of my well
being. The Internet would have allowed her to see me with her own eyes.

It is that application, and more, that gets me excited about technology.
Really, it is the promise of technology. It is the promise of a better
world through the connectivity and information that technology brings
into our homes.

Imagine a world where everything is connected.

Imagine the ability to log on to your computer and see live video of
your children from anywhere in the world.

Imagine being able to communicate with anyone in the world at any time.

Imagine the improvements in health care in rural and remote areas when
doctors there are connected to the best medical resources in the world
and have access to experts in any medical field, regardless of
geographic barriers.

Imagine the educational opportunities for our children. Virtual field
trips to the Louvre, the Amazon, the Nile, and even the Pacific Ocean.
The ability to read books from any library in the world. The ability to
communicate with other children around the world, from Los Angeles to
Lima, from California to China, from South-Central to South Africa.

Imagine the ability to turn on your computer in your car, and having
that computer tell you about a traffic jam on the 405, and then having
it suggest an alternate route so you can get home faster and spend more
time with your family.

Imagine your home. A refrigerator that has the ability to sense when you
are running low on milk and that will send e-mail to you to remind you
to pick some up on the way home. Or better yet, it will contact an
e-grocer, who will send you the supplies you need.

Oh if all these things would have been available when I was a student, I
suppose Big Granny and I would have been sending e-mail and
video-messages back and forth all the time. Of course, I still would
have missed her homemade cooking and her country-style peach cobbler.

Well, as you may know by now, these possibilities either exist today, or
they are not far off in the future.

Through technology, our world of opportunity is growing.

The rapid growth and expansion of communications technology throughout
the globe has led to a highly intertwined market.

According to a recent study, the Internet economy is projected to reach
\$507 billion this year! That is ahead of the \$300 billion
telecommunications industry and approaching the \$750 billion publishing
industry.

Convergence is a major trend in today's marketplace.

We see broadcast and cable networks establishing web sites, providing
content to supplement their video services. Cable companies, phone
companies, satellite, and wireless providers are all providing
high-speed Internet access. And the utilities are preparing to get into
the act.

Technologies are converging as well. Cable modems and Digital Subscriber
Lines (DSL) broadband technology are bringing us a world in which video;
voice and data are all readily accessible and conveniently bundled.

The possibilities are limited by only two things: human imagination and
bandwidth.

Recently, my bureau reported to FCC Chairman Kennard on the state of the
broadband industry. We included a detailed technical discussion of what
broadband technology is, and for those of you who are interested, that
report is available on our web site. [www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/)
and just follow the links.

For those of you want a quick reference, in the FCC's Section 706 Report
to Congress, we define broadband as:

The capability of supporting, in both the provider-to-consumer, or
downstream, and the consumer-to-provider, or upstream, directions, a
speed in [excess of 200 kilobits per second.]{.underline}

Now, what does that mean in practical terms? It means download times
that are up to 100 times faster than the speeds you are used to.

It is the difference between using a common garden hose and a
high-pressure fire hose.

Let me put in terms that are particularly appropriate for Los Angeles,
the movie capital of the world. Recently, USA Today conducted a study on
Internet download times.

They measured download speeds of a regular dial-up telephone modem and
the download speed of broadband modems.

Using the recent movie Titanic as the example. Titanic ran for 3 hours
and 14 minutes.

The results were impressive. A regular dial-up modem (like the one most
of us have at home) took 42 hours and 30 minutes to download "Titanic."

My God, the ship itself only took 3 hours to sink!

By contrast, the download time for the broadband modem was 9 minutes. 9
minutes. . . . 9 minutes! That's amazing!

If this is what broadband can do for entertainment, imagine the
possibilities in business, education, and communication.

So, you ask, if broadband is so great, why don't we have it yet? And
what is the raging debate all about?

Unfortunately, the current debate does not center on the promise of the
technology. It is not about how this great technology can be used to
educate our kids, bring health care to remote areas, improve our
commercial efficiency and competitiveness.

This debate has not centered on the promise of broadband.

Rather, it is a debate about the mode of transition. It is a debate
about the means, not the ends. We must keep that in mind when discussing
this issue.

It is about who should be allowed to use who's systems, and under what
terms that use will occur. Most importantly, the debate is about whether
the government should mandate that usage and those conditions.

There are millions being spent in dual efforts to define the issues in
terms of open or closed access.

You hear the sound bites: Open is good. Closed is bad. Forced is bad.
Regulate. Don't regulate.

Today, I want to put aside all the rhetoric, and talk about the reality.

Broadband technology has been deployed in two forms.

One is the cable modem. The other is the digital subscriber line, or
DSL.

Cable operators have begun to offer broadband services to consumers in
various localities through cable modems. In fact, you can get it here in
Orange County.

When a consumer signs up for cable modem service, the cable operator
will usually provide Internet access through a wholly or partially owned
or affiliated Internet Service Provider, or ISPs.

ISPs that are not affiliated with cable operators are attempting to
obtain direct access to cable broadband platforms that would enable
consumers to access the Internet directly through their service.

There is no national regulation that would force cable operators to
allow this access.

Local franchising authorities, who have the power to grant cable
franchises and approve the transfers of cable franchises, have begun to
require cable companies to "open up" or provide "open access" to their
broadband platforms for competing ISPs as a condition for the approval
of franchise transfers.

The issue is under review here in Los Angeles, and before the 9^th^
Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are many different opinions about this, and I am here to talk to
you about our role and our goals in this debate.

First and foremost, the FCC is committed to ensuring that the promise of
technology accrues to all Americans. In that sense, we are keepers of
the promise that technology holds.

That tele-medicine and tele-education are not just concepts, but
realities.

That the digital world is one filled with opportunity.

And that all Americans enjoy that opportunity.

As such, we are not acting as a market regulator \-\-- we want to act as
a market facilitator.

The FCC wants to see broadband deployed to all Americans as soon as
possible. In approaching the issue, we keep two important touchstones in
mind at all times.

First, there is the consumer.

At the FCC, we are guided by a simple question: Is this good for the
American consumer?

It is the first thing we look at, and we keep this question in mind at
all times. If a policy does not promise benefits to American consumers,
we do not adopt that policy.

As the former head of consumer affairs for Nissan, when I moved from the
private sector to the government, I was impressed by the level of
commitment that the FCC has to the consumer.

I see that commitment everyday. I know how much time, energy and passion
go into doing our best for the American consumer.

Second, we look at competition. The 1996 Act mandated the FCC to
encourage competition in the telecommunications marketplace while
telling us at the same time to deregulate.

We believe in competition. We believe in the ability of the market to
solve problems. And we believe that competition is in the best
interests' of the consumer.

By using competition as a touchstone, we put our faith in the belief
that the market will find the best solution to the questions that new
technologies create.

With consumers and competition as our guideposts, the FCC has chosen not
to regulate at this time, and to monitor this industry as it develops.

Our policy is one of vigilant restraint. We have decided not to mandate
access to broadband platforms. We are forbearing from regulation at this
time because we believe that this is the quickest way to get this
technology deployed.

The Chairman has clearly stated the FCC's four goals bringing broadband
services to Americans:

[Fast deployment\--]{.underline} Our challenge today is to make
broadband happen and make it happen fast. The faster we can get
broadband services to all Americans, the faster they can participate in
this new economy.

[Ubiquitous deployment\--]{.underline} We have to make sure that all
Americans have access to broadband in our country. If the full promise
of this technology is to be realized, it must be deployed everywhere. It
must reach the inner cities. It must reach the rural farmhouses. It can
not be allowed to become another symbol of the digital divide. It can
not become another way to separate the haves from the have-nots.
Broadband can not be allowed to become a barrier \-\-- it must be a
bridge.

[Competitive systems]{.underline}\-- We want to see multiple broadband
pipes: cable modems, DSL, wireless, and satellites. The challenge for us
is to make sure we are creating a regulatory environment that is
technology neutral so we get as many players on the field as possible.
Competition is developing between the telephone companies and the cable
companies. This is just the beginning. At the beginning of 1998 there
were 50,000 cable modems in service in America. At the end of 1998 there
were 500,000 -- a ten-fold increase. By the end of this year there will
be 1.5 million or more cable modems in service. This deployment of cable
modems has spurred the deployment of DSL.

We want to ensure that openness continues\-- Openness allowed the
Internet to thrive and produce innovation in both content and
technologies. Technologies that are transforming society.

To regulate at this juncture would be to say that the market has failed
before the market has been given a chance.

History is filled with examples of individuals who made erroneous
predictions about the future of technology before that technology had
the chance to prove its worth.

We do not want to make the same mistake that Harry Warner of Warner
Brothers, the King of the Silent Film, made in 1927, when he said "Who
wants to hear actors talk?"

We don't want to make the same mistake Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital
Corporation made when he said "There is no reason for any individual to
have a computer in their home."

The computer industry offers us an excellent example to follow.

The government decided not to regulate technical standards for the
computer industry.

Rather, we let the market determine how the computer industry would
evolve, and the results of that decision have been staggering.

Despite Ken Olsen's prediction, over 50% of all Americans have a
computer in their home.

The decision not to regulate reflected a fundamental understanding of
what fosters creativity and innovation: Letting the market do its work.

Regulation at this point could have the unintended effect of impeding
the development of this industry.

However, in order to make sure that consumers' interests come first, we
must continue to carefully monitor developments in this market.

To be sure there are clear risks associated with a regulatory policy of
restraint.

Risks such as the threat of monopoly of Broadband, or the creation of an
irreversibly closed system.

However, at this point in time, we feel these risks do not pose an
immediate threat to the open nature of the Internet.

Our monitoring has shown us that no monopoly exists at this point.

Granted, cable broadband deployment does seem to have an early lead. But
as I stated before, DSL deployment is accelerating, and investments are
being made in wireless and satellite based broadband technologies.

And it is vital to remember that this is a nascent industry. There are
only one million people who use broadband to connect with the Internet.
That is less than 3% of all Internet users in North America.

As for the threat of an irreversibly closed system, we believe that
consumer demand will ultimately compel cable operators to open their
systems. Consumers want choice, and economics tells you that
competition, not regulation, promotes choice.

We are aware of the threats and will be ever vigilant to make certain
that they do not occur.

If we see the threat of a monopoly than that is the appropriate time to
move swiftly and consider regulatory options. That is why we are
monitoring to ensure that a closed system does not evolve. We believe
that in order to reach our goals we must resist regulation at this time.

Connecting consumers is the goal of our policy. It is a goal that we
share with the consumer groups. It is a goal with share with local and
state regulators. We believe we have set upon a course that will ensure
that this goal is reached.

Recently, I accompanied my sister as she took her 18-year-old son to
start his freshman year at Boston University. This is her only child,
and this was the first time he was leaving home.

Like my grandmother, my sister wanted to see her son's environment in
her mind's eye, also. But unlike my grandmother, she had options.

She got a computer with Internet access and video streaming capability.
This way, she and her son can send pictures and messages back and forth
to each other.

Now granted, my nephew isn't as forthcoming with the pictures of his
dorm room as my sister would like him to be. But she has a method of
communication available to her that wasn't even imagined in my
grandmother's day.

Technology today can do so much to deliver on the promise of a better
life and a brighter future for all Americans.

Thank you, Town Hall for allowing me this wonderful opportunity to share
my views on this important issue.