**REMARKS OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS**

## WASHINGTON, DC

**JANUARY 9, 2002**

**(As prepared for delivery)**

Thank you for inviting me to be with you today. I feel very close to
this audience, not only because we seem to agree on numerous
communications issues, but also because I spend a lot of time with our
Catholic schools. My wife and I are just finishing up 25 continuous
years putting five kids through St. Mary's Elementary School in Old
Town; we've put two through Bishop Ireton High School; and our youngest
son is currently a junior at Gonzaga High here in the District. I also
put in a few years teaching at Loyola University of the South in New
Orleans, although that's more years ago than I like to remember. I must
add, however, that performing an educational role is, to me, very much
part of being a successful Commissioner at the FCC. When you happen to
be a minority of one, as I am presently, the pulpit of the Commission is
a vital accompaniment to our regulatory responsibilities. It may not be
a Bishop's pulpit, but it's a bully pulpit nevertheless.

I am very excited that the Catholic Conference has dedicated such
substantial time, talent, and resources to communications technology
issues. Communications technologies have already dramatically changed
the ways we live, work, educate ourselves, play, discuss public issues,
and they have importantly affected the ways in which Americans learn
about religion and even the ways in which we worship. Television, radio,
the Internet, cable services, and telephone networks are among the most
powerful tools in the world. When they are used right, they can
enlighten minds, convey powerful ideas, educate, and lay the foundation
for economic and human development.

I know that you in this room already understand this. Various parts of
the Catholic Church run television and radio stations, Internet sites,
and produce educational programming. You also advocate for moral values
in the media, support legislation to protect children from exploitation,
and fight for a greater diversity of voices on the radio dial through
low-power radio. Critically, Catholic Relief is using development
strategies, including technology tools, in developing countries to give
people a chance at economic self-sufficiency. No doubt about it \-- the
Catholic Conference has asserted itself as a positive advocate in the
world of communications technologies.

I'm excited about all your work because you, unlike many other
organizations, have seen the importance of these technologies to your
mission AND the importance of participating in the government's
activities related to communications technologies. My job as FCC
Commissioner is to work to create a regulatory environment where the
best of communications technologies flourish. To do this I need the help
of what I call the communications industry's "non-traditional
stakeholders." ***All*** Americans have a stake in the communications
network. But most of the time, we at the FCC hear primarily from the
corporations who own the networks and the other business players. While
the participation of these businesses is essential, it is no more
essential than the input of consumers, educational and religious
organizations and representatives of under-served ethnic groups. How can
the FCC develop vision without knowing what all these groups, and
others, are seeing, working for, hoping and dreaming? This is why I have
put so much emphasis in these first months of my service on outreach to
non-traditional stakeholders who have traditionally lacked a voice at
the FCC.

Let me use the time we have together this morning to talk about four
areas that relate to your activities. First, making technology work for
***all*** Americans here at home. Second, using technology to assist in
international human development abroad. Third, controlling the torrid
pace of communications industry consolidation that America is
experiencing. And t fourth, protecting against indecency in the media.
If we can work together on these goals, we can, I believe, make real
progress.

I must begin with a short digression, because in order to talk about
these goals, I have to talk first about the "public interest." You will
hear me speak a lot about the public interest while I am at the FCC.
Congress made protecting the public interest the foundation of the FCC's
responsibility. The concept permeates the communications statutes.
Indeed, a quick review of the Communications Act shows that the term
"public interest" appears 112 times*.* To me, 112 times translates into
"mandate."

There are some, however \-- and their number may be growing -- who
downplay or even ignore their public interest responsibility, or brush
it aside as something "unquantifiable," "undefinable," or, horror of
horrors, "inefficient."

Even if the public interest test was that elusive \-- which I believe it
is not \-- Congress did not say that we should follow our public
interest mandate only if we are satisfied that we can quantify it
exactly for each and every possible situation. Nor did Congress say that
just because some people struggle with what they believe the public
interest contains, we could reduce or suspend our adherence to the
mandate. On the contrary, Congress told us to meet our public interest
responsibility. If the Commission stops making decisions based on the
public interest because it has trouble pinpointing the exact parameters
of the public interest, it will be breaking the law. Just as
importantly, it will be abandoning its responsibility to the public on
the four goals that I want to discuss this today. Each of these four
goals is justified, even required, by our duty to promote the public
interest.

**[Making Technology Work For ALL Americans Here At Home]{.underline}**

My objective is to help bring the most advanced communications
technologies to as wide a group of Americans as possible -- whether
those people are urban or rural; living in affluent suburb, struggling
inner city or impoverished tribal lands; whether they are economically
privileged or economically challenged; healthy or experiencing
disabilities. Congress has been clear about this, too -- it has told us
to make comparable technologies available all across the Nation. Each
and every citizen of this great country should have access to the
wonders of communications. I really don't think it exaggerates much to
characterize access to communications in this modern age as a civil
right.

Today, having access to advanced communications -- broadband -- is every
bit as important as access to basic telephone services was in the past.
I know there are some analysts out there \-- in fact a pack mentality
seems to be running just now \-- who are bemoaning the future of
broadband because the market didn't bring us to Broadband Utopia during
the irrational exuberance of a couple of years ago. I disagree. I
believe broadband will be America's defining infrastructure in this next
phase of our nation's development, just as the transcontinental
railroads were in the last century, or basic telecommunications was
during much of the past 100 years. The marvels of telecom and
communications have been impressive and dramatic, but you know what? I
don't believe we've seen anything yet. I believe that the communications
transformations of the next 100 years will make the great changes of the
past century pale by comparison.

One important and successful program that is already helping to bring
advanced technologies to the heart of communities across the country is
the E-Rate. The E-Rate was created, as you well know, in the 1996
Telecom Act. It provides discounts to K-12 schools and libraries for
Internet connections and telecom services. Catholic schools have now
received almost \$60 million in discounts from this program. That's
impressive. But we can't rest on our laurels. The FCC is getting ready
to discuss changes to the E-Rate program. We need your participation in
this proceeding to make sure that the end result is to improve the
program so that it works better for our communities and our schools.
Your job and mine is to defeat any backdoor attempt to gut the program.
We need to take this very basic program and make it even better.

The E-Rate shows that the digital tools of the Information Age are the
keys to unlocking the doors of education. But they are also the keys to
community and economic development. Advanced infrastructure is a
prerequisite for stable economies and jobs. And because your churches
and schools are both cornerstone and safety net in thousands of
communities across the country, you understand what the cost of economic
destruction is for our people. The Catholic Conference is fighting to
raise awareness of poverty in America this month -- which is Poverty
Awareness Month. Extending communications infrastructures is one
powerful way to work combat poverty by opening the doors to economic
self-sufficiency -- and keeping them open -- for all Americans, and
ensuring that they are not locked shut for some because they happen to
live in technological backwaters.

You can make broadband work for you in many ways -- in fact, you are
already well on the way to doing so through the Instructional Television
Fixed Service, or ITFS, the wireless broadband service allocated to
educational uses. Catholic schools are some of the more efficient users
of this service, distributing television programs and enhancing
classroom experiences in parochial schools. Last year, ITFS was
threatened as other users sought to access this spectrum for commercial
uses. I voted to protect this spectrum for educational uses. But one-way
television service is just the beginning of what you can do with
broadband, either through ITFS or over cable lines, telephone lines, or
other media. Broadband is a tool that you can use to connect
communities, educate our children and improve economic development. The
sky's the limit.

I want to add that the concept of bringing technology to all Americans
includes, for me, more than just telecommunications. I am also talking
about such things as the preservation of free, over-the-air broadcast
services that serve the needs of all Americans. One of the newer
components of free over-the-air broadcast service is the noncommercial
low power FM radio service that was established by the Commission last
year. Even with the provision included in appropriations legislation
that drastically reduced the number of low power radio stations the FCC
could authorize at this time, the Commission has already granted 170
construction permits to schools, churches and community organizations.

##### Using Technology To Assist In International Human Development Abroad

The struggle to extend communications infrastructures to build American
communities is daunting. But the struggle to build infrastructures in
developing nations as part of the fight against poverty and for human
development is even more challenging. Here, too, the rewards could be
great.

Worldwide, I am told that only one person in five has ever used a
telephone. The industrialized countries have 15% of the population, and
85% of Internet users. South Asia has 20% of the population, and only 1%
of Internet users. Incredibly, Africa has 739 million people and only 14
million phone lines. That's less than Manhattan. There are only 1
million Internet users in all of Africa.

Catholic Relief, the relief and development agency of the Catholic
Church, publishes a powerful list of beliefs that drives it to do the
good work that it does around the world. I'm struck by the following two
principles on that list:

(1) "We understand ourselves to be a part of a wider global family and
    believe that our responsibilities to one another cross national,
    cultural, and religious boundaries. Our work worldwide is a concrete
    expression of the interdependence of all people in community with
    each other as we seek to fulfill our responsibilities to our
    brothers and sisters worldwide."

\(2\) "We believe that the development of economic, social, political,
material, spiritual, and cultural conditions are necessary for all
people to flourish and reach their full human potential and we accept
our responsibility to promote the common good of the larger society."

The countries where Catholic Relief works cry out for communications
infrastructures in order to build the capacity for their people to
"flourish and reach their full human potential." In order for this to
happen, people in those countries need technical help, legal help and
international investment.

I believe that the FCC has a responsibility to offer this help in the
developing world. We already host government officials who come to the
US to learn, and we send experts around the globe. We encourage
transparency in regulation, and the rule of law. We work to make
international investment possible, and to interconnect developing
countries to the world network. But we have only scratched the service.
We need to do more. We can do more. And I intend to work to ensure that
we do more. I would welcome your input in designing strategies for the
realization of this important objective. For example, in March I'll be
addressing a conference focusing on investments in Latin America.
Catholic Relief works with the people in the trenches in Latin America
who really understand what is needed. I think you and I working together
on this makes eminent good sense.

**[Industry Consolidation]{.underline}**

The third area I want to mention is industry consolidation. I know you
will be discussing this later this morning with some other speakers, but
I do want to share with you a bit of my perspective on an issue that
will be front-and-center in the deliberations of the Commission this
year -- and beyond.

The Nineties brought new rules allowing increased consolidation in the
radio and television industries. These rules paved the way for
tremendous, and I think in large part an unanticipated, level
consolidation. Many broadcast stations are now affiliated with ownership
groups comprising hundreds of media outlets. This consolidation has no
doubt created efficiencies that allow stations to operate more
profitably and on a scale unimaginable only a few years ago. But they
also raise profound questions of public policy. How far should such
combinations be allowed to go? Surely we all realize that the world has
changed; that bigness is not necessarily badness; that we live in a
globalized economy where the pressures of competition are extreme, and
that we cannot turn the clock back to a simpler past which was never, in
reality, quite so simple or ideal as some would have it. That being
said, however, the American people have always harbored a deep and
healthy distrust of excessive industrial consolidation, and they have
always posted sentinels at the gate to guard against it. I did not go to
the FCC to wave the green flag on the speedway to further consolidation.
Each proposed combination needs to be looked at on its merits \-- some
are good, some are not \-- but the public interest test must be
rigorously applied to every proposed consolidation, and that is what I
have attempted to do in my first months at the Commission. One of our
big jobs at the FCC must always be the preservation in this country of a
bustling marketplace of ideas, a diversity in sources of content in each
community, and a multiplicity of voices to stir discussion and debate
throughout the land. I would add that these are especially critical
times for this particular issue because an economy in recession usually
gives an extra push to those whose goal is combination. The current
deregulatory climate that is increasingly obvious to most of us in
Washington adds fuel to the fire.

I consider myself pro-business. I have spent most of my years in this
city working with business, the last eight years at the Department of
Commerce building private sector-public sector partnerships to enhance
America's role in global trade, based on the conviction that increased
global commerce was in the interests of all the world's citizens. I want
to develop these kinds of partnership activities during my tenure at the
FCC. Our private sector is unmatched in what it produces, provides,
develops, invents and motivates and it remains the world's most powerful
locomotive of economic development. But we must be vigilant to keep it
competitive, to maintains its balance, and to preserve it as the force
for good that it needs to be to help this planet meet its staggering
developmental challenges.

### **Protecting Against Indecency in the Media**

The fourth and final area I'd like to talk about is protecting against
indecency in the media. Every day I hear from Americans who are fed up
with the patently offensive programming coming their way. I hear from
parents frustrated with the lack of choices available to their children.
I even hear from broadcast station owners that something needs to be
done. We as a society have a responsibility to protect children from
content that is inappropriate for them. When it comes to the broadcast
media, the FCC has a statutory obligation to protect children from
obscene, indecent or profane programming. I take this responsibility
with the utmost seriousness.

As a parent, I am concerned about what seems to be an increasing amount
of sexually explicit and profane programming on the airwaves and the
potentially detrimental effects of this programming on our children. Our
nation has enacted laws -- Constitutionally sanctioned laws -- to
protect young people from these excesses. The process by which the FCC
has enforced these laws places an inordinate responsibility on the
complaining citizen. It seems to me that when enforcing the indecency
laws of the United States, it is the Commission's responsibility to
investigate complaints that the law has been violated, not the citizen'
s responsibility to prove the violations. Lack of information about what
was said and when it was broadcast should not be allowed to derail our
enforcement of the laws. If something is said on the public airwaves, a
strong argument can be made that it should be part of the public record.
Many broadcasters already retain recordings of their broadcasts, but I
believe that all broadcasters should do so. Michael Eisner, Chairman and
CEO of the Walt Disney Company, has assured me that Disney for one is
now going to retain recordings of its radio stations' programming for
sixty days. That strikes me as good management and, more importantly,
good citizenship. I want to ensure that the Commission investigates
rigorously the complaints filed by citizens, and I hope that
broadcasters will not impede those investigations by failing to retain
recordings. Americans have a right to expect their government to enforce
the indecency laws of the United States.

By taking responsibility for what they broadcast, particularly when
children are likely to be watching, broadcast and cable companies make a
huge positive contribution to our children and our society. Rather than
going the usual Washington route of legislation, regulation and
adjudication, with the years of suits, counter-suits and appeals that
this inevitably generates, broadcasters and cable programmers could
adopt a voluntary Code of Conduct. Such a code was in place until 1983,
when it was struck down on narrow antitrust grounds. Through enlightened
self-regulation, the industry clamped effective restrictions on the
presentations of sexual material, violence, liquor, drug addiction, even
on excessive advertising. The Code also affirmed broadcaster
responsibilities toward children, community issues, and public affairs.
It didn't always work perfectly, but it was a serious effort premised on
the idea that we can be well entertained at levels several cuts above
the lowest common denominator that now dictates so much programming.

##### Conclusion

So I believe that we have lots of things in common, and much to work on.
You have picked up by now that I have always believed in partnership
activities between government and its constituents. It is in this spirit
of working together that I come here today, asking your help \-- and
offering mine \-- as we work to bring the power of communications
technology to every American and to the larger world beyond. We will
often agree, we may sometimes disagree, but working together for the
larger purposes that inspire all great deeds, I believe our future is
bright.

I'm honored that you invited me here today, and I look forward to
working with you. Thank you.