**STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

***EN BANC* HEARING ON BROADBAND**

**NETWORK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES**

**STANFORD UNIVERSITY, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA**

**APRIL 17, 2008**

Thank you, Chairman Martin, for convening this second hearing on the
importance of broadband and Internet Freedom.  I hope there will be more
such hearings around the country because so much, in terms of economic
growth and individual opportunity, hinges on protecting the integrity
and the openness of the Internet.  Before delving a little into that, I
would be remiss not to first thank this area's Congressional delegation
for the work it does in this regard and, indeed, across the whole
telecommunications landscape.  The Speaker and your Senators---and we
work frequently with Senator Boxer because of her important position on
the Commerce Committee---provide thoughtful and truly effective
leadership on these issues.  And I can't say enough about your own
Congresswoman, and my very good friend, Anna Eshoo.  She's just an
inspiration.  She is a visionary leader who understands the
transformative power of the Internet and the impact that technology,
innovation and competition has on the economy, on creativity in this
country, and on the daily lives of American consumers.

Out here in Silicon Valley, and at this great university, we have the
perfect opportunity to talk about innovators, inventors, and
entrepreneurs.  This is the place, really, where so many of the things
we take for granted every day actually got their start. 
Semi-conductors, personal computers, graphical user interfaces, search
engines, devices like the iPhone---these are all innovations that have
revolutionized communications and that got their start or went through
an important stage in their evolution right here, in a place that once
was just a sleepy farming community before Stanford came to the area
and, later, companies and institutions such as Hewlett-Packard, Xerox
PARC, Fairchild Semiconductors, Intel, Apple---the list goes on---and
all the venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road who helped turn the area
into the world\'s leading center of innovation and wealth creation. 
What a story!

But, you know, that innovation, that productivity, that entrepreneurship
shouldn't be seen as a luxury, something that's really nice to have. 
Keeping it going is, rather, an urgent necessity, vital not only to the
fulfillment of our individual lives but to our economic well-being and
to our nation's competitive posture in the world.  We've come a long
way, thanks to many people in this room, but there are no guarantees for
the future.  And that wonderful, open and dynamic Internet---perhaps the
most liberating technology since the printing press, if not even greater
than that---is, in fact, under threat.  We will keep it open and free
only by acting to make it happen.  Its future is not on autopilot and,
indeed, powerful interests would bring it under their control for their
own purposes---which may not be your purposes.  I'm not presenting a
novel theory here, I'm only learning from history.  History shows that
when somebody has the ability to control technology, and also has a
business incentive to do so, they're going to try.  And that, my
friends, is what this issue of Internet Freedom or net neutrality, or
whatever you want to call it, is all about.  When I say this, I'm not
talking about bad people---but I am talking about some really bad
results! 

Let\'s look at it from an inventor\'s perspective.  His or her job is to
come up with the idea, go out and attract venture capital funding for
it, and hopefully bring that innovation to consumers.  Before they
devote years of their lives, and ask investors to devote huge sums of
money to their dream, they need confidence that if they invent a better
mousetrap they will indeed be able to bring it to consumers.  They need
to know that their innovation won\'t be prevented from getting to market
by a handful of network operators who have consolidated their control
over broadband pipes all across this country.  Inventors and creators
need to know, up-front, that they have the right to innovate without
going on bended knee to seek permission from a few who have amassed too
much control in their own hands.  And if they have that right, that is
really good news for innovation and for consumers.

The future of that right is by no means guaranteed.  Important decisions
that could codify such a right have been postponed or avoided.  And this
is why it's time to insist upon action now.  Now is the time for the FCC
to add an enforceable principle of non-discrimination to our Internet
Policy Statement---a clear, strong declaration that we will not tolerate
unreasonable discrimination by network operators and that we have in
place enforcement policies to make sure that anyone with other ideas
isn't going to get away with them.  And, by the way, this policy should
apply to wireless as well as wireline operators.

Now I grant this won't be simple to do.  These are evolving technologies
and sometimes the line between reasonable network management and
outright discrimination can be less than crystal clear.  But that's why
we need a for-sure enforcement process, to sift through complaints, to
make the judgment calls, and, over time, to compile some case law and
precedent so things become clearer.  But I can tell you this: if
everyone knew the FCC was on the job, that we had forthrightly staked
out our principles, that everyone knew we would deal with any and all
complaints that came in, and that those who do discriminate will be
punished, word would get out pretty fast that no one should be messing
around with the openness of the Net. We've done this before under Title
II of the Telecommunications Act with policies and procedures that
supported innovation at the edges of the networks, like the answering
machine, fax machines, personal computer modems, and dial-up home
Internet services like AOL and others (which provided most Americans
with their first exposure to the Internet).

And while such an approach provides important safeguards for
entrepreneurs just starting to get their innovative juices flowing, it
does something else, too.  It gives clarity to investors, not just
investors here, but on Wall Street, too.  An approach wherein the
Commission had an enforceable rule of non-discrimination and then
determines whether complex network practices abide by such a principle
on a case-by-case basis would give investors in these networks more
certainty, not less.  Network operators and some on Wall Street might
have to reconfigure the lens through which they view the Commission's
principles, but I believe they would quickly come to appreciate having a
clear understanding of what the rules are, and that we have a system
that can account for changes in technology and reasonable business
practices.  That kind of certainty breeds more, not less, investment.

We have two excellent panels with us today.  I hope they will address
whether net neutrality principles can be consistent with other important
policy objectives as well as the ones I have mentioned---objectives like
the protection of intellectual property and the protection of our
children from obscene and dangerous Internet content.  These are all in
my estimation critical outcomes, but they raise a number of important
questions which are central to our Internet dialogue.

Media historian Paul Starr points out that our country has made, at
various critical points in its national passage, what he calls
"constitutive choices"---important government decisions that have
substantially guided the course of the nation's media and its impact on
American culture and politics.  For example, by subsidizing the postal
service (especially into rural areas), the nation encouraged vibrant
newspaper circulation and a deeply engaged electorate in the early days
of the nation.  Later, in setting the rules for licensing commercial
broadcasting stations (often affiliated with nationwide networks), the
Federal Radio Commission and later the FCC adopted a model to ensure
that for-profit programming would not ride roughshod over the notion
that the people's airwaves must serve the people's interest.
 Unfortunately, we've too often lost our compass on that one. 

Now we face a constitutive choice with the Internet---a choice between
closed networks where the network operators control the user experience
and open networks that are controlled by end users.  This is an issue in
which you must engage, not just because you are innovators and business
people, but because you are citizens.  If I see what's happening
accurately, I believe we will have an opportunity, before very long, to
decide this issue of Internet Freedom.  It will be a major fight, with
powerful forces on the other side. We'll all have to work---and much as
I know folks out here like to keep their focus on all the good
entrepreneurial things they are doing, they---you---are going to have to
focus on this issue, focus on Washington, and put your commitment and
your resources into making sure the decision comes out right.  Without
that kind of participation, we will likely lose.  With it, we have a
real shot to win.  I hope you'll join up!

Thank you very much.