**REMARKS OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**PIKE & FISCHER'S BROADBAND POLICY SUMMIT IV**

**WASHINGTON, DC**

**JUNE 12, 2008**

 

Good morning. Thanks to my friend Dick Wiley for his kind introduction
and to Pike & Fisher for convening what looks to be a really fine
Broadband Summit. Just a quick look at the panels shows that you'll be
covering a lot of broadband territory, and I'm honored to help kick the
conference off. My stay will be briefer than I hoped, however, because
we have an FCC open meeting coming in an hour or so. It was scheduled
after I accepted the invitation to be here. Now I know our track record
on starting FCC meetings on time is just a tad deficient, and maybe I
could stay here all day and still not miss the meeting. But this time
Kevin has scheduled a hearing on ETFs first, before we do any agenda
items, so I think it will start on time and I'll need to start back to
the princely Portals in 25-30 minutes. I apologize, but I did want to be
here and I'm glad I am.

I want to use these few minutes to make just a few points about
broadband. First, the good news is that I am going to spare you from
most of a lengthy lament about our nation's lack of a broadband
strategy. While a few folks may quibble with the details of the latest
OECD study ranking the United States a sorry Number 15 among the nations
of the world, a veritable raft of other studies tell the same or worse
story. Most of you know I favor having a real national strategy to get
this job done---a coordinated public-private partnership to meet this
central infrastructure challenge of our time. You know, we've always met
America's big infrastructure challenges that way, going back to our very
beginnings, and it totally escapes me why we would abandon that model
when it comes to broadband. But let me focus today on going forward
rather than delivering a requiem for the more cooperative and effective
model that built America.

I did come across an interesting book recently. It's Simon Winchester's
recently published biography of Joseph Needham. Needham, a Brit---and a
little eccentric, to be sure---wrote a seventeen volume treatise called
*Science and Civilisation in China* that not only opened a window on
that country but also suggests some comparisons with us. Maybe some of
you saw a book review in *The Economist* last week that raised what is
called "The Needham Question:" how did China, the source of so much
innovation, technology, and discovery---paper, gunpowder, tea, the
printing press and the compass being only a few examples---find itself
surpassed by the West by the close of the 15^th^ Century? Now there are
many theories and explanations, and some might argue that given the
strength of the Chinese economy today and the sweep of its long history,
a 500-year sidetrack was just a brief diversion.

But *The Economist* pointed out another interpretation: that it is
entirely possible to argue that Europe, with its many independent
nations and fierce rivalries, fostered competition between
nation-states, while China, due to its sheer size and isolation, lacked
similar incentive to maintain its competitiveness or to improve upon its
technological leadership. Historical analogies are always perilous, I
know, but they often present questions worth pondering. And I wonder if
some day, a successor to Simon Winchester may write about the 20^th^
century as America's high-water mark in technological leadership. As
Charles Benton wrote in a recent op-ed marking the 50^th^ anniversary of
the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik into outer space, on that day we
had a "Sputnik Moment" wherein we realized the possibility of being
challenged and perhaps superseded as the technological superpower.
Rather than choose complacency, Benton notes, "\[w\]e rallied the
nation's resources around a comprehensive strategy to regain our
technological leadership."

So the last half of the 20th century was about sending Americans to
outer space and the moon, building smaller and faster computers,
creating the Internet, turning cell phones from a luxury into a
necessity, inventing faxes and e-mails and even those small devices we
each attach to our hips to run our lives for us. The question for us is:
does America at the beginning of the 21^st^ century become
technologically stagnant or the leader of the Digital Age? For me, the
answer to that question depends in some significant measure upon whether
we succeed in bringing high-speed, high-value broadband and an open
Internet to all Americans. And I always emphasize that word
**[all]{.underline}**: that means rural as well as urban folks; it means
low-income as well as affluent; seniors as well as kids in school; those
with disabilities; and those who live on tribal lands. It's a big
challenge.

The reasons for doing this are too numerous to recite here. They are
long-term because we are talking about the infrastructure of global
competition. This isn't do-gooder social theory. It's about making you
and me and 300 million Americans partakers in what will be---current
economic slow-down notwithstanding---the most prosperous and exciting
century ever. It's about an Iowa farmer trying to compete in global
markets, an art dealer in Montana trying to start herself a small
business competing against those who deal on the net in other countries
at warp speed. It's about jobs, and our telecommunications sector should
be helping right the ship. By some estimates, ubiquitous affordable
broadband would quickly add \$500 billion to the U.S. economy and create
1.2 million jobs. Another study recently concluded that every percentage
point increase in broadband penetration would mean 300,000 more jobs and
increased national output. I think these estimates are too conservative.
And this is to say nothing of what broadband can do to improve
healthcare, education, and public safety in our country.

So the need for bigger, fatter, more affordable broadband pipes is
essential. The good news is that I think there is reason for some
optimism. The communications sectors have led the economy out of the
doldrums before and they can do it again. Having said that, industry
cannot and should not be expected to do it alone. There is a partnership
role for government to perform. But that road, down which America
traveled so many times in the past, is the road not taken when it comes
to broadband.

Next year change will come to Washington. We will have a new President
and, most agree, a more activist Congress. There will be new opportunity
to focus on broadband. A strong commitment from the top---more than a
campaign promise---that broadband is a national priority can make a
world of difference. Some have proposed a White House Broadband
Czar---that's something worth considering! It could make a huge
difference. Here's one example. When I was Assistant Secretary of
Commerce during the Y2K threat, we knew that we had to be focused on
making sure there were no problems on January 1, 2000 because if we
didn't the White House was going to hold us accountable. We reached out,
we worked with sister agencies, we worked with business, we worked with
state and local governments, we worked with other countries. It's that
type of coordinated effort that's still lacking in our DTV Transition
and it's the kind of effort that the much greater challenge of broadband
demands of us.

We could begin with the federal government getting its act together.
Point One: make sure all the departments of government are working
together to encourage broadband deployment. Is the Department of Housing
and Urban Development making sure ***every*** new low-income housing
project is wired for high-speed broadband when the building goes up?
When the Department of Agriculture makes its broadband loans, how about
making sure it multiplies rather than replicates the efforts of the
Universal Service Fund? If 99% of schools and libraries have the
Internet, might the Small Business Administration be interested in
seeing if we could leverage that to create a wireless network in the
surrounding areas where broadband isn't currently available? Shouldn't
the Department of Education be brought in to promote computer literacy
so our kids learn to use all these tools that can spell the difference
between opportunity and poverty for them?

The recent Farm Bill which was vetoed and then overridden by Congress
makes something of a start. It requires the FCC in coordination with the
Commerce Department to improve interagency coordination, look at how to
improve current programs and develop a comprehensive rural broadband
strategy. The government should build on this beyond just rural
broadband and expand it for the whole country.

There's another agency that needs some "looking at" if we're going to be
really serious about broadband. It's the Department of Defense. "Whoa,
there goes Copps," you're saying. "Watch him get fried on that hot
rail." But here's my suggestion: let's get a really good, comprehensive
and totally up-to-date spectrum inventory that includes DOD's---and the
rest of the federal government's---huge swathes and then let's formulate
spectrum policies based on the facts---"just the facts, ma'am." No, I'm
not for short-changing national defense. I know about national defense.
Having spent 15 years working for Senator Fritz Hollings, I would never
suggest our national security apparatus be deprived of a single
megahertz of spectrum that it needs to protect the safety of our people.
But let's from time to time make an assessment of our ***real needs***,
and let's not deprive American innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers
the spectrum and bandwidth and capacity they could be putting to good
use. After all, the strength of our economy and the pace of American
innovation are also integral to our national security. And if the
government is hoarding spectrum that could be used to enhance our
nation's competitive strength, we need to know that and then figure out
how to react. "Just the facts, ma'am."

Well, maybe I've said enough about DOD for one morning, so let me trail
back to my own agency, the FCC. There's a lot we could be doing, too. On
the plus side is that we are finally---and I emphasize the belatedness
of this---***finally*** starting to get serious about broadband data.
The days of defining broadband as 200 kilobits and concluding that if
one subscriber in a zip code has broadband, everyone else must be in
fine shape too, are apparently coming slowly to an end. I welcome the
effort, but it would have been more helpful if we'd done it in 1998
rather than 2008.

I believe one of the most important steps the Commission should take
right now is proactively to encourage the openness of the Internet. As I
said in a speech this past week-end, network neutrality would be a
terrific down payment on a much larger broadband agenda. Wireline and
wireless broadband customers should be able to use ***any*** device or
application they want, to reach ***any*** legal content they want, so
long as they don't cause harm to the network. To ensure this, the time
has come for the FCC to have an enforceable principle of
non-discrimination. AT&T agreed to this principle when it bought
BellSouth---and AT&T doesn't seem any worse for wear---but the
commitment expires at the end of the year and it applies to only one
company. Congress may well step in to create such a rule, but the
Commission on its own could establish an expeditious, case-by-case
approach for adjudicating claims of discrimination---based on a general
principle. That way, over time, we would develop a body of case law that
would provide clear rules of the road for those who operate on the edge
of the network, namely consumers and entrepreneurs, as well as those who
operate the networks.

I understand the need for reasonable network management. I daresay
everyone in the room agrees on that. And I understand that these are
complex, difficult and always-evolving issues. But this
technology---broadband and the Internet---is truly paradigm-altering.
Life-transforming. It was built on openness; it grew on openness; and
its future must be openness.

Focusing more on broadband at the Commission also changes the focus on
some long-pending proceedings that many of us know and love. For
example, proposals to reform the three legged stool of subscriber line
charges, universal service and inter-carrier compensation that presently
and principally fund the operation and maintenance of Plain Old
Telephone Service or POTS in this country. In this day of \$4 gasoline
and the prices of most other products also rising, I dare say that
increasing the subscriber line charge may just not be the best answer.
Thus, we are left to figuring out how to reform the Universal Service
Fund and Inter-Carrier Compensation. I'm supportive of the Chairman's
desire to reform Universal Service and Inter-Carrier Compensation. I
would set out two markers, however, as we head down this road. First,
these efforts must be comprehensive. No longer can we just address the
crisis of the day or the anomaly of the hour, particularly when it comes
to Inter-Carrier compensation. Gum and bailing wire can last for only so
long. Second, both efforts should be tied to a long term commitment to
bringing broadband throughout America. While the country had a thirst
for the POTS of the 20^th^ century it is the PANS -- the pretty awesome
new stuff -- that consumers and businesses need today and our policies
need to be adjusted accordingly.

Another part of the broadband penetration challenge that doesn't receive
as much attention as it should is the need to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to foster innovation. According to a report by the
National Research Council, industry-driven innovation over the last
several decades is in decline and the United States' role as the global
leader in technology innovation is at risk. The NRC found that federal
support has not increased sufficiently to replace the decline in
industry involvement and it emphasized the shift in what research
remains from long-term to short-term projects. Remember the China
example I cited earlier. My hope is that a new Administration will be
much more responsive to this crying need.

To be clear, the FCC doesn't regulate innovation *per se*.  And I'm not
suggesting it should.  But I do think we need to be more attentive to
the needs of innovation in our Commission analysis and in all of our
proceedings.   It used to be, for example, that the Commission looked as
a matter of course at the impact of mergers and acquisitions on
innovation, research and development, and the competitive posture of the
nation. When a deal is cut and then has to be financed, does that lead
to less R&D? And with what likely effects? 

One thing we could start doing right away is to begin cataloging and
benefiting from all the broadband innovation and experimentation that's
occurring here at home and around the world. It's shocking to me how
little we at the Commission---and we as a country---know about what's
actually going on in the rest of the world across the whole wide gamut
of communications issues, not just broadband. Another thing is to beef
up the Commission's expertise. Not just attracting the best and
brightest to come work with us, but realizing that even with that
expertise we still need to reach out to other experts, find other
resources, and increase our dialogue with industry and the groves of
academe. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers just this
week wrote us a letter presenting some intriguing ideas along these
lines. One specific idea they presented is to resuscitate the FCC's
Technological Advisory Council. It's a great resource, yet it hasn't met
in almost two years. Letting it lie dormant with all the issues
currently on our plate makes no sense.

There are a host of other things the Commission can and should be
doing---from conducting a successful auction of the 700MHz "D" block to
addressing such prosaic but important issues as pole attachment rates. I
will spare you my thoughts on these and sundry other issues lest I
really do end up being here all morning.

At the end of the day I remain an optimist. I believe that the questions
you and I are grappling with are formative questions in determining how
well our country will fare in this still-new century.  I believe the
issue of a national broadband strategy is beginning to take
on---belatedly but assuredly---a life of its own. And I believe with all
the great talent and resources we have, we can meet the challenge and
create the opportunities that 300 million Americans must and should have
in this competitive century. It's a big challenge, to be sure, but we've
met similar challenges in the past, and I believe we can tackle this one
the same way---with business, government and communities all pulling
together to get the job done.  I look forward to working with you, with
my colleagues on the Commission, with Congress, with states and
localities and with all the diverse set of stakeholders that make up our
great country to make it happen.

 

Thank you.