##### Driving Ms. Mamie at 1.5 Mbps

by

Deborah A. Lathen[^1]

#### 

On November 23, my grandmother, Ms. Mamie Sue Taylor, will turn ninety.
Several years ago I asked her what had attracted her to my grandfather.
She said it was his buggy. "He had the finest surrey in all of Yalobusha
County, Mississippi. He would 'come calling' for me in that surrey and
we would ride through the countryside talking and enjoying each other's
company."

I recently asked my grandmother how she compared her life today with her
surrey riding days gone by. Without hesitation, she said:" I had a good
life in Yalobusha County. Every day I went to the spring and filled the
water bucket. Our whole family drank from the same dipper out of that
bucket until my father grew some gourds that he later carved into
drinking cups. I boiled clothes over a big old black pot outside and
washed my face in a basin filled with cold spring water. My father had
his own smokehouse, a large garden, and his own beehive so we had plenty
of honey for the homemade biscuits. In the winter we ate the smoked
meats and canned preserves that my mother and I put up."

I asked her how she "communicated" with her friends and family
elsewhere. I asked if she wrote letters or talked on the phone. "Talk on
the phone?" she exclaimed, as if I should have known better. " We didn't
have telephones, and although I could read and write, we were country
people. Most of our people could not read or write. We socialized mostly
at church functions."

I asked her why she thought she had a good life. Without hesitation she
said: " I don't *think* I had a good life, I *know* I had a good
life\--but now I have a better life. Nowadays, in my apartment, I wash
my clothes in a washer and dryer, I wash my face in a sink with running
hot water, and I talk on the telephone to my children, grandchildren,
and great-grandchildren whenever I wish. I had a good life then, and I
have a better life now."

A better life, a better world. In the simplest of terms, that is what
today's technological revolution promises. As one of the principal
regulatory agencies entrusted with the public interest, the role of the
Federal Communications Commission is to pursue the promise of a better
world in communications. In seeking to fulfill this promise for all
Americans, we are guided by the belief that competition and choice in
our marketplace will lead to a better life.

When November 23 comes this year, I will send my grandmother an animated
electronic birthday greeting card over the Internet, and I will probably
buy her gift using some form of electronic commerce.

A few years ago e-commerce was virtually non-existent. In four years,
retail trade on the Internet could reach \$100 billion, and
business-to-business trade is expected to exceed \$1 trillion. In 1996,
only 8 percent of American classrooms were wired to the Internet. Today,
more than 50 percent are plugged into the World Wide Web, and we are
well on our way to connecting every classroom. Through the FCC's E-Rate
Program and the education program supported by the cable industry, we
are plugging American children into a dynamic future.

Throughout the entire communications sector, dramatic changes and rapid
innovations are driving a global economic juggernaut. As industries
converge and new technologies develop to bring improved products and
services to market, average American consumers are benefiting
enormously. We see broadcasters, cable networks, telephone companies,
utilities, and wireless and satellite providers all entering one
another's industries. The digital age has brought us wireless phones
that can send e-mail and computers that can be used as phones. Choices
are expanding. Services are improving. Prices are dropping.

Presently, we are in the midst of one of the most contentious and
compelling debates in recent history. The debate centers on whether the
government should require cable companies to provide access to the cable
platform for competitive Internet service providers (ISPs) and online
service providers (OSPs). In the course of this debate, diametrically
opposed forces have implored the FCC to choose sides. On one side, there
are advocates calling for "open access" who want the Commission to
intervene and regulate the Internet access marketplace, citing the local
telephone model. On the other side, there are advocates who want the
Commission to adopt a completely "hands-off" approach to the Internet
access market. However, it is far too simplistic to distill this issue
down to the notion of "open" or closed systems. Almost every interest
group, irrespective of its position in the debate, agrees that
"openness" is the desired goal.

As I see it, the crux of the debate centers on whether government should
mandate access to the proprietary cable platform, or whether market
forces will accomplish such an objective. Unequivocally, FCC Chairman
William Kennard favors open systems, and we believe that a competitive
market is the most effective driver of an open system. The cable
industry has said consistently that it wants openness. This, of course,
would mean that cable companies would build in open interfaces to
accommodate multiple ISPs and OSPs as they build out their
infrastructure. If not, the talk about openness is just rhetoric. We are
cautiously optimistic that this approach can work, but if those
conditions do not develop, we may have to step in to make sure that
consumers get competitive Internet choices.

Our goal is to expand the benefit of broadband technology to all
Americans. We know this is the same goal that local franchise
authorities, consumer advocates, and ISPs share. One of the reasons my
grandmother can afford to call her grandchildren throughout the country
today is because competition among long distance telephone providers has
reduced rates to affordable levels. If the Commission can create the
conditions for new companies and technologies to enter the Internet
access marketplace, then one day soon, we will have high-speed Internet
access through DSL, cable modem and wireless systems, that will provide
my grandmother with several low-cost options. If, however,
anticompetitive conditions develop, or consumer welfare is threatened,
then intervention may be necessary.

For now, the Commission has chosen to adopt the role of a market
facilitator rather than that of a market regulator. We believe that by
adhering to a national policy and by forbearing from regulatory action
at this time, the cable, telephone, and wireless industries will have
ample time to develop and deploy broadband technology and services
throughout the market, and that a healthy measure of competition will
ensue. All of the signs of a potentially robust competitive industry are
in place: when cable modem service has been deployed in key markets
throughout the country, DSL has quickly followed, and prices have
dropped. Investment in both sectors has surged.

There are billions of dollars and new social paradigms at stake. Equally
important, we recognize that the Internet can serve as a great equalizer
in this country---it can connect the unconnected and bridge the gap
between the information haves and have-nots. While many things have
improved since my grandmother's days, there are still Americans who do
not have basic telephone service or who have not set foot on the
Information super-highway. The communications industry has the resources
and wherewithal to improve the lives of all Americans. But our society
will not see the better life that new technologies promise unless the
journey is inclusive.

I have told my grandmother all about broadband, and I can't wait until
she is completely connected. But if I know Mamie Sue, once she masters
her new computer, she won't be content unless she can connect with her
friends and family in the remote areas of Yalobusha County, Mississippi.

I believe that if competition flourishes, and the communications
industry lives up to its commitment to include all Americans, then
broadband Internet service will be one of the improvements my
grandmother cites when she reflects on her better life today.

[^1]: ^^ Deborah A. Lathen is Chief of the Cable Services Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission. Prior to her appointment in 1998,
    Lathen was counsel to several leading corporations.