**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY**

> *Re: Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over
> Wireline Facilities, Universal Service Obligations of Broadband
> Providers, CC Docket No. 02-33, Report and Order (adopted August 5,
> 2005).*

Three and a half years ago, my colleagues and I made a promise to the
American people: we promised that efforts to deploy twenty-first century
broadband technologies for public use would not be crushed by the weight
of 1930s-era regulations. To that end, we initiated a series of
proceedings designed to reevaluate the role of traditional common
carrier regulations in the blossoming market for broadband Internet
access services.

We quickly determined that cable modem services should be free from the
heavy burdens of Title II regulation. That determination was soon
subject to legal challenge, and the resulting litigation effectively
prevented action with regard to similar services provided over wireline
facilities. In June's *NCTA v. Brand X* decision, the Supreme Court
brought that period of uncertainty to a close, validating the
Commission's authority to classify a broadband Internet access service
as a Title I information service.

Today, with the benefit of the Court's guidance, we extend similar
relief to providers of wireline broadband Internet access. Specifically,
we clarify that wireline broadband Internet access services -- like the
cable modem services at issue in *Brand X* -- are "information
services," and thus not automatically subject to the full range of Title
II requirements designed for a narrowband, analog, one-wire world. We
also lift the so-called "*Computer Inquiry*" requirements, which were
crafted to prevent companies that exercised substantial market power in
the provision of telecommunications from leveraging that dominance into
the provision of enhanced services. Requirements such as these were
never meant to apply in a competitive, multi-platform communications
market such as the market for high-speed Internet access services.

And let there be no doubt: competition among broadband providers is
flourishing. The Commission's most recent statistics show that over 80%
of zip codes in America are served by two or more high-speed providers,
about two-thirds are served by three or more, and over half are served
by four or more. Moreover, I fully expect that providers taking
advantage of new platforms will soon offer consumers even more choices
in even more areas. Over 1.2 million high-speed lines in service today
use wireless, satellite, fiber-optic, and powerline technologies; that
number is poised to rise dramatically in the very near future. The
result of such competition will be better and better services at lower
and lower prices, with offerings designed to match customers' needs
rather than regulators' preferences.

Today's decision is *not*, however, the end of the story. Wireline
broadband providers are not subject to Title II or to the *Computer
Inquiry* requirements, but that does not mean that they are immune from
*all* regulatory requirements. When the Commission first issued its
tentative conclusion that these services were outside the scope of Title
II, I emphasized my commitment to preserving any specific regulatory
requirements that are necessary for the furtherance of critical policy
objectives. In June, the *Brand X* majority made clear that the
Commission retains the prerogative to exercise its Title I "ancillary
jurisdiction" to do just that. The Commission has already made clear its
intention to ensure access to emergency services as Americans transition
to packet-switched communications technologies, irrespective of how
those services are classified under the Communications Act. As we make
clear in today's *Further Notice*, we will now turn our attention to
other "social policy" requirements, such as those involving disability
access, slamming, and consumer privacy. Where action is warranted, we
will act.

There is still work to be done as we endeavor to establish a new,
minimally regulated framework for the digital era. But however we
address the issues that remain before us, I expect that our decision
today will spur future investment in broadband infrastructure and
provide the flexibility to which companies in a competitive market and
their customers are entitled.

In short, I am confident that today's Order does much to fulfill our
promise to the American people, and I am happy to support this item.