**TESTIMONY OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE**

**SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET OVERSIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**MARCH 14, 2007**

 

Chairman Markey, Congressman Upton, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank
you for the opportunity to return, at least briefly, to the
Capitol---which was home to me for so many years, beginning almost 37
years ago---to discuss with you the state of communications in our
country and the role the FCC is playing today, and what more it might
do, as we seek to bring the wonders of modern communications to all our
citizens.  I am constantly struck by how important this work is.
Communications industries comprise one-sixth of our economy---and when
you consider their social, cultural and political dimensions, there is
no doubt in my mind that communications is the most formidable and
influential enterprise in all the land. 

There is a lot of serious work ahead for all of us if we are going to
realize the potential of the technologies and services rushing toward us
in this hugely transformative Digital Age.  This work involves every
sector of communications. Our **[media]{.underline}** make many
impressive contributions to our communities every day, but we still do
not have a media environment that fully, or even adequately, serves our
democracy and the vibrancy of our citizens.  Regarding
**[broadband]{.underline}**, without a well thought out game plan to
bring the wonders of the Internet to everyone across our great land,
millions of people are at serious risk of being left behind. On
**[public safety]{.underline}**, despite the horrible costs of 9/11 and
Hurricane Katrina, we still are not ready for the next man-made or
natural disaster. The last time a major disaster confronted our nation
we were perhaps caught by surprise; if we are not ready next time, none
of our fellow citizens is going to accept surprise as an excuse.  These
three areas are my priorities as a Commissioner.

Let me start with the issue many of you know is closest to my heart: the
broadcast media.  I have met with many local broadcasters who work hard
to serve the public interest.  But the public-spirited part of the
enterprise is being squeezed out.  Too often the programs we receive are
homogenized, creativity-killing, and often gratuitously violent. 
Perhaps, even worse, the dearth of political and community coverage
threatens our democratic dialogue and the independent viewpoints we
depend upon to help us make good decisions for the future of our
country.  Localism, diversity and competition are not abstract
constructions; they are the essential ingredients for keeping our
nation's media---and our nation---healthy, vibrant and growing.  I am
pleased that Chairman Martin has committed to complete our long-dormant
localism proceeding before moving forward on media ownership because so
much of what is local has disappeared from much of our media. In the
last year I have participated in probably a dozen media hearings in
localities around the country.  I am seeing in the last few months a
noticeable shift---a growing impatience with things as they are. 
Whether this is motivated by examples of new programming lows, the
further consolidation of news rooms and music play lists, or a new
spirit of change abroad in the land, I don't know for sure.  But I do
know this---whatever the reason, millions of people are no longer
content just to defeat bad ***new*** media consolidation rules. There is
a thirst---one that I share---for us to revisit the bad ***old*** rules
that got us into this predicament in the first place. What many people
want, and I wholeheartedly agree, is to bring back some basic public
interest standards---a responsibility to serve the common good---to the
broadcast media and to bring the spirit of public interest to other
media as well.  I hope we can talk more about this today, including the
need for a credible broadcast re-licensing system and an equally
compelling need to assure that digital broadcasting is made to serve the
public interest.

Turning briefly to telecommunications, I worry that we are teetering on
the edge of a Digital Divide in the 21^st^ century that may be more
difficult to bridge than the one we encountered in the century just
past.  Our biggest infrastructure challenge as a nation is bringing
broadband to all Americans---and I mean ***all*** of our people.  Each
and every citizen of this great country should have access to the
wonders of the Internet---whether they live in rural areas, on tribal
lands, or in our inner cities; whether they have limited incomes or
disabilities; whether they are schoolchildren or seniors.  The data are
not encouraging.  The International Telecommunications Union ranks your
country and mine at 15^th^ in the world in broadband penetration. And
the ITU's more recent and nuanced Digital Opportunity Index has us at
21^st^ -- right after Estonia and tied with Slovenia.  That strikes me
as 20 rungs too low for the United States of America.  Do we expect our
kids to enter the digital classroom and the digital world at dial-up
speeds?  We are paying a business and competitive cost for this poor
performance, too.  Fewer Americans with broadband means a smaller
Internet marketplace and a glass ceiling over the productivity of small
businesses and entrepreneurs, especially in rural and inner city areas. 
But what did we expect without having a real broadband strategy?

Perhaps the first step in developing a national broadband strategy is to
develop better, more granular broadband data to identify where the
problems lie and how best to craft solutions. There are folks in far off
places like Japan, and a few right here at home, like in Kentucky, who
are charting precisely where broadband is going---so we know the data
can be gotten.  I hope this Committee will push the Commission to
develop better data, propose creative options and solutions, and be more
proactive in working with you to develop a national broadband strategy
for the 21^st^ Century.  We have at our agency some of the most skilled
and talented experts in telecommunications in all the world; they can
make a huge difference in helping us to meet and master the broadband
challenge.

Finally, let me just comment on one of the more vexing problems that I
know each of you is focused on: public safety.  The most important
obligation of any public servant is the safety of our people.  I believe
that after 9/11 this agency allowed others to step in to do the job that
the FCC has the expertise and the know how to do---improving our
communications capabilities in times of emergency.  Chairman Martin, to
his credit, has made this a priority and in doing so has created a
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, and the Bureau is starting
down this difficult road. And it has adopted an initiative I long
advocated---developing a communications clearinghouse for public safety
and homeland security ideas so that local hospitals, charities, public
safety officers, small businesses, and many others need not start from
scratch when developing emergency communications plans.  They don't have
the time, money or people to start from scratch, and we need to find
ways to help them. The new Bureau has only begun this effort and its
success will require a meaningful, on-going commitment of resources. 
But if we stick to it, we can save the country time, money and, perhaps,
even lives.

During the Senate's FCC oversight hearing last month, I was pleased to
hear bipartisan support for an admittedly more minor, but I think
important, legislative initiative.  I encourage you to consider
modifying the closed meeting rule so that the five Commissioners could
actually sit down and talk with one another occasionally. I can't think
of any proceeding in recent years that would not have benefited from an
open and frank exchange of ideas among us before we were expected to
cast a vote.  We are prohibited from doing this. The nine Supreme Court
justices, the 435 members of this body, and most every other institution
I can think of are encouraged to meet and exchange views before deciding
outcomes.  If it's good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for
us.

Finally, in addition to talking with one another, the Commission must
always work to expand its conversations with our fellow citizens.
 Business is obviously an important stakeholder in the work we do at the
Commission, and it should be.  But in communications, ***every***
American is a stakeholder, because each of us is affected in so many
important ways. I believe that an important part of being a commissioner
is to reach out to non-traditional stakeholders as well as traditional,
to ensure that Commission decisions do indeed reflect the wide public
interest.  If business, government, and non-traditional stakeholders
work together to build public-private partnerships, we can meet our many
communications challenges in the coming years.  In my view, that's how
we built this great country, infrastructure challenge by infrastructure
challenge. And it is how we can keep it growing and keep it great.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for your attention and
I look forward to our conversation this morning.