*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 36113*
 REMARKS  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 QUELLO  CENTER  SYMPOSIUM  WASHINGTON,  DC 
 FEBRUARY  25,  2004 


 DISRUPTIVE  TECHNOLOGY  DISRUPTIVE  REGULATION 
 Thank  you  for  your  kind  invitation  and  thank  you  Quello  Center  for  the  continuing  contribution  you  make  to  Americas  telecommunications  dialogue.  Like  Jim 
 Quello  himself,  you  just  keep  on  giving  and  contributing  and  helping  us  all  work  together  in  the  great  and  glorious  goal  of  bringing  the  best  and  most  advanced  telecommunications 
 service  and  products  possible  to  every  single  American  citizen. 
 I  am  asked  in  these  introductory  remarks  to  address  the  imposing  topic  of  Infrastructure  Strategy  and  Policy  in  the  Presence  of  Disruptive  Technologies.  So  Ill 
 try  to  do  that  and  then  maybe  talk  a  little  about  talk  a  little  about  Infrastructure  Strategy  and  Policy  in  the  Presence  of  Disruptive  Regulation. 


 The  past  year  has  not  only  been  a  busy,  but  a  momentous,  one  at  your  favorite  regulatory  commission.  Important  votes  have  been  taken,  some  of  them  supposedly 
 tentative  but  illustrative  of  where  this  Commission  is  heading  nevertheless.  We  have  teed-  up  and  voted  on  issues  that  have  the  potential  to  remake  dramatically  the 
 communications  landscape  of  this  country  for  many  years  to  come.  The  changes  we  have  made  and  those  being  contemplated  have  breathtaking  consequences  for  competition  and 
 innovation  and,  most  of  all,  consumer  well-  being. 
 Technology,  its  almost  trite  to  say,  is  developing  at  a  blistering  pace  and  forces  us  to  confront  new  issues  to  think  anew  and  to  act  anew.  How  do  the  legal  and 
 regulatory  frameworks  apply  and  keep  pace?  How  do  regulators  make  good  decisions  in  this  fast-  moving,  paradigm-  shifting  environment?  How  do  we  create  a  landscape  that 
 really  fosters  innovation?  How  do  we  create  an  environment  of  regulatory  stability  and  predictability  that  helps  businesses  to  make  right  decisions  about  the  future?  And,  most 
 importantly,  how  do  our  actions  benefit  consumers?  We  need  to  be  thinking  bigger  thoughts.  And  if  ever  we  needed  to  have  a  national  discussion  about  how  we  are  going  to 
 accomplish  all  this  while  technology  change  engulfs  us,  that  time  is  now.  So  the  issue  youre  gathered  here  to  discuss  is  critical  how  to  deal  with  the  question  of  disruptive 
 technology,  the  issue  posed  by  Joseph  Schumpeters  gales  of  creative  destruction. 
 So  lets  go  to  my  assigned  Infrastructure  Strategy  and  Policy  in  the  Presence  of  Disruptive  Technologies  topic  and  lets  use  broadband  as  our  case  study.  Some  of  you 
 have  already  heard  me  say  that  I  think  broadband  is  the  great  infrastructure  challenge  of  our  time.  If  you  double  back  over  the  course  of  our  nations  history,  you  will  find  that 
 just  about  every  major  era  has  had  its  own  particular  infrastructure  challenge.  It  might  be  opening  new  lands  to  settlement  way  back  at  the  beginning.  Then,  once  those  lands  were 
1
 2 
 settled,  it  was  building  the  roads  and  turnpikes  and  canals  and  ports  to  get  the  bounty  of  the  newly-  settled  lands  to  market.  After  that,  as  we  began  to  industrialize  before  the 
 Civil  War,  the  need  was  to  start  building  regional  railroads  and  then,  as  we  spread  across  a  continent  after  the  war,  to  bind  us  together  through  the  great  transcontinental  railroads. 
 Closer  to  our  own  era,  in  the  Eisenhower  years,  came  the  Interstate  Highway  System.  Indeed,  you  can  see  that  same  role  in  the  build-  out  of  the  nations  telephone  infrastructure 
 in  the  1900s.  After  the  invention  of  the  telephone,  rural  communities  not  having  telephone  service  ended  up,  if  anything,  more  isolated  than  before.  So  we  came  to  realize 
 that  we  had  to  tackle  that  infrastructure  problem,  too,  and  tackle  it  we  did. 
 In  all  of  these  infrastructure  build-  outs,  business  and  government  worked  together  and  there  was,  in  each  instance,  a  critical  and  clearly  proactive  role  for  enlightened 
 government  policy  to  help  achieve  a  great  national  objective.  Public  sector  and  private  sector  working  together  its  how  we  grew  the  country.  Its  the  story  of  America. 


 When  I  talk  to  technology  innovators,  they  tell  me  that  broadband  networks  are  the  canals  and  railroads  and  highways  and  byways  of  the  Information  Age.  They  tell  me 
 that  our  future  will  be  hugely  impacted  by  how  we  master,  or  fail  to  master,  advanced  communications  networks  and  how  quickly  and  how  well  we  build  out  broadband 
 connectivity  to  all  our  people  and  all  the  people  is  indeed  the  challenge.  If  Americans  have  widespread  access  to  broadband,  we  ll  see  a  new  era  of  innovation.  If  they  are 
 denied  this  access,  well  see  another  era  of  stagnation  and  well  find  it  impossible  to  compete  against  countries  that  are  more  aggressive  in  meeting  infrastructure  challenges 
 than  we  are.  Many  countries  are  already  far  ahead  of  us. 
 The  challenge  here  is  not  about  finding  some  killer  app.  On  that  score,  maybe  bandwidth  itself  is  the  killer  app  and  we  should  wake  up  to  how  deeply  it  has  already 
 entrenched  itself  already  in  our  daily  lives.  Or  maybe  the  killer  app  is  lower  cost,  like  in  Japan  or  South  Korea  or  many  other  places  where  consumers  are  signing  up  in  droves 
 because  they  get  significantly  more  speed  at  significantly  lower  prices  than  we  can  get. 
 No,  the  question  here  is  this:  how  do  we  get  infrastructure  deployment  done?  And  I  think  most  of  us  in  this  room  would  agree  that  the  private  sector  can,  should  and 
 will  be  the  lead  locomotive  for  the  broadband  deployment  train.  Thats  entirely  as  it  should  be.  But  given  the  scale  of  the  challenge,  given  the  difficult  economics  of  rural 
 areas,  and  given  the  rapidity  with  which  other  counties  are  building  out  their  own  broadband  networks,  we  would  be  remiss  if  we  didnt  ask  whether  the  market  alone  can 
 get  the  whole  job  done. 
 So  I  ask  just  about  every  business  leader  I  meet  if  he  or  she  is  convinced  the  market  alone  can  get  the  job  done.  Some  answer  yes.  But  even  more  of  them  tell  me 
 that  for  the  last  10  or  20  percent  of  Americans,  maybe  not.  And  I  would  point  out  that  leaving  10  percent  behind  amounts  to  about  29  million  people,  and  leaving  20  percent 
 behind  would  abandon  58  million  people.  So  this  issue  has  a  human  face.  Ill  tell  you  this:  if  we  get  to  the  year  2020  and  we  have  29  or  58  million  Americans  without 
2
 3 
 broadband,  we  will  have  a  Broadband  Chasm  that  denies  our  fellow  citizens  the  tools  of  opportunity  and  denies  our  country  critically  needed  economic  growth. 
 Now  let  me  try  to  marry  these  thoughts  back  to  a  new  and  hot  and  disruptive  technology  of  the  moment:  Voice  over  IP.  If  we  needed  another  wake-  up  call  that  a 
 national  broadband  policy  is  needed,  here  it  is.  This  technology  may  be  a  substitute  for  more  traditional  circuit  switched  telephony,  or  it  may  be  a  complement.  It  comes  in 
 many  flavors  already,  with  undoubtedly  more  to  follow.  We  know  that  IP  technology  means  huge  changes  in  the  mechanics  of  how  we  communicate.  It  may  confer  a 
 universal  language  for  communications,  whatever  the  device  phones,  laptops,  personal  digital  assistants,  you  name  it. 


 So  we  all  marvel  at  the  transformative  potential  of  new  IP  services.  They  sizzle  with  possibility  for  consumers  and  businesses  alike.  We  all  talk  about  the  competition 
 and  new  services  that  VoIP  can  bring  and  were  right. 
 But  we  need  to  realize  that  no  matter  how  enthusiastic  our  rhetoric,  no  matter  how  strongly  investors  pledge  devotion,  and  no  matter  how  supportive  a  regulatory 
 environment  we  craft  IP  technologies  will  only  reach  their  potential  if  the  infrastructure  is  there  to  support  it.  IP  applications  will  only  revolutionize  communications  if  everyone 
 has  access  to  really  high  capacity  bandwidth.  Have  you  ever  had  a  VoIP  conversation  over  a  dial-  up  connection?  It  .  .  .  is  .  .  .  not  .  .  .  an  .  .  .  appealing  .  .  .  prospect.  And  how 
 much  of  a  competitor  will  Voice  Over  be  if  a  third  of  all  Americans  have  to  pay  $100  a  month  or  more  on  top  of  VoIP  in  order  to  get  the  required  broadband  because  we  havent 
 figured  out  how  to  bring  low-  cost  broadband  to  everyone?  If  thats  the  case,  maybe  this  new  technology  wont  be  so  disruptive  after  all. 


 Our  actions  in  the  Pulver  decision  and  the  IP-  Enabled  Services  rulemaking  week  before  last  garnered  a  lot  of  attention.  But  for  Voice  Over  to  be  truly  transformative  and 
 disruptive  rather  than  just  being  a  marginal  change  that  doesnt  shake  the  system  we  need  ubiquitous  broadband  deployment.  We  shouldnt  be  debating  this  technology  in 
 terms  of  how  it  can  help  us  to  game  the  system  or  to  create  yet  another  generation  of  arbitrage  maneuvering.  We  should  be  thinking  larger  thoughts. 


 Part  of  this  thinking  must  focus  on  whether  we  believe  that  market  forces  alone  practically  and  not  just  theoretically  will  blanket  this  land  with  broadband.  And,  yes, 
 that  means  we  have  to  struggle  with  universal  service  rather  than  say  it  doesnt  matter  anymore  in  our  brave  new  world.  It  matters.  If  we  dont  start  this  dialogue  right  now, 
 Im  afraid  well  be  ignoring  history.  And  having  been  an  historian,  I  would  never  do  that.  It  also  means  wed  be  ignoring  Congress,  and  having  spent  many  years  on  the  Hill, 
 I  would  never,  ever  consider  doing  that!  After  all,  we  enjoy  a  basic  telephone  penetration  rate  in  this  country  that  is  one  of  the  highest  in  the  world.  More  than  95  percent  of 
 households  have  access  to  basic  phone  service.  Credit  universal  service  with  much  of  that.  Why,  then,  when  it  comes  to  broadband,  would  we  turn  our  backs  on  what  has  been 
 so  historically  effective? 
3
 4 
 Sure,  what  Im  talking  about  is  expensive.  So  is  it  expensive  to  deny  opportunity  to  so  many  citizens.  So  is  it  expensive  to  put  those  29  or  58  million  people  I  mentioned 
 off  limits  to  our  entrepreneurs  and  innovators.  Providing  meaningful  access  to  advanced  services  for  all  of  our  citizens,  on  the  other  hand,  would  have  a  significant  impact  on 
 changing  continued  stagnation  to  economic  revitalization  because  access  to  broadband  is  absolutely  essential  if  every  area  of  this  country  is  going  to  be  able  to  compete  for  high-quality 
 jobs  and  investment.  A  twenty-  first  century  system  of  universal  service  also  matters  for  innovators  for  innovators  in  the  Silicon  Valley  and  for  innovators  working 
 away  in  garages  and  collaborating  in  cubicles  and  laboratories  all  across  the  country.  If  having  broadband  available  everywhere  is  the  prerequisite  for  IP  services  and  for  all  the 
 other  applications  that  are  sure  to  come  out  of  these  garages  and  back-  yard  labs,  then  why  not  address  it  first.  Wouldnt  we  be  a  lot  better  off  thinking  about  this  rather  than 
 spending  all  of  our  time  trying  to  shoe-  horn  new  technologies  into  old  regulatory  categories?  Isnt  planning  for  the  future  better  than  gaming  the  present?  With  ubiquitous 
 deployment  which  is  really  what  universal  service  means  new  technologies  would  have  a  chance  to  prove  how  disruptive  they  can  be.  Otherwise  well  never  know. 
 Technology  could  do  the  disruption  rather  than  having  poor  regulation  disrupt  the  promise  of  technology. 


 Well  fine,  some  of  you  are  thinking,  but  that  goes  far  beyond  what  our  favorite  regulatory  agency  should  be  doing.  Your  job  is  to  tend  the  regulatory  categories  and  not 
 get  carried  away  with  the  big  picture.  I  disagree.  Sure  we  have  to  work  with  the  system  we  have  and  implement  the  laws  we  have  as  best  we  can,  but  the  Commission  also  has  an 
 obligation,  I  believe,  to  think  larger  thoughts.  We  should  be  devising  creative  options  and  suggestions,  and  if  we  lack  the  authority  to  implement  such  changes,  then  we  should 
 be  up  in  the  Congress  saying  here  are  the  options,  heres  what  we  think  would  work,  and  we  need  some  additional  authority  to  get  it  done. 


 I  believe  we  have  a  statutory  obligation  here.  Section  706  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  directs  the  Commission  to  encourage  the  deployment  of 
 advanced  telecommunications  capability  broadband  to  all  Americans.  If  the  Commission  finds  that  this  is  not  being  accomplished  in  a  reasonable  and  timely  fashion, 
 Congress  directs  us  to  take  action  to  accelerate  such  deployment.  In  fact,  Congress  directs  us  to  take  immediate  action.  Its  worth  dwelling  on  that  word  immediate  for  a 
 moment,  because  it  has  been  two  and  a  half  years  since  the  Commission  even  teed-  up  questions  for  a  Section  706  Report.  Thats  just  the  706  study  that  Im  talking  about,  not 
 the  deployment  action.  Rumor  around  the  Commission  is  that  we  might  get  around  to  a  study  shortly,  but  why  such  a  long  delay  for  so  important  a  topic?  Ive  been  calling  on 
 the  Commission  to  move  forward  on  this  for  a  long  time.  Its  our  duty  under  the  law  to  perform  this  study,  to  use  it  as  a  tool  to  craft  our  broadband  approach.  By  putting  it  off, 
 weve  been  flying  without  the  fuel  that  makes  for  good  decisions. 
 Here  are  some  of  the  things  we  need  to  do  in  that  report.  First,  we  need  a  serious  study  of  what  other  countries  are  doing  to  ensure  that  their  consumers  get  attractive 
 broadband  services  at  attractive  prices.  We  do  know  this:  nearly  all  of  the  industrialized  countries,  except  the  United  States,  have  national  plans  for  broadband  deployment.  Its 
4
 5 
 not  that  we  need  to  emulate  what  others  with  different  traditions  and  economies  and  even  population  densities  may  be  doing,  but  cant  we  be  serious  enough  to  at  least  look  at  what 
 theyre  doing?  There  are  some  pretty  creative  deployment  initiatives  going  on  out  there  beyond  Americas  borders.  There  may  just  be  a  lesson  or  two  there  for  us. 


 It  should  also  be  a  concern  that  consumers  in  other  lands  are  getting  a  lot  more  capacity  to  a  lot  more  people  at  a  lot  lower  cost  than  we  are.  Investment  here  is  nowhere 
 near  where  it  could  and  should  be,  and  statistics  show  we  now  rank  11  rungs  down  in  global  broadband  penetration,  behind  South  Korea,  the  Netherlands,  Japan  and  a  number 
 of  others.  The  USA  Number  11!  What  more  of  a  wake-  up  call  do  we  require? 
 I  might  add  that,  in  the  Commissions  hoped-  for  future  effort  to  measure  broadband  deployment,  lets  not  use  data  and  standards  that  are  pass.  For  example,  who 
 still  thinks  the  broadband  revolution  will  happen  at  the  200  kilobit  figure  the  Commission  has  been  using  as  its  key  benchmark?  I  mentioned  the  200  kilobit  figure  to  someone  and 
 the  response  I  got  was:  How  1997.  Nor  can  Commission  measurements  be  credible  if  we  continue  to  claim  that  reasonable  and  timely  deployment  in  an  area  means  that  one 
 subscriber  has  signed  up  in  a  zip  code.  These  are  not  the  analytical  methodologies  needed  to  help  the  nation  cope  with  so  momentous  an  infrastructure  challenge. 


 We  need  to  look  within  our  own  borders,  too,  specifically  at  what  so  many  towns  and  municipalities  have  done  to  deploy  broadband  themselves,  issuing  bonds  and  taxing 
 themselves  to  get  the  job  done.  What  does  that  mean?  Why  are  they  doing  it?  With  what  success?  And  what  lessons  does  this  have  for  other  localities? 


 We  ought  to  be  convening  expert  panels,  community  roundtables,  Congressional  discussions  and  a  national  dialogue  on  this.  Then,  as  I  said,  use  the  powers  we  have  for 
 reasonable  and  timely  deployment  and  if  they  are  not  enough,  then  ask  Congress  for  whatever  else  is  needed.  You  may  not  agree  with  my  analysis  here,  but  shouldnt  we  at 
 least  be  asking  the  questions  and  teeing  up  the  options  on  a  matter  so  clearly  important  to  the  countrys  future? 


 So,  yes,  I  worry  about  our  approach.  Were  nickel-  and-  diming  huge  issues.  Were  backing  into  classifying  all  the  new  technologies  that  come  along  without  clearing 
 away  the  regulatory  underbrush  that  keeps  them  from  fulfilling  their  potential.  Heres  another  example:  intercarrier  compensation.  Our  intercarrier  compensation  system  is 
 Byzantine  and  broken.  We  have  in  place  today  a  system  under  which  the  amounts  and  direction  of  payments  vary  depending  on  whether  carriers  route  traffic  to  an  incumbent 
 local  provider,  a  competitive  local  provider,  a  long-  distance  provider,  an  Internet  provider,  a  CMRS  carrier  or  a  paging  provider.  In  an  era  of  convergence  of  markets  and 
 technologies,  this  patchwork  of  rates  should  have  been  consigned  by  now  to  the  realm  of  historical  curiosity.  Certainly  no  one  should  be  surprised  that  with  new  technologies  in 
 the  mix,  carriers  are  disputing  when  and  where  charges  apply.  The  dialogue  is  heated,  the  disagreements  between  carriers  are  substantial,  and  I  suspect  were  having  a  lot  of 
 disputes  that  we  probably  didnt  need  to  be  having. 
5
 6 
 It  may  be  the  easier  course  for  the  Commission  to  answer  only  narrow  questions  about  how  to  keep  the  current  system  afloat  and  to  twist  new  technologies  so  they  can 
 somehow  be  brought  into  the  rubric.  But  bailing  wire  can  only  hold  this  system  together  for  so  long.  At  some  point  and  were  long  since  there  more  patches  and  band-  aids 
 dont  help.  In  fact,  they  hurt. 
 The  harder  course  here  is  also  the  right  one.  We  have  a  two-  year  old  proceeding  on  intercarrier  compensation.  We  need  to  act  on  it.  We  desperately  need  to  create  a  level 
 playing  field  that  will  provide  more  rational  investment  signals.  Amid  converging  technologies  and  blurring  jurisdictional  boundaries,  we  are  challenged  to  justify  a  system 
 that  treats  similar  intercarrier  connections  differently.  We  may  not  be  able  to  fully  migrate  to  a  one-  size-  fits-  all  approach.  We  obviously  have  to  keep  in  mind  the  important 
 element  of  cost  recovery  here,  especially  for  rural  carriers.  Thats  important  for  rural  consumers  and  its  important  for  rural  America.  Our  goal  must  be  a  system  that  relies  to 
 the  greatest  extent  possible  on  market  forces  and  not  arbitrage  to  drive  technological  advances  and  innovation. 


 I  am  encouraged  by  reports  that  industry  is  talking  dare  I  say  collaborating  on  an  intercarrier  compensation  proposal  for  the  Commission.  That  could  be  a  tremendous 
 public  service  and  get  us  a  good  ways  down  the  road  toward  some  solutions.  Its  a  huge  order,  but  Id  like  to  see  us  get  a  plan  for  discussion  and  Id  like  to  see  the  Commission 
 formally  resolve  to  get  the  job  done  finis  by  December  31  of  this  year.  I  think  it  will  take  that  kind  of  priority  and  that  kind  of  commitment  from  us.  And  it  will  take 
 tremendous  commitment  from  you  in  this  audience  and  the  captains  of  your  industries  to  bring  us  something  that  contains  at  least  the  seeds  for  success. 


 Going  forward,  then,  we  need  to  develop  a  real  national  plan  for  broadband  deployment.  Over  the  long-  term,  the  debate  over  what  is  telecommunications  or 
 telecommunications  services  or  information  services  cannot  be  the  single-  minded  focus  of  our  broadband  dialogue.  Think  about  it:  we  have  all  spent  the  better  part  of  the 
 last  two  years  classifying,  reclassifying  and  declassifying.  What  do  we  have  to  show  for  it?  Were  all  exhausted,  thats  for  sure.  Were  in  free-  fall  when  compared  with 
 broadband  penetration  in  other  nations. 
 Worse,  we  have  no  plan  for  the  future.  The  Commission  needs  to  start  thinking  now  about  how  to  get  us  out  of  our  Broadband  Ditch.  Lets  think  anew  and  act  anew. 
 We  need  to  be  gathering  the  data  far  more  extensively  than  we  do  now  so  that  we  can  make  intelligent  decisions.  We  need  to  be  doing  the  analytical  studies  far  more 
 extensively  than  we  do  now.  We  need  to  be  engaging  stakeholders  of  every  kind  in  a  national  dialogue  about  Americas  broadband  future  far  more  extensively  than  we  do 
 now.  And  then  we  need  to  take  our  authority  under  Section  706  and  use  it  to  the  extent  we  can,  to  get  advanced  communications  deployed  truly  deployed  across  this  nation. 


 What  we  dont  need  to  do  is  wait  around  to  begin  thinking  until  after  Congress  rewrites  the  Act.  We  ought  to  be  producing  the  data  and  analysis  and  developing  the 
 options  and  recommendations  for  Congress  and  we  ought  to  have  started  this  process 
6
 7 
 long  ago.  In  other  words,  lets  use  the  authority  we  have  and  ask  for  whatever  else  may  be  needed.  Isnt  that  a  legitimate  function  for  a  Commission  charged  with  great  public 
 policy  responsibilities? 
 Maybe  we  can  actually  get  to  a  broadband  regulatory  regime  that  is  constructive  rather  than  destructive.  Probably  all  of  us  would  agree  that  regulatory  regimes  can 
 sometimes  be  destructive.  But  my  point  here  is  not  so  much  to  debate  recent  decisions  of  the  Commission  you  know  where  I  stand  on  these  but  to  say  that  we  need  to  be 
 thinking  about  the  future.  And  this  doesnt  reduce  to  a  debate  about  regulation  versus  deregulation.  Ideology  cant  get  us  from  here  to  there.  There  are  regulatory  provisions 
 that  are  hurting  us  and  there  are  regulatory  safeguards  that  are  helping  us.  The  national  challenge  of  building  broadband  infrastructure  deserves  better  than  this  tired  old 
 regulation-  versus-  deregulation  fixation.  Sometimes  good  policy  is  deregulation,  sometimes  it  is  regulation.  No,  what  we  need  is  good  data,  serious  and  substantive 
 analysis,  broad  stakeholder  dialogue  to  chart  our  course,  and  considered  options  and  recommendations  to  meet  the  broadband  challenge.  Failure  to  do  justice  to  the  larger 
 questions  I  have  posed  and  Ill  bet  you  can  come  up  with  many  others  is  precisely  the  kind  of  disruption  that  our  country  and  our  children  cannot  afford. 


 Summing  up,  we  are  dramatically  changing  the  ways  we  communicate  in  this  country  and  around  the  globe.  We  are  challenged  to  adjust  our  rules  and  polices  not 
 only  to  accommodate,  but  to  facilitate,  this  process  of  change.  We  need  to  create  an  environment  where  competition  flourishes  and  innovative  services  thrive.  When 
 disruptive  technologies  erupt  and  they  will  we  need  to  ensure  that  value  is  transferred  as  seamlessly  as  possible  and  that  consumers  are  the  real  beneficiaries  of  these  changes. 
 In  what  I  think  is  going  to  be  a  truly  transformative  chapter  in  our  countrys  history,  the  Commission  needs  to  step  up  to  the  plate  and  do  its  part. 


 These  are  not  easy  issues  and  far  be  it  from  me  to  suggest  that  any  of  them  is  a  slam-  dunk.  Despite  the  frustrations  I  have  discussed  this  morning,  however,  I  remain  an 
 optimist  about  the  future  of  communications,  about  the  paradigm-  creating  new  technologies  that  are  becoming  available  to  us.  I  still  believe  that  communications 
 technologies  will  be  the  lead  engine  of  American  prosperity  in  this  new  century.  And  I  remain  committed  to  the  idea  that  the  best  infrastructure  development  occurs,  as  it  always 
 has  in  the  United  States,  when  the  private  and  public  sectors  find  creative  ways  to  work  together.  I  have  spent  the  overwhelming  bulk  of  my  years  in  Washington  trying  to  build 
 exactly  these  kinds  of  partnerships  because  I  believe  this  is  how  we  best  serve  the  common  good,  the  public  interest.  And  that  is  how  we  will  ensure  that  the  Digital 
 Revolution  of  our  time  leaves  no  American  behind. 
 Thank  you. 
7