    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: THE NATIONAL
                                 BROADBAND PLAN

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-109

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    76-021                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                          HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
                                     Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            JOE BARTON, Texas
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
      Vice Chairman                      JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    LOIS CAPPS, California               MARY BONO MACK, California
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    JANE HARMAN, California              LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
        Islands
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
    BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
          Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet

                             RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
                                     Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee                 Ranking Member
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       MARY BONO MACK, California
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
        Islands
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, opening statement..................................     6
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     7
    Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Michigan, opening statement.................................    15
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    16
    Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement...............    17
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................    18
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    18
    Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    19
    Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    20
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................    21
    Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................    22
    Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................    23
    Hon. Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................    24
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, opening statement.....................    26
    Hon. Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New York, opening statement...........................    29
    Hon. Zachary T. Space, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Ohio, opening statement...............................    29
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................    30
    Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission..    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   109
    Michael J. Copps, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   207
    Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   218
    Mignon L. Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    59
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   233
    Meredith Atwell Baker, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   247

                       Submitted Materials for the Record

    Letter of June 29, 2007, from the Committee to the Federal
      Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Stearns............   103
    Press release dated August 5, 2005, from the FCC, submitted by
      Mr. Waxman.....................................................   107

       OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: THE NATIONAL
                                 BROADBAND PLAN

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
                                      and the Internet,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
    Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick
    Boucher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Boucher, Markey, Rush,
    Eshoo, Stupak, DeGette, Doyle, Inslee, Weiner, Butterfield,
    Matsui, Christensen, Castor, Murphy, Space, McNerney, Welch
    Dingell, Waxman, Stearns, Upton, Shimkus, Blunt, Bono Mack,
    Terry, Rogers, Blackburn, Griffith, and Barton.
        Staff present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Tim Powderly,
    Counsel; Greg Guice, Counsel; Shawn Chang, Counsel; Bruce
    Wolpe, Senior Advisor; Sarah Fisher, Special Assistant; Michiel
    Perry, Intern; Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff; Elizabeth Letter,
    Special Assistant; Neil Fried, Minority Counsel; Will Carty,
    Minority Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Minority
    Legislative Analyst.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Boucher. Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning
    to everyone. This morning, we welcome Chairman Genachowski and
    the members of the Federal Communications Commission as we hold
    the first in a series of hearings that focus on the National
    Broadband Plan. In the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, we
    directed the Commission to prepare a plan to expand broadband
    access and increase broadband adoption among those who have
    access to it.
        Today the United States stands sixteenth among developed
    nations in broadband usage, and for the benefit of our national
    economy and our quality of life, we simply must do better. The
    Commission has done a superb job in developing the plan, and I
    want to commend the members of the Commission and the
    professional staff who have devoted a year, and I know
    thousands of hours to listening to public comments and
    carefully constructing the blueprint before us. I think you
    have truly done a superb job.
        I am going to comment this morning on several core
    recommendations of the plan and then recognize other members.
    First I was pleased to observe your proposal to transition the
    high cost fund in the Federal Universal Service Fund from
    supporting exclusively basic telephone service, which is what
    it does today, to also supporting broadband deployment. The
    Commission's recommendation very closely tracks the provision
    in the comprehensive universal service reform legislation. That
    for the last four years, I have been working with our committee
    colleague, Mr. Terry, in order to advance. We have been through
    a series of discussion drafts, the most recent of which was the
    subject of a legislative hearing in the subcommittee.
        Today, universal service monies may not be spent for
    broadband. Our legislation will immediately allow carriers to
    use their USF monies for broadband deployment. We also have in
    our bill a mandate that carriers receiving universal service
    monies to provide broadband throughout their service
    territories within five years of the measure becoming law. The
    carriers could no longer receive USF monies if they fail to
    meet this broadband build-out mandate.
        The Commission's recommendation also targets using the
    high-cost fund for broadband, and I commend the compatibility
    of the broadband plan and the legislation that we have placed
    before the committee.
        Secondly, I was pleased to note that the plan incorporates
    the recommendation that we set a high goal for future broadband
    speeds. Today, the typical broadband service to the home here
    in the United States is between three and five megabits per
    second. In countries like South Korea and Japan, today's data
    rates for the typical subscriber are far higher, often reaching
    between 50 and 100 megabits per second. The Commission's plan
    appropriately sets a goal over the coming decade of delivering
    to 100 million homes in the United States broadband speeds of
    at least 100 megabits per second. And I commend you for that.
        Third, the Commission's proposal for auctioning to
    commercial builders the D block of the 700-megahertz spectrum
    without onerous conditions is commendable. The proceeds from
    the auction could then be applied to helping first responders
    purchase and install the equipment that is necessary to bring
    to fire, police, and rescue agencies nationwide a truly
    interoperable telecommunications capability. It is essential
    that when they converge from different localities on the scene
    of a disaster that fire, police, and rescue be able to
    communicate one with the other. We are 10 years beyond 9/11.
    That capability does not exist on a nationwide basis today.
        I offer to you my support for obtaining the appropriations
    that will be necessary in addition to the proceeds from the D
    block auction in order to complete the build-out of first
    responder communications equipment. I think that on a matter so
    fundamental to the Nation's security, we will have bipartisan
    support for the provisions of the money necessary for the
    purchase of public safety equipment.
        Finally I want to commend the approach that you take in
    your plan to work with television broadcasters to identify the
    spectrum they now hold that on a consensual basis could be
    repurposed for commercial, wireless use. Broadcasters who
    surrender spectrum would receive compensation in exchange for a
    voluntary spectrum transfer. That, Mr. Chairman, is the right
    approach.
        We will soon pass here in the House our bipartisan bill to
    direct you and the NTIA to conduct a comprehensive inventory of
    the entire spectrum that could be used for commercial purposes.
    That inventory will offer a clear path for the next steps in
    making available adequate wireless spectrum. And that spectrum
    will be necessary to meet our Nation's rising demand for
    wireless services.
        You have done an outstanding job in preparing the plan, and
    we want to thank you for joining us here this morning in order
    to discuss your recommendations. That concludes my statement,
    and I am now pleased to recognize the ranking Republican member
    of our subcommittee and our partner in so many
    telecommunications initiatives, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Stearns.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Boucher follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Stearns. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    let me welcome all the witnesses and let you know how much we
    appreciate you taking your time to come here. It is a very
    important hearing. We do this regularly, but this is, I think,
    very appropriate considering we just got the broadband plan
    from all of you.
        I have a lot of ideas. I haven't been through the whole
    plan. My staff has been through it. We have marked up and done
    an analysis. I think all of us would agree that broadband is
    critical to our economic growth, and certainly the goals
    outlined in the plan are encouraging.
        You know on page 10, it mentions goal number four, Mr.
    Chairman, which I think is really exciting to think that every
    American community should have affordable access to at least
    one-gigabyte-per-second broadband. Service to anchor
    institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government
    buildings, and you mentioned this, but I think all of us in
    America would not even comprehend what would happen in this
    country to its productivity and to the innovation and
    technology if we had one gigabyte. So, as you mentioned,
    oftentimes we get less than five megabytes through our
    broadband today. So I think this goal is outstanding.
        It is important for the Commission to recognize that much
    about our broadband market is working well, and that perhaps is
    my theme this morning, and that the plan should complement what
    is working rather than scrapping it. Key findings, according to
    the report now, that 290 million Americans, 95 percent of the
    population today have access to at least four-megabytes-per-
    second broadband service and two-thirds of adults subscribe. So
    approximately 200 million subscribers have broadband at home
    today, representing a 25-fold increase in the last 10 years, up
    from 8 million.
        By comparison--I just asked the staff to look at this--it
    took 90 years to go from 8 million voice subscribers to 200
    million under the old Title Two Common Carrier regulations. So
    that should tell you something. This plan confirms that the
    free market, pro-investment, national plan we already have in
    place for broadband has worked, considering how quickly we have
    moved.
        All the FCC need do then is remain focused on the five
    percent of households that otherwise may be uneconomic for the
    private sector to serve. What Congress and the FCC must not do
    is revert to failed regulatory ideas that were designed for old
    technologies and a monopoly marketplace, such as imposing
    network neutrality for forcing access to facilities and
    regulating rates are the surest way to deter the investment we
    need to reach this new broadband plan and ultimately the goal
    of one gigabyte here in America.
        If we don't impose regulation of broadband providers that
    discourage private sector investment, we can meet the FCC
    chairman's goal of making 100-megabyte-per-second service
    available to 100 million households by the year 2020. So we
    must carefully avoid any investment killing and government
    interventions and avoid any attempt to reclassify broadband as
    a Title Two service.
        I think the plan, as we went through it obviously has some
    very good points, and I want to thank the chairman for
    answering my letter I sent to him. And it was nice to get the
    letter before the hearing, and we appreciate his response. As
    he pointed out, that the plan costs $20 million to create, and
    I am concerned that we had to spend $20 million to confirm what
    a lot of us knew was working. But I think it is worthwhile to
    get this perspective in this report.
        It could end up saving us more money as we move forward if
    the pro-investment approach continues and we refrain, as I
    mentioned, from putting burdensome regulations in place.
        Now, of course, this does not mean that the government has
    no role, and the plan can help us in this way. Two approaches
    in this plan show particular promise. The chairman mentioned
    this. The plan proposed to cut the waste in the universal
    service program and refocus it on the five percent of the
    country that does not have access to at least four-megabytes-
    per-second broadband. If we are going to subsidize broadband,
    concentrating on the seven million homes that are uneconomic
    for the private sector to serve makes sense.
        Second, the plan seeks to make 500 megahertz of spectrum
    available for wireless broadband within 10 years. That is good
    so long as the FCC does not give the spectrum away or rig
    auctions with conditions. Then we will advance, I think, our
    broadband goals while generating needed federal revenue. I hope
    that the broadband spectrum on the part of the broadcasters
    will be looked at carefully. And if they have to relinquish
    anything, it will be on a voluntary basis so we let that work
    itself out.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I thank very much for this hearing, and I
    look forward to the testimony of our Commissioner.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns. The chairman
    of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Waxman, is recognized for five minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, for scheduling
    this important hearing. The release of the National Broadband
    Plan was eagerly anticipated over the last several months, and
    I am pleased that the committee is examining its
    recommendations today.
        The National Broadband Plan is the most significant
    ambitious infrastructure program for America since the
    interstate highway system. Our competitiveness and prosperity
    depend on meeting its core objectives. America cannot settle
    for the second best in the digital age. Writing this detailed
    blueprint was a massive undertaking, and I commend Chairman
    Genachowski, the broadband team, the FCC staff, and the open
    transparent and data-driven process they used in preparing this
    report.
        Now comes the hard part. The real test of the plan's
    success will be in its implementation. Congress, the FCC and
    the Administration all have a role to play. One important
    aspect of the plan is the recommendation to enhance public
    safety by building a new interoperable broadband network.
    According to the chairs of the 9/11 Commission, ``the FCC's
    plan offers a realistic framework to move forward, and we hope
    that all stakeholders will work with the Commission to refine
    the plan as needed and make it a reality.''
        I have asked my staff to begin drafting legislation to
    implement the public safety recommendations. We will work in
    close consultation with Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, Ranking
    Members Barton and Stearns, and other members of the committee.
        Significant funding will be needed to effectuate the
    concepts outlined in the plan, but I believe we must find a way
    to move forward on a bipartisan basis to meet the needs of the
    public safety community. The plan identifies a looming shortage
    of spectrum as a major problem facing the expansion of wireless
    broadband. Members of the committee will have different ideas
    about how to address this issue. As we will hear today, the
    broadband plan makes a series of recommendations for freeing up
    spectrum. These deserve our serious consideration.
        As the plan recognizes, there is a pending legal challenge
    to the Commission's ability to regulate broadband networks. The
    outcome of that issue could have serious implications for the
    Commission's ability to protect consumers and implement the
    plan. Whatever the court rules, the Commission should take the
    steps it deems necessary to ensure it can implement the plan
    and to assure that broadband consumers are protected.
        There are other key recommendations in this plan. We need
    to take steps to safeguard consumer privacy, ensure transparent
    and accurate billing, provide access for disabled Americans and
    reform the Universal Service Fund. I hope today's hearing will
    be only the first in a series of hearings on the future of
    broadband. We can benefit from additional hearings that will
    focus on individual aspects of the plan, including creating a
    public safety broadband network, reform the universal service,
    improving spectrum policy, providing better access to persons
    with disabilities, eliminating barriers to deployment and
    promoting broadband adoption throughout the country.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Boucher and other
    members of the subcommittee as we move forward. I thank our
    distinguished panel for being here today and appearing before
    the committee. And I look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Chairman Waxman. The gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Barton, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce
    Committee, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Barton. I thank the distinguished subcommittee
    chairman. Would ask unanimous consent to put my entire
    statement in the record.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Chairman. I am just going to
    summarize because we want to hear from you folks on the FCC.
    First of all, if you have to have a federal broadband policy
    plan, you all have done about as good as can be done. But it is
    kind of like the old movie ``The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.''
    The good news is you say some things that I think need to be
    said. You try to reform the Universal Service Fund. You try to
    free up some spectrum, as Chairman Waxman just alluded to.
        The bad, the worst idea I have heard in years is
    reclassification. I just--I don't know about anybody else on
    this committee, but I don't want to regulate broadband like we
    regulated telephone services in the 1930s. I just don't want to
    do it, and I don't think the country wants to do it.
        As far as the ugly part of it, just generically, you know,
    Mr. Waxman talked about the interstate highway system as an
    infrastructure program, and he is right about that. If the
    federal government hadn't decided to do the interstate highway
    system, we wouldn't have had that type of a system. But 95
    percent of America has broadband. The federal government hasn't
    had to spend a dime. This isn't a have/have not program. This
    is a find-something-for-the-FCC-to-do-that-makes-sense-in-the-
    21st-Century program.
        So some of your components are things that I think we can
    work together on, but overall, you know, as everybody knows, if
    it is not broke, don't fix it. And you all are trying to fix
    something that in most cases isn't broke.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. Again I
    want to commend the Commission for working really hard, but you
    have produced a work product that we can use as a roadmap. But
    we don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton. The Chairman
    Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman
    from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, is recognized for five minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I commend you
    for holding today's hearing. I want to also commend Federal
    Communications Commission Chairman Dan Husky and his team. They
    have completed a roadmap to ensure broadband reaches every
    corner of the United States.
        There are two elements that should be the core of this
    effort. First, it should focus on promoting broadband adoption.
    Second, it should establish and address a support mechanism for
    broadband's expansion into high cost and underserved areas of
    the country. I am pleased that the National Broadband Plan
    includes chapters on these issues.
        Nonetheless, I have great concerns about several of the
    plan's recommendations about spectrum reallocation and
    competition-based issues. At best these matters are insular to
    the Congress's intent to expand National Broadband Access. At
    worst, they would reinstitute the old policy fights, long since
    satisfactorily settled.
        In November of last year, I wrote to the Commission to
    express my misgivings about reallocating spectrum from
    broadcasters to mobile communications providers. Over-the-air
    broadcasters surrendered nearly a third of their spectrum to
    facilitate the recent transition from analog to digital signal
    transmission. Further loss of spectrum can have a very serious
    adverse effect on the public by limiting consumer choice. With
    respect to broadband television, this potential outcome would
    also reflect a marked weakening of the long-cherished
    principles of diversity and localism.
        My father and I have defended these since the Commission's
    establishment in 1934. Before considering whether if or how to
    reallocate frequencies used for television, it behooves the
    Commission to work with NTIA to complete a comprehensive
    spectrum inventory such as the one mandated by H.R. 3125, ``The
    Radio Spectrum Inventory Act.'' I consider this a necessary
    predicate for the Congress's consideration of the national
    broadband proposal to grant the Commission the authority to
    conduct spectrum reallocation incentive options.
        I have also serious apprehensions about the plan's chapter
    on competition issues. This chapter is an unpleasant reminder
    of old arguments from the '90s. At that time, the Commission
    required that local companies should make their networks
    available to all manner of carriers at below-market prices.
    This so-called unbundling resulted in a glorious mess.
        My colleague, Mr. Billy Tauzin, and I moved legislation
    through the House to eliminate unbundling requirements with
    respect to carriers' investment in broadband facilities. The
    Senate, as it is unfortunately oft wont to do, did not pass
    this eminently sensible legislation. But the Commission
    ultimately adopted the bill's essence in its triannual review
    of 2003. The result has been enormous investments by carriers
    in broadband, both in my home state of Michigan and across much
    of the Nation.
        Chapter four of the National Broadband Plan signals
    communication and the Commission's intention to revisit the
    unbundling statute. This, I think, is to reopen an old fight,
    and it gives me great concern because it can very well serve as
    a disincentive to necessary investments in broadband
    facilities.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the
    witnesses today that the Congress is the sole progenitor of the
    Commission's authorities. To quote Sam Everett, ``If the
    Commission remembers it works for us, everything will turn out
    fine.'' In keeping with the sentiment and concerns I have just
    articulated, I respectfully suggest that the Commission stay
    focused on the Congress's simple goal of ensuring that
    broadband is accessible and affordable to all Americans, rather
    than to seek to rehash old and unproductive policy debates and
    to start counterproductive fights which are quite unnecessary.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I ask
    unanimous consent to submit letters to the Commission to finish
    out the questions that we will need to ask today. I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Dingell. The record
    of this hearing will remain open for members to submit
    additional questions in writing to members of the FCC. The
    gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for two
    minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Upton here is prior
    to my time.
        Mr. Boucher. All right, I am sorry. Mr. Upton, you are
    recognized for two minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    Commissioner, it is good to see you. The trend in
    telecommunications sector is towards development of advanced
    technologies and increase competition. Deregulation has
    successfully promoted investment, innovation, and more
    competition, benefitting consumers to no end.
        95 percent of Americans now have broadband in more than one
    choice of carrier. That statistic along with more than $100
    billion recently invested in the infrastructure speaks for
    itself. So, as Mr. Barton said, if it ain't broken, don't fix
    it. So as it works, let us not break it. It is clear to me that
    as the level of competition in the market increases, the amount
    of government regulation should decrease.
        And I would hope that we all could agree that the markets,
    in fact, have done a better job of protecting consumers than
    the regulators do. And in a competitive market, we should
    permit market forces to work and not interpose government regs
    between providers and consumers. All that does is impede the
    competition that we all want to see. I applaud your goal of
    providing 100 million homes with access to 100-megabytes-per-
    second broadband by 2020. And I believe that we can do that
    without regulation.
        The level of deployment will only come, however, with the
    continued robust investment by the private sector. And I would
    agree with Chairman Dingell that the FCC, for example, the FCC
    requirement to carriers to unbundle their fiber, that goal will
    not be met by this legislative body. Don't change the rules
    after investments have been made. Don't put up roadblocks to
    new investment.
        Finally, I have some concerns about spectrum repacking
    proposals that could cause harm to consumers and broadcasters
    as a result of the DTV transition. Broadcasters returned over
    100 megahertz of spectrum to the government and at the same
    time increased their services. Yield back my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Upton. The gentleman from
    Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized for two minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
            CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and
    congratulations to the Federal Communications Commission, you,
    Mr. Chairman, and all the Commissioners. When I put the
    language in the stimulus package mandating that the Federal
    Communications Commission had to return this as a report back
    to the American people on the future of broadband just 13
    months ago, I can tell you right now that you met the highest
    expectations which I had when I inserted that language into the
    law.
        And the table of contents is just an indication of how
    thoroughly you have examined this subject. Health care,
    education, and energy and the environment, economic
    opportunity, government performance, civic engagement, public
    safety. This is as thorough a compendium of the issues that we
    have to work on in order to make sure that America once again
    regains its position as number one in the world in broadband as
    could ever be asked to be put together. We have dropped from
    second to fifteenth in the world behind Luxembourg, behind
    Canada, behind Finland over the last eight years. What we saw
    was incumbent companies going to court, going to the FCC
    chipping away at the proinvestments, precompetitive rules that
    we had put on the books. And as that happened, we saw slowly
    but surely the United States slip step by step into a position
    where the rest of the world looks at us over their shoulder.
        And this gives us the opportunity with this plan to once
    again regain that leadership. Google, EBay, Amazon, Hulu, we
    branded this made in the USA in the 1990s, but we have been
    slowly but surely slipping behind. So this is an incredible
    plan. And if it is fully implemented, both investment and
    consumer protection will be unleashed in a way which will
    guarantee that the American people will be, in fact, the
    country that the rest of the world looks to with envy.
        And we thank you for that, and we want to work with you to
    ensure that it is fully implemented so that we can regain that
    competitive edge that gave us that incredible position that we
    enjoyed and now has slipped from our grasp.
        We thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and
    we thank the Commissioner for being here.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey. The gentleman
    from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for two minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I waited
    and followed my friend from Massachusetts because as far as I
    know, this is a product of the chairman. It is not a product of
    the Commission. There was no vote on this plan, and I think we
    are going to hear that through the questions today, not that
    the chairman didn't put a lot of time and effort into this and
    his staff.
        I want to debunk this sixteenth or twenty-fifth place. You
    have to be joking me. Lichtenstein, Monaco, Cutter, Malta,
    Bahrain, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, South Korea, Iceland,
    Singapore, St. Kitz, Nimitz, Macau, everyone in the top 20, we
    could fit the 25 in the continental United States. So we got to
    get off this aspect of comparing apples to oranges. It is like
    saying the city of New York has it, and so we are fine.
        We have 95 percent of our people have broadband. Five
    percent do not. Do you know where they are at? They are in my
    district. You know what? The stimulus has not gone to them, and
    the RUS fund is not going to them. And that is what torques
    people off. 95 percent of us have it. It is the private sector
    that has rolled it out, and now we want to take over one-sixth
    of the economy, another one-sixth of the economy to moving this
    whole information age from Title One to Title Two. The dirty
    little secret back here, it has already been exposed. We are
    not going to get a surprise from the chairman this time in the
    hearing because it is here. Some commented or suggested a
    second approach in which the FCC would implement certain plan
    recommendations under its Title Two authority.
        So let us have this hearing. Let us have this debate. The
    system is working. Where it is not working is in rural America
    which we spend billions of dollars, and the money is not going
    there. And we have the rollout. We got the stimulus rollout. We
    are overbuilding places that have broadband right now with our
    tax dollars. And it is not going to where it is needed. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus. The
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized for 2
    minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving so quickly
    to schedule this hearing and welcome to the entire Federal
    Communications Commission. I have read the plan. I want to
    congratulate you. I think it is a bold one, and I think it is
    what our country needs.
        On this issue of where the United States is ranked in the
    world, according to the International Telecommunications Union,
    they have measured the United States, and they say that we have
    slipped from eleventh to seventeenth between 2002 and 2007. We
    know that our standing in the world is not a source of pride to
    us. Fewer than 27 out of every 100 Americans have broadband
    service compared with much better numbers in other countries.
        But today, we are going to hear the plan. We are going to
    ask questions about it. I am very pleased that many of the
    priorities that I have kind of pounded away on over the years
    are contained in the plan that really reflects my own
    legislative agenda. I hope we will move expeditiously on the
    broadband conduit bill, which I call the digging bill, which
    will ensure that federally funded transportation projects are
    required, laying the broadband infrastructure so we don't have
    to dig up what we've already built in order to lay down what we
    know we need.
        I also look forward to the subcommittee's fast-tracking
    consideration of the next generation 911 bill that my
    colleague, Jim Shimkus, and I know in his fight about where we
    are, where we are not, he would have mentioned this. We
    introduced the bill two weeks ago. I am ready to vote on a
    thorough and complete reconstruction of the Universal Service
    Fund and its programs so that we essentially can leapfrog into
    the 21st Century. America has always led the world in countless
    ways, and that is what I find so exciting about the plan
    because it is a roadmap, a plan, on how we can get there.
        We also need to decide the future of telecommunications
    services and their individual classification so that we can
    ensure that consumers are really properly protected and that
    competitiveness is encouraged. No matter who I meet with, they
    are also for competition unless it cuts in some way to the
    competition that they have a total hold on. We need an
    aggressive agenda, as I said, because the United States really
    lacks badly.
        So I look forward to hearing from each one of the
    Commissioners. This is going to be a lively debate, but at the
    end of it, I think what we all--our common goal must be is that
    there is competition that every person in the country is
    reached by 2020 with high speeds, not with this lagging speed
    that somehow people have a source of pride about. I don't. I
    don't think it is good enough for our country, and I look
    forward to working with everyone to accomplish this for our
    country.
        So thank you for a job well done. It is broad. It is
    visionary, and it is bold. I think it is exactly what we need
    to be talking about. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Eshoo. The gentlelady
    from California, Ms. Bono Mack, is recognized for two minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Bono Mack. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking
    Member Stearns and Commissioners. I too would like to thank the
    FCC for its hard work on the National Broadband Plan. It is
    clear that a great deal of effort and thought went into this
    endeavor.
        As I review the text, I see some real opportunities for the
    committee and the Commission to work together to increase
    investment and opportunity. In the general sense, I believe
    that the plan's approach to spectrum use and universal service
    are quite promising. Further, I believe most of us would agree
    that the goals of the plan are admirable. After all, who among
    us doesn't want to facilitate capital investment and increase
    their constituents' access to broadband?
        However, like the broadband plan, members of Congress also
    have goals. As we all stare at high unemployment rates in our
    districts, my goal is to support policies that create jobs for
    my constituents. Therefore, I have to question portions of the
    plan that seem to imply the need for a heavier government hand.
    I personally remain unconvinced that a sector of our economy,
    which is continuing to attract capital investment and reach
    more American households is in need of more government
    interference.
        As a matter of principle, I believe that broadband and the
    hi-techs are best served if the Commission and this committee
    enact policies which incentivize capital investment and promote
    greater economic freedom. Additionally, I strongly believe we
    need to take great steps to protect the digital content that is
    driving consumers to broadband. The creators and owners of
    content should have their property protected by law, and we
    should reward entities who work to ensure its protection, not
    punish them. When I read sections of the plan which call for
    relaxing such protections, I become very concerned.
        Finally, I would like to caution the FCC on pursuing any
    agenda without solid legal authority. One certain way to stifle
    investment and stall economic growth is to make decisions that
    create uncertainty in a marketplace and encourage litigation.
        Again I would like to thank the Commission. I look forward
    to the question-and-answer portion of today's discussion. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Bono Mack. The
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for 2
    minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    convening the hearing and welcome to the Commission. The
    National Broadband Plan hits a number of important issues such
    as public safety, interoperability, transitioning the universal
    service phone towards broadband, and freeing up additional
    spectrum for commercial use.
        I want to focus on the plan's recommendations for the
    construction of a national interoperable public safety
    broadband network. The plan's recommendation identifies an
    issue I have been highlighting for years: the need for a
    funding mechanism for the construction of an interoperable
    public safety network. The plan calls on Congress to establish
    the grant program within a year to assist on the construction
    of the network and create a funding mechanism.
        If the FCC is intent on moving forward with auctioning the
    D block spectrum for commercial use, we should use 100 percent
    of those funds as a down payment on building this network. The
    FCC has recognized the need for public funding, provided an
    analysis of the capital expenditure costs of the network and
    projected ongoing maintenance costs. Now Congress must act.
    Congress must act to establish a long-term funding mechanism
    that pays for the maintenance costs of the network and ensure
    that covers all Americans.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, again thanks for holding this hearing. I
    look forward to discussing with the Commission how we can move
    forward on the public safety provisions as well as other
    provisions in the national broadband, and if we have time, a
    question or two--hopefully we will be allowed to ask a few
    questions on the FCC collaboration act that we have introduced
    to bring a little sunshine so we can do our job quickly, more
    efficiently, more effectively and protect the public interest.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. The gentlelady from
    Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized for two minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    hearing, and I want to welcome the Commission. We are so
    pleased that you are here. Needless to say, we have all been
    following what you have done with the broadband plan, and we
    are anxious to have a discussion with you.
        A couple of quick points. Among my biggest concerns with
    the broadband plan is how these recommendations will affect
    private investment innovation and jobs creation. And because of
    this, I really am anxious to drill down a little bit deeper
    with all of you. You all know my district in Tennessee and know
    our creative community there and their continued expression of
    concerns with the availability of broadband.
        And in this vein, Chairman Genachowski, I agree with
    Chairman Barton on this. I was hoping for stronger and more
    definitive language closing the door on reclassifying broadband
    under Title Two, and instead I have really found the language
    to be ambiguous. And I am hopeful that we are going to see some
    changes there or could see some changes there again. Again
    investment is a concern that I have. And as we all know, a
    reclassification to Title Two is nothing more than a stepping
    stone for implementing net neutrality, which I believe would be
    detrimental to a thriving telecommunications industry.
        And before I yield back, I also want to flag for each of
    you a concern over what I think is a kind of a pretty toothless
    effort in the plan to curb copyright infringement. And I
    applaud your acknowledging the illegal distribution of
    copyrighted content being a problem. But I am anxious to get
    your thoughts on how we can put a little bit more heft behind
    that and continue to protect the innovations of those that are
    bringing next-generation technologies and uses about and also
    by creative community. And I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Blackburn. The
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for two
    minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I was
    always taught that if you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.
    And looking over the broadband plan, I have to say
    congratulations. You all have passed. There is a lot of policy
    goals outlined in the plan. It sets the FCC on a bold plan of
    action, and it gives us, in Congress, a few things to do also.
        I am not going to run down a laundry list, but I think that
    the plan to promote competition is much needed and well
    received. Competitors need access to wires and spectrum in
    order to deliver more affordable and more innovative services.
        Additionally the plan for Universal Service Fund reform is
    well thought out. I hope that the Commission also takes this up
    as soon as possible, even without a new bill out of Congress.
    Chairman Genachowski, you have a lot to be proud of in this
    plan, and I want to congratulate you and your team for their
    hard work. And I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. The gentleman
    from Alabama, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will ask
    unanimous consent to submit my opening statement for the
    record.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Griffith. Just a few comments. I never thought I would
    ever see the FCC Commission. 15 year ago, I founded FM
    frequency and put it up for public notice, and seven years
    later, we got it on the air. So you can see that I am not pro-
    regulation. But I do believe that the report is done with a
    good heart and with the American people in mind.
        I recognize that the competition that exists in the
    marketplace today has accomplished a great deal, and I hope
    that as we go through these hearing--and I am sure the debate
    will be spirited--I hope we have in mind that there is not a
    whole lot we can do to improve what has been done or in the
    spirit of what has been accomplished by private industry and
    investment. It has been significant.
        So I appreciate you being here and look forward to the
    discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for two minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for calling today's hearing. I also would like to thank
    Chairman Genachowski and the other Commissioners for being with
    us today and for their work on the National Broadband Plan. I
    would also like to commend the FCC broadband team for their
    hard work and thoughtfulness in crafting a bold and visionary
    plan.
        Though no plan of this magnitude is perfect, this plan
    demonstrates American leadership and will serve as a blueprint
    for the world to follow. I am particularly pleased that the
    plan aims to close this Nation's digital divide by recognizing
    the fact that millions of Americans, particularly in such
    economic times, simply cannot afford the high cost of
    broadband.
        Last September, I introduce the Broadband Affordability Act
    that would expand the USF Lifeline Assistance Program for
    universal broadband adoption to help ensure all Americans
    living in urban, suburban, and rural areas have access to
    affordable broadband services. I applaud the FCC for including
    my proposal as essential recommendations to increase broadband
    adoption rates among lower income household in the National
    Broadband Plan. In doing so, we will take a major step toward
    closing the digital divide, and I look forward to working with
    my colleagues and the FCC to make this a reality.
        The plan also recognizes the importance of allocating more
    spectrum into the marketplace and ways to improve our Nation's
    education, infrastructure, health care, public safety systems,
    as well as our anchor institutions in promoting competition in
    our economy. The plan recognizes the critical role that
    broadband plays in moving our Nation toward a more sustainable
    path of greater energy independence and efficiency by including
    a series of recommendations to modernize our Nation's smart
    grid.
        I plan to introduce legislation in the coming weeks that
    would complement many of the FCC recommendations on smart grid,
    so this Nation can promote a smarter electric grid that
    empowers consumers to make choices that can save us energy and
    can save them money. I am looking forward to working with my
    colleagues and the Commission on overseeing and implementing
    many of the important initiatives recommended in the National
    Broadband Plan.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
    hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Matsui. The gentleman from
    Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    holding this hearing. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here
    and Commissioners, appreciate your input on the broadband plan.
    I hope that it lays a good overview. Generally I think it
    brought it from just a nebulous maybe 50,000 down to the
    10,000-foot level, not really getting into the super-granular
    activities or details, which I felt was good in the sense that
    it may signal that we actually have a role in Congress.
        And that is the theme I want to state here today is while I
    think you have done a good job of incorporating especially USF,
    I think Congress needs to take your plan, use that as the
    recommendations, but we need to do our job in Congress. Frankly
    I am uncomfortable with just saying you take the lead on all of
    this stuff. We are not going to deal with it. I think the
    opposite. The role is for us to do it, and I am going to take
    your plan as recommendations.
        On the Republican side, we have heard a lot about private
    sector involvement here, and I want to make sure that when I
    read the plan, I read that, yes, there were some regulatory
    type of policies outlined that we will have hopefully great
    debate within this committee on. But let us not short the
    private sector here. $60 billion per year by the private
    sector, and ruling out high speed broadband in this Nation
    should not be glossed over.
        We did $8 to $9 billion in the stimulus package over two
    years, so government spending and subsidy of broadband rollout
    is a small percentage. And if we start thinking that government
    is going to be the answer in rolling this out, we aren't going
    to get this plan adopted. So with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. The gentleman
    from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    leading this important and timely hearing, and I want to
    commend the Commission for your hard work on this. This is a
    pretty comprehensive plan. You worked hard. The plan clearly
    includes many important issues, but I am only going to be able
    to focus on a couple of them.
        A large part of my district has been severely hit by the
    economic downturn, and promoting job creation is my highest
    priority. It is significant that many of the companies in the
    telecommunication industry are still expanding even in the
    economic downturn, so there is something here that we want to
    capitalize on.
        I am very excited by the job growth creation potential that
    implementing this plan can produce, and vigorous investments by
    private sector coupled by sensible policy will clearly benefit
    our entire Nation.
        And finally I would like to ask the Commissioners to
    discuss briefly issues pertaining to spectrum allocation and
    special access. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. The
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, is recognized for two
    minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we get to some
    resolve here of where we are going, and I think Title Two
    reclassification is dangerous at best. Just the fact that this
    plan exists has put a shiver of cold in the investment
    community about where we go in broadband development.
        We often want to talk about what has made America great. It
    wasn't the United States Congress. It wasn't the executive
    branch. It was private entrepreneurs putting capital at risk
    and making things happen, and the reason we have--and my
    friends on the other side of the aisle say 27 percent or
    whatever figure they use. It is because the private market is
    going to pursue a plan that allows a return on the investment
    so they can go to the next phase of that investment.
        And any time that we seek to stand in the way of that, we
    are going to get a horrible outcome. And just the notion that
    we are even talking about going to net neutrality, more
    regulation. I mean if you look at why it took so long for
    wireless to get to where it is and phones to get where it is,
    it is because they base the original rules, regulations, and
    laws on the Common Carrier Act for railroads in 1897. And we
    applied it to phones. This is exactly that same kind of iron
    horse regulatory ideas on an industry that is changing so fast
    we can't keep up with it. Satellites are going to get ready to
    go to 4G pretty soon. What we ought to do is get out of their
    way and let competitive reign the day.
        The reason those other countries did it the way they did is
    because they don't have economies like the United States. They
    don't have the kind of investment and investors that the United
    States does. There is a marketplace here that is attracting
    money. My fear is if we continue down this path, we will stop
    that investment, and I think we will do far more harm than
    good.
        Doesn't mean there is not a role for government. I think we
    can work on those things, but the very principle and idea that
    you have thrown this into--this uncertainty in the marketplace
    I think is a little bit dangerous to what I think is
    competitive development of broadband, and I would yield back my
    time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers. The gentleman
    from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will associate
    myself with a portion of Mr. Rogers' remarks except to say that
    I think what has made this country great are free markets, but
    structured free markets. And I appreciate the hard work the
    Commission has put into this plan. It can certainly be
    improved, but it provides, I think, the type of structure that
    we need to make sure that the type of robust capital investment
    that we know is going to build out our broadband system is done
    in the fairest means possible.
        I would just like to associate myself with remarks made
    with respect to the issue of online piracy, and I understand
    that in the open Internet notice of proposed rulemaking, the
    Chairman has stated very clearly that the Internet and this new
    broadband platform should not be a shield for violations of the
    law and copyright infringement. But I think you are hearing
    from both sides of the aisle that there is a little bit of
    dissatisfaction on the amount of focus in this report on that
    issue.
        This country is losing billions of dollars every year to
    Internet piracy, and the trend is going in only one direction.
    As much as we can ask content providers to do, ultimately, I
    think, the solution largely lies in the hands of those
    distribution networks that are going to take advantage of what
    is now a partially federally funded broadband network.
        And so I think you are hearing from a number of people that
    would love to hear some comments from the Commission on how we
    think we either revise the plan or add to the plan with respect
    to piracy in order to guard copyright moving forward. But all
    in all, I would agree with many of my colleagues to say that
    this is a product of, I think, great labor and, I think, great
    importance for the rollout of broadband in this country, and I
    yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. The gentleman
    from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have remarks for the
    record. In addition to that, I would just like to say that the
    comments that I made and others made in our hearing on this
    last year about unserved versus underserved areas continue to
    trouble me. As we go into the finding of what unserved areas
    are, it does seem to me that in rural areas particularly, you
    run the great risk of making that service untenable because you
    create a competitor in a marketplace that can barely handle one
    provider. I am concerned by that.
        I am concerned by what net neutrality is in this plan that
    might lead to needless regulation, unbundling mandates. All of
    those things discourage the build-outs in the areas that we
    need them. I do think that the Universal Service Reform and the
    spectrum planks, the new plan probably keep us away from that
    regulation if we focus on them instead of the other things.
        But, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stearns, thank you for holding
    this hearing. I hope that we do become vigorous and active
    partners with the Commission as you now look at the work
    product you put before us, and that we don't make the kind of
    mistakes that slow down the great expansion that we have had in
    broadband over the last few years. And I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Blunt. The gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for two
    minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to
    thank you for convening this hearing and thank the five
    Commissioners for coming forward today to have this
    conversation with all of us. I too have a copy of the plan. I
    must concede that I have not read every word of it, but I
    certainly plan to. It is a very comprehensive plan, and I want
    to thank you for your work.
        From what I can understand, the plan states that 95 percent
    of households in America do indeed have access to broadband
    while 5 percent, 1 out of 20, do not. Well, my district in
    eastern North Carolina, the rural district that I represent is
    home to many of those households who are without very basic
    access to broadband. With commerce, education, and
    communication being just a few of the everyday tasks that are
    moving online, those who cannot access broadband become further
    disenfranchised and unprepared for achieving a successful and
    productive life.
        It is particularly important that efforts be focused on
    connecting the unconnected first so that students, teacher, job
    seekers, and others like those in my district have the
    opportunity to play on equal footing. The less densely
    populated economically depressed areas like much of my district
    are no less in need of access to quality broadband and are
    certainly no less deserving. I hope we can build on the plan's
    goals and recommendations.
        The National Broadband Plan enumerates six long-term goals
    with hopes of achieving them by 2020. The goals are indeed very
    ambitious but certainly achievable so long as government moves
    quickly and responsibly to update its communications policy
    framework while partnering and empowering private industry to
    robustly invest in network expansion and improvements.
        I would like to note the extraordinary private investments
    made to building the networks we use every day. As Congress and
    the FCC move forward, it is important we take that investment
    into account when drafting policy around the goals of the plan.
        For example, between '06 and '08, AT&T, a very responsible
    corporation, invested more than $1.2 billion in my state of
    North Carolina in an effort to enhance and improve our
    networks. Increased regulations and mandates on the companies
    that built these networks with their private dollars may not be
    the best way to achieve the goals of the plan.
        So it is critical, in closing, that policymakers and
    regulators work in concert--that is the key word--work in
    concert with private industry when drafting those policies.
    Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield. The
    gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, is recognized for two
    minutes.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will put
    my full statement in the record. I just want to mention a
    couple of things. I agree with my colleagues that this National
    Broadband Plan is a comprehensive, and it is a forward-looking
    document, and I strongly share the goals. I want to raise just
    a couple of issues.
        The first one is cities like Denver, which is my district,
    are often the first to get access to the first communications
    technologies. But access alone is not enough. What we have to
    remember as we go forward is that broadband also has to be
    affordable for low-income Americans, many of whom live in urban
    areas like my area and who have seen a real divide, even though
    broadband is accessible in urban areas.
        Second issue I want to mention is the conflicts with
    existing uses that we are going to have to resolve. The
    broadband plan recommends allocating new spectrum to satisfy
    consumer demand for wireless data networks. And this could
    provide important benefits, but it also raises questions about
    how, if a significant transfer of spectrum to broadband is
    needed, we can accomplish the objective in the fairest way to
    existing spectrum uses. And so this is one of the questions
    that I hope that we can explore today.
        I want to just mention two other aspects of this plan that
    I am very pleased to see. The first one is the emphasis on
    health IT which is going to be very important as we move
    forward with our new health care plan in this country, and
    which we have seen in my district with Denver Health how much
    health IT can help with patient outcomes and efficiency.
        Secondly, I am very pleased to see some mention of
    expanding in national smart energy grid. I think a smart grid
    is going to be very important as we get independent from
    foreign oil and develop alternative energy.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. DeGette. The
    gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, is recognized for two
    minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, for calling this
    hearing, and thank you, Chairman Genachowski and the entire FCC
    for your work on the National Broadband Plan. You have given us
    a lot to consider, and there are many competing interests here,
    but I think our overarching goal must be to ensure that all
    Americans have access to broadband and the many benefits that
    the technology has to offer. And whether we live in big cities
    and urban areas or small rural towns, whether we are rich or
    poor, black or white, broadband hold so much promise.
        And it appears that the National Broadband Plan is a
    commitment to finally getting everyone on board and ensuring
    that we are a Nation that is united by the most important
    technology since the invention of the telephone. So we must
    continue to modernize and innovate.
        I would like to direct your attention to a couple of the
    proposals that are particularly important to the hard-working
    families in my state. First, the Universal Service Fund.
    Florida historically has paid a lot into it and hasn't gotten
    much back. So I would like to hear how the broadband plan will
    correct this past discrepancy. Do you have a commitment to the
    use of spectrum for low-cost wireless service in communities
    where affordability remains a high barrier to broadband use? I
    know there are a lot of students and teachers and older folks
    who will need our help accessing this vital technology.
        The E-rate program should be robustly funded in order to
    ensure that schools and libraries have access to affordable
    broadband including wireless connectivity. Reform of the
    universal service fee must address these issues going forward.
        Second, a public safety network is indispensible to the
    functioning of our communities in an emergency, and Florida
    hurricane season is just around the corner. That means our
    first responders will be on high alert should a big storm knock
    out power and wreak havoc on our coastal communities. There is
    a lot of debate as to whether a dedicated block of spectrum
    would serve our first responders better than a shared network,
    and I would like to hear more on this proposal.
        Overall, I am supportive of the recommendations in the
    plan. I think it strikes a good balance between the incentives
    for innovation and incorporates practical mechanism to bring
    the digital divide. Congratulations.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Castor. The
    gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, is
    recognized for two minutes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, and thank
    you for holding this hearing so that we can go home better
    informed about the National Broadband Plan that was unveiled by
    the FCC this week. Although the number of people connected to
    broadband in this country has gone from 8 million in 2000 to
    almost 200 million last year, far too many families are still
    not connected, and our world rankings are far too low.
        So while this plan is a solid blueprint, I do look forward
    to implementations closing the gap and propelling us into the
    world leadership that we used to have before. It cannot be that
    because they are not connected, children can't do their
    homework, individuals can't access jobs, small businesses
    cannot buy or sell competitively, health care cannot reach
    everyone who needs it, and our public safety agencies cannot
    communicate well enough to protect us in an emergency. So this
    plan needs to ensure all of this while preserving and
    stimulating competitiveness in keeping costs affordable is
    quite a challenge you and all of us have ahead of us.
        We will monitor with great interest the reforming of the
    Universal Service Fund and the E-rate which we have had
    problems with in the Virgin Islands as well as a freeing up and
    an auctioning of the spectrum.
        I have several concerns. One being, of course, that the
    territories be fully included. The rest of them I hope to get
    to in questions. And again I want to commend you, Chairman
    Genachowski, and the other Commissioners for the transparent,
    open, and comprehensive process, and welcome all of you back to
    the subcommittee.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Christensen. The gentleman from
    New York, Mr. Weiner, is recognized for two minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER, A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Weiner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    welcome members of the Commission here and express the
    gratitude of our committee for the work that went into this
    report. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr.
    Markey, and I do want to just make a brief mention of my good
    friend Mr. Shimkus and his remarks. He is able to work up a
    level of indignancy by 10:00 most of us can't muster in a whole
    day, but it is important to note that having a conversation
    about broadband in our economy without looking at what we are
    doing and not doing and how we are slipping in relation to
    other states and other nations is just folly.
        You know we have learned with our history with the Internet
    and technology, it is a great job producer for us. It is a way
    we keep our competitive advantage. It would be akin to opening
    up a shoe store in a neighborhood and saying I'm not going to
    look at any other shoe stores in the neighborhood or in the
    neighborhood counties to find out what they are doing right or
    wrong. We have to think that way, and too often we--and it is a
    constitutional problem probably--we think for a year to the
    next budget, to the next fiscal year, to the next appropriation
    bill. This document that was produced by the FCC takes that and
    turns it on its head and said we have to look for the next
    generation, for the next 30 years, for the next 50 years.
    Admittedly, there are going to be some elements of this plan
    that are going to maybe create problems for one sector. Maybe
    they are going to encourage other sectors, but that is exactly
    the type of thinking that we should want to do.
        We have to remember as we look at this committee that we
    are looking for opportunities in this document to produce
    thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. But we are not
    going to know exactly what they are going to look like. That is
    the way technology always operates. We are at our best in this
    body and in this subcommittee when we are laying the groundwork
    for innovation.
        The FCC has done it, and I want to thank you very much for
    setting us on this path. We are going to change a lot of words
    in this document. We are going to make some amendments to it,
    and we are going to find our own way as a legislature often
    does, but as a blueprint, you have really scored. And I want to
    express the gratitude of our country for your doing so.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Weiner. The gentleman
    from Ohio, Mr. Space, is recognized for two minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Space. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
    I would like to thank Chairman Genachowski and the Commissions
    along with your staff for a lot of hard work. I know a lot of
    people have worked very hard around here lately, but I don't
    know that anyone has matched that you and your teams have put
    in. So thank you.
        There are a lot of exciting and, I think, forward thinking
    aspects to the National Broadband Plan that you have prepared.
    And I would like to highlight two areas of interest that I
    believe will benefit the constituents that I represent back in
    Ohio.
        First I am delighted to see that the plan proposed to
    transform the existing high costs of the Universal Service Fund
    Into the Connect America fund that will support broadband
    networks. As stated in the testimony before us this morning, 95
    percent of Americans have access to broadband. While that is
    obviously very impressive, we still have a lot of work to do to
    cover that five percent, many of whom within rural districts
    and have no options when it comes to broadband.
        Many of those people are my constituents in southern Ohio,
    and transitioning the high-cost fund to explicitly support
    broadband deployment to rural areas would be a tremendous help
    to the residents of Appalachian Ohio.
        Second, I am encouraged to see the plan's recommendations
    on expanding the FCC's Rural Health Care Pilot Program. In
    2007, the southern Ohio healthcare network was successful in
    obtaining a pilot program grant to build a fiber optic network
    across about 12 counties to connect health care facilities.
    This has paved the way for further broadband expansion in the
    region, and at present we are attempting to leverage this
    previous investment to deploy broadband, actually middle mile
    fiber, to 34 counties in southern Ohio that again in many
    places have no options.
        Success breeds success, and we must strengthen the Rural
    Health Care Pilot Program by making it permanent as the plan
    suggests and by permitting for-profit entities serving
    vulnerable populations to be eligible. I stand ready to assist
    on this front. And in closing, I reiterate my support for the
    goals addressed in the plan, and I very much look forward to
    working with the Commission and my colleagues here in Congress
    and industry partners to realize our Nation's broadband
    potential. Thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Space. The gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for two minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Chairman, I
    thank you for conducting this hearing, and also the Chairman of
    the FCC, Chairman Genachowski, and the other Commissioners. And
    I want to join my colleagues in congratulating you on a job
    well done.
        As members of Congress, we have seen far more than our fair
    share of plans before, and they have promised us the sun, the
    moon, the stars, the celestial bodies seen and unseen, known
    and unknown. But very few have been heralded so highly as this
    plan and its promises to enhance America's ability to improve
    the life choices of the people and to maintain her status as a
    global leader.
        While that may sound a bit skeptical about this plan, I am
    really not. Much of it sounds good on paper and certainly makes
    for good and polished sound bites. I understand the power of
    new communication, technologies, and the importance of
    innovation at least in people and communities' commercial
    efficiency and productivity. Same as in our precious energy
    resources as well as ability to safeguard public safety.
        The promise of widespread public access is important for
    our Nation. The unique opportunity we are presented with at
    this moment in history is unprecedented, and I want to ensure
    that Congress and the FCC serve the best interests of the
    American people.
        Mr. Chairman, if we don't execute this plan comprehensively
    and thoughtfully, we will miss out on a huge opportunity while
    also setting back the short-term and long-term technology needs
    of the American people.
        I am therefore interested in hearing this Commission's
    discussion especially on how the adoption of the broadband plan
    can help to drive our economy out of its current doldrums by
    stimulating new jobs as well as opportunities for small
    business and innovative entrepreneurs. The plan as it currently
    reads does not provide any recommendations however on how small
    minority businesses and similarly the American economy, and I
    think the plan should. I think this is a stunning omission,
    and, Mr. Chairman, with that said, I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. The gentleman
    from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Two points
    and one observation. First the work that you are doing is
    absolutely critical to the future economic growth of this
    country, and what you have presented is a solid plan that
    embraces competition, and acknowledgement if we are going to
    have competition, we have to have access to the wires and the
    spectrum. And we have to have universal service so it is going
    to reach the most remote parts of our tremendous country.
        Second, you have done this on a bipartisan basis, and I got
    to tell you that is pretty unique around here. And I want to
    thank you for that. And this is my observation. You have taken
    a very difficult topic, presented a solid plan, and done it on
    a bipartisan basis. And it is so effective, you may embarrass
    us into trying to do the same. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Welch. The gentleman from
    Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just want to note the work you are
    doing is helpful to improve our health reform efforts, which
    are new and still building. I just want to point one instance
    where our broadband policy can help the city of Republic,
    Washington, eastern Washington. We essentially have to turn off
    all the computers in Republic, Washington if you want to send
    an x-ray from Republic to have it read by a diagnostician in
    Seattle. That is unacceptable. This is part of the health
    reform effort as well.
        I just want to make three quick points. First, I appreciate
    the plan's effort to complete our white spaces program which
    would free up spectrum, could allow the geniuses who are coming
    to create these new technologies. It is very exciting to get
    that done.
        Second, I am pleased that you support essentially the
    direction, the moving in our spectrum allocation provision. We
    passed the bill in this committee to get that done, and you
    have joined us in that effort. We hope that will actually be a
    while before we even get the next version of the report out.
        Third, I am pleased that you got the public safety block.
    We have some ideas how to move forward. This is very
    frustrating to all of us to not to have an interoperable system
    at this late, late, late date with our law enforcement officers
    not having--and firefighters not having systems. Got to get
    that job done. I think we are on the right track. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Mr. Inslee, thank you very much, and thanks to
    all members for being expeditious this morning. Well, you have
    heard from us. Now we get to hear from you, and we would like
    to welcome the members of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The Chairman, Julius Genachowski, Commissioner
    Michael Copps, Commissioner Robert McDowell, Commissioner
    Mignon Clyburn, and Commissioner Meredith Baker. Without
    objection, your prepared written statements will be made a part
    of the record. We would welcome your oral summaries and ask
    that you keep those to approximately five minutes so that we
    will have ample time to question you.
        Chairman Genachowski, we welcome you, and we will be happy
    to hear your statement.

          STATEMENTS OF JULIUS GENACHOWSKI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL
      COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER,
        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ROBERT M. McDOWELL,
      COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MIGNON L.
     CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND
      MEREDITH ATWELL BAKER, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
                               COMMISSION

                    STATEMENT OF JULIUS GENACHOWSKI

        Mr. Genachowski. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking
    Member Stearns, members of the committee. Thank you all for the
    chance to testify in the National Broadband Plan. The plan
    addresses the opportunities and challenges of broadband high-
    speed Internet in a way that reflects a strong conviction that
    as our Nation rebuilds its economy, broadband can and must
    serve as a foundation for long-term economic growth.
        Mr. Boucher. Chairman Genachowski, if I could get you to
    pull that microphone just a little bit closer, we can hear you
    better.
        Mr. Genachowski. How is that?
        Mr. Boucher. That is much better. Thank you.
        Mr. Genachowski. A foundation broadband for long-term
    economic growth, ongoing investment and enduring job creation.
    Multiple studies tell us the same thing. Even modest increases
    in broadband adoption can yield hundreds of thousands of new
    jobs. A broad array of people throughout the ecosystem,
    investors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, labor leaders,
    consumer advocates, and others agree that if the U.S. has
    world-leading broadband networks, we will see a powerful new
    wave of innovation in business and job creation here at home.
        The title of one recent op-ed written by the CEO of a major
    American technology company said it well. Fix the bridges but
    don't forget broadband. Now we have real work to do to seize
    the opportunities of broadband. The status quo is not good
    enough. Notwithstanding the many positive and even exciting
    developments in the U.S. around wired and wireless broadband,
    our country is not where it should be or needs to be to
    maintain our global competitiveness in our rapidly changing
    world.
        First, the U.S. is lagging globally as several studies
    show, as low as seventeenth in one broadband study, and 40th
    out of 40 among countries surveyed in the rate of change of
    innovative capacity. That tells us that other countries are
    improving faster than the U.S.
        Second, certain communities within the U.S. are lagging.
    Rural Americans, low-income Americans, African Americans,
    Hispanic Americans, seniors, tribal communities, Americans with
    disabilities, for these groups, adoption rates are much lower
    than the 65 percent national average, which is itself much
    lower than other countries and much lower that what we would
    tolerate for vital infrastructure like electricity or
    telephones.
        Altogether, 93 million Americans are not connected to
    broadband at home, including 13 million children, and 14
    million Americans do not have access to broadband where they
    live even if they want it. That is too many.
        Third, the costs of digital inclusion grow higher every
    day. Several years ago, not having broadband could have been
    thought by some to be simply an inconvenience. Now broadband
    access and digital literacy are essential to participation in
    our economy and our democracy. As I believe Congress
    anticipated when it directed the FCC to prepare a National
    Broadband Plan, the plan the FCC has submitted is a plan for
    action and a call to action that these times require.
        The terrific FCC staff and broadband team have produced a
    team that is as strong as it is nonideological and nonpartisan.
    It was the outcome of an extraordinary process that has been
    unprecedented in so many respects, unprecedented in its
    openness and transparency, in the breadth and depth of public
    participation and its professionalism, and in its focus on data
    and analytical rigor.
        The plan sets ambitious goals for the country, including
    access for every American to robust and affordable broadband
    services and the skills to subscribe, broadband speed of at
    least one gigabyte to at least one library, school, or other
    public anchor institution in every community, affordable
    hundred megabytes per second to 100 million households, world
    leading mobile innovation with the fastest and most extensive
    wireless networks of any nation, access for every first
    responder to a nationwide interoperable broadband public safety
    network.
        In addition to these and other goals, the plan lays out a
    robust, sensible, and efficient roadmap for achieving them.
    Among other things, it proposes a once-in-a-generation
    transformation of the Universal Service Fund from yesterday's
    technology to tomorrow's. It proposes recovering and unleashing
    licensed to unlicensed spectrum so that we can head off the
    looming spectrum crisis and lead the world in mobile. It
    proposes ways to cut red tape, lower the cost to private
    investment, and accelerate deployment of wired and wireless
    networks. It proposes initiatives to foster vibrant competition
    and empower consumers. It proposes a roadmap to tackle vital
    inclusion challenges so that everyone everywhere can enjoy the
    benefits of broadband, and it proposes ways in which broadband
    can be deployed to help solve many of our Nation's challenges
    including education, health care, energy and public safety.
        I am heartened that a broad array of companies as well as
    nonprofits, consumer and public interest groups have voiced
    strong support for the plan. If I may read what John Chambers,
    CEO of Cisco, wrote in Business Week, ``the vital communication
    systems that make our economy work and serve as a platform for
    business innovation and social interaction are second class.''
    Sadly, many of us have accepted that. It is time to overcome
    our broadband complacency. The National Broadband Plan sent to
    Congress by the FCC is critical to our economic and national
    security. Without a plan, we simply cannot compete.
        I believe the plan will deliver extremely significant
    economic and fiscal benefits over time as broadband is
    harnessed for job creation and new investment. I believe the
    plan is fiscally prudent, respecting the primacy of private
    investment and identifying opportunities for billions of
    dollars in spectrum auctions.
        As we move forward, I look forward to working with members
    of the committee on the broadband plan and on all ideas to
    unleash the power of broadband, the technology with the
    greatest potential since the advent of electricity to advance
    our economic and social well-being to the benefit of all
    Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Genachowski follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Chairman Genachowski. Commissioner
    Copps.

                       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COPPS

        Mr. Copps. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Boucher,
    Ranking Member Stearns, members of the subcommittee for having
    us up here today to discuss the National Broadband Plan. This
    is something, as many of you know, that has been near and dear
    to me for the almost nine years that I have been at the
    Commission.
        I had long lamented our Nation's lack of a broadband
    strategy in a competitive world where other nations were
    leaving in the digital dust. Now that has changed. We have a
    roadmap. We have set our compass on due north. We know where we
    want to go, and we are setting off down that road. At last we
    begin to walk the broadband walk.
        We head down this road not because broadband is some
    technophile's dream or some cool new tool, but because of the
    dawning realization that high value broadband is the great
    enabler of our time. This technology infrastructure intersects
    with just about every great challenge confronting our country
    today. Jobs, business growth, education, energy, the
    environment, international competitiveness, health care,
    overcoming disabilities, opening doors of equal opportunity,
    news and information, and our democratic dialogue, there is no
    solution to any of these challenges that does not have a
    broadband component to it. Now we understand.
        So it was music to my ears when Congress called for the
    development of National Broadband Plan. Under the visionary
    leadership of Chairman Genachowski and with the hard work of an
    impressive FCC team, and in the most open and transparent
    process I have witnessed at the Commission, we now have a plan
    with clear objectives and a considered strategy aimed at
    ensuring that everyone in this country has equal opportunity in
    this new digital age, no matter who they are, where they live,
    or the particular circumstances of their individual lives.
        Foremost among our charges is digital inclusion. Every one
    of our citizens must have access to this enabling technology in
    order to participate fully in 21st century life. You won't get
    a job without it. You won't be safe without it. You can't be
    well educated without it. You cannot be an engaged citizen
    without it. So surely America cannot afford to have any digital
    divides between haves and havenots, between those living in big
    cities and those in rural areas or tribal lands, between the
    able-bodied and people with disabilities.
        Broadband must leave no American behind, including the
    original Americans, Native Americans. I encourage the broadband
    team to make sure this plan works for Indian country, and I am
    pleased with the recommendations that have been delivered. I
    also wanted to ensure that the plan was aimed at providing full
    accessibility to persons with disabilities. These are folks who
    ask nothing more than an equal shot at being fully productive
    citizens, and broadband can make that so much more achievable
    if we get it to them. My written testimony elaborates on these
    two points.
        Let me also very quickly say how pleased I am that the plan
    addresses the need for better research and development efforts
    in our society and, of course, pleased about the public safety
    plan, which we will talk about.
        I want to spend my last couple minutes on the perhaps less
    tangible but no less important dimensions of broadband. As our
    information infrastructure begins to migrate online, we
    becoming increasingly dependent upon broadband for news and
    information, for our civic engagement, for our democratic
    dialogue. America's future town square will be paved with
    broadband bricks. We need to make sure it is available to all
    and open to all.
        With high-speed Internet, those who are connected can have
    the world at their fingertips. For the unconnected, it is
    beyond their reach. An increase of technology does not by
    itself, however, guarantee a more informed citizenry. Neither
    does just hooking everybody up to broadband. A well-connected
    nation does not equate to a well-informed nation without
    significant effort. Put another way, a nation connected but not
    informed or civically engaged is about as useful to democracy
    as a plugged-in lamp with no light bulb.
        I believe that our country's democratic dialogue will
    suffer if the same harms that have been inflicted on
    traditional media are allowed to undercut the potential of new
    media in the digital age.
        Time happily spares you my extended remarks on the subject,
    but we all know journalism is in trouble. Journalism is at
    crossroads, and we better do something about how the American
    people are going to receive the news and information we need in
    a world where the town square is going broadband and where a
    critically important public interest has somehow to be
    safeguarded. Any viable solutions will have to address both
    traditional media and online media. And I am pleased that the
    National Broadband Plan recognizes the need to come to terms
    with the news and information implications of the digital
    transition.
        I look forward to working on this with the members of this
    subcommittee. Each of the Commissioners would have, I am
    certain, some variations on the plan that has been presented.
    In matters involving the reclamation of spectrum, for example,
    I will be especially vigilant that nothing we do decreases the
    already scarce diversity we have in programming or in media
    ownership. Every local voice that disappears runs against the
    grain of the public interest.
        Regarding competition in our telecommunications industries,
    it will take great vigilance to ensure that consumers in our
    present consolidated environment can have more access to
    competitive providers. This may require some very tough
    decisions, but I believe the plan provides ample opportunity
    for us to tackle and resolve such problems as we proceed.
        My final comment is on an issue I try to highlight every
    time I come before you. It is the need to facilitate the work
    of the Commissioners by modifying the closed meeting rule that
    prohibits more than two of us ever talking together and sharing
    our experiences about the great issues before the Commission.
    My experience has shown me that this has had pernicious and
    unintended consequences, stifling collaborative discussions
    among colleagues, delaying timely decision-making by the
    agency, and short-changing the pubic interest.
        I note the Representatives Stupak, Eshoo, and Doyle have
    introduced legislation to correct this. I believe the
    legislation they have introduced would constitute a major a
    reform of the Commission procedures as any that I can
    contemplate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
    and I look forward to your comments, your guidance, and your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Copps follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Commissioner Copps.
    Commissioner McDowell.

                      STATEMENT OF ROBERT McDOWELL

        Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Stearns and all members of the committee. It really truly is a
    privilege to be before you today. The broadband plan offered up
    last week by the Office of Broadband Initiative does represent
    a tremendous amount of hard work and thoughtfulness. However,
    it was not put to a Commission vote and contains no rules, and
    that is because the plan represents the beginning of a process
    and not the end of one.
        While we may disagree at times on the best paths to follow
    during our upcoming journey, we can all agree on at least the
    primary destination, a country that offers faster broadband
    access to more Americans at affordable prices.
        Before going further, however, all policymakers involved
    should pledge to do no harm. Precisely because the FCC
    classified broadband services as less regulated information
    services, we have seen a deployment and adoption of broadband
    technologies flourish. As the plan itself asserts, the number
    of Americans who have broadband at home has grown from 8
    million in the year 2000 to nearly 200 million last year. In
    fact, today out of 114 million households, only 7 million lack
    access to broadband. Some form of broadband is available to
    roughly 95 percent of Americans while over two-thirds have
    actually subscribed.
        One especially bright gem in America's economy is the
    phenomenal growth in wireless broadband adoption. Mobile
    broadband was virtually unheard of in the year 2000. By the end
    of last year, however, an estimated 100 million Americans
    subscribe to wireless broadband technologies. We lead the world
    in 3G buildout and adoption.
        Furthermore, America is home to more wireless companies
    than any other country. More than half of all Americans have a
    choice of five wireless providers. 94 percent have a choice of
    four. Not only has investment and innovation been dynamic in
    the telecom core of the Internet environment, but economic
    activity at the edge of networks has been nothing short of
    explosive as well.
        For instance, last year Americans again lead the world by
    downloading over 1.1 billion applications onto their mobile
    devices. Not only does the United States have one-third of the
    world's market share of mobile apps, but the American mobile
    app market has grown over 500 percent since the year 2007.
        In fact, some researchers estimate that annual domestic
    mobile app downloads will reach nearly 7 billion by the year
    2014.
        The Internet is an environment that is growing and evolving
    faster than any individual company or government can measure.
    The Net operates in an open and free marketplace where
    innovation and investment are thriving. In fact, some estimate
    that private sector investment in broadband infrastructure
    exceeded $60 billion last year alone.
        Any policies the government adopts should nurture and
    strengthen these trends and not undermine them. For instance,
    cable modem services alone are available to 92 percent of
    American households. Merely by upgrading cable networks with
    the DOXIS 3.0 system, which is expected to happen over the next
    few years anyway, over 104 million American homes will have
    access to speeds of up to 100 megs. Unless the government
    provides disincentives to investments, the broadband plan's
    goal of reaching 100 million households with 100 meg services
    should be attained well before the year 2020 if we allow
    current trends to continue.
        In that spirit, I question calls for further regulating one
    of the brightest spots of the American economy. Chapter 17 of
    the Plan opens the door to classifying broadband services as
    old-fashioned, monopoly-era, circuit-switched, voice telephone
    services under Title Two of the Communications Act of 1934.
        Broadband has flourished because of the absence of such
    regulations, and let me clear up a persistent myth. Broadband
    has never been regulated under Title Two. Not only would such a
    classification likely fail on appeal, I also don't see how
    foisting regulations first devised in the 19th century would
    help a competitive 21th century marketplace continue to thrive.
        The plan does contain ideas that are worth exploring
    further however. For instance, bringing more spectrum to market
    should continue to be a priority for the Commission, as it has
    been for the past several years. We should place a special
    emphasis on frequencies that are lying fallow or are underused,
    particularly spectrum held by the government when auction
    spectrum should remain unencumbered by regulation.
        At the same time, however, the Commission should encourage
    more efficient use of the airwaves in addition to rapid
    buildout. The need to use spectrum efficiently is inevitable,
    so we should work to stay ahead of the spectral efficiency
    curve.
        Additionally, the plan calls for comprehensive reform of
    the universal service subsidy rules. This system is broken,
    plain and simple. Our first priority, however, should be to
    contain costs. The contribution factor, a tax of sorts, which
    is directly paid by consumers, has ballooned from 5.53 percent
    in 1998 to over 15 percent today. This trend hurts American
    consumers and is unsustainable. In its current condition, the
    Universal Service Fund cannot support additional obligations.
        I have outlined many other ideas in my written statement.
    In the meantime, I look forward to working with Congress and my
    Commission colleagues to adopt policies that allow investment,
    innovation, job growth, competition, and adoption in the
    broadband market to continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Commissioner McDowell.
    Commissioner Clyburn.

                      STATEMENT OF MIGNON CLYBURN

        Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Stearns and members of the subcommittee.
        Mr. Boucher. Yes, your microphone please.
        Ms. Clyburn. That might help. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you.
        Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Stearns, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor and a
    privilege to appear before you today to discuss the National
    Broadband Plan. Over the past nine months, the FCC undertook
    the mammoth task of developing a blueprint for this Nation that
    aims to bolster our standing as a world leader in technology,
    business, and inclusion. Under Chairman Genachowski's
    leadership, this process was conducted in an unprecedented open
    and transparent manner in order to ensure that we maximized
    opportunity for public input.
        There are three issues in particular that I wanted to touch
    on today. In my view, each of these warrants our upmost and
    immediate attention. One, fostering the development of a
    nationwide interoperable public safety network. Two, ensuring
    an environment conducive to universal broadband adoption. And
    three, cultivating vibrant competition in the broadband
    marketplace.
        Developing a nationwide interoperable public safety network
    is no easy task. This fact, however, is no excuse for where we
    stand today. It is inconceivable that it will be almost nine
    years since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. We still
    have not meaningfully addressed this critical need. The
    National Broadband Plan attempts to meet this challenge. It
    offers concrete steps for a nationwide public safety wireless
    broadband network that will provide needed functionality and
    interoperability for the public safety community.
        The recommendations for the Emergency Response
    Interoperability Center and Congressional funding for the
    network in particular address two of the most fundamental
    building blocks necessary to make this network a reality.
        Moreover, the plan sets forth a rigorous program to make
    sure we get the details right, and the Commission has already
    put these ideas in motion by hosting a technical panel to
    review the finer points of the proposed network.
        Another indispensible part of the plan concerns broadband
    adoption. Approximately one-third of Americans have not adopted
    broadband at home. While some view this percentage as a
    success, there are reasons to be concerned. High-speed Internet
    is the gateway to opportunity and is fast becoming a
    requirement for meaningful citizenship. If you want to apply
    for a job, get more information on health-related issues, take
    classes that are unavailable in your town, unlock economic
    opportunities, be able to obtain government services, you must
    have direct high-speed access to the Internet. If we steamroll
    ahead without our fellow Americans joining us online, we will
    merely be reinforcing an underclass that will weigh heavily on
    our progress as a Nation.
        The plan also offers a critical recommendation with respect
    to the high cost of broadband. Specifically the plan recommends
    wholesale reform of the Universal Service Fund to both make it
    more efficient and enable it to directly support broadband
    service. This process requires assessing and adjusting nearly
    every aspect of the current USF support methods as well as the
    intercarrier compensation system.
        The third element central to a successful broadband
    strategy is competition. Competition is the lifeblood of
    investment, innovation, and affordable prices. Without it,
    industry has little reason to upgrade its facilities and
    improve its services.
        A cable industry executive noticed as such, informing
    investors that there is simply no need for the company to roll
    out the faster Internet speeds available today in areas where
    it does not have competition from another high-speed provider.
    Thus, only in areas where Americans are lucky enough to have
    more than one provider with truly high-speed capability will
    providers like this one have any economic incentive to offer
    better service. The same holds true for prices. There is little
    question that where there is limited or no competition,
    consumers pay higher prices for broadband.
        Indeed, just recently we saw a new spike in prices levied
    by providers on the lowest tiers of service. When such across-
    the-board increases occur, our role as stewards of the public
    interest requires us to examine the market carefully and take
    appropriate action where necessary.
        In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to my
    colleagues and my enthusiasm for working with them to address
    the challenges ahead. I also want to recognize the important
    work of the committee. I look forward to engaging
    constructively with you in the weeks and months ahead.
        The American people rely on us to work cooperatively to
    ensure that we implement a National Broadband Plan that is good
    for consumers and that helps drive our economy. Thank you again
    for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Commissioner Clyburn.
    Commissioner Baker.

                   STATEMENT OF MEREDITH ATWELL BAKER

        Ms. Baker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee. Good morning
    or almost afternoon now. It is really a privilege to appear
    before you today. I look forward to working with you as we
    consider the many important issues that have been raised in the
    National Broadband Plan.
        I would like to share just a few remarks with you here this
    morning, hitting many of the topics that my companions have, as
    you have also, as I understand my full statement will be
    entered into the record.
        Broadband in America is a success story. Under a light-
    touch, targeted, regulatory regime in both the Clinton and the
    Bush Administrations, we have gone from a narrow band dialup
    world to a multi-platform broadband world by crafting a
    regulatory framework that promotes facilities-based
    competition, not prescriptive government requirements.
        Private industry from every communication platform has
    responded to this consistent framework with substantial network
    investment and deployment to the great benefit of consumers.
    This has resulted in broadband availability to 95 percent of
    Americans and healthy competition from rival providers. Indeed,
    there are only 7 million households where market forces have
    yet to yield a wired broadband provider.
        Yet there is more work to be done, and I am pleased to be
    here talking about the National Broadband Plan. Turning to the
    National Broadband Plan itself, there are places where I would
    have made different recommendations and suggestions, but I am
    grateful to the Commission's broadband team for its hard work
    and find that significant parts of the plan deserve careful
    consideration. I would like to say a few words about three key
    priorities from the plan today.
        First, as I have said since I arrived at the FCC, one area
    of prompt government action is spectrum policy. One of the
    plan's most important recommendations is the call for more
    comprehensive, long-term approach to spectrum management. The
    continued success of state-of-the-art mobile broadband depends
    on our ability to align our spectrum policies with the changing
    needs of consumers and industry.
        Other nations, like Germany and Japan, are already planning
    significant additional blocks of spectrum to be auctioned for
    mobile broadband. The U.S. must act similarly to lay the
    foundation for the next generation of mobile innovation,
    machine-to-machine communications, mobile health, and a
    meaningful alternative to fixed broadband.
        I hope our policies in this area will be guided by three
    overarching objectives: facilitating efficient use of spectrum,
    identifying and reallocating additional spectrum, and
    encouraging investment and innovation in wireless networks and
    technologies.
        The second policy area is Comprehensive Universal Service
    Fund and intercarrier compensation reform targeted to broadband
    investment in unserved areas. We need to update our funding
    mechanisms to reflect a broadband world, and we must do so in a
    manner that ensures accountability and efficiency. We need to
    do this in a manner that does not expand the size of the $9
    billion fund. Consumers pay for this. The universal service
    contribution factor for next quarter will be the largest ever,
    15.3 percent. This is real money. A $6 tax on a $40 phone bill.
        Third, nationwide public safety interoperability must be a
    top priority. I believe the plan's recommendations are an
    appropriate place for us to start, focusing on the sufficiency
    of first responder funding and available spectrum resources.
    The need for interoperability was highlighted in the 9/11
    report and devastatingly illustrated in the aftermath of
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We must move forward expeditiously
    to provide the communications tools our Nation's first
    responders deserve.
        As we consider all of the plan's recommendations, our
    broadband policy should be focused on these efforts directly
    tied to promoting adoption, deployment, and facilities-based
    competition. We should build upon the strong regulatory
    foundation that we have before us, harnessing private
    investment, encouraging entrepreneurs and inventors to provide
    better broadband to more Americans.
        I am concerned that some of the proposals referenced in the
    plan have the Commission chart a more radical path, changing
    our market-based regulatory framework midcourse in a manner
    that could diminish our much-needed emphasis on adoption and
    chill the private investment we need for our broadband
    infrastructure.
        We must, in particular, resist efforts to adopt rules in
    the network neutrality proceeding that would dictate how
    networks are managed and operated. I have attended two
    technical workshops and reviewed the record on net neutrality,
    and I have yet to see any evidence of a systematic problem that
    needs to be addressed today.
        We also should reject calls to regulate the Internet under
    monopoly-era Title Two rules and rebuff unbundling proposals
    that selectively forget our long and checkered history with
    government-manufactured competition.
        Lastly I am hopeful we avoid one-size-fits-all approaches
    to broadband. This is particular true with respect to
    affordability, relevancy, and literacy adoption hurdles facing
    a third of Americans today. Each one of them has its own
    importance. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Commissioner Baker, and
    thanks to each of the Commissioners and the Chairman for your
    thoughtful comments to us today. We appreciate you sharing some
    of the rationale you have had in developing this comprehensive
    and very well-constructed plan.
        Commissioner Genachowski, I was very pleased to note the
    ambitious deadlines that you have set forth in the plan for at
    long last achieving the competitive availability of set-top
    boxes. I think that if consumers could shop for set-top boxes
    in the store and choose boxes that have varied functionality, a
    variety of different functions available from different
    manufacturers, all of which are compatible with every cable
    system and every satellite system for delivering multi-channel
    video, we would see tremendous innovation in the market for the
    origination of these devices.
        And I think we would soon see devices on store shelves that
    would have functionality well beyond the typical set-top box
    you buy from the cable company or the satellite company today.
    So I commend you for setting forth these ambitious deadlines.
    This is not a new issue, and in fact, it is 15 years old. In
    the '96 Communications Act, we directed the Commission to move
    forward with the rule making in order to assure the competitive
    availability of these set-top boxes.
        And still today consumers can't go to the store and shop
    for a variety of different set-top boxes. So I am glad to see
    the recommendation. I would ask you if you agree with me that
    rather than putting forth a mere notice of inquiry and
    continuing for a much longer period of time the discussion
    about this, it is now time to move to a notice of proposed rule
    making. I think it is. I hope you would agree, and I would ask
    for your response.
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, first of all, thank you for raising
    that topic. It is an important one.
        Mr. Boucher. And if you could pull the mike a bit closer,
    we could hear you better.
        Mr. Genachowski. All right, I think you mentioned Congress
    did require competition in this area. We have seen much less
    competition and innovation than we could have. The reason that
    it is in the broadband plan is that the team realized during
    its work that while computers are only in about 76 percent of
    homes, TVs are in almost 100 percent of homes. And so if we can
    unleash this particular market, that can help accelerate our
    broadband goals.
        With respect to the exact process, I would be happy to work
    with you. I think that it is the intention to move as
    expeditiously as possible. We haven't made a final decision on
    the process to use, but I would be happy to----
        Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you very much. I would encourage
    you to give very serious favorable consideration to going right
    to a rule-making. We have been discussing this for 15 years.
    This time enough.
        Secondly you appear to be recommending a role for local
    governments, municipalities across the country in helping to
    deploy broadband. I share that aspiration. In fact, in past
    Congresses, I have introduced legislation that would free local
    governments to offer broadband particularly where there are
    gaps and for whatever reason the commercial providers have not
    offered an array of competitive services for broadband.
        Does the mention of this in your broadband plan imply
    support for legislation that would remove the roadblocks that
    various states have erected to their municipalities offering
    broadband? And would you recommend that we adopt legislation
    effectively preempting those roadblocks and freeing communities
    nationwide in order to deploy broadband services?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could not comment
    on specific legislation, although we would be happy to be a
    resource to you on that. The goal of unleashing local
    governments to experiment and innovate around broadband access
    seems to me a highly desirable goal, and I would be pleased to
    work with you on the best path to encourage the kind of local
    experimentation that could be very----
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very diplomatic
    answers you are providing this morning. Let me use the balance
    of my time to talk a bit about D block. I think you are on the
    right track in recommending that the D block of the 700
    megahertz spectrum, the only part of the 700 megahertz still in
    government hands be auctioned, and auctioned essentially
    without the kinds of onerous conditions that attached to the D
    block auction several years ago that caused that auction to
    fail.
        So I heartily endorse your idea of auctioning without those
    kinds of conditions. I have two questions. First of all, would
    you need legislation in order to devote the proceeds to that
    auction in some significant part or perhaps totally to the
    buildout of equipment for fire, police, and rescue nationwide?
        Mr. Genachowski. I believe we would.
        Mr. Boucher. I agree, and we will certainly work. I am
    working now with Chairman Waxman to structure a bill that would
    provide that clear authority. The second question I have
    relates to your proposal that the winners in the D block
    auction and also the holders of all 700-megahertz spectrum,
    that would include the cellular companies that prevailed in
    previous 700-megahertz auctions, provide roaming access to
    first responders at reasonable rates and also give priority
    access to first responders at times when the public safety
    spectrum is either fully occupied or for other reasons
    unavailable.
        Now, that recommendation on its face may give pause to some
    who would consider taking part in an auction because it needs
    better definition. So I suppose my direct question to you is
    how does that requirement, were it to be a part of your auction
    rules, relate to the existing priority, a wireless priority
    system, that is in place today for federal personnel? Would it
    be a simple extension of that which might prove to be not so
    onerous, or would it be something beyond that that might prove
    to be more onerous?
        Mr. Genachowski. Mr. Chairman, the goal is to adopt a set
    of rules that would not be onerous and that would allow us
    finally to move forward and deliver on the 9/11 Commission
    recommendations. It will be the subject of the rule making. We
    will have plenty of opportunity for input, but I am very
    pleased that four members on a bipartisan basis of the 9/11
    Commission have looked at our plan and said this is a very
    sensible way to go.
        Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
    appreciate your being here and sharing these thoughts with us.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I ask
    unanimous consent to insert into the record the response that
    Chairman Genachowski sent to me about creation of this plan.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Stearns. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that you indicated
    you spent about $20 million to develop this plan. I think that
    works out about $50,000 a page or more, and it took you about a
    year, I think, to develop this plan. So in effect, $50,000 a
    day. I think when we developed the 1996 Telecommunication Bill,
    we didn't have a plan in there, and then later on, there was
    some talk about it. And your former Chairman Kinard said that
    in 1999, let me read his speech, that ``the fertile fields of
    innovation across the communications sectors and around the
    country are blooming because from the get-go we have taken a
    deregulatory, competitive approach to our communications
    structure, especially the Internet.'' So I think with those
    statements and this obviously predecessor of yours, do you
    agree with his statements?
        Mr. Genachowski. I agree. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Stearns. And they remain valid today?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes, I would say making sure that we have
    policies that unleash investment, that encourage innovation----
        Mr. Stearns. Policies of the government, you mean?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, you know, as you know in this area,
    whether it is spectrum, whether it is Universal Service Fund,
    there are policies that the government needs to be involved in
    and is involved with. The question for us is what kind of
    climate, what kind of policies could we make sure we have that
    promote investment, that promote innovation, that protect and
    empower consumers, that promote competition. That is how I look
    at it.
        Mr. Stearns. OK, Mr. McDowell, Mr. Welch has indicated this
    is a bipartisan plan, and I think you pointed out no one voted
    on it. It is true that you and Ms. Baker didn't vote on this
    bill. Is that correct?
        Mr. McDowell. That is correct.
        Mr. Stearns. And during the process this year that it was
    developed in, they spent $20 million. Were you ever consulted
    during the year, you and your staff? Were you called up and let
    in to participate in the development of this plan?
        Mr. McDowell. Absolutely.
        Mr. Stearns. OK, and you were, Ms. Baker, too?
        Ms. Baker. Yes.
        Mr. Stearns. When did you get a chance to see the final
    plan?
        Mr. McDowell. We saw the final text, the final drafts
    starting about 21 days before the March 18 meeting, so late
    February.
        Mr. Stearns. Late February?
        Mr. McDowell. Did you think it might be helpful that you
    had seen it earlier? I mean how do you feel about your
    participation?
        You know I think there is actually a benefit to the fact
    that there was not a vote, in that I think it allowed the
    broadband plan team to have the liberty to put in there what
    they saw fit to put in there.
        So I think there was actually a net positive. Obviously
    there are things I agree with and things I disagree with, as I
    think all of us can probably say that. So I think it was a net
    positive we did not have the vote and allowed them. Certainly I
    originally a year ago, long before Chairman Genachowski was
    even nominated, had said that a plan like this should be put
    out for public comment, but the Commissioner only had a year to
    do it. So I understand there were time constraints as well.
        Mr. Stearns. OK, Chairman Genachowski, the broadband plan
    recommends appropriating an additional $9 billion to convert
    the already $8 billion-a-year Universal Service Fund for
    broadband. Now if we have $7.2 billion in the stimulus package
    for broadband was appropriately spent, why do we need an
    additional $9 billion?
        Mr. Genachowski. Mr. Stearns, if I could--sir, that is not
    exactly what the plan says. First on Universal Service Fund,
    the plan outlines a road map for the FCC to cut and cap
    existing spend for telephone service and transition that
    funding to broadband without increasing the growth of the fund.
    So that over a 10-year period, the transition from the old USF
    to the new USF can happen without any additional funding.
        The plan goes on to say that if Congress thought it
    desirable to accelerate that transition, to have that
    transition happen faster than 10 years, it would cost several
    billion dollars over a few years to do that. And that is
    something that, as part of the development of the plan, it was
    thought should be presented for consideration.
        Mr. Stearns. Commissioner McDowell, Assistant Secretary of
    State Verdeer said that net neutrality could be employed as a
    pretext or as an excuse for undertaking public policies that we
    would disagree with pretty fundamentally. Just days earlier,
    the president of Venezuela called for regulation of the
    Internet while demanding authorities crack down on a news Web
    site that was critical of him. ``The Internet can't be
    something free when anything can be done and said. No, every
    country has to impose its rules and regulation'' is what he
    said.
        How do we hold other countries to higher standards if we
    ourselves are beginning to get involved with regulation? Or
    perhaps you might just comment on some of the comments that the
    assistant secretary of state said as well as what the president
    of Venezuela said.
        Mr. McDowell. Well, I will let Ambassador Verdeer speak for
    himself, but I have for quite some time now expressed similar
    concerns that as governments encroach more into the area of
    network management of the Internet that we really start to lose
    the moral high ground. What appears to be reasonable to us may
    not appear reasonable to other countries and vice versa.
        Actually as Commissioner Baker said, since the Clinton/Gore
    Administration, it has been the policy of the U.S. government
    that network management issues and the governance of the
    Internet should be left to nongovernmental bodies such as the
    Internet Engineering Task Force and others. And this has worked
    quite well. What has really made the Internet so robust and
    growth there so explosive is in effect it is somewhat lawless,
    that it is positively chaotic in a positive and constructive
    way. And I think we do need to be very cautious before we
    venture into this area further.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. The chairman of the
    Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Waxman, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
    questions, I would like to correct an assertion made by
    Commissioner McDowell that broadband has never been regulated
    under Title Two. DSL broadband was a Title Two service until
    August 2005 when the Commission moved it to Title One.
        I would like to ask a question about the plan's
    recommendations regarding the creation of a nationwide
    interoperable broadband network for public safety. I know that
    all parties agree that the problem of interoperability needs to
    be resolved, but it seems like there is a strong disagreement
    regarding what we should do with the D block. Chairman
    Genachowski, in your February 25, 2010 remarks, introducing the
    public safety recommendations, in the plan you emphasized that
    you directed FCC staff to begin anew, not take anything for
    granted, be data-driven and creative, and come up with the best
    policy recommendations to achieve success. Do the
    recommendations in the plan reflect that direction?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes, they do. Admiral Jamie Barnett, an
    extraordinary public servant, has led up our efforts to do
    this. That was the charge to him, and he has been committed
    with his team on developing a framework for finally delivering
    on the 9/11 Commission recommendation.
        Mr. Waxman. Was the staff free to recommend reallocation of
    the D block if that was the best plan for public safety?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Mr. Waxman. And do you agree with the conclusion that 10
    megahertz of dedicated broadband spectrum in combination with
    access to additional commercial spectrum is enough to ensure
    public safety interoperability at this time? And what about the
    future?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes, I agree with the very deeply thought
    through plan that was put together by the public safety team.
    In the future, there may be additional needs for spectrum. We
    need to recover more spectrum for a variety of purposes, that
    in the future we may need more spectrum for public safety, and
    it should be part of our strategic planning process over time.
        Mr. Waxman. Is it correct to say that the FCC's engineers
    and technical experts fully analyzed where the 10 megahertz of
    spectrum dedicated to broadband would yield adequate spectrum
    capacity? And did they do their due diligence on this question?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes, I believe they did.
        Mr. Waxman. I would like to ask Commissioner Copps,
    McDowell, Baker, and Clyburn, is the approach outlined in the
    plan the best way to achieve interoperability in your view? Do
    each of you support the recommendation that the D block be
    auctioned for primarily commercial purposes?
        Mr. Copps. I support this plan. When I was acting chairman,
    one of the things that I did was direct our staff to go back to
    a basic put all the options on the table for the incoming
    chairman so we could really start and look at all options.
        As Commissioner Clyburn pointed out, we are eight years
    beyond 9/11 now. We have to get moving. This is a far more
    solidly grounded plan, a far more thought out plan. I am not
    saying it is the only plan, and I am not saying all the
    questions are answered right this second. But I think this is
    the one to proceed on if it meets the approval of the Congress
    because Congress has a role here too.
        But I am happy we have, under the Chairman's leadership,
    moved the ball this far down the field. I think we have a
    unified plan here, and we shouldn't----
        Mr. Waxman. Well, let me ask your colleagues because--and
    maybe they can give me a yes or no answer because the time is
    running out. Do you support the recommendation D block be
    auctioned for primarily commercial purposes?
        Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, the
    transition component of that broadband has been regulators.
    Broadband services have never been regulated under Title Two. I
    will be happy if, Chairman, you will allow me to file something
    supplemental for the committee outlining the history of that.
    In any case, the D block, I think, primarily should serve as
    commercial services and should be auctioned off accordingly.
        Keep in mind that Congress in 1997 well before 2001,
    September 11, set aside 24 megahertz of the 700 megahertz
    block. That is sitting there. That is wonderful spectrum. It
    should be used for something other than narrow band voice.
    Public safety has at its disposal about 97 megahertz total of
    spectrum of various kinds. Not all apples, some apples and
    oranges but so----
        Mr. Waxman. So you agree with the----
        Mr. McDowell. It should be auctioned off commercially.
        Mr. Waxman. OK, Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. I believe that the auction model is
    comprehensive and pragmatic, yes.
        Mr. Waxman. Commissioner Baker.
        Ms. Baker. On balance, I agree with the plan.
        Mr. Waxman. OK, the plan recommends that Congress come up
    with very significant amounts of money to fund the construction
    and maintenance of the proposed network. Chairman Genachowski,
    does the $6.5 billion estimated for construction of the network
    account for state matching funds? And if the federal government
    were to contribute to the construction of this network, would
    it be reasonable to require states to pay a share of the cost
    associated with the construction?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could, we would
    be happy to supply you the underlying work behind the $6
    billion. I am not sure of the answer to your question. I will
    say one thing if I could. To move forward on this now while
    commercial forging networks are being built out is the least
    expensive way to make sure that we build a public safety
    network. If we wait, the price will only go up.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much. I look forward to moving
    on a bipartisan basis to meet the needs of the public safety
    community. I look forward to working with the FCC toward that
    goal. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record a press
    comment by the FCC dated August 5, 2005 regarding the Title
    One/Title Two issue.
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, and again welcome, Commissioners. A
    number of us have a good number of questions. Chairman
    Genachowski, welcome again. First question for me is as it
    relates to the broadcast spectrum. As you know, we are working
    on legislation here. I think one of the things that we want to
    make sure is that you all do not force the broadcasters to give
    away or auction some of that spectrum. Are we on the same page
    on that?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think so. The need here is urgent for
    the country. Mobile broadband is as important a platform for
    job creation, innovation for decades to come. We have the
    opportunity to lead the world, but not if we don't have enough
    spectrum. What our team has done is develop a win/win/win plan
    for mobile broadband, for broadcasters, for the public that I
    would be happy to discuss with you further but that I think
    should work for everyone. And it is based on voluntary actions
    by broadcasters and an incentive auction that we hope Congress
    will authorize.
        Mr. Upton. I like those words. Mr. McDowell, we all, as we
    look to increase speeds, as I look at chapter four in this
    book, it seems to me that if there were a fiber unbundling
    requirement that it would hurt us dramatically as we try to
    deploy fiber networks in areas that do not have the broadband
    access today. I think you are in agreement on that. It would be
    wonderful if you might want to comment.
        Mr. McDowell. In the next couple of years, if we were to do
    that today, in the next couple of years, I think we would
    receive a tremendous amount of litigation. There are two
    decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,
    USTA 1 and USTA 2, that speak directly to these issues. And it
    is really at this point settled law as Commissioner Baker was
    saying. And I think we would be exposing ourselves to a
    tremendous level of litigation and ultimate loss if we tried to
    impose unbundling regulations on fiber that had been laid
    subsequent to those court cases especially.
        Mr. Upton. And, Chairman Genachowski, I noted that Brer
    Levin, the executive director of your broadband initiative,
    dismissed unbundling in a December 21, '09 interview as ``not
    very productive.'' The reason that he explained is the
    Commission is not that terribly--this is again in quotes--``not
    that terribly interested in moving towards things which will
    freeze capital investment and have long, complicated court
    battles,'' along the lines of what Mr. McDowell indicated. More
    importantly he observed these suggestions ``fail to look at
    what is really going on in the market.'' What are your thoughts
    as it relates to your executive director? Does he have good
    ground?
        Mr. Genachowski. The goals of promoting investment
    innovation in the sector are our highest goals. Promoting
    competition is one of if not the best strategy to get there.
    Unbundling is a word that creates more confusion, clarifies
    less. What the plan actually focuses on are some issues that we
    heard from business in the market, whether it is special
    access, whether it is providing choice for small businesses. We
    have heard many complaints from small businesses that they lack
    choice, that their prices are too high.
        And so the plan suggests several discrete areas where the
    record showed real competition issues, especially for small
    businesses, that it tees up an inquiry by the Commission. And I
    think it is important to look at those.
        Mr. Upton. But you understand the fear that we would have
    if you pursued such a course?
        Mr. Genachowski. Of course I do. Again the goals of the
    Commission very clearly are to adopt policies that promote
    investment, promote innovation, promote competition, and
    protect and empower consumers. That is what I have instructed
    the staff to look at every day.
        Mr. Upton. Now, as we look at this entire document, tell me
    what your next step is. What is the timeframe that you are
    going to try to embark on?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, the staff has been working on an
    implementation schedule, and so in the period ahead, we will be
    announcing a schedule for implementing the plan. I think that
    there are, as I said during my opening remarks, I am not
    satisfied with the status quo. I think this is an extraordinary
    platform for job creation and investment. There are some very
    real problems that have been acknowledged on a bipartisan basis
    that we need to solve.
        So I am going to push to move forward as quickly as we can
    because I think it is critical for U.S. world leadership in
    this area.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Upton. The gentleman from
    Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. The first
    broadband plan was the 1996 Telecom Act. And the 1996 Telecom
    Act, of course, actually resulted in broadband being regulated
    under Title Two. And from 1996 all the way until August of
    2005, broadband was under Title Two, just for the record.
        And during that period of time, we got a lot of policies
    that were implemented. Consumer protection, universal service,
    protecting consumer privacy, interconnection and competition
    provisions, access for individuals with disabilities, consumer
    billing protections. And what was also possible under Title
    Two?
        Well, under Title Two, the FCC could forbear if it wanted
    to, and it availed itself of that power right up until August
    of 2005 wherever it thought it was necessary. So I don't think
    we should pretend that going back to Title Two would mean that
    the earth would stop spinning on its axis and the end of time
    would be upon us. We can achieve a sensible policy, a balance
    in Title Two, just as others assert that we can achieve it in
    Title One.
        Now, I know that the FCC is fighting in court to defend the
    current Title One policy framework. Hopefully the court will
    uphold that, but if it doesn't, cool heads will prevail. And we
    will work with the FCC to ensure that all of the goals that are
    in this broadband plan, universal service, investment,
    competition, privacy, disability, access, will all be
    implemented. So the agenda for connecting America doesn't
    change if the FCC uses Title One or Title Two.
        I know that there are some people out there saying they
    shouldn't have the authority under Title One or Title Two. Kind
    of turn it into an agency that is just kind of enforcing the
    law without any ability to be rule makers, but I just
    completely disagree with that. History says that that is
    completely wrong, and the Telecom Act of '96 was a broadband
    plan. And this is the next iteration of it. This is broadband
    plan number two going forward for the 21st century. Do you
    agree with that interpretation, Chairman Genachowski, of the
    law?
        Mr. Genachowski. Congressman Markey, you----
        Mr. Markey. Can you turn on your microphone please?
        Mr. Genachowski. Sorry. You lived it, and so it couldn't
    possibly be wrong. During those years from 1998 to 2008, I was
    in the private sector. I was a business operator, and I was in
    investment. And I am very sensitive to the effects that poor
    policies can have on investment.
        I am confident that this FCC will tackle all of these
    issues in a way that has great respect for the private
    investment that we need to get to world leadership on
    broadband. And as you mentioned, the FCC has been operating
    under Title One. A company made a decision to challenge that in
    court. The FCC is defending it, but I believe we have the
    authority and that we will have the authority.
        Mr. Markey. OK, and I agree with that 100 percent.
    Otherwise the whole history of the Telecom Act of 1996 makes no
    sense because all of those regulations were implemented under
    Title Two. So it really doesn't make any difference except that
    there are some companies out there that enjoyed the forbearance
    that was engaged by the FCC during a particular period of time
    would just like to extend it in perpetuity, and I do not think
    that would be a good policy for our country. Competitiveness,
    Darwinian, paranoia-inducing competition is what America should
    be all about, not forbearing from competition but inducing it
    into every single aspect of this communications marketplace.
        That is how we got Hulu and YouTube and Google and EBay and
    Amazon. Not one home in America had broadband in February of
    1996 when the Telecom Act was signed. Not one home had
    broadband. Ten years later, we come back, and there is a
    completely different dialogue in our country.
        One final question. That is on the E-rate that
    Congresswoman Matsui and Capps and I have both introduced, have
    all introduced E-rate 2.0 Act to change the way in which we
    look at the E-rate to ensure that there is more access. How do
    you feel about that, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think it is essential. I thank you, of
    course, and the committee for its work on E-rate over the
    years. One of the things that I see when I talk to teachers
    around the country is how frustrated they are by the fact that
    some of their kids have broadband access, some don't. And how
    frustrated that they are that their facilities, while we have
    connected classrooms, aren't good enough to give them what they
    want. So tackling that is a recommendation of the plan. It owes
    a lot to your leadership with respect to E-rate.
        Mr. Markey. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank all of the
    Commissioners for their excellent work on this plan. It is
    going to actually play a historic role in ensuring that America
    regains its position as number one. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Markey. The gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Bono Mack, is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Bono Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First questions are
    the Commissioners Genachowski and McDowell. I am very concerned
    about the plan's recommendations to changes in the copyright
    law expanding the definition of fair use. Can you please
    explain why this is necessary?
        Mr. Genachowski. Sure, the first point to make is that it
    is very important that we make sure that the Internet is not
    only open but a safe place to do business, including by owners
    of copyrights. And so I have been very clear and the plan is
    very clear that we need to make sure that companies can enforce
    their rights and that we don't have rampant piracy on the
    Internet.
        Over the course of a broadband proceeding, we heard from
    teachers and some in the education community that pointed to
    some narrow issues where they said our ability to do what we
    would like to do in teaching is inhibited, and there may be
    some ways to fix that that don't challenge the fundamental
    point that protecting intellectual property is essential.
        Ms. Bono Mack. Mr. McDowell.
        Mr. McDowell. We want to encourage owners of copyrighted
    works to put them online. So they need to feel comfortable in
    doing so. That means they have to enjoy the strongest possible
    intellectual property rights protection. We have to allow them
    to work constructively and cooperatively with carriers to
    police and act against stolen intellectual property.
        So first of all, I should start off by saying we are not
    the expert agency on intellectual property or copyrights. But I
    am sounding a note of caution when it comes to any
    recommendations that could be seen as wanting to weaken
    intellectual property rights. I think what will actually help
    the proliferation of new content and applications online will
    be if we have strong intellectual property rights enforcement.
        Ms. Bono Mack. But there is almost no discussion in this
    whole document about legal content protection. Is it not a
    priority at all for the FCC? Just to either one of you.
        Mr. Genachowski. I believe there is some discussion. We
    would be happy to follow up with you on that. IP is not a
    central issue in the broadband plan, so there is an endorsement
    of the importance of copyright protections, and then there is
    an identification of an issue that was raised with us in the
    record with respect to education and the suggestion for further
    work on that.
        Mr. McDowell. I think if you look at Sections 11.4, 15.7,
    and 15.9, there you will see some discussion there. But some of
    the concerns that when I read it were that we could be
    suggesting a weakening of intellectual property rights
    protection.
        Ms. Bono Mack. Thank you. Just to echo my concern, in the
    document, the example you cite in fair use is actually, you
    said, teachers seeking to use Beatles' lyrics to promote
    literacy is the example that you cite. Now, in education, the
    best way we can improve literacy is to cite the Beatles? And
    this is the example you have used for this argument. Do you
    care to comment on that? Because you just spoke to this very
    comment about it being the example that was given to you was
    the Beatles' lyrics.
        Mr. Genachowski. I think what I would be happy to do is
    make sure that we share with your office the comments that we
    received from educators on their concerns in this area. And I
    am confident that the report emphasizes the importance of
    intellectual property and puts ideas on the table.
        As you know, it is not self-executing, but certainly we
    would be happy to be a resource to you. And I would be happy to
    supply the information that we received in the course of
    process on the issues that that section addresses.
        Ms. Bono Mack. I would appreciate that very much. Does
    anybody else care to comment?
        Ms. Baker. I would like to make a comment. I have not
    visited with the teachers or the educational community, so I
    can't speak to that. But I have visited with consumers and
    media companies. And video is driving broadband at option. And
    for media companies to put their expensive content on the web,
    they need to have assurance that it is going to be protected.
        And so I think it is very important that we consider this
    as we move forward with broadband, and that it is very
    important that we are protecting our intellectual property.
        Ms. Bono Mack. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Bono Mack. The gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Eshoo, is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you to each one of you. I hung on every
    word of your testimony and welcomed it. So thank you again for
    the extraordinary work.
        We know that or I am convinced that you all, through your
    testimony and otherwise, that you recognize the need for speed,
    but I continue to have some concerns, especially when it comes
    to spurring competition with new and innovative uses of the
    spectrum. There are so many entrenched interests that seem to
    be able to stop new ideas from taking root through delaying
    tactics that keep the spectrum concentrated in the hands of the
    larger carriers. I think this concern has been raised by other
    members of the committee as well.
        If we are going to see that 100 megabytes reach 100 million
    homes, the FCC has to begin and complete rule makings faster so
    we can see immediate action. And I don't know what you all have
    to say about that. I think that perhaps it is more in the hands
    of the chairman. I might be wrong about that.
        I am disappointed that the advanced wireless spectrum, the
    AWS3, was not recommended for immediate deployment. You are not
    surprised by my comment, Mr. Chairman, on that. It was a
    proceeding that was teed up years ago, and I don't really think
    that businesses can either afford to or should be allowed to
    have to hang around and lose money for years.
        It is my understanding that the DOD's spectrum band that
    the National Broadband Plan, that you are considering pairing
    that spectrum with the currently jammed, I think it is jam-
    packed with vital systems, including the drones. I put on my
    Intelligence Committee hat. The drones were air strikes in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan and border security here at home. And
    that these systems in the band cost over $100 billion and can't
    be relocated until 2030.
        I don't know if you want to comment on this. I don't really
    see the DOD giving up spectrum. So have you contacted the DOD?
    Has the DOD contacted you? That is my first question. And if
    you don't find paired spectrum by the October deadline that you
    outlined in the report, are you actually going to auction the
    spectrum and put it in use as soon as possible?
        I am going to continue on with my questions and then you
    can answer them. On the next generation 911, as I said, Mr.
    Shimkus and I are cochairs of the E-911 caucus. We have offered
    legislation, and if you have had a chance to take a look at it,
    what your take is on that.
        There are so many things to ask about. Of course, we are
    going to submit more questions that you can answer in writing.
    Public television and their broadcast spectrum issues, the
    public television stations are very different from commercial
    television stations as you obviously appreciate. As the
    Commission looks ahead the rule makings announced in the plan
    to reclaim the 120 megahertz of spectrum from these
    broadcasters.
        Can you give us any assurances that public television
    stations would be protected from involuntary reallocations of
    that spectrum? I think it is important that they are protected.
    I think they represent one of the treasures of our Nation. So
    those are my opening questions, and I am going to submit to
    you, to the Commission to respond to in writing.
        So whoever would like to answer, I welcome it.
        Mr. Genachowski. I would be happy to do so. On the first
    issue, our staff at the FCC and their colleagues at NCIA and
    other agencies have been talking about spectrum and with
    respect to the spectrum you mentioned, they have identified a
    potential opportunity that could be very good for the country
    in terms of pairing.
        I completely agree with you that it is a bad practice to
    extend proceedings, petitions indefinitely at the FCC, and one
    of the things that the plan did was put a deadline on
    exploration of this pairing alternative. And I believe the plan
    goes on to say that if the pairing is not possible, then the
    Commission should proceed, adopt rules, and auction that
    spectrum.
        With respect to E-911, I think we owe you and Congressman
    Shimkus thanks for the ideas because I believe that E-911 is
    discussed in the broadband plan certainly as part of looking to
    the future on public safety in the 21st century, and broadband
    tackling 911 and the way that people are actually using
    communication devices is essential.
        And on public TV, the answer to your question is yes, and I
    think for public TV too, there is an opportunity here for a
    win/win. And that is something that I hope we can work on with
    everyone together in the proceedings that will watch.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much, and I am very excited. It
    is as if the cobwebs are being cleared and we have a vision for
    our future. And I really look forward to working with the
    Commission and the full subcommittee on this. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Eshoo. Gentlelady
    from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    thank you all again for being here. I have to tell you. The
    lack of attention to intellectual property and the way you are
    punting the question is a little bit troubling to me. I think
    that you have to look at the fact that broadband--you are
    talking about wanting broadband, a robust broadband deployment
    and expansion. And to not have some of the intellectual
    property protections--and I know that you are not the central
    agency that handles that, but I do think that it is worthy of a
    revisit from you.
        The expansion of fair use is of concern to me. One of my
    writers terms it fairly useful way to steal my money. And that
    is his version of fair use. So I think that I would encourage
    you all to have a revisit on that.
        I have about seven questions. I am not going to get through
    all of them. So, Commissioner McDowell, you had mentioned
    something I want to go back to. The notion of net neutrality,
    having net neutrality and those net neutrality rules could
    complicate the efforts to enforce the laws on illegal content,
    illegal downloading online. I would like for you to just expand
    a little bit about that relationship between net neutrality
    rules and enforcement against illegal content.
        Mr. McDowell. Sure. First of all, the proposed rules do
    call for a carveout for enforcement of such things as illegal
    content, not just intellectual property theft but child
    pornography or things involving national security, et cetera.
        But I think my concern with adopting those rules in general
    is the amount of uncertainty that it will inject. We have
    talked about today extensively Title One versus Title Two. I
    will be filing a letter with the committee regarding my
    position on that, but that is being litigated before the
    courts. And these things do take years.
        In the meantime, would new rules actually give network
    operators pause in terms of acting on a number of fronts
    including the enforcement of intellectual property where it
    might not be so clear, especially if we are talking about
    relaxing or undermining fair--expanding fair use, undermining
    of the existing protections? So I think it creates some
    certainty.
        You know after the '96 Act, we have the legislation and
    then regulation and then litigation cycle that went on for
    better part of a decade. I would think that after we try to
    promulgate some rules, we would have at least half a decade of
    such uncertainty, and that is probably not good for
    intellectual property rights holders.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK, Mr. Chairman, let us go back to
    Commissioner Baker's comment where, you know, talking about the
    media companies and the push to get that content on their
    because of the way people are doing research. So if you want to
    ensure both a robust broadband deployment and a protection of
    the intellectual property and that content from those copyright
    industries that are going to be essential and are going to
    contribute to that growth, then how are you going to go about
    that?
        I think we have to realize that our core copyright
    industries contributed nearly a quarter of the real growth we
    had in our economy last year. And you are talking about, you
    know, ease of access here. So how are you going to marry those
    two? We are all interested in it. We have a lot of innovators
    who have invested a lot of money in new platforms. So how do
    you make that guarantee?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, one is I couldn't be more firm in my
    conviction that it is essential to be able to protect
    intellectual property on the Internet. I have been clear about
    this since the first day I was sworn in as Chairman. I
    understand that one, it will be video under Commissioner Baker
    and other content that will be an important part of driving
    broadband everywhere, and one of the main ways that a strong
    broadband policy will create job creation and innovation in the
    country.
        So I think in general I am in complete agreement with you
    on this. I think we have to be sensitive as a Commission to
    suggestions that we have from teachers or others saying can you
    look at narrow issues to see what makes sense. We wouldn't do
    anything in this area without a robust, open, participatory
    proceeding that heard views from everyone involved. And I think
    that is our job. But I should stop there, but I don't----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Well, we are out of time, so that will be
    fine. And thank you again so much to all of you for your
    preparation and being here. And, Mr. Chairman, I will submit
    the balance of my questions, and we are appreciative for your
    efforts today. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Blackburn. The
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Genachowski,
    Mr. Waxman spent a little bit of time on public safety. I have
    a couple questions I would like to follow up on. The National
    Broadband Plan proposes roaming and priority access to public
    safety organizations for all license holders in the 700-
    megahertz realm. What type of obligations would be placed on
    commercial providers to ensure that public safety is given more
    than just priority access but also a robust and resilient
    access at times of emergency?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, the details of that are exactly the
    kind of thing that would be worked out of the rule making that
    we will hold. But that is the--what you describe is the goal.
    To put in place a mechanism where public safety can have
    prioritized access to spectrum that it needs. The team that has
    worked so hard on this and has consulted with everyone involved
    believes that there is a path that can work for public safety
    and deliver on the 9/11 Commission recommendations and that is
    also reasonable for wireless industry, and it takes advantage
    of this unique moment in time. If we do this as the commercial
    networks are being built out, we can get it done, do it
    efficiently, and deliver on the 9/11 Commission
    recommendations.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, in order for it to work though, you are
    going to have to have a ready and willing commercial partner to
    work with for law enforcement. And are you confident we are
    going to have it in all parts of America, especially our rural
    areas? If they don't, how would public safety proceed to have
    this plan?
        Mr. Genachowski. I asked this question of our team because
    I wanted to make sure that the plan that was being proposed met
    these goals. They are confident that this mechanism will work
    for public safety and that commercial providers will provide
    the access that is described in the plan.
        Mr. Stupak. Even in areas that are not developed now?
        Mr. Genachowski. I believe that is the case. It is
    certainly something we would be happy to follow up with you.
    Sorry, the areas that are not developed now, the idea is that
    as we push forward on forging mobile broadband network
    everywhere, it would be developed and that actually it would
    accelerate buildout of 45G networks in rural areas because we
    can do the commercial networks and the public safety networks
    together.
        I fear that if we don't do that, in some areas, we won't
    get any 4G networks, and some areas we might get commercial and
    no public safety at all because, as Commissioner McDowell
    mentioned, there is public safety spectrum that is there. It is
    not being built, and the goal here is to get it built.
        Mr. Stupak. You mentioned 4G, but then you add in the
    mobility fund, you provide for support for 3G wireless network.
    So I guess that seems like--how are you going to get the 4G
    then to help our law enforcement in those areas when the
    minimum is going to be a 3G in that Connect America Fund, I
    think it is, in your proposal. And plus you are only going to
    support one carrier with subsidies in a given geographic area,
    right, underneath this Connect America Fund?
        So how will you determine which broadband provider in a
    given area would receive support if they are only supposed to
    be 3G, but yet you are talking about public safety needs 4G?
    How do we bridge that?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, the 3G networks would be the
    foundation for the 4G networks, so I do think this is part of
    the solution to make it happen. With respect to the other
    issues, I think you are raising issues that, of course, we'll
    take up in the course of developing the rule making. In the
    meantime, we would be happy to follow up with you on more
    information that went into the development of this plan.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, let me ask you one more since we are
    going to look to the future development. In the intercarrier
    compensation scheme that is going to be sort of Universal
    Service Fund phased out, what, over 10 years? Is that what it
    is?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Mr. Stupak. OK, and how does the FCC plan to ensure that
    the necessary support for rural telecommunications remain in
    places considering how essential the implicit support is to
    many of these rural companies?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, we believe that the plan proposed a
    transformation over 10 years.
        Mr. Stupak. OK.
        Mr. Genachowski. We will have that result. As I said to one
    of your earlier questions, the team has also suggested an
    alternative to accelerate the transition. There is a
    possibility of identifying additional funding. That is a choice
    that we would be happy to work with the committee on. But the
    goal of the plan would be to deliver exactly what you are
    seeking for rural America.
        Mr. Stupak. I appreciate the goals and the thought and
    analysis that went into this. It is just that whenever we do,
    whether it is the Telecommunications Act of '96 or anything, it
    is always rural areas, we will get to you. We are still
    waiting, and law enforcement, it is even greater. You say you
    need 4G. We can't even get the basic cable up in some of those
    areas or DSL. So I am a little concerned about that.
        Commissioner Copps, I have four seconds left. The bill we
    entered as the FCC Corroboration Act, give me just a quick
    comment on why we need it and hopefully we can convince the
    chairman, even though he has indicated we might get a hearing
    on it here soon, why we need this.
        Mr. Copps. Well, I want to commend you again on introducing
    the legislation to make this possible. I just think it would be
    a great step forward from the standpoint of dispatching the
    business of the Commission. You know we were all standing
    around in the room out front waiting for the hearing to start
    here, and it was an opportunity we could have talked about some
    stuff on broadband and maybe resolved a problem or two. I don't
    know. But we all had to get lockjaw at that point because we
    would be delving into the world of substance.
        So I think from the standpoint of doing business, you have
    five people here who come from five very different backgrounds
    with hopefully different talents to contribute to the cause,
    different perspectives. You can really benefit from those folks
    sitting around and talking about these issues. It serves the
    public interest. You do it with counsel present. You build in
    protections, but the system we have right now disserves the
    public interest and retards the ability of the Commission to
    discharge its obligations in a timely and public-interest-
    friendly fashion. And if there was one reform that I could make
    at the FCC, the one you proposed would be it.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Clyburn wants to comment on it.
        Ms. Clyburn. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow. One example
    to augment that. I had the opportunity to chair the joint board
    for USF where all of the joint boards. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. And one of the things--and my colleagues are members.
    I distinctly remember on our inaugural call, which we had a lot
    of new voices because it was virtual. A lot of voices on the
    line and Commissioner Copps was in the middle of a very
    significant point, and it was 17 minutes after the hour when
    Commissioner Baker--and she was quite on time--came into the
    room. And Commissioner Copps had to get offline. So what
    happens is we lost that exchange, and just lost that train of
    thought. And it is a very cumbersome process. So I thank you
    for recognizing that even on that level where notes would be
    taken that this country and the joint board would be better
    served in having a process that is more relaxed.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much----
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher [continuing]. Ms. Clyburn and Mr. Stupak. And
    let me assure you there will be a hearing on your measure in
    the not-too-distant future. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Griffith, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity. When you mention staff, is it your staff that is
    going to make the recommendation so that we remain competitive
    and enhance the creativity of our Internet?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think it is the FCC staff.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, it is the FCC staff. Is there a group
    that is specifically in tune with what has happened in the
    marketplace in the last 10 years and has a relationship with
    that marketplace?
        Mr. Genachowski. That is a great question. That is the job
    of the staff of the agency to be proactive, to stay on top of
    market developments and to make sure that we have the skill
    sets necessary to do our job.
        Mr. Griffith. Right, and so those individuals have had
    experience in the marketplace and understand the reality of the
    capitalistic system and the development and the risk capital
    and that sort of thing? Is that a fair----
        Mr. Genachowski. I come from 10 years in the private sector
    and taking this job, and I have focused on bringing in to the
    staff a broad collection of people with backgrounds in
    operating businesses and investment firms as well as people who
    have other relevant experiences. I think that is how we do our
    job best, to put a room together of people with different
    backgrounds and disciplines and have them focused on doing the
    right thing for the country. But certainly making sure that
    people have a very real understanding of technology, the
    marketplace, what drives business decisions is essential to me.
        Mr. Griffith. Would it be five or six staff members that
    will be assigned to the development of the language and how it
    might affect private investment?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think the implementation of the plan
    will be worked on by many more staff members than that.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, where I am going is I would love for
    you to identify those for me, and I would love to sit and see
    their resumes and also talk with them if that would be fair
    because it is of great interest to me, having been in the
    communication field once before.
        And in the interest of the health care bill that we just
    went through, I have read that bill, and there is no provision
    in the health care bill for broadband envy. So we have to--that
    is a joke. We hope that you guys can solve that problem for us
    here. And thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know in
    many districts even like mine in Sacramento, there are far too
    many households who cannot afford broadband services. In a
    recent survey conducted by the FCC found that 93 million
    Americans do not subscribe to in-home broadband services in
    large part because of affordability barriers.
        The fact is the high cost of broadband leaves far too many
    lower income families in urban and rural areas at a severe
    disadvantage in our economy. Last September, I introduced a
    broadband affordability act to expand the USF Lifeline
    Assistance Program for universal broadband adoption. This bill
    will ensure that all Americans, whether they live in urban,
    suburban, or rural areas all have access to affordable
    broadband services.
        Chairman Genachowski, I applaud you actually and the
    Commissioners for including this proposal as a central element
    of your plan. How important is it, in your view, is it for our
    economy and for the matter of our country to fully close the
    digital divide?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think it is essential, and I appreciate
    your leadership on this, and it is included in the plan. Ten
    years ago if you were looking for a job, you would get a
    newspaper. You would look at the classified, and that is how
    you would look for a job. Today job posting have moved online.
    Most jobs require online applications. If you don't have
    Internet access, you are disadvantaged in looking for a job.
    More and more jobs require basic digital skills and digital
    literacy, and so it is very important that we move forward on
    this.
        It is one of our biggest gaps too globally where other
    countries are ahead of us on adoption rates. So it is a very
    important challenge. There is no silver bullet, and the plan
    recommends a number of different strategies to tackle adoption
    issues.
        Ms. Matsui. Now, if this program, my linkup program for
    universal broadband service were implemented, in your view, how
    much do you estimate it would increase the broadband adoption
    rates in urban and rural areas?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, we have set a goal in the plan of
    moving from 65 percent to 90 percent adoption over the next 10
    years, which would be a third as fast, two-thirds as fast as
    the adoption rate for telephone. With respect to lifeline
    linkup, we want to move forward as quickly as we can with smart
    pilot projects so we can identify what works, what really moves
    the needle on adoption, and then focus our energies on those.
        Ms. Matsui. And that would be both in urban and rural
    areas?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, that's great.
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui. I had in my opening remarks broadband is going
    to play a major role in the sustainable path to clean energy
    economy, improving energy efficiency standards, and lessening
    our dependence on foreign oil.
        As I mentioned before, I will soon be introducing
    legislation that will complement many of the recommendations
    made in your plan to modernize our Nation's smart grid. In
    doing so, it will make our smart grid more reliable and
    efficient and assure resilience to natural disasters and
    empower consumers to make more energy efficient and economic
    decisions about their energy usage.
        Chairman Genachowski, how important do you believe that
    broadband is to modernize our Nation's smart grid?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think it is essential. I think Congress
    was wise in instructing us to prepare a broadband plan, to ask
    us to look at the relationship between broadband and energy,
    health care, education. There is a section in the plan, as you
    know, but it is going to be critical to integrate broadband
    with our smart grid both critical and efficient and ultimately
    would result in very significant savings and benefits for the
    country.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, can you expand on the point made in the
    plan about the importance of ensuring that consumers have
    greater access to information about their electricity usage,
    and why is it so important? What are the barriers in order to
    provide them that access?
        Mr. Genachowski. There is terrific innovation going on in
    this base with products that help consumers visualize their
    energy use and a lot of evidence that that translates directly
    into energy savings. Many of those technologies rely on
    broadband connectivity and often wireless connectivity to fully
    see and fully visualize. So homes that don't have access to
    broadband or haven't adopted broadband are not able to get the
    benefits of those kinds of technologies. And so in a number of
    different areas here, the nature of broadband is a general
    purpose technology that can fuel so much innovation,
    investment, and benefit producing activity applies very much to
    energy. And this is a good example.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, in Sacramento, the utility district
    receive $129 million grant for smart grid, and in talking, we
    felt it was really important to look at that and look at
    broadband and how the connection of this is so important when
    you think about the community and what we need to do and to see
    the relationships.
        That is really very important too because for some reason I
    think when you think about things like smart meters and being
    able to find out what's being used in your house, people seem
    to understand that this is somehow connected to broadband. So I
    think it is important, and I am very grateful that you have a
    new plan. Thank you.
        Mr. Genachowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Matsui. The gentleman
    from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
    again, Commissioners. Mr. Genachowski, I am very impressed with
    and I like a lot what you are saying. But when I went back and
    took a look at your statement on September 17 at the hearing,
    nowhere in this statement does it talk about net neutrality,
    not once. Great statement. Get tears in your eyes reading this
    thing. I want to stand up and salute the flag.
        And then four days later, you introduce a rule, a pretty
    sweeping rule on net neutrality. Today I heard you tell this
    panel that I am for a light touch on regulation. That is what
    has generated all of this competition, and yet your FCC was
    doing oral arguments arguing where you have the ability to
    regulate the Internet. And maybe you can help me understand how
    we get from that position to net neutrality and your position
    of today that you are telling me now, which I like to hear,
    light touch on regulation. You can argue the case that you have
    the ability to do that even though it appears to me by reading
    the case that the three-judge panel was pretty tough on your
    position. Could you help me understand that, sir?
        Mr. Genachowski. Sure, I think, you know, I have been very
    public for quite a long time on my very strong view that clear,
    high-level rules to preserve a free and open Internet are pro-
    investment rules, pro-competition, pro-innovation that we have
    an obligation to make sure that the open architecture of the
    Internet that has served the country so well continues going
    forward. So I see real consistency between my priorities of
    innovations and investment and preserving a free and open
    Internet.
        Mr. Rogers. The very things that you reference actually in
    your speech to the Brookings Institute where you talked about,
    you know, Chevrolet and hot dogs and apple pie. Great stuff,
    but you--there are some of the things that you reference,
    Netscape, started in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We are very proud of
    that. The Facebook, those other innovations didn't happen
    because of this social justice notion we are going to have this
    exchange of information. We are going to be in the back yard
    and have Kum By Ya and play drums. And somebody was going to
    make some money, right?
        Mr. Genachowski. Absolutely.
        Mr. Rogers. And so what you are saying is I believe in the
    light touch. I believe in a free and open Internet. That is why
    we are going to regulate the Internet. There is no such thing
    as being a little bit pregnant. When you start getting into
    regulation of the Internet, you are going to make
    determinations. You have to make determinations.
        And you are arguing the fact that you absolutely have the
    ability to do it. I agree with the three-judge panel. I don't
    think you do. I would love to know--obviously we are going to
    disagree. You think it is consistent that you can do that. I
    don't think you are. You need to help me understand where does
    it say, in what section of the law, in what you are arguing
    that gives the FCC the ability to regulate the Internet.
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, we are not in favor--I am not in
    favor of regulating the Internet.
        Mr. Rogers. But you are in favor of net neutrality which is
    regulating the Internet.
        Mr. Genachowski. I completely disagree with that, sir. It
    is about--in fact, some companies have come to us to suggest
    that we regulate the Internet, and we have resisted it. The FCC
    has, for many decades, had rules that apply to the onramps for
    the Internet to promote competition to make sure that those are
    free and open and fair. And I do think that we should continue
    that in the Internet world so that the next Facebooks, the next
    eBay, the next Netscapes have the ability to innovate, to
    invent, and as you say, I completely agree, get a return on
    their investment by having a fair chance to reach a market.
        Mr. Rogers. And I agree with you, but when the federal
    government, FCC, gets into the business of setting up what
    those rules are that don't exist today, you have regulated the
    Internet. I don't know how you cross that barrier and think
    that there's no harm, no foul. There clearly is, and I will
    tell you what will happen. There is a member who--a complete
    free market. I believe in the market. I think it works.
        Now we are going to create these big programs to give
    broadband to people because maybe you have all gotten in and
    regulated the Internet where there isn't a clear market
    solution, but there might be in your terms, at least Mr. Copps'
    view, I think, a social justice issue for having that broadband
    at the house.
        Now you have completely dismantled the very model that got
    us to 200 million folks having access to broadband, and how you
    don't intertwine that is beyond me. And I guess my concern is
    exactly that. You say here light touch. Four days later, you
    unleash a pretty aggressive, first-time-ever I would argue
    regulation of the Internet.
        Today you said light touch. What is next? I mean obviously
    this is something you are wedded to and you are clearly
    committed to this. And I think Mr. McDowell pointed out this
    section. I apologize. I don't--it was section 17? Is that
    right, sir? Did I get that right? I mean so you have clearly
    laid out the platform to do this. And is it your position that
    you are going to continue to pursue at least in court that you
    have the right to regulate the Internet?
        Mr. Genachowski. If I may, sir, when I started at the FCC,
    the prior administration had adopted first a set of principles
    regarding the free and open Internet, then enforced those
    principles against a company. It was the prior administration
    that did it. That is why we are now in court. It took those
    principles and attached them as conditions to a merger, so I
    inherited a landscape around this area where there were open
    Internet rules in effect, but they were confusing to people,
    diminishing predictability and certainty.
        I think it is important to adopt clear, high-level rules of
    the road that encourage innovation, competition, and that make
    clear what is not permitted. And almost anyone involved in this
    will tell you there are some things you shouldn't be able to
    do. Make clear what is permitted, and then have a fair process
    for disputes to be resolved.
        And I would be happy to work with you on that. I think
    there is a way to do this completely consistent with investment
    growth.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers. Your time has
    expired.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney,
    is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know I have
    really enjoyed this hearing so far. Mr. Chairman, I have a
    question concerning access. Do you believe that pursuing a
    purely engineering approach to meeting data flow challenges
    would make net neutrality an obsolete issue?
        Mr. Genachowski. I would be--one of the suggestions that I
    made in the rule making that we propose was to increase
    transparency, to increase the information about the engineering
    network management rules that will be available to
    entrepreneurs and CTOs. I think it would have the positive
    effect of minimizing disputes, minimizing the government role.
    And so if that is what you are referring to, it is something
    that I would like to pursue.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, what I am getting at is that a purely
    engineering approach would basically expand the capability of
    the existing spectrum, and that may be enough to override
    whatever net neutrality issues are. Commissioner McDowell, do
    you have--your head is shaking there.
        Mr. McDowell. I think you are on the right track
    absolutely. I think what can actually obviate the need for--
    first of all, there is no need. The Internet is not broken in
    this regard, but what we really--the ultimate antidote to
    potential anticompetitive behavior is more competition,
    especially in the last mile. The most robust area for that
    competition recently has been wireless.
        The Commission has worked hard for years since the
    chairmanship of Michael Powell, for instance, on getting
    unlicensed use of the white spaces out to market. This is
    something that in November of '08 with great fanfare we
    announced a groundbreaking order of 5-0 bipartisan unanimous
    vote. It was absolutely a wonderful moment, but we have bogged
    down in our progress there.
        Something like the use of unlicensed use of the white
    spaces could actually absolutely obviate the need for any
    rules. I dispute that there is a need right now. The record
    doesn't have any evidence that there is. But you are absolutely
    right. So also with new technologies, cognitive radio, software
    defining radio, new smart antenna technologies. All these can
    allow us from a wireless perspective to have more competition
    the last mile wirelessly so you get multiple providers and
    consumers have a wonderful robust marketplace to choose from.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I have another question for you,
    Commissioner McDowell. Do you feel that the plan will succeed
    in meeting the six goals that are identified? Do you think the
    plan as written and published?
        Mr. McDowell. It remains to be seen. First of all, it is
    obviously a very ambitious plan. It is very lengthy. There are
    several hundred recommendations, some of which are for the FCC
    to do, some of which are for other agencies to do, some of
    which are for Congress to do. So all those moving parts, I
    think it is going to be very difficult to say all of them are
    going to realize the hope of their recommendations. But we can
    always be optimistic.
        Mr. McNerney. One more question for you if you don't mind.
    While I certainly appreciate the risk of additional regulation,
    and, as I mentioned in my opening statement, creating jobs is
    very important to me, considering the situation in my district
    and in the country. And I wish to work with the Commission on
    that issue as we move forward.
        Do you think there is any risk of abuse without further
    regulation, without additional regulation? Is that something
    you see as a potential problem?
        Mr. McDowell. Well, I think in the context, for instance,
    of our net neutrality proceeding, the Department of Justice,
    the anti-trust division found comments in early January, which
    is very rare for the anti-trust division to do that. It
    examined the marketplace and not only said was it not broken,
    in other words, there was not concentration and abuse of market
    power, there was actually downright optimistic that there is a
    competitive marketplace for broadband and that more competition
    is coming, especially because of wireless.
        The Federal Trade Commission also examined this in 2007.
    Issued a 5-0 bipartisan unanimous report that said that we need
    to be very careful. This is a competitive marketplace, and
    while new rules might have the best of intentions, they could
    create regulatory uncertainty. So I think there is great risk
    there.
        Mr. McNerney. Any other Commissioners care to take a stab
    at that?
        Ms. Clyburn. As it relates to competition, sir, I am
    concerned about the future. In chapter four of the plan, it
    talks about what 2012 looks like, and it talks about cable
    rolling out its DOXIS 3.0 product which will provide
    incredible--the goal, incredible potential high speed. What it
    also points out is that in the market that we are speaking,
    that competition may only exist in up to 15 percent of the
    market.
        So if we talk about, you know, prices and service quality
    and the like, I am a bit concerned because I don't see robust
    competition in that particular segment in terms of high speed
    deployment being available in the next couple of years.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you.
        Ms. Baker. I appreciate and understand the concern. My
    concern is that we proactively produce regulations when we are
    talking about a marketplace in the future. I think that right
    now the market is competitive, and any significant change in
    the regulatory environment will cause investment to dwindle,
    and that will cause jobs to dwindle. And I think we need to be
    very careful when we tread in this area.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. My time is up.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. The
    gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Blunt. Thank you, Chairman, for the time. Let me ask-
    see what questions I can ask and which questions we will submit
    later. The first question would be in 2007, the FCC determined
    that a wireless service is not required to provide another
    wireless carrier with roaming services if the second carrier
    holds a wireless license of spectrum usage in the same
    geographic location.
        Is there anything in this plan that changes that? And, Mr.
    Copps, you were there in '07. If you want to answer that.
        Mr. Copps. I think what we are trying to do is trying to
    revisit that a little bit on the premise that roaming is
    essential, I think, to competitive environment and looking at
    the end-market exception that was put in place at that time
    when several of the carriers were telling us this is, you know,
    inhibit the small one, inhibiting their ability to be able to
    connect and do business as they would like.
        So I think the Commission was well advised, and the
    chairman can speak better to this, what is looking at, trying
    to take another look at that and see what, if any, changes need
    to be made at this point.
        Mr. Blunt. So, Chairman, your sense is there would be some
    potential there, that this will reverse some of that 2007
    structure?
        Mr. Genachowski. I wouldn't say that mostly because that
    process, that proceeding hasn't happened yet. If I remember
    correctly, the plan does identify roaming as an issue whose
    resolution could affect the speed of deployment and
    acceleration and competition in the mobile broadband market and
    suggested it is something that the Commission needs to look at.
        Mr. Blunt. Now the previous view was if you had a license
    to serve the area already, you were required to provide your
    own service. Mr. McDowell, do you have a view on that?
        Mr. McDowell. I think as a policy matter what we need to
    encourage is buildout of your home region. So I think what you
    are referring to is there was a concern in '07--I was there
    too--that we wanted to make sure roaming wasn't just a
    substitute for resale.
        If you had a license and weren't building out in your own
    region, we wanted to provide a disincentive for that and an
    incentive for you to build out your own network so that you can
    become self-sufficient, so that the spectrum could be used more
    efficiently and consumers could be better served. So I think
    that has got to be a fundamental policy objective for us is to
    encourage buildout in home region and therefore everywhere.
        Mr. Blunt. OK, thank you. Let us go to broadcast TV for a
    minute. This committee in this Congress passed a bill out where
    the FCC would create an inventory of all the spectrum out
    there, how it is currently being used. That has never been
    voted on by either the House or the Senate, and I think this
    report calls for the need to find another 500 megahertz of
    spectrum.
        Do you think it would be helpful to analyze how the
    spectrum is currently being used? And would you encourage use
    to move forward and ask the FCC to find out how the spectrum is
    currently being used before you just go out and try to find 500
    megahertz of spectrum? Anybody can answer.
        Mr. Genachowski. Sure, I would be happy to tackle that. The
    spectrum inventory bill is very important, and it reflects the
    recognition of the importance of spectrum in mobile to our
    economic landscape. Much is known already. The demands on our
    mobile network, the constraints that we are heading into are
    very clear based on the record.
        And of course the FCC has information about where licensees
    are. The wireless industry in the course of our proceeding on
    broadband came and suggested that we need 800 megahertz of
    spectrum to satisfy forthcoming mobile needs. The staff at the
    FCC did work and felt the 500 megahertz was a reasonable goal.
    There has been record development with respect to broadcast
    spectrum and record development with respect to the win/win
    idea that is in the plan.
        Of course, there is a lot more work to do, and we look
    forward to working with the committee to find a sensible way to
    unleash spectrum for economic activity to make sure the
    broadcasters are treated fairly, that viewers are served, and
    that there is a possibility to generate billions of dollars of
    revenue through auctions that we do----
        Mr. Blunt. OK, well I thought that this committee was right
    when we encouraged that you be funded, allowed, directed to
    make that review, and I hope we do that. But if we don't do
    that, what is the impact of over-the-air broadcasting on any
    spectrum reallocation? I know we have some areas all over the
    state that aren't served by the same over-the-air broadcast
    they were before the digital conversion.
        How much worse does that get as we begin to reallocate
    spectrum, and, you know, we have lots of areas in America that
    are still either you pay for the satellite or you have over-
    the-air broadcasting or you don't have television.
        Mr. Genachowski. The goal of the proceeding would be to
    respect the needs of viewers, especially those who still get
    their TV signal over the air. The congestion issues that we are
    concerned about are chiefly large market issues, and we can
    make substantial progress for the country if, in a small number
    of large markets, a small number of broadcasters share
    spectrum. We can free up very significant amounts of spectrum
    for our mobile broadband economy, generating auction revenues.
        So I am confident that there is a win/win here. I think the
    issues will be much less in rural areas because the congestion
    issues on the mobile broadband side are less intense.
        Mr. Blunt. Well, it could be though a lot of the unserved
    people that were served before the other conversion are the
    people closest to the station, closest to the tower, if you are
    on that higher number on the band. But I have some other
    questions on the unserved and underserved and other things, and
    we will submit those for your answers in writing. Again thank
    all of you for being here today. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    your time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Blunt. The gentlelady
    from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again
    welcome. My first question is hopefully just for the record,
    Mr. Chairman. States means states and territories wherever we
    see that in the plan?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Good, OK. Thank you. Before coming to
    Energy and Commerce, I was on Homeland Security. So the issue
    of interoperability was and remains a big challenge and one I
    am very concerned about.
        I have heard some concerns that the 10 megahertz of
    broadband might be inadequate for public safety needs either
    now or in the future. Listening to your prior comments, it
    seems that you were pretty satisfied that you were meeting the
    needs of public safety in this regard. So do you have concerns
    that there is not enough, or do you plan to expand the spectrum
    later on?
        Mr. Genachowski. As I mentioned to Chairman Waxman, my
    charge to the team at the FCC, which is led by a wonderful 30-
    year admiral, was to take a fresh look at public safety mobile
    communications needs and recommend an overall plan that would
    most quickly and effective deliver on the 9/11 Commission
    recommendations.
        As Commissioner McDowell mentioned, there is 24 megahertz
    that has already been allocated. It is not being used because
    there is no strategy to build the network. And so this program,
    which includes several elements, is a plan to get the network
    built, to act consistent with the authority we have now to
    auction the 10 megahertz, referring to the D block.
        I do have tremendous faith in our team and in the
    commitment to delivering on the 9/11 Commission
    recommendations.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Everyone feel the same way?
    OK. Commissioner Clyburn, when you came before us in the
    initial hearing with the Commission, you talked a lot about the
    concern about preserving diversity and local programming as
    well as closing the gaps for women and minorities. Do you feel
    that the plan provides enough capacity potential to meet those
    concerns?
        Ms. Clyburn. It provides some promise, but I remain
    concerned on some fronts. The concern for me is when we talk
    about, and I am not--I am for a voluntary spectrum
    reallocation. But what the potential of that is that some of
    these entities who may be financially strapped may be the first
    to sell their space, which would possibly further dilute the
    gains in the quest for diversity with the voices.
        But the frontier, when I look at the overall plan, I am
    hopeful because it provides a whole host of opportunities that
    some are named and some are not, you know, low-power
    television, entertainment in other types of sourcing or
    programming over the Internet. There are growing enterprises
    and arches who exclusively want to stay in that space because
    of the flexibility and the potential for keeping more of their
    dollars.
        So while I am concerned on the other front, I am hopeful
    that this space will be one that literally the sky is the limit
    in terms of potential for diverse voices.
        Mrs. Christensen. And so would it be the role of the FCC to
    do the outreach to make sure that these smaller entities know
    what is available, or is it our role or CPC's role or----
        Ms. Clyburn. I think it is very much a global effort. When
    I go out and speak, I say just that, the more positive aspect.
    A young lady came up to me and said, you know, I am in my
    senior year of college. You know what do I do? You know I want
    to get into broadcasting, and I am a proponent of in the
    meantime. In the meantime, you have a vehicle, a relatively
    affordable vehicle through the Internet to promote yourself, to
    produce yourself, and so I look at this as both of an
    opportunity and a bridge to whatever comes next.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Let me just ask this question.
    I know that preserving and stimulating competition is a major
    part of the plan, but are there any new mandates imposed on
    industry--and anybody can answer this--in the broadband plan?
    And if so, what industries might have mandates that might
    require additional investment?
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, the plan itself is not self-
    executing. There are a number of ideas in the plan to promote
    competition. I spoke earlier about the complaints that we have
    heard at the Commission from small businesses who want to move
    on to broadband but are dissatisfied with the choice that they
    have and their prices. And we hear from other competitors who
    have raised issues. And the plan identifies a number of issues
    that require further work.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back whatever is left.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Christensen. The
    gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been asked
    before, but I haven't asked it, as the old saying goes. But I
    am going to ask it in a little bit different way regarding the
    over-the-air TV spectrum. The plan suggests the option of being
    able to give back or sell back--I am not sure--that part of the
    spectrum. The second half of that is does--if there are not
    enough station holders willing to give back some of their
    spectrum, we have heard that you won't just force it. But does
    the FCC even have authority to force them to give back or the
    authority to take back some of that spectrum?
        Mr. Genachowski. With respect to authority, the authority
    that we don't have is to structure what we call the incentive
    auction where with respect to any band, we have the ability to
    ensure that any spectrum that is used that way, that some of
    the auction proceeds benefit the license holders.
        On the first question, again I would emphasize that both
    that there is a real issue ahead of us for the country and our
    ability to lead the world in mobile. We have all the
    ingredients lining up with the incredible innovation that we
    are seeing, with the fact that we are moving quickly to 4G to
    lead the world. And we would be happy to share with you the
    data that shows the gap that we are going to face between
    capacity----
        Mr. Terry. I am well aware. I am just wondering if you have
    that authority or whether Congress would have to give you that
    authority to grab back that spectrum if they don't voluntarily
    offer it to you.
        Mr. Genachowski. My understanding is that the authority
    that we lack is the incentive auction.
        Mr. Terry. So you think if it just we are going to take
    that back, you have the authority to do that without
    congressional----
        Mr. Genachowski. I think in general with respect to
    licensees----
        Mr. Terry. OK.
        Mr. Genachowski [continuing]. They are licensees of
    spectrum.
        Mr. Terry. OK, which is also a follow-up question about
    giving it back, whether you could buy it back. They are leasing
    it. I don't know if they would have the power to resell that
    anyway without the FCC allowing that or Congress.
        Just overall, I like the plan in part, and, of course, we
    are always going to disagree with some of the details out here.
    But one of them, I view this plan as mostly an infrastructure,
    but a lot of the opening statements was on tape rate. And I
    think that is an interesting discussion of access versus
    acceptance. And so I want to talk about what part of the plan
    do you think is important on the tape rate, which then
    dovetails into the buzzword affordable. And I think that is a
    term of art not necessarily science. And so are there mandates
    in here on pricing, or how would you make this ``affordable''
    so more people take it once we get the infrastructure and
    access out there? And I will open that up to any of them.
    Chairman, you have a good job of burdening and shouldering most
    of the answers and questions.
        Mr. Copps. I will get us going quickly.
        Mr. Terry. We can go to Michael. He needs to be involved
    more.
        Mr. Copps. Well, I think, number one, inferring that there
    is a competitive environment out there that helps drive down
    consumer costs is one way you get this stuff out and make it
    affordable. I think digital literacy is important so people
    understand the importance of this to their individual lives and
    to the future of the Nation.
        Going back for just a second to that previous question you
    asked about, you know, licenses all expire. So, you know, we
    are not necessarily talking about going in and grabbing. I have
    always been a believer in kind of use-it-or-lose-it, and if you
    are in the broadcast spectrum, that involves serving the public
    interest. So my advice to the broadcast industry, while we are
    cogitating all of this and doing inventories and all of that is
    to make sure that that spectrum is being used.
        Mr. Terry. Mr. Copps, I hate to be rude to you, but I only
    have 23 seconds left, and I want to follow up on the
    affordability and how we are going to do that. And I thought
    the E-rate was the answer to that question. So in this
    discussion of affordability and take within urban cores and
    rural areas, has E-rate not been successful?
        Mr. Copps. E-rate has been a stunningly successful program,
    I do believe, and I think it is--you are talking about digital
    literacy and all of that. And certainly E-rate is connected to
    that, but just from the standpoint of connecting kids to the
    21st century, it has been an outstanding success.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. The gentleman
    from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been
    an excellent hearing. Chairman Genachowski and the other
    Commissioners, you may be aware of the joint efforts by this
    subcommittee and the subcommittee that I chair to draft a
    federal privacy legislation. In recent days, much has been made
    about the plan's proposal to commission future spectrum options
    for broadband service around advertising business models.
        If the FCC imposes conditions on spectrum and the 700
    megahertz auctions require free broadband access for people who
    can't afford it, then one probable way to finance the purchase
    price would be through advertising-based services. The plan
    offers this as a proposed recommendation. However if I am
    veteran to auction and I know when to follow rules of the road
    with respect to protecting consumer privacy, then I might not
    be inclined to participate or to bid as much as might
    otherwise. This especially puts the cart before the horse and
    could open the doors to another set of unsuccessful auctions.
    With the passage of privacy legislation, what impact do you
    think that this passage will have on your auction designs for
    the 700 megahertz?
        Mr. Genachowski. The privacy issue is a very important one
    is a very important one, and it is discussed in the plan. It is
    one of the big looming topics that the plan does say needs to
    be addressed to give consumers and businesses the confidence
    they need to participate in a broadband future.
        It is not--I think we are glad that there is work
    proceeding on legislation, and I think, if I understand your
    point, it is that clarity around the rules of the road on
    privacy would have real benefits to the business community and
    individuals as the broadband future rolls out. And I would
    agree with that.
        Mr. Rush. And on to another matter. As you know, one of my
    observations is that the broadband plan places too much
    emphasis on the demand and the adoption side without giving
    corresponding weight to factors that will stimulate entry by
    small businesses, including by minority-owned and
    entrepreneurs. Small businesses are a critical part of the
    equation, and they can help to offset the huge number of
    layoffs that we witness from large carriers.
        And I wanted to ask you, Chairman Genachowski and Mr.
    Copps. Mr. Copps, I know minority ownership has been a real
    area of concern for you over the years, and how do you plan on
    directing this stunningly silent omission in the National
    Broadband Plan?
        Mr. Genachowski. If I may, sir, there is complete agreement
    on the importance of small businesses and the challenges and
    opportunities around broadband. We held three workshops looking
    at the small business issues, and there is a discussion in the
    plan. I would be happy to follow up with you and make sure, but
    with respect to training, information, digital literacy for
    small businesses, there are recommendations in the plan with
    respect to small business administration and joint activities,
    extension programs, to make sure that small businesses get the
    information that they need. There are several recommendations
    on that.
        And then with respect to the affordability issue that we
    heard from small businesses, there are recommendations with
    respect to moving forward on competition issues to get more
    competition to help reduce the price. So I hope the plan is not
    confusing on that, but I--there is complete agreement on the
    importance of small businesses in all ways that you said. And I
    hope that we can follow up and make sure that we are being as
    clear as we should be.
        Mr. Copps. For my part, I commend the emphasis of the plan
    on small business. Ever since I was assistant secretary of
    commerce in previous administration, Clinton Administration, I
    have dealt a lot with small and medium-sized enterprise. They
    are the locomotive of the economy. They are the job creators.
    So getting broadband out there that can facilitate their
    business is an important priority.
        Also is making sure the small business is a participant in
    the building out of this infrastructure and gets its share of
    activity as we build out.
        Mr. Rush. Yes, I only have--I guess my time is expired.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. The gentleman
    from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I had some of the same
    concerns that Mr. Blunt had, and I think that you all have
    addressed those questions. But obviously on the issue of this
    spectrum, we can't afford to ignore the incredible opportunity
    that it has to connect folks in rural and low-income
    communities. And I think all of us represent some part of our
    district, most of us anyway, that are rural and low income. And
    that is certainly the case in Vermont.
        You have heard this, and you understand it, but it is
    important for me to say it so that folks back in Vermont
    appreciate that we are on the job here about the absolute
    necessity of treating this in many ways like electricity. So
    that that opportunity to create jobs comes to the rural
    communities, and I appreciate your concern on that.
        I wanted to ask you about this. The Commission obviously
    recognizes and understands the problems in the wholesale
    market, particularly with high speed special access
    connections. In Vermont, we have established, with the help of
    the governor and the legislature, Republican and Democrat, the
    Vermont Telecommunications Authority. And it has identified the
    high cost of wireless back haul as one of the most significant
    potential barriers to our success in Vermont in getting
    wireless service deployed in rural Vermont.
        So on the one hand, we are committed to the goal. On the
    other hand, we have a practical impediment that really does
    require leadership and guidance from you. And I just want to
    kind of go down the line a little bit about your views on that.
    Why don't we start at this end with Ms. Atwell Baker, who thank
    you for coming into my office and saying hello.
        Ms. Baker. Absolutely. It was a great visit. I am glad that
    we had the time. Special access is an important input into
    services including wireless and the back haul is certainly
    important. It is something we are taking a look at. We gathered
    the data. We are in the process of doing that now to look at
    what parts need to be regulated, what parts need to be
    unregulated. So hopefully we will be able to do this
    expeditiously.
        Mr. Welch. OK, thank you. Ms. Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. Yes, sir. As it relates to back haul, I
    recognize the importance of that, and recognize that it will
    increase competitive options and make the cost of deployment
    lower. So I am looking forward to engaging more fully with that
    and to get rid of the some of the bottlenecks that cause.
        Mr. Welch. Let me just elaborate on this, Mr. McDowell,
    when you do it. You know in Vermont we have been trying to
    encourage some local generation of power, and then local
    generators have to use the wires and poles that were there
    beforehand in a regulated utility. And it is a practical
    challenge trying to figure out what is fair compensation on an
    asset that has been fully depreciated. And to some extent,
    these back haul charges remind me of that whole battle that we
    went through.
        And there is the property right obviously, the owner on the
    one hand. On the other, there is the acknowledged and urgent
    necessity of not reinventing the wheel in providing access to
    an infrastructure so that all of the economy can prosper.
        And do you have any thoughts on how to thread that needle?
        Mr. McDowell. Very perceptive question actually. So when we
    talk about lofty and laudable goals in broadband, sometimes it
    does come down to the nitty-gritty of things like pole
    attachments and access to rights-of-way----
        Mr. Welch. Well that is what it is about.
        Mr. McDowell [continuing]. And special access absolutely.
    So the plan does tee up those issues. I don't want to steal the
    chairman's thunder, but when or what we might be doing going
    forward on pole attachments. I will let him speak to that and
    things of that nature with special access. For about three
    years now, I have been calling for a cell fight by cell fight,
    building by building mapping with special access. The last time
    the Commission looked at the regulations was 1998.
        I want to commend the chairman for issuing a public notice
    to get into the next stage where we can actually make a very
    informed decision as to what to do next.
        Mr. Welch. OK, great. Mr. Copps, thank you.
        Mr. Copps. Special access, I think it is time to do this. I
    am pleased that the broadband plan tees this up. We can't take
    forever on this. This has been a problem for a long time. The
    facts that we have leads me to believe that maybe some people
    are paying a lot more for this kind of access than they should
    be. If that is true, I don't think we should take forever to
    resolve that. I think we need to get to the essential core of
    data we need and then go ahead and act.
        Mr. Welch. OK, thank you. Mr. Genachowski.
        Mr. Genachowski. I agree with each of my colleagues. I
    think it is an example of the kind of issue, sort of a blood-
    and-guts issue where government can play a positive role in
    promoting investment, promoting competition, and it has to roll
    up its sleeves with the data, tackle the rules. And so I think
    it is an opportunity in this issue and others for a very
    healthy discussion and debate that is focused on the barriers
    in the marketplace.
        Mr. Welch. OK, thank you. I see my time has expired, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you, and I thank the Commission.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. Chairman
    Dingell is on his way, and we expect him to arrive momentarily
    for his round of questions. Right on time. Thank you, Chairman
    Dingell. You are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Dingell. There will probably be a lot of yes-or-no
    questions, and I hope that our panel will be kind to me over
    this matter. Mr. Chairman Genachowski, Webster's Dictionary
    defines the word voluntary as being ``done, made, brought
    about, undertaken et cetera by one's own accord or by free
    choice.'' Is that the definition that would be applied to the
    word voluntary or voluntarily in the recommendations of the
    Commission's broadband plan?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, so I assume that would apply then to the
    questions where they are talking about voluntary channel
    sharing and motivating existing licenses to voluntarily clear
    the spectrum. Am I right?
        Mr. Genachowski. Yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, the National Broadband Plan
    states if the FCC does not receive authorization to conduct
    incentive auctions or if the incentive auctions do not yield a
    significant amount of spectrum, the FCC should pursue other
    mechanisms. That is a quote. Now, are these other mechanisms
    going to be voluntary? Yes or no?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think that language speaks for itself.
        Mr. Dingell. I am sorry?
        Mr. Genachowski. I think that language speaks for itself.
    The other mechanisms would be determined in the future.
        Mr. Dingell. All right, if these are not voluntary, how
    would they then be accomplished?
        Mr. Genachowski. Sir, that would be speculation. I am
    focused on a near term win-win that works for broadcasters and
    that is done on a voluntary basis.
        Mr. Dingell. Well, you understand there is a concern here
    because everybody wants to know what these is going to
    constitute. Now, would we assume then that these other
    mechanisms will be 100 percent voluntary or involuntary or
    what?
        Mr. Genachowski. I would be speculating to talk about what
    would happen if we face a spectrum crisis in the country and--
    --
        Mr. Dingell. I hope you and the Commission understand that
    this is a point of no small importance. Now, to all of this
    witnesses, and this again is a yes-or-no question. And, ladies
    and gentlemen, I apologize if this is discourteous. Does the
    Commission possess the authority, whether under the
    Communications Act of 1934, the Telecommunications Act of 196
    or otherwise, with which to require broadband networks to
    unbundle access? Starting with you, Mr. Chairman, please. Yes
    or no.
        Mr. Genachowski. Well, that is a good--I would like to be
    advised by counsel on that. We have been focused on broadband
    policies and----
        Mr. Dingell. I will ask then that you submit that for the
    record.
        Mr. Genachowski. I will, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Copps?
        Mr. Copps. I would say yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Well----
        Mr. McDowell. I would say no.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Ms. Clyburn. I would say I would submit that later.
        Mr. Dingell. And the last of our Commissioners?
        Ms. Baker. No.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, does the Commission believe unbundling
    network access will have a chilling effect on further
    investments to expand broadband infrastructure? Again with
    apologies, yes or no.
        Mr. Genachowski. I don't know that it lends itself to a yes
    or no because unbundling means so many different things to
    different people.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner Copps?
        Mr. Copps. I think I would give the same answer, and a
    shorter answer would be not necessarily.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Mr. McDowell. If history is our guide, yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Ms. Clyburn. I echo Ms. Copps' answer.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner?
        Ms. Baker. Chilling, yes.
        Mr. Dingell. Again to all witnesses, does the Commission
    eventually intend to require unbundled access to broadband
    networks? Yes or no?
        Mr. Genachowski. Again I think the plan speaks for itself,
    and the plan does not speak about unbundled network elements.
        Mr. Dingell. Commissioner Copps?
        Mr. Copps. I can't predict what the Commission intends to
    do.
        Mr. McDowell. I can't predict what the Commissioner will do
    either.
        Ms. Clyburn. I am not sure at this time. Thank you.
        Ms. Baker. I hope not.
        Mr. Dingell. Now, my time is running out here. Mr.
    Chairman, the National Broadband Plan mentions wireless
    communication services as a source of new spectrum. On February
    16, 2010, I sent a letter to the Commission highlighting my
    concern that the opening of the spectrum for mobile broadband
    services may result in interference with satellite radio
    signals. Can you unequivocally assure me that this will not be
    the case? Yes or no?
        Mr. Genachowski. If the staff in the agency says there is
    not interference, then there won't be interference.
        Mr. Dingell. I didn't hear the answer, sir.
        Mr. Genachowski. Sorry. If the engineers at the FCC say
    there won't be interference, then I believe there won't be
    interference.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, will the Commission provide
    advanced notice of the WCS rules, publish them, and allow for
    comment prior to their implementation? Yes or no?
        Mr. Genachowski. I believe I don't see any reason why not.
    That is what we always do.
        Mr. Dingell. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. My time is
    up. You have been very kind, Mr. Chairman. I reiterate my
    request for sending a letter asking further questions of the
    Commission and ask that it be inserted in the record.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell. And the
    record of this hearing will remain open until such time as a
    letter has been sent to you containing questions that various
    members of the committee may decide to ask beyond the context
    of today's hearing and until we have received your response to
    that letter. So when you receive it, please be as prompt as you
    can.
        We thank you for your attendance here today and for sharing
    your views with us extensively. We have been here now for about
    three and a half hours, and we have certainly been enlightened
    by the information you have provided, and hopefully you have
    been somewhat enlightened by the views we have expressed as
    well.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized for
    unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Chairman.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record just for the
    history a letter from 2007 from this committee, a bipartisan
    letter, to the FCC about the D block. Chairman Genachowski,
    just let me commend the staff for their public safety proposal.
    The 16 of us from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to your
    predecessor recommending a very similar approach. And I am
    optimistic that Congress will consider legislation authorizing
    first responders to use auction revenues to build a public
    safety network. And if possible, your public safety and
    wireless staff could provide input to help us draft that, that
    would be appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns, for that
    rather lengthy unanimous consent request. Without objection.
    Well, thanks to the Commission. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]