Speech

We gather today at a critical moment in the history of an Open Internet; in the fight for Net Neutrality. So, right here at the outset, let’s make clear something that will bear repeating throughout these remarks: An Open Internet is the law of the land and any change to that policy would take away from consumers, innovators and the competitive marketplace something they have today. The proof point that opponents to an Open Internet must hurdle is the factual basis for why it is necessary to remove existing protections? Those protections can be boiled down to one simple principle: Consumers must be in charge of how they use their broadband connections, free from manipulation by their broadband providers. Unfortunately, those of us who believe the internet should be fast, fair and open are in for a fight. The majority of the Trump Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Republicans in Congress, and the big broadband providers are ganging up on consumers. They mouth the words, “We support an open internet,” yet oppose meaningful protections of that openness. So let me say it again, the current effort is to take away protections that now exist. This is principally about four economically and politically powerful broadband providers – companies that control the connections to 70 percent of American homes – seeking to take something away from tens of millions of consumers and tens of thousands of entrepreneurial innovators. The Trump FCC’s ongoing proceeding to accomplish this is a sham, starting with its name. In the Orwellian world of alternative facts in which we now live, the FCC calls gutting the Open Internet: “Restoring Internet Freedom.” The only thing this effort frees are the broadband providers that escape from their obligations to consumers. The effort to repeal or revise the Open Internet rules is contrary to statute, and contrary to the facts demonstrating how broadband providers can, have, and will abuse their role as gatekeeper to the network that will define the 21st century. And the best its proponents can come up with to support their position are claims of reduced investment that add up to nothing more than special pleading by the biggest cable and telecommunications companies.
[Tom Wheeler is the Walter Shorenstein Fellow for Media and Democracy, Harvard Kennedy School; Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution; and Klinsky Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School. He served at Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission November 2013 - January 2017.]

Today, when we talk about universal service, we have in mind bringing high-speed Internet access, or “broadband,” to any American who wants it. Broadband is important for many reasons: it can help you get a job, start a company, get health care, educate your kids, and the like. But it’s also vital for free speech and political engagement. Fewer today seem to be willing to defend to the death others’ right to say things with which they might disagree. The situation on many college campuses is especially distressing.

A strong platform that allows the people to share their ideas and inform themselves about current affairs forestalls that fate. And in a remarkably short time, the Internet has become one such platform. The FCC’s charge and our cultural traditions remind us that we need to extend that online megaphone to all Americans. I look forward to working with you to do that—and to fulfilling this timeless vision for the digital age.

Today, we find ourselves nearing another possible hinge moment. We’ve seen remarkable progress, but it feels like we’re still waiting for another huge breakthrough. Well, 5G could well be what we’re waiting for.

Going from 2G to 3G was the mobile equivalent of switching from dial-up to broadband. Similarly, the transition from 4G to 5G promises to be more than just incremental change— we could see dramatic improvements in network speed, capacity, and responsiveness that will make the impossible possible. One analysis by CTIA suggests that 5G could create three million jobs and over $500 billion in additional GDP growth over seven years in the United States.

Here at the Federal Communications Commission, the 16th anniversary of the September 11 attacks reminds us that we must do all that we can to improve emergency communications. As it happens, September is also National Preparedness Month. So there’s no better time to recognize that effective communications can be the difference between life and death—whether emergency personnel are responding to a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake, flood, or tornado....

But despite the value of social media in times of disaster, our experience with Hurricane Harvey also underscores the importance of not confusing social media as a substitute for calling 911. During the disaster, for example, some public safety entities warned that social media was not the best means of communicating emergency rescue requests. All of this points to the need for best practices about how to communicate effectively both about 911 outages and during 911 outages.

I believe what we need now is a Federal Communications Commission report on these storms. We need to know what worked, what didn’t, and where we can improve our communications infrastructure. Once we know the facts, we need a full plan for fixing the communications vulnerabilities we are finding, including what you are discussing today—how to deal with the impact on 911. This report also will need to include a framework for rebuilding so that the communities with damaged communications facilities are not permanently relegated to the wrong side of the digital divide. Because one thing is for sure—Mother Nature’s wrath is sure to visit us again. It is incumbent on us to learn from these disasters to improve emergency response and infrastructure recovery.

Benton believes we need to have a robust debate about what “in the public interest” means in the Digital Age. We’re proud to support the Charles Benton Junior Scholar Award so we can encourage new voices and views in telecommunications debates. Our goal is not to promote one perspective, but to highlight unique perspectives that together can help more people understand their stake in communications policy. TPRC is an excellent partner in this endeavor as this community’s interdisciplinary thinking serves not just researchers, but policymakers, members of the private sector, and civil society, students and practitioners. This year, the Charles Benton Junior Scholar award goes to Mirjam R. J. Lange, a doctoral student at the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany. She is also a Researcher at Goethe-University in Frankfurt. She received her undergraduate degree in Economics from the University of Bonn, Germany in 2011 and earned her Master’s degree in Economics from Heinrich–Heine University in Düsseldorf in 2013. Mirjam’s main research focuses on telecommunications and competition, particularly price-discrimination in broadband markets. She also works experimentally on behavioral economics, such as salience theory. She has published in Telecommunications Policy. The title of Mirjam’s research paper, which the panel selected for the award, is: “Tariff Diversity and Competition Policy - Drivers for Broadband Adoption in the European Union.”

By most accounts, the U.S. broadcast incentive auction was a success. Does that mean it was perfect? No. This was a very complex undertaking. Were lessons learned? Absolutely, and I will discuss that a bit later. But all things considered, the mechanisms designed and put in place worked relatively well. Through the incentive auction, the U.S., on a completely voluntary basis, reallocated broadcast spectrum to mobile use, which will now be used by private commercial providers to offer 4G and 5G broadband networks. In fact, one U.S. winning bidder has already announced that it will initiate 5G in 600 MHz and has already turned on its first 600 MHz LTE system.

I’m going to talk about what the Federal Communications Commission is doing to promote innovation and investment across the Internet ecosystem. Along with security, people primarily look to government leaders to help create the conditions that make it easier for the private sector to deliver economic growth, jobs, and personal opportunity. And to grow our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity in a world that’s gone digital, we need world-leading Internet infrastructure that serves as a platform for innovation and entrepreneurship.

[Commentary] What does gigabit civic engagement look like? The initial winners of the Charles Benton Next Generation Engagement Award demonstrate not just what “could be” but what “is”. Civic engagement is about working to make a positive difference in the life of our communities. It is about developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make that difference. It means improving the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes. An engaged individual recognizes himself or herself as a member of the larger social fabric and, therefore, considers social problems to be at least partly his or her own. Such an individual is willing to see the community-wide dimensions of issues, to make and justify informed decisions, and to take action for the benefit of the community. My father spent a lifetime advocating for a holistic approach combining access to fast, fair, and open communications networks and the training to develop 21st century skills. He undoubtedly would have been extremely proud that his name is attached to this award and to the project winners in Louisville, Kentucky; Austin, Texas; and Raleigh, North Carolina.

As far as the US perspective, our priorities generally seek to create a regulatory environment that provides our telecommunications industries the opportunity to innovate, obtain investment and ensure continued growth for years to come. We also seek to promote the interests of our citizens, especially those who are unserved and in need of modern and robust connectivity in order to participate in the new digital economy.