• 1999. The end of the twentieth century. Innovation, information, and technology are the order of the day.

• The year 2000. The beginning of a long-awaited new millennium and the dawn of a new day in information and communications technology.

• My friends, we are indeed living in interesting times in which challenges and opportunities abound not only in the United States, but throughout the world.

• I don't know about you, but I am excited, encouraged, and energized by the promise of what is to come. The fact that I have the opportunity to play a small role in this historic process is humbling, and I look forward to the challenges ahead.

• I have had the good fortune to serve as chief of the FCC's Cable Services Bureau for almost a year now, and what a year it has been.

• In the U.S. alone, we have been witnesses to what many are calling a "Cable Renaissance".

• An industry once thought to be on the ropes has rebounded with an economic vigor that is fueling phenomenal growth and strong revenues.

• While the cable industry has been on a steady incline, it seems that the last year has been especially dynamic.

• In addition to the internal changes occurring within the cable industry itself, we have come to recognize the potential of cable technology as a vehicle for the delivery of voice and data.

• As a key component of a broader revolution in communications technology, cable is in the forefront of the new wave of advanced communications services otherwise known as broadband.

• I believe it is important to recognize the historical significance of where we are in the communications continuum.

• The current revolution in communications and expansion of technology is as important to our lives today, as the invention of the Gutenberg press was some five hundred and fifty years ago.

• Johannes Gutenberg's printing press was arguably the single most important invention of the millennium. It led to sweeping social, economic and cultural changes across Europe, and throughout the New World, facilitating the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment.

• The dissemination of the printed word influenced art, literature, philosophy, and politics. The very foundation of society, as it was known then, was rocked by the rise of an informed middle- class. No longer could people be kept in the dark.

• The printing press re-created the world by shifting paradigms of information dissemination and communication among masses of humanity.

• As we stand on the doorstep of the new millennium, we are poised to witness the creation of new technologies that will in our own time, contribute to equally important paradigm shifts.

• At the very core of all of these changes is what I call the "Emergence of Convergence".

• Convergence has become a major market force. More than mere consolidation, we are seeing entire industries converge. AT&T is no longer just a telephone company, it is also now one of the world's largest cable companies. Cable companies are providing high-speed Internet access. Power companies are seeking to provide a variety of communications services.

• We see traditional broadcast networks and cable networks establishing web sites, providing content to supplement their video services.

• Technologies are converging as well. The development of cable modems and DSL technology will introduce us to a world in which all communications modes video, voice and data are readily accessible and conveniently bundled. DSL is broadband over the telephone lines.

• The digital age has brought us phones that can be used to check e-mail and computers that can be used as phones.

• Markets are converging. The rapid growth and expansion of communications technology is leading to a decentralization of traditional economic markets throughout the world.

• We now have a tremendously inter-connected global economy, where currency fluctuations in Asia can have serious repercussions on the American stock market. It is a market where physical borders and distance are becomingly increasingly insignificant.

• As this New World unfolds, the development and effective deployment of broadband technology becomes ever more meaningful.

• Rapid dissemination of information. Global communication in an instant. The ability to reach billions of people inexpensively and efficiently. This, in part, is what the new communications technology means to us all.

• High-speed access to data, video and telephony will affect the way we live, the way our children will be educated, the way we receive entertainment, and the way we do business.

• It is this technology that best reflects what convergence is all about, and where we see the most stirring developments in the communications industry.

• The prospect of seamless convergence of voice, video and data, available in our homes, virtually on demand also is fueling massive capital investment in related industries.

• Communications technology is being developed at a speed that defies comparison. To put it into perspective, it took radio 38 years to reach 50 million people. It took television 13 years and personal computers 16 years. It took the Internet only 4 years to reach 50 million people.

• In February 1999, the FCC released its Section 706 Report on the Deployment of Advanced Services to Congress. In that report, the Commission concluded that advanced telecommunications capabilities are being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner, and that no regulatory intervention is necessary at this time. This finding was based, in part, on the nascent nature of the market

• Last year, about 100,000 homes had cable modems. Today, there are over 1 million cable subscribers who receive Internet access via cable. But this is just a fraction of the over 30 million American homes that are online.

• The cable industry is squarely at the center of the convergence trend. Fifty years after its birth as a solution to television signal problems, cable technology has emerged as an important platform for a new digital world.

• It is a platform that holds the promise of ushering in a competitive and robust marketplace where multiple players compete to provide a wide range of advanced services.

• Developments in cable technology are already pushing the envelope of competition. Where cable modem service has been introduced, DSL has followed.

• For instance, in May 1997, At Home launched service in Phoenix; four months later, US West launched DSL there. That same month, At Home began offering service in San Diego; soon thereafter, Pacific Bell began offering DSL. In June 1998, At Home entered Denver; that same month so did US West.

• Today, the cable industry is strong. Some analysts have cited cable as "Holding the Keys to the Kingdom" meaning in their view that it is the only industry in position today to offer multiple advanced digital services voice, data, video to the residential marketplace

• If stock prices are any indication, shares of cable stocks have risen about 50% so far this year, as compared with 10% for the S&P 500.

• Given this state of affairs, in this market, at this point in time, the obvious question becomes what is the role of the regulator? What should we be doing at this critical juncture?

• Well, aside from our statutory mandate, which I will talk about in a few minutes, I believe we have at least three major responsibilities.

• First, we have a responsibility to ensure that advanced services and technologies are actually built and deployed. Keep in mind that most Americans are not yet tuned in to this broadband world. Therefore, our focus must be on deployment.

• Second, we have an obligation to ensure that deployment of advanced services is conducted in a manner that benefits the broadest number of Americans.

• In that respect, we must be mindful of the "digital divide' we have heard so much about the gap between the information "haves" and information "have nots" in our society, and the chasm between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites, and rich and poor in the use of basic and advanced technology.

• Third, in our efforts to ensure that the largest numbers of Americans are benefiting from advanced services, we must be careful not to promote one technology over another as the correct path.

• In other words, our actions as regulators must have a neutral effect on the type of technology that is to be deployed.

• The Cable Bureau's mandate also has changed from the not-too- long-ago days of wholesale rate regulation.

• As the communications paradigm has shifted, so too has the role of the Cable Services Bureau.

• When Congress passed the 1992 Cable Act, it mandated that cable rates be regulated. The CSB was formed in 1993 to implement these goals. It was a bureau born of regulation.

• In adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national framework.

• The 96 Act mandated the deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.

• Thus, although our mandate has become decidedly deregulatory, we are still charged with protecting the public interest.

• In light of these policy directives, we as regulators have a careful balancing act to perform. We must promote the opening of markets and the deployment of new technologies, on one hand, and we must carefully protect the interests of consumers, on the other.

• First and foremost, our role is to promote and protect the public interest. The central mission of the Cable Services Bureau is one which puts the interests of the consumers first. At every stage of every decision, we must ask ourselves is this in the best interest of the American consumer?

• Second, as new technologies are deployed, we have a special obligation to ensure that no one is left behind.

• The recent report by the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) on the digital divide demonstrates both promise and peril. We know that at the end of 1998, over 40% of American households owned a computer, and 25% of these households have access to the Internet.

• But we also learned that households with an income of $75,000 are twenty times more likely to have access to the Internet than households at lower incomes. Whites are more likely to have access to the Internet from home than blacks and Hispanics have from any location. And rural Americans are half as likely to have access to the Internet as urban Americans earning the same income.

• Our success will be measured in both economic and human terms. We will be judged by the number and diversity of Americans who enjoy access to advanced information and communications services.

• Third, our policies must continue to promote competition by the elimination of barriers. Our approach must create the conditions to allow investors to invest in a competitive market where competing technologies such as cable modems, digital subscriber lines, terrestrial wireless, satellite and others, provide consumers with real alternatives.

• If we believe what analysts say about our approach so far, then it has been successful. A recent report by the FCC's Office of Plans and Policy noted that the government was instrumental in creating the Internet and preserving the competitive environment that allows it to thrive today.

• However, the study reminds us that this was accomplished in a non-regulatory context.

• Fourth, and finally, our regulatory action cannot favor one technology over another, nor can we pick the winners and losers. That role is more appropriately left to the marketplace.

• Similarly, while we should not act prophylactically or prospectively, we must maintain a constant vigil over the direction of market events and trends.

• As new technologies alter the communications landscape, we will be ever vigilant to prevent the creation of bottlenecks that block free and fair access to essential facilities.

• 550 years ago, Gutenberg's printing press was the engine fueling the Age of Enlightenment.

• Today, convergence in the communications sector promises to usher in a new era of development, but this promise will not be fulfilled if investment is stifled.

• Two weeks ago, I convened a Monitoring Session to discuss open access with 6 top Wall Street analysts who follow the telecommunications, cable, satellite, wireless and Internet industries.

• 5out of 6 agreed that the FCC's policy of restraint is correct. They cautioned that regulation of the Internet would stifle investment.

• They also cautioned that we must continue to monitor the market to ensure that a proprietary system does not evolve.

• Finally, they expressed concern over the mushrooming of local legislation in this area, and encouraged us to do whatever possible to maintain a national policy.

• Why do we care about what the investment community has to say about these issues? We care because we want the public to have these services. And we recognize that the U.S will be looked to as a role model for global precedent on this important issue.

• Thus, we are seeking the views of all the major stakeholders and interested parties.

• I look forward to hearing from each of you on how we, as policymakers, can achieve that objective.

• As we look down the bright and promising path, we want to follow a policy that will ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to access the best technologies, services and information in the new Information Era.

I would like to thank the Strategic Research Institute and particularly your co-chairs Frank Lloyd and Stephanie Richards for inviting me here today

Hot Topics

There are at least three:

1. Our approach to mergers under review;
2. Horizontal Ownership and Attribution Rules; and
3. Our concern about local legislative activities on broadband.

• As many of you are aware, AT&T and MediaOne recently filed their merger applications with the Commission. We will be issuing a Public Notice tomorrow, inviting comments on the merger.

• While I cannot comment on the substance of this pending proceeding, I can assure you that we take very seriously our obligation to analyze this merger to determine whether it serves the public interest.

• Our public interest standard is a flexible one that encompasses the "broad aims of the Communications Act."

• These broad aims include, among other things,

  (1) the implementation of Congress' "pro-competitive, de- regulatory national framework designed to . . . open all telecommunications markets to competition,"

  (2) "preserving and advancing universal service," and

  (3) "accelerat[ing] rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services."

• The statutory standard we must apply necessarily involves a balancing of the potential public interest harms against the potential public benefits from the AT&T/MediaOne merger.

• Thus, we will test, for example, the reality and scope of AT&T's claimed merger benefits of accelerated deployment of local phone service and provision of the full bundle of phone, video, and advanced services for consumers, in competition against incumbent providers.

• We will explore the effects of AT&T's post-merger size and deployment efforts on the relevant markets, particularly in the broadband area. Mr. Armstrong has stated that AT&T wants "open access" to its cable systems for competing Internet services providers. We will examine closely what Mr. Armstrong means when he says "open access."

• As part of our review, we also must examine the merger's effects on the implementation and enforcement of the Communications Act and federal communications policy.

• We therefore will scrutinize the application of our cable horizontal ownership rules to AT&T's diverse ownership interests.

• Section 613 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to establish a limit on the number of subscribers a cable operator may reach nationwide.

• The Commission has voluntarily stayed our horizontal ownership rules pending the D.C. Circuit's review of challenges to the statute and our rules.

• Our current horizontal ownership rules prohibit any person from reaching, through owned or attributed cable systems, more than 30% of all homes passed nationwide by cable.

• We currently are reviewing these rules and plan to issue an order in the next few months.

• Our rulemaking aims to serve the statutory purposes of (1) ensuring that no single cable operator or group of cable operators can become "media gatekeepers" by virtue of their large size, while (2) recognizing the efficiencies that a cable operator may gain through large size, and (3) adjusting the rules to reflect the dynamic nature of the marketplace.

• We also are revising our cable ownership attribution rules to better capture interests that confer on their holders the ability to influence or control entities subject to our rules. We plan to issue that order in the next few months as well.

• As you know, the Chairman has instructed the General Counsel to prepare an amicus brief for the 9th Circuit Appeal of the Portland decision.

• The prospect of inconsistent rules and regulations promulgated by 30,000 local regulatory agencies does not produce a predictable regulatory environment.

• We have a national policy. It is a policy of vigilant restraint and monitoring of the marketplace to ensure that the Internet remains open and free and that it will continue to flourish.