*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 31558*
 Reaching  Broadband  Nirvana 
 United  PowerLine  Council  Annual  Conference  Remarks  of  Commissioner  Kathleen  Q.  Abernathy 
 September  22,  2003  (As  prepared  for  delivery) 


 Thank  you  very  much  for  inviting  me  to  speak  with  you.  I  am  very  excited  about  broadband-  over-  powerline  technology.  I  have  seen  it  in  action,  and  I  believe  it  has  a  very 
 bright  future.  It  is  a  real  honor  to  be  your  keynote  speaker  at  this  important  juncture  for  BPL. 


 As  a  regulator,  I  am  keenly  interested  in  BPL  technology  for  a  number  of  reasons.  One  of  my  central  objectives  as  an  FCC  commissioner  is  to  facilitate  the  deployment  of 
 broadband  services  to  all  Americans.  I  also  fundamentally  believe  that  the  FCC  can  best  promote  consumer  welfare  by  relying  on  market  forces,  rather  than  heavy-  handed 
 regulation.  The  development  of  BPL  networks  will  serve  both  of  these  key  goals.  It  will  not  only  bring  broadband  to  previously  unserved  communities,  but  the  introduction  of  a 
 new  broadband  pipeline  into  the  home  will  foster  the  kind  of  competitive  marketplace  that  will  eventually  enable  the  Commission  to  let  go  of  the  regulatory  reins.  I  want 
 consumers  to  have  a  choice  of  multiple,  facilities-  based  providers,  including  not  only  cable  and  DSL,  but  also  powerline,  wireless,  and  satellite  services.  Such  a  robustly 
 competitive  and  diversified  marketplace  is  something  I  would  call  broadband  Nirvana.  We  will  not  get  there  overnight,  but  the  continuing  development  of  BPL  technology  is  a 
 major  step  forward. 
 While  the  long-  term  objective  is  a  robustly  competitive  marketplace  that  is  free  of  regulatory  distortions,  a  more  immediate  question  is:  What  should  the  FCC  do  to  help 
 foster  such  an  environment?  Sticking  with  my  Nirvana  metaphor,  I  guess  the  question  would  be,  what  is  the  path  to  enlightenment? 


 I  believe  the  answer,  in  short,  is  regulatory  restraint.  It  is  tempting  for  regulators  to  take  every  new  technology  or  service  that  comes  along  and  apply  the  same  rules  that 
 govern  incumbent  services.  After  all,  regulatory  parity  and  a  level  playing  field  are  intuitively  appealing  concepts.  But  I  believe  that  it  would  be  a  huge  mistake  to  carry 
 forward  legacy  regulations  whenever  new  technology  platforms  are  established.  Many  of  our  regulations  are  premised  on  the  absence  of  competition,  and  when  that  rationale  is 
 eroded,  we  must  not  reflexively  hold  on  to  regulations  that  no  longer  serve  their  intended  purpose.  In  fact,  many  of  our  old  rules  not  only  become  unnecessary  as  markets  evolve, 
 but  they  can  be  fatal  to  new  services  that  need  room  to  breathe. 
 The  Nascent  Services  Doctrine 
1
 4 
 applying  more  stringent  regulations  to  wireline  providers  at  a  minimum  must  be  reconsidered.  As  other  platforms,  including  BPL  and  wireless,  become  more  widely 
 available,  that  will  further  undermine  the  justification  for  regulating  incumbent  LECs’  broadband  services  as  if  they  were  the  only  available  offerings.  When  the  Commission 
 completes  this  rulemaking,  I  expect  that  we  will  eliminate  many  existing  rules  and  substantially  modify  others;  the  central  question  is  the  degree  of  regulation  that  will 
 remain  during  the  transition  to  a  more  robustly  competitive  market. 
 Finally,  it  is  important  to  recognize  that  although  the  emergence  of  new  platforms  like  BPL  will  eliminate  the  need  for  many  competition-  related  regulations,  other  types  of 
 regulation  may  well  remain  necessary.  For  example,  the  FCC  must  implement  public  policy  goals  unrelated  to  competition,  or  even  at  odds  with  competition.  Universal 
 service  and  access  for  persons  with  disabilities  are  examples  of  this  kind  of  regulation.  These  public  policy  goals  generally  should  be  applied  to  all  service  providers,  to  the 
 extent  permitted  by  the  Communications  Act.  The  FCC  also  must  intervene  to  prevent  competitors  from  imposing  externalities  on  one  another  and  to  protect  consumers  where 
 market  failures  are  identified.  Although,  as  I  have  noted,  the  Commission  was  right  to  refrain  from  imposing  heavy-  handed  price  and  service-  quality  regulations  on  PCS 
 services  when  the  were  introduced,  it  was  also  right  to  adopt  strict  interference  rules  to  prevent  competitors  from  externalizing  their  costs.  The  same  principle  will  apply  to 
 BPL.  They  key  point  is  that,  while  some  degree  of  regulation  is  both  inevitable  and  desirable,  we  should  ensure  that  it  is  narrowly  tailored  to  the  particular  governmental 
 interests  at  stake. 
 I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  share  these  thoughts  with  you,  and  I  would  be  happy  to  answer  a  few  questions  if  we  have  time. 
4