*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 35745*
 SEPARATE  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 Approving  in  Part,  Dissenting  in  Part 
 RE:  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems;  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104;  Amendment  of  Part  15  regarding  new  requirements  and 
 measurement  guidelines  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems;  ET  Docket  No.  04-  37,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making 


 Last  month  I  was  lucky  enough  to  join  Commissioner  Adelstein  at  a  demonstration  of  powerline  broadband,  and  I’ve  been  watching  the  technology  develop 
 over  the  time  I’ve  been  at  the  Commission  with  much  interest.  Today  this  technology  is  just  being  deployed.  Tomorrow  I  hope  it  will  substantially  increase  broadband 
 competition.  Today  companies  plan  to  deploy  it  in  urban  and  suburban  communities.  But  I  hope  power  lines  will  someday,  sooner  rather  than  later,  deliver  broadband  to  rural 
 America  as  well.  So  we  are  at  the  beginning,  and  we  all  have  high  hopes. 
 Because  of  this,  I  strongly  support  the  technical  inquiries  and  proposals  we  make  today.  We  need  to  set  the  technological  rules  of  the  game  early  and  transparently,  so  that 
 the  entrepreneurs  in  this  industry  can  make  investments  with  confidence.  As  regards  interference,  I  believe  we  make  another  step  in  that  direction  today,  so  I’m  happy  to 
 support  the  technical  side  of  our  item. 
 Today’s  item  dodges  some  of  the  hardest  questions,  however.  For  the  same  reasons  it  is  important  to  provide  certainty  for  industry  and  consumers  as  concerns 
 interference,  it  is  important  to  provide  certainty  on  the  policy  implications  that  we  will  surely  face  as  powerline  broadband  expands.  These  questions  are  hard  and 
 uncomfortable  ones.  But  we  should  never  shy  away  from  asking  the  hard  questions.  Avoiding  questions  today  only  makes  it  harder  for  a  future  Commission  to  move  ahead 
 once  architectures  are  in  place  and  investments  are  being  made. 
 So  I  would  tackle  now  issues  such  as  CALEA,  universal  service,  disabilities  access,  E911,  pole  attachments,  competition  protections,  and,  critically  here,  how  to 
 handle  the  potential  for  cross-  subsidization  between  regulated  power  businesses  and  unregulated  communications  businesses.  Is  it  right  to  allow  electricity  rate  payers  to  pay 
 higher  bills  every  month  to  subsidize  an  electric  company’s  foray  into  broadband? 
 Some  will  argue  that  we  don’t  know  enough  about  what  this  technology  will  look  like  yet.  Or  that  we  shouldn’t  regulate  an  infant  technology  out  of  existence.  Or  that  we 
 shouldn’t  saddle  a  new  technology  with  long-  standing  policy  objectives.  I  disagree.  Just  because  these  policy  goals  are  long  standing  doesn’t  mean  that  they  are  out  of  date. 
 Public  safety,  rural  service,  competition,  and  disabilities  access  never  go  out  of  date.  These  are  the  same  things  complicating  our  ability  to  move  ahead  on  the  VOIP  issues  that 
 we  discussed  earlier  today. 
1
 2 
 I  don’t  yet  know  how  these  issues  will  play  out  for  powerline  broadband  or  what  rules  the  Commission  should  adopt.  But  we  should  have  used  this  NPRM  to  start 
 thinking  about  it. 
 So  I  will  vote  to  approve  in  part  and  to  dissent  in  part. 
2