1
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MEREDITH A. BAKER
Re:  A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51
I would like to add my heartfelt thanks to Blair, Erik, Carlos, Phoebe and the entire 
team, and your spouses and families, for all of your efforts. Having overseen the 2008 
Networked Nation Report at NTIA, which looked at the policies and status of competition of 
broadband, on some scale, I know the difficulty you faced collecting and analyzing these data.  I 
hope your turn at public service has encouraged and inspired you, the way you have us.  You 
have accomplished a tremendous amount in your time here, and I hope that many of the 
innovative ways you have gone about your task, such as incorporating new media 
technologies and fostering broader participation, will become standard procedures here 
at the Commission. My thanks as well to the career FCC staff whose support made this 
process more coherent and relevant.  While there are places where I would have made 
different recommendations and suggestions, nothing I might say should be seen to 
diminish my recognition and gratitude to each of you for your efforts. Thank you all 
very much for your hard and dedicated work.
Turning to the issues at hand, I think it is important to acknowledge the separate tasks 
we are here to accomplish this morning: first to receive the National Broadband Plan; 
and second to support a joint statement on the importance of broadband to our nation.
In so doing, we initiate a process to increase the availability and adoption of broadband 
across the country. Indeed, I expect that efforts to promote broadband deployment and 
adoption will be central to the Commission’s work for years to come.  I look forward to 
working constructively and cooperatively with the Chairman and his team as we address 
these issues.  I feel it is particularly important that the Commission focus on some key 
aspects of the Plan that warrant prompt government attention:  the adoption of a 
comprehensive spectrum plan, long-overdue universal service reform, the deployment 
of a national interoperable broadband network for public safety, and other policy 
challenges.
Broadband is a Private Sector and Regulatory Success Story. 
The evidentiary record of the Plan demonstrates that widespread broadband availability 
from a variety of platforms has become a reality for most Americans.  95 percent of 
Americans, or 290 million people, have terrestrial broadband access—a remarkable 
achievement in a country as large and diverse as ours. Broadband competition is 
healthy and vibrant.  The Plan finds that over 80 percent of households have access to 
more than one broadband provider today providing service over 4 Mbps.  Tens of 
millions more have access to competing mobile broadband providers.  
With respect to adoption, ten years ago, only 6.8 million Americans subscribed to 
terrestrial broadband services.  In difficult economic times—approximately two-thirds 
of Americans now subscribe to a roughly $40 per month service.  
Under a light-touch targeted regulatory regime in both the Clinton and Bush 
Administrations, we have gone from a narrowband dial-up world to a multi-platform 
broadband world by crafting a regulatory framework that promotes facilities-based 
competition in lieu of prescriptive government requirements. We have worked 
2
constructively in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate economic and regulatory barriers to 
infrastructure investment and broadband deployment.  Private industry from every 
communication platform has responded to this consistent framework with substantial 
network investment and deployment to the great benefit of consumers.  
To reach the rest of America, and to promote more widespread adoption, the Broadband 
Plan suggests an aggressive and full agenda for the Commission for 2010 and beyond.  
As I have said since I arrived here at the FCC, one area for prompt government action is 
spectrum policy.  As 4G solutions begin to be deployed, the promise of additional 
intermodal broadband competition and more innovative new usage are right around the 
corner.  However, the success of state-of-the-art mobile broadband depends on our 
ability to align our spectrum policies correctly with the changing needs of consumers 
and industry.
Other nations have already begun this process.  With its digital dividend well in sight, 
Europe seeks to make up to 200 megahertz available for mobile broadband.  Germany is 
on the verge of auctioning 340 megahertz of additional spectrum in four prime bands.  
In Asia, Japan is reportedly planning to make spectrum blocks totaling 500 megahertz 
available for 4G deployments.  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 salute the team for identifying the need for a more comprehensive long-term approach 
to spectrum management. The United States needs a spectrum plan that expands upon 
proven flexible, market-oriented policies to facilitate spectrum access, wireless 
innovation and competition. As we move forward, I hope our policy will be guided by 
three overarching objectives:  facilitating efficient use of spectrum, identifying and re-
allocating additional spectrum to meet the current and future demands of wireless 
consumers, and encouraging investment and innovation in wireless networks and 
technologies. 
I believe the Broadband Plan’s recommendations on spectrum point in the right 
direction.  We need more transparent spectrum allocations and the database that will 
lower transaction costs for secondary market transactions and improve planning for 
existing providers and new entrants alike.  And, I’m looking forward to working with 
the dashboard.
The Plan also seeks to repurpose existing spectrum to keep pace with the evolution of 
mobile broadband technologies while we look for additional spectrum for reallocation 
to ensure its continuing success. We should do this in the context of a more holistic 
approach to spectrum management that takes into consideration both federal and non-
federal spectrum as well as increased international harmonization.  Decades-old 
service-specific and technology-specific allocations have splintered our spectrum and 
threaten the pace of innovation. But we should not stop at updating these rules; we 
must also support enabling more innovative use of spectrum, including dynamic 
spectrum access, smart antennas and more efficient receivers.
As we proceed, we must take care to ensure that we treat existing licensees equitably. 
We should provide both existing and new license holders with as much latitude as 
possible to design and deploy state-of-the-art, efficient networks and develop service 
3
offerings to appeal to U.S. consumers. I would strongly oppose any efforts to dictate 
business plans or service offerings through regulatory mandate or inflexible allocations 
or service rules.   
Spectrum policy is also not just about competition and deployment, it is about adoption 
too. The team’s findings indicate that mobile broadband has become a broadband entry 
point for many minority and other underrepresented communities and may be a 
workable solution for Internet access in remote areas.  For all these reasons, I look 
forward to working closely with the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners on 
spectrum issues and would invite other parts of the government, including Congress and 
stakeholders, to join forces in a collaborative effort to enable the U.S. to remain a 
global leader in mobile broadband.  
I also support the team’s efforts to move toward comprehensive Universal Service Fund 
and intercarrier compensation reform, targeted to broadband investment. It is necessary 
to evolve our support mechanisms into an era in which all Americans have the 
opportunity to benefit from broadband. We must transition in a considered way to an 
explicit support mechanism that will ensure accountability, efficiency, and adequate 
funding in areas where market forces are not sufficient to drive broadband services to 
America’s consumers. But we must also be mindful that the nearly $9 billion Fund is 
not without limits. Consumers pay for this. The universal service contribution factor 
for next quarter will be the largest ever—15.3 percent. This is real money from real 
people. Our efforts to modernize the Universal Service Fund should not become an 
excuse to further grow the overall size of the Fund. It is our obligation to ensure that 
money is spent wisely to achieve the goals set out by Congress—but without distorting 
the market or breaking the bank.  The Plan gives us helpful recommendations to begin 
this process.  
I also believe the Broadband Plan’s focus on public safety is well-placed and long 
overdue.  The need for interoperability was highlighted in the 9-11 Report and 
devastatingly illustrated in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  The Plan 
offers constructive suggestions that can enable us to move forward in a timely and 
comprehensive manner, which our nation’s first responders deserve.  I think nationwide 
public safety interoperability should be a top priority for this Commission and I look 
forward to helping to achieve it.  
I should also note that much of the Plan is dedicated to ensuring broadband connectivity 
to serve a number of statutorily enumerated national purposes from education and 
health care, to energy policy.  In each of these critical areas, broadband can be a great 
enabling technology and I am hopeful that the Plan’s thoughtful efforts will prove 
valuable to those agencies and stakeholders seeking to work with the FCC to harness 
the power of broadband for the betterment of our nation and consumers.
We Should Seek a Consensus-Based Broadband Policy.
As we consider the Plan’s recommendations in detail, our broadband policy should be 
focused on those 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 drive better broadband to more people, whoever they are and wherever they live.  
Importantly, this is not the time to throw away the playbook and start fresh.  We have 
4
the opportunity for incremental and targeted steps to drive broadband deployment to the 
7 million unreached households identified in the Plan and to take tangible and concrete 
actions to promote digital inclusion and literacy.  
We should, therefore, avoid re-opening settled regulatory battles or changing our 
market-based regulatory framework mid-course in a manner that could chill the private 
investment we so desperately need in our broadband infrastructure.  Specifically, we 
need to resist efforts to adopt rules in the Network Neutrality proceeding that would 
dictate how networks are managed and operated.  We should reject calls to revert to 
monopoly-era Title II regulation for broadband services that ignore the track record of 
success under Title I, and rebuff fiber unbundling and copper retirement proposals that 
seem to selectively forget our long and checkered history with government-
manufactured competition.  
We must also be pragmatic that the Federal Government does not have unlimited 
resources to support even the most worthwhile efforts.  Significant projects like 
NCTA’s A+ adoption program, the Silicon Valley-backed Invest in America Alliance 
funding of next generation technology and jobs, and One Economy’s outreach efforts 
are reflective of the type of private and philanthropic efforts we should encourage and 
foster.  I look forward to working closely with these and other groups as we reach out together to 
make certain that all urban, rural, and tribal communities have access to broadband in the years to 
come.
We should similarly be careful to avoid prescribing government-imposed answers to 
questions best left to the market as consumers and companies shift towards a 
broadband-enabled and digital world.  Questions about the Future of Media and 
journalism are best left primarily to newspapers, websites, TV and radio stations and 
new entrepreneurs.  Questions about how we will watch television tomorrow are best 
left primarily to consumer electronics manufacturers, device innovators, pay TV 
providers, content providers, and viewers.  Government should not be in the business of 
mandating technologies or picking technology winners.
Lastly, the Internet will continue to evolve and develop in the next decade in a manner 
that we simply cannot forecast, to bring untold opportunity and benefits to consumers.  
Because our actions will undoubtedly not keep pace with network, device, and 
application advancements, we must act judiciously in maintaining a regulatory 
framework that is dynamic and avoids one-size-fits-all approaches to broadband.  Each 
household and community will have different broadband needs and demands, and these 
demands will change over time.  Consumers will want different speeds, different price 
points, different features, and different quality of service guarantees.  No particular 
technology or service offering should be designated as the government’s desired 
approach.  The same flexible approach is warranted to address broadband adoption.  
There is no single reason why some consumers choose not to adopt broadband.  We 
should establish dynamic and evolving approaches to addressing the affordability, 
relevancy, and literacy adoption hurdles facing a third of Americans today.
I want to again thank the OBI team for your dedication, professionalism, and your 
thoughtful recommendations.  I look forward to working with the Chairman and my 
colleagues in our consideration of your recommendations.  Congratulations.