CLIFF STEARNS
6TH DISTRICT, FLORIDA
WASHINGTON:
2370 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-0906
(202) 225-5744
FAX: (202) 225-3973
www.house.gov/stearns
AIR FORCE CAUCUS, CO·CHAIRMAN
CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY
DISEASE CAUCUS, CO-CHAIRMAN
CYSTIC FIBROSIS CAUCUS, CO-CHAIRMAN
CONGRESSIONAL HORSE
CAUCUS, CO-CHAIRMAN
Q::ongress of the ilnitro~tatcs
iltousc of'Rcprcsmtatiucs
'1l1Dashington, 1)[: 20515-0g06
March 12,2010
CQMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEES:
COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND
THE INTERNET
RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION
COMMITIEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
DEPUTY RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER
SUBCOMMITTEES:
HEALTH
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chainnan
Federal Communications Commission
445 lt
h
Street, SW
Washington, D,C. 20554
Dear Chainnan Genachowski:
On the eve ofthe national broadband plan that the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act required, I am encouraged by early reports from you and the
Commission staff. All indications suggest that the report will confinn what I have been
saying for quite some time: Our country's broadband deployment and adoption numbers
are far better than suggested by the special interest groups that stand to benefit from
counterproductive regulation. For example, a number ofthe public briefings coming from
the Commission have indicated that only about 7 million households lack access to
broadband, That means that providers already make broadband available to
approximately 95 percent ofthe country. I also understand the report will indicate that
approximately two-thirds ofhouseholds have already adopted broadband.
This indicates the success ofthe national broadband plan we have already had in
place as a statutory matter since 1996, and as a regulatory matter since 1999: a free 
market, deregulatory policy for the Internet and broadband that promotes investment in
facilities-based competition, It also supports the points that Blair Levin, the executive
director ofthe FCC's broadband initiative, made in his December 2009 interview on C 
Span's The Communicators. As Mr. Levin so aptly put it, "broadband is primarily a
function ofprivate investment" Only in those few parts ofthe country where it would
otherwise be uneconomic for the private sector to provide service might it be appropriate
for the government to step in,
He also described as "not very productive" the calls by Public Knowledge and
Free Press to force carriers to provide access to competitors by unbundling their networks
or mandating they serve a separate wholesaling function. The reason, he explained, is that
the Commission is "not that terribly interested in moving toward things which will just
freeze capital investment and have long, complicated court battles," More importantly, he
observed, these suggestions "fail to look at what's really going on in the market" The
o OCALA
'15 S.E. 25TH AVENUE
OCALA, FL 34471
(352) 351-8777
o GAINESVILLE
5700 S.W. 34TH STREET, #425
GAINESVILLE, FL 32608
(352) 337-0003
PRINTED.oN RECYCLED. PAPER
D ORANGE PARK
1726 KINGSLEY AVENUE, #8
ORANGE PARK, FL 32073
(904) 269-3203
0398
broadband market is growing and evolving rapidly, and it is "not appropriate to be
looking at those kinds ofmajor things when there is such uncertainty about the market."
I could not agree more. And as the facts support Mr. Levin's statements, I expect
that the text ofthe broadband plan will be rooted in these observations and not littered
with hidden agendas-such as placeholders for network neutrality, old-style, Title II
common carrier regulations, or the type ofspectrum conditions advocated by M2Z and
others in the past that have hobbled auctions. Whether described in clear language or
cloaked in veiled references, mandates such as these will only exacerbate the uncertainty
and hinder the investment that Mr. Levin spoke so eloquently about. The presence of
such mandates would also indicate that the national broadband plan has become a
political document, not the honest, fact-based inquiry that I know' you and I have both
hoped the plan would be.
While I am encouraged that the data in your report will support a free-market,
pro-investment approach, I cannot help but wonder how many resources and how much
money we have spent to reiterate what existing evidence already showed and many ofus
have known for so long. Accordingly, please respond to the following questions by
March22,201O.
I. Why, specifically, was it necessary to delay release ofthe plan to March 17 from
the statutorily required deadline ofFebruary 17?
2. What was done between February 17 and March 17?
3. How much money have you spent in preparing the plan? Please provide a total
figure as well as a breakdown, including figures for categories such as the total
amount paid to existing employees for time spent on the plan, the total amount
paid to new employees for time spent on the plan, amount spent on studies and
reports, amount spent on travel, amount spent on workshops, and amount spent on
printing and production.
4. How many staffpeople were hired specifically to work on the plan? From where
were they typically hired? What is the employment classification ofthese
staffers? How many ofthem had a background in communications law as opposed
to a general consulting background? Were they hired through the same process
other FCC employees who do not work on the plan are typically hired?
5. The Administration has emphasized its policies to limit the hiring of, or
communication with,private sector employees in connection with government
generally and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular. While I
am not convinced that such interaction between the public and private sectors is
problematic, I am concerned ifa double standard is being applied. How is it
consistent with the Administrations' overall position on the interaction between
the private and public sectors the FCC used private sector consultants, on a
limited-term basis, many ofwhom may return to the private sector?
6. How did the FCC review potential conflicts ofinterest among employees hired
from the private sector? Does the FCC plan to make available in publicly
reviewable form any potential conflicts so that the American people can be
assured that the plan was put together in an objective manner?
7. How soon will an electronic, searchable copy ofthe plan be available to help
facilitate review ofthe plan by congressional staff and the public?
8. Please answer yes or no to each ofthe following questions: Ifthe D.C. Circuit
rules that the FCC lacks jurisdiction under Title I to impose network neutrality
regulations, will you, as Chairman, propose that the FCC classifY broadband
services under Title II? Might you make such a proposal even ifthe D.C. Circuit
does not so rule and, ifso, why?
9. What is your personal opinion on whether broadband services should be classified
under Title II?
Thank you for your consideration. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to
contact me. I look forward to your responses.
With kind regards, I am
N-f'C..----"~a
Cliff e s, Rank g Member
Subcom ittee on Communications;- ology,
and the Internet
House Energy and Commerce Committee
cc: Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Commissioner Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker