1
PREPARED REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
FREE PRESS SUMMIT:  IDEAS TO ACTION
MAY 11, 2010
Thank you very much Joe, for that kind introduction.  And thank you to all of the 
folks at Free Press for inviting me to today’s event.  Free Press has contributed a great 
deal to the communications world since its inception, and I am thankful that your efforts 
and commitment have not wavered to this day.  
It is also wonderful to see so many faces that I do not know here today.  I hope to 
get acquainted with each you over the coming weeks and months as there are so many 
lively communications issues in play that have a direct impact on our daily lives.
One of those important issues is the Commission’s “Future of Media” project, 
which is directly relevant to the general discussion at the heart of this summit.  It is 
critical that we take stock of the many changes in the news and information marketplace 
in order to execute our jobs properly.  Without a handle on the current state of the media 
business, and a sense of where it might migrate in the near future, it will be impossible 
for us to address thoughtfully proposals for media concentration as well as others issues 
that affect the dissemination of local news and information.
Before I talk a bit more about the substance of today’s summit, I thought that 
given your focus today on the turning ideas into action, it might be useful for me to focus 
more on the process of affecting meaningful change in today’s environment.  
Unfortunately, bringing your ideas to life is not as simple as providing the most cogent 
argument or out-working those with opposing viewpoints.  Rather, you must first 
understand the range of factors that comprise decision-making in Washington – and 
specifically at the FCC – before crafting your plan of how to make a difference.
In my view, there are at least three important “environmental” factors we must 
come to terms with before developing any successful campaign for change.
The first factor is that the federal government often has a tendency to look inward 
– that is, to and among the usual players – in order to determine its policy direction.  
Many of us have grown quite comfortable in D.C.  We have our experts and surveys and 
studies that support our work.  But what we tend not to have is regular contact with the 
people most impacted by our decisions.  In my view, this is something that must change.  
Perhaps I come to this issue with an unfair bias.  I am about as outside-the-
beltway of a Commissioner as you will see at the FCC.  Until I was sworn in this past 
August, I had spent my entire life in South Carolina.  I had some urban experience.  I had 
some rural experience.  I had whatever you might call the “in between” experience.  All 
of which happened outside of D.C.
It is amusing to me that, from time to time, a close friend or colleague will 
suggest to me that I downplay my significant time outside of Washington.  There is no 
doubt that their hearts are in the right places.  In many local circles, my background may 
serve as a strike against me.  I did not arrive at the Commission as a “known” quantity.  
Some of you here may know what exactly what I am talking about.
2
I see this fact as a major plus, however.  I believe that we are better off having a 
Commission that includes a mix of those people who know the Washington game well, 
and those people, like me, who have spent a good deal more time outside of it.
An outside-the-beltway mindset can open up a public official to a different kind 
of discourse.  You tend learn more about what people unconnected to the political work 
think.  How do consumers feel about their cell phone experience?  Can consumers afford 
broadband service in rural and urban America?  Do consumers believe they are receiving 
the local news and information most relevant to their lives?
There is a tendency in Washington to get caught up in all things D.C. and to lose 
sight of the people throughout the country that we have been placed here to serve.  This 
state of affairs is not an indictment of any individual or the result of any misguided intent.  
Rather, there has emerged a preference in D.C. for political swordplay – that is, a focus 
on how to outmaneuver your opponent – over substantive debate and finding the answer 
that makes the most sense for all parties.
This is why I encourage my colleagues to interact more with consumers beyond 
the Beltway.  It is crucial that we hear from people about what is most important to them 
and to chat with them about why we make the decisions we do.  That two-way 
communication is essential to good governance.
A great start down this path would be for the Commission to hold public hearings 
on the proposed Comcast-NBCU merger outside of Washington, D.C.  Obviously we do 
not have the resources to travel the country getting individualized views from every city 
and town.  But we do have the ability to hold one or more hearings in places where 
consumers will be directly affected – either positively or negatively – by this landmark 
transaction.  
What value will hearings outside the Beltway bring?  First and foremost, they will 
force the Commission to interact and see up-close how Americans feel about the merger.  
Most of our days are spent poring over electronic and paper filings of briefs and short 
comments in the comfort of our own offices.  It is far different to hear directly from the 
public.  You feel the passion these issues generate.  You better understand people’s 
views.  And you may even see areas of misunderstanding and how our message may be 
distorted by the time it reaches people across the country.
The second environmental factor with which you must contend, and one that is 
directly related to the first, is the outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington.  I cannot 
overstate the incredible advantage well-funded companies and organizations have when it 
comes to making their voices heard.  Lobbying in Washington has become a 
sophisticated business.
None of this is to say that lobbying, per se, is problematic.  Indeed, already during 
my tenure I have benefitted from the insights of lobbyists who help illuminate some of 
the granular details of their clients’ positions.  This can be an invaluable service.
However, the most effective lobbyists can give their clients a huge advantage over 
the less experienced interested parties.  They know how we make decisions, when we 
make decisions, and they often have access to information that many Commission 
officials do not yet have.  These elements make a difference.
3
This means that, as individuals and smaller organizations, you have to find 
creative ways to level the lobbying playing field.  One avenue is through partnering with 
others – banding together on areas of agreement to form a stronger overall unit.  It may 
also mean linking with those in Washington who understand the ebbs and flows of 
administrative agencies in order to figure out who the right folks are to speak with and 
when to pursue those individuals.  When it comes to the FCC, it is important to 
understand how the Commission works – our filings, how and when we vote – and how 
best to assert yourselves.  
A third factor that you must grapple with is the battle of the message.  In today’s 
sound bite age, some have fared much better than others.  Nuance simply is not valued by 
many and getting the word out can be a challenge.  Mastering this element is crucial both 
to disseminating your own positive arguments and to counteracting any misinformation 
that has permeated the community.
Nowhere is this challenge more apparent than in the current debate over whether 
the Commission should “reclassify” the transmission component of broadband service 
from an “information service” to a “telecommunications service.”  The upshot of 
reclassification is that under the latter classification – “telecommunications service” – the 
Commission has more regulatory authority than if the transmission component of 
broadband continues to be considered an “information service.”  This issue was 
resurrected recently in the wake of an important decision by the D.C. Circuit that 
significantly narrowed the Commission’s authority over broadband under Title I. 
An unfortunate reality is that having an open forum with reasonable and honest 
debate in this sphere appears unlikely.  Instead, the lobbying machine for some extremely 
powerful interests has already been churning out quote-worthy lines at a rapid rate.
If you’ll indulge me, let me offer three quick examples of what we are up against.
First, some individuals are now asserting that the D.C. Circuit actually held that 
the Commission has no authority whatsoever to regulate broadband.  This is patently 
untrue.  The Court said only that – and of course, I am paraphrasing – the Commission 
has limited, if any, authority under Title I of the Communications Act to enact certain 
regulations concerning broadband.  It said nothing about the Commission’s authority 
under Title II of the Act.  Thus, the decision plainly left open the possibility that the 
Commission could have the authority under Title II.
Second, others are now asserting that the Chairman is seeking to enact 
burdensome rules similar to what we had in place during the early-Ma Bell-monopoly 
era.  But that argument could not be further from the truth.  In fact, we are merely looking 
to preserve the authority that almost everyone assumed we had under Title I prior to the 
Court’s decision.  The Chairman has made clear that he intends to concurrently forbear 
from applying a vast majority of the 48 regulatory provisions of Title II.  Does this sound 
like “old style” regulation to you?  Of course not.  But that doesn’t stop the messaging 
machine from rolling forward.
And third, my personal favorite, is the claim that the Commission is trying to 
“take over” the Internet.  At the outset, it must be made absolutely clear that the issue of 
reclassification goes far beyond our open Internet proceeding.  It involves some of the 
4
most important parts of our National Broadband Plan – universal service, privacy, 
transparency, and cybersecurity.  Without reclassification, the road to achieving each of 
those issues is laden with landmines and likely to fail.
In addition, even with respect to the open Internet proceeding, the Commission is 
attempting to preserve the open character of the ’net.  In fact, we are trying to keep the 
Internet in your hands and not in the hands of industry gatekeepers.  The only threatened 
“takeover” of the Internet is by industry.  If they begin to restrict access, prioritize their 
own offerings, or make other critical changes to the structure of what has been an 
incredible economic driver as an open platform, then we all should be concerned.
As you can see, we all have our work cut out for us.  Indeed, each of these three 
environmental factors will play a role in the nearly every debate that emerges in the near 
future.
It is no different when we consider the future of media, and specifically the role of 
public media in the coming decades.  I believe very strongly in our need to address 
proactively the future of the way our communities and our nation as a whole receives 
news and information.  A thriving democracy depends on an actively engaged, informed 
public.  And an important feature – if not the single most important – of an informed 
public is a tenacious and rigorous media corps.
It has become clear, however, that in the digital age, the old business models to 
support journalism are no longer satisfactory.  And today we are still grappling with the 
new ones.  One thing that is clear to me is that some of the developing models for a 
successful media do not necessarily line up with the notions that drive strong, 
independent news gathering.
So we have to be able to ask the tough questions.  How can we, as a society, 
provide avenues to useful information?  Avenues that are not necessarily profit 
generators.  And this is why the support of public media is critical.
There are those inside and outside the FCC that do not want us to probe this arena 
and evaluate the state of the media marketplace.  They argue that this is beyond our 
jurisdiction and that we should focus our efforts elsewhere.
This messaging is only beginning to take shape as part of the environment I 
discussed earlier.  It will take your organizational skills, messaging skills, and patience in 
order to counteract an environment unfriendly to real discourse and public debate.  I urge 
you all to stay committed to this endeavor despite the difficulties you will inevitably 
encounter.
I will rely on your contributions as I figure out this complex issue.  I will remain 
committed myself to separating the noise from reasoned argument and thoughtful 
exchanges.  And I will stay open to new ideas and to the public that has put me where I 
am in the first place. 
Thank you so much for your time today, and best of luck in the near future.  
###