Remarks of Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn (as prepared)
Where Do We Go From Here?
First Congregational United Church of Christ
Washington, DC
May 9, 2018
Good evening.  To my dear friend Cheryl Leanza:  I am incredibly grateful for that warm 
introduction, for your work with the many hosts that made this evening possible, and for more 
than eight years of friendship and support. 
And to all of you, thank you all for joining me in this magnificent place of worship.  I am 
moved by this room, not just because of its physical beauty, but because of what it represents.  
When I enter this sanctuary, I am no less bothered by the many challenges before us, but 
the sense of comfort and ease you may note from me comes from knowing the power of being 
united for change.
 If you were to pick up a document called the Basis of Union—the agreement used to 
unify the two congregations that would become the United Church of Christ—you will find the 
following sentiment in the preamble.  This congregation affirmed its commitment to 
“confronting the divisions and hostilities of the world.” 
Now this bold proclamation was not made at the height of the modern Civil Rights 
Movement, nor was it made in the days following our last Presidential election.  The year was 
1943, and the agreement set the stage for a congregational union in 1957.  This I suppose, is why 
Dr. Martin Luther King asked the then director of the United Church of Christ Office of 
Communication, Inc., the late Dr. Everett Parker, to lead the movement against television 
stations that were imposing news blackouts in the south—where media outlets agreed among 
themselves to not cover the growing Civil Rights Movement.  If it is not covered, the owners and 
assignment editors concluded, then it did not happen, which meant that many of the hard-fought 
struggles and atrocities levied against Freedom Fighters were not documented for those to see 
and hear. 
And while many of the images and stories were indeed not captured or covered, what 
could not be stopped was the ultimate victory in federal court against a certain Mississippi 
television station, which would eventually lead to the public interest standards that are on the 
books today and increased levels of diversity in our nation’s newsrooms. 
So, beyond the spiritual, this room holds for us—especially those of us in the 
communications field—the struggles of our past; our victories and progress, as well as our losses 
and setbacks.  
And for nearly 20 years, including almost nine at the Federal Communications 
Commission, I have been a part of some of those victories and setbacks.  If you count my time 
publishing a local newspaper in South Carolina, that amounts to nearly 35 years.  So, forgive me 
if I am particularly reflective this evening, as I close one chapter of my service and begin the 
next.  
The theme “Where Do We Go From Here?” is both appropriate for the times and 
challenging for me to answer because, over the past 15 months, I’ve witnessed many of our hard 
fought gains, which sought to balance the needs and protections of consumers—particularly our 
2most vulnerable—with the need and desire for competition, robust innovation, and investment, 
being overturned.
How do we make sure that people’s most basic needs are met by the networks designed 
to connect us?  How can we deliver equitable access to the information and services these 
communities most need?  
I recognized long ago that, like the natural trails and waterways relied upon by our 
ancestors, along the paths of these networks sprouts commerce, innovation, diversity, 
knowledge, and opportunity—or at least the promise of these.  
But where we used to rely primarily on the forces of nature to decide which communities 
would be blessed with these riches, we now have the power to control and leverage where these 
networks flow, and who and what communities they serve.  Through technological advances and 
ingenuity, we can overcome problems of geography or topography and ensure that these 
networks are navigable, and open to all.  We can direct these networks to the most far flung 
corners of our country, through physical conduit in the ground, radio waves, or even distant 
signals from space.  The reach of these networks, and what they are capable of, is only limited by 
our collective will, and the resources that we are willing to allocate.
Our communications system is special.  The precious resource that these networks carry 
is sometime difficult to describe, yet it is intensely personal.  In an instant, these networks put 
our voice in someone’s ear, our face before someone’s eyes, transmit our thoughts or ideas to 
one person or many, bring us to school, to the doctor, to the bank; they deliver our goods, 
provide our services, bring us help in an emergency, connect us to news, enable our leisure, and 
immediately give us a presence in just about any community in the world.  For better or for 
worse, communications services seem less like a tool, and more like an extension of our selves, 
connecting us to what society has become.
But the communications sector does not just intersect with every other critical sector of 
our economy, society, and democracy; it is inextricably intertwined.  Healthcare, education, 
energy, agriculture, commerce, governance, civic engagement, labor, housing, transportation, 
public safety—all rely on this modern communications infrastructure.  Any weaknesses or 
shortcomings, systemic or isolated, will have ripple effects that can be difficult to discern, but are 
unmistakable in their impact.
These dynamics existed, albeit to a much lesser extent, in 1934, when Congress set out to 
centralize regulatory authority over the nation’s communications infrastructure in a new federal 
agency, the FCC.  Even then, Congress recognized the “vital need” for this new regulatory body. 
This agency was created with a very specific and deceptively simple task, “to make 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-
wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”  Our 
quest to perfect our fulfillment of this goal is, ultimately, what has brought us all together 
tonight.  
Forgive me for this rather long introduction, but for me, this context is important to place 
the communications policy that is so familiar to all of us, into a larger narrative.  Understanding 
the importance of proper communications policy, and the prime directive of the agency, I 
championed many causes during my time on the Commission.  Although some may think the 
3work of the Commission is highly technical, and it too often falls outside of the public 
consciousness, it is a doorway to larger battles of equity taking place across this country.  This is 
precisely why it has been so important to me to ensure that we all benefit from the UCC media 
justice ministry’s historic battles to open this space up to public participation by seeking out and 
elevating voices that have, too often, been forgotten or ignored.  
While it was important to support sound communications policy at the Commission, I 
viewed this work as a means to an even greater end.  
I am sure that many in this room could list, with accuracy, the issues that I have taken on 
during my term of service at the Commission.  Perhaps now, in the spirit of reflection and as we 
look ahead, it would make sense for me to explain, in no uncertain terms, why I chose this path.
I believe that depriving anyone of a critical service, whether done purposefully or as the 
harmful byproduct of a business decision, is wrong and hurts all of us.  It often robs people of 
their health, education, and livelihood, and sometimes much more.
I believe that denying people these services because of where they live, what they look 
like, or how much money they make, is antithetical to our values.  When our critical networks 
are not built to rural areas, or urban areas predominantly populated by low income people, we 
have abandoned our charge and succumbed to those institutionalized prejudices that have long 
plagued this country.  
I believe that the networks that we rely on should be totally free of discrimination, and 
should reflect our greatest democratic ideals.
I believe that our networks are more valuable to all of us when they connect all of us.
I believe that public resources should be deployed primarily on behalf of the public.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to serve the unserved and close existing gaps, 
while allowing existing prosperity to continue, so long as it does not cause undue disadvantage to 
anyone else.   
And I believe that it is the role of the government to step in, when markets have failed, 
and the status quo looks more like stagnation.
So how did I apply these beliefs? 
I fought to improve our universal service programs—to make sure that they live up to our 
promise of serving all of this country.  To me, these programs are not only about wires and 
towers, or plans and devices.  They keep us true to a commitment we made long ago:  to ensure 
that no communities are left behind, and cut off from our economy and society.  These programs 
attempt to confront debilitating inequality by inviting more of us onto the playing field.  These 
programs seek to improve health and educational outcomes, and reduce the opportunity gap that 
exists between the haves and the have-nots.  Through these programs, it is possible to leap frog 
the status quo, and bring the next generation of tools and resources to communities that may still 
be waiting for the last generation to arrive.  
Our program supporting service to high cost and hard to reach areas attempts to ensure 
that advanced networks reach every corner of this country by subsidizing build out—the same 
way we did with our postal infrastructure, electricity, the railroad, and plain old telephone 
service.
4Lifeline, which provides a modest subsidy to those who cannot afford access, is critical 
and necessary and in the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:  “It is a cruel jest to 
say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself up by his bootstraps.”  Too often, the actions of 
those in power callously suggest that they think the best course of action for folks without boots 
is to leave them bootless and then raze their path into town.  I, for one, see it differently.  
Our program facilitating access to rural healthcare resources seeks to use our powerful 
communications tools to deliver healthcare to the hardest to reach places.  But this work is about 
much more than that.  It is about addressing health disparities experienced by rural communities 
across the country.  It is about not ignoring our sudden declining life expectancy, and the 
onslaught of chronic diseases in many areas.  It is, quite literally, about improving people’s lives.
And our E-Rate program seeks to tackle structural educational disparities that have 
plagued too many of our nation’s communities.  Like it or not, just about everything has 
migrated online.  Unfortunately, we made that transition without making sure that all of our 
schools, students, and communities were ready.  
When it comes to delivering on the Commission’s primary objective, and ensuring 
universal service across this country, the stakes are high and we have no choice but to get it right.
Keeping the Internet open, and preserving Net Neutrality, is based on well-reasoned and 
time-tested common carriage principles.  Our application of Title II of the Communications Act, 
with appropriate forbearance, which was advanced with great success in 2015, allowed us to 
maintain the objectives and values we cherish, while tailoring the rules to the technologies of the 
day.  Broadband is now part of the critical infrastructure of this nation, on par with water, 
electricity, railroads, and telephones.  To break from history and not treat it as such is a grave 
error, and one we have no choice but to correct. 
This point is one that I know is not lost those assembled tonight: 
Congress was explicit in carrying over common carrier requirements from the Interstate 
Commerce Commission’s railroad regulations when establishing the FCC in 1934.  And I 
understand why.  Congress recognized the important public service provided by communications 
infrastructure, and wrote what is now Title II of the statute, demanding that providers serve all 
comers, without discrimination or prejudice, and engage only in just and reasonable practices.  
As Congress said at the time, although language should be slightly revised in the 
communications context, the objectives were not intended to change.  At the time, this wasn’t 
controversial.  Nearly 20 years earlier, in a 1916 advertisement, the AT&T monopoly described 
telephone service as follows:  
“. . . [T]he subscriber is the dominant factor.  His ever-growing 
requirements inspire invention, lead to endless scientific research, and make 
necessary vast improvements and extensions . . .  
“The telephone cannot think and talk for you, but it carries your thought 
where you will . . .
 “The telephone is essentially democratic; it carries the voice of the child 
and the grown-up with equal speed and directness . . .
“It is not only the implement of the individual, but it fulfils the needs of all 
the people.”
5Reading this more than 100 years later, I cannot help but think it sounds familiar.  The 
concept of common carriage is palpable in this text, as is an understanding of the virtuous cycle 
that it enables.  I continue to believe that our action in 2015, to apply these timeless ideals to 
broadband Internet access service, was the right thing to do.
And when we consider, once again, whether the principles of common carriage ought to 
apply to the provision of Internet access service, we should not forget its importance in historic 
struggles against discrimination and prejudice.  For instance, shortly after the Freedom Riders 
rode across the South in 1961, working to force action to end segregation in transportation and 
public accommodations, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy petitioned the Interstate 
Commerce Commission to promulgate and enforce rules preventing discrimination.  
He relied on a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act that prohibited subjecting any 
individual to “unjust discrimination” or “undue or unreasonable prejudice of disadvantage.”  
Nearly 30 years earlier, this provision of the Interstate Commerce Act featured prominently in 
the drafting of the obligations of telecommunications carriers, in what would ultimately become 
Title II of the Communications Act.
And yes, I fought for Prison Phone Justice.  In nearly 20 years as a regulator, there is 
little that I have been even tempted to call evil, but this is as close it as gets.  Our broken inmate 
calling regime is the most glaring example of the greatest and most distressing type of injustice I 
have ever seen in the communications sector.  This issue, my friends, is not simply about the cost 
of a telephone call.  It is about fighting the effects of mass incarceration that disproportionately 
impacts people of color around the country.  It has to do with the strengthening of familial bonds, 
which have been stretched to the breaking point by the unequal application of our criminal 
justice system and the economic weight that compounds it.  It is about maintaining community 
ties, promoting rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism.  When an inmate’s debt to society is paid 
over and over and over again, by sons and daughters, mothers and fathers—in the form of these 
exorbitant and predatory rates—the burden is too great to all of us to bear.  
I fought for greater diversity in media and against excessive consolidation, because the 
disgraceful reality is that today just a small handful of the thousands of radio and television 
stations in this country are owned by women or people of color.  My goal has been to ensure that 
our media landscape reflects the rich diversity and strength of our local communities and while 
some publicly lament broadcasting as a medium in decline, look a little more carefully.  Media 
ownership is not about getting content to people’s television sets and radios.  It is a blunt 
instrument of power.  As Congressman Luther Johnson said in an early debate about broadcast 
ownership in 1926, if “a single selfish group is permitted to . . . dominate these broadcasting 
stations . . . woe be to those who dare to differ with them.  It will be impossible to compete with 
them in reaching the ears of the American people.”  For many years, we heeded this warning.  
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have continuously moved in the wrong direction, to all of our 
detriment. 
So where do we go from here?  I have heard many versions of this question in recent 
weeks, including:  “what more can we do?”  
What more can we do when millions speak out in favor of net neutrality and, despite 
having the people and the law on our side, our leadership turns its back on decades of 
communications policy?  
6What more can we do when the nightmare of media consolidation is underscored by 
leadership that continues to diligently unravel the promise of broadcasting, to the benefit of the 
few? 
What more can we do when our nation sits transfixed for days learning every detail about 
an invasion of their privacy and the misuse of their personal data online, but many of the 
lawmakers feigning concern last year voted to allow Internet service providers to do much worse 
with impunity?  
What more can we do when broadband is universally considered a necessity, if not a 
human right, yet, in the face of well-known disparities, our leaders opt for platitudes over 
policy—and, in fact, take steps to worsen the condition of those most in need? 
We fight harder. 
We shout louder.  
We strengthen our bonds, though shared ideals and concerted action.  We escalate each 
time our civility is mistaken for weakness.  When pushed, we push back twice as hard, confident 
that the moral superiority of our positions was settled long ago, if not on this earth then surely in 
the ether.
We do so because we must.  In the face of the longest odds.  In times of great upheaval 
and strife.  If our leaders are not leading, then we lead. 
The litany of injustices, and hypocrisy, and debasement—these things do not discourage 
me and neither should they you.  They ignite in me a righteousness that I know unites all of us 
with an activist heart, concern for our brothers and sisters, and a care for our common future. 
But it takes more than righteous anger and a willingness to win.  It is not enough for us to 
know that we are right.  We have to show we are right.  We have to apply the spirit of innovation 
that has built these very networks and services, and apply it to our policymaking.  Although the 
timeless values that built this space endure, and the goals that we pursue have remained 
unchanged for decades, if not centuries, we can never allow ourselves to think that we cannot do 
better.  We can never stop perfecting our ideas, and the contours of our service. 
Despite recent setbacks, monumental gains have been made—gains that, in truth, cannot 
be as easily washed away as those in the current administration may hope.  
It is one thing to decline to issue a rule, or create a program, or advance a heretofore 
unknown consumer protection regulation.  It is another thing entirely to give people a tangible 
sense of how things ought to be, or grant them a protection that they are entitled to, and then rip 
it away from them. 
I have said it before and I will say it again, the FCC can either be an enabler of 
opportunity or a stifler of opportunity.  When it opts to be the latter, it is up to all of us to sound 
the alarm, affirm for our constituents that this is not the way it should be done, and empower 
them to demand more.  I have tried my best to do so by example, to be a conduit for change, an 
enabler of opportunities, and a voice for the voiceless.  I will leave it to others to determine 
whether I have succeeded.  I will continue to embrace solutions, and look for ways to create new 
opportunities.
7Tonight, without question, we certainly have a long way to go, and there is much work to 
be done.  But I believe in the fight and I believe in the people in the fight.  I believe in your 
fortitude.  I believe in your ingenuity.  I believe in your love of this country and everyone in it.  
I believe in the strength of your convictions as you pursue social justice and civil rights, 
and I know that in this space, when you reflect on our collective contributions, you look forward 
rather than backward, because as we move to the next phase in this eternal fight for justice and 
equity, know that history has affirmed that those who are united for good will win.  Thank you 
very much.