Thank you, Jim, for those kind words. It is an honor to be here this morning to speak at the 2^nd annual Quello Symposium. You are truly a great friend and public servant. I know I speak for most of Washington when I say that your clear vision and guiding presence at the FCC are sorely missed. But Washington’s loss is Michigan State University’s gain, where I know you continue to do great work on behalf of that distinguished institution. They are very lucky to have you.

The topic for this year’s symposium could not be more timely. We now have a new FCC Chairman who has committed to making agency reform a top priority. And, as you know, this is a matter that I, and others, have championed for quite some time. Unfortunately, until now, our counsel has fallen on deaf ears at the FCC. I am delighted that a more enlightened mindset at the agency seems to have taken hold, and hope that effort will bear fruit in short order.

The FCC must be transformed to meet the needs of the Information Age. Today it doesn’t matter if you are a telephone company, a wireless company, a cable or satellite operator, or even a broadcaster. Each of these companies now has the ability to deliver huge amounts of digital content to consumers – quickly, easily, and with the touch of a button. It is an exciting time, as high tech companies everywhere are racing to deliver the newest and best technology to consumers at the lowest cost.

From a policymaker’s point of view, technological convergence is a dream come true. More players in the market means greater choices and falling prices. And all other things being equal, the American public is the big winner. The problem is that all other things are not equal. Far from it. Because from a regulatory perspective, the unfortunate truth is all companies are not created equal – even when they are competing to provide the same services.

The fact is that while communications companies are striving to provide services designed for the next generation, the FCC is applying regulations designed for the last one.

That is why FCC reform must be a top priority. Too often the FCC is hamstrung by dint of its antiquated design. Separate bureaus assigned to each segment of the industry may have worked well enough in days gone by. But today the FCC’s fiefdom mentality is simply a relic – ill-equipped to handle the convergence of technology that is at the heart of this modern industry.

The pundits have predicted technological convergence for quite some time, but it is more than just a cliche. It is real, it is here, and more than anything else, it is the key to breaking down traditional monopolies. The FCC can try with all its might to regulate its way to a competitive marketplace, but we all know the pitfalls of centralized economic planning. True competition won’t occur until every company can use its technology of choice to compete freely in every market.

Unfortunately, not only does the FCC’s outdated structure create tremendous administrative inefficiencies in the processing of rules, license applications, and the various petitions before it, but the outcome of those proceedings are often unfair to one segment of the industry or another. And the structure itself perpetuates the ability of some players to game the system by advocating more or less regulation based not on the type of service offered, but rather on the type of technology used to provide it.

The FCC must address this problem across the board, and the sooner the better. It is a throwback to the days when we believed that some services were natural monopolies. The Commission then had the luxury of regulating every company in an industry the same way – because, by and large, they sold the same service. It was an efficient approach that served the public well. But today one communications service can be provided using a variety of technologies, yet the regulatory paradigm remains largely unchanged.

I have high hopes that Chairman Powell will succeed in his undertaking to retool the agency to more fairly and efficiently handle the pressing needs before it. He has the opportunity to turn today’s old-fashioned regulatory approach on its head. He should start by eliminating rules that create a fundamental disparity between companies competing in the same market. Left unresolved, this disparity will result in less competition, less innovation, less investment, and fewer choices for the American public.

The most egregious failure of the current regime exists in the broadband market, but it is a growing problem in other markets as well. It makes no sense for broadband services offered by a cable company to be regulated differently than broadband services offered by a telephone company, wireless provider, or any other communications company for that matter.

That is why Chairman Tauzin and I introduced H.R. 2420 last Congress, which I thought was a perfectly sensible bill, and the first important step toward regulatory reform. In fact, over 220 of my colleagues in the House agreed. Unfortunately, one gentleman, in particular, did not – and the bill languished in Committee.

I am pleased to say that a new day has arrived, and with it a reconstituted Committee. Chairman Tauzin and I intend to re-introduce broadband regulatory reform legislation shortly after the Spring recess, and I am confident that this time around the bill will be processed with due haste.

If ever there was a living example of the need for regulatory reform, this is it. Regulatory obstacles should not stand in the way of bringing broadband services to the American public. Especially when these obstacles are randomly applied to some distribution platforms, but not to others. In my view, all barriers should come down, and quickly. This effort is simply too important to ignore.

Opponents of the Tauzin-Dingell legislation say that the bill confers benefits largely on the Baby Bells, and therefore should be rejected. It is true that telephone companies stand to gain from regulatory relief in this area, but I believe these critics miss the point. It is absolutely essential that all broadband service providers are able to compete on a level playing field, irrespective of the technology they use. Full and fair competition must be achieved if we have any hope of bringing growth and stability to the now languishing New Economy.

As you know, when Chairman Tauzin and I began drafting this legislation nearly two years ago, the dot.com stocks were soaring through the stratosphere. I’m just a poor Polish lawyer from Detroit, but even I could see that these companies were destined for a major fall. What they desperately needed then, and still need today, are ubiquitous broadband connections that will pave the way for the Information Superhighway to succeed.

Unfortunately, these broadband connections did not arrive in time, and the e-commerce marketplace has paid a hefty price. However, all is not lost. We still have an opportunity to rebuild, but it is imperative that a regulatory paradigm is established that will encourage rapid broadband deployment.

I believe the Tauzin-Dingell bill will do just that. It is our best hope for getting the New Economy up and running again.

What the Tauzin-Dingell bill will not do is compromise the market-opening provisions of the Telecommunications Act. That charge is simply unfounded, and anyone who reads the bill knows it is a red herring. Tauzin-Dingell does nothing to roll back the mandates in the law with regard to opening the local telephone market to competition. The essential requirements for unbundling, resale, collocation and interconnection are all left perfectly intact, and the FCC is free to continue enforcing compliance using any and all means at the agency’s disposal.

What the Tauzin-Dingell bill does address is entirely forward-looking. The legislation simply draws a line in the sand when it comes to the regulation of advanced services such as high-speed Internet connections. The idea is to establish a regulatory-free zone so that telephone companies can compete with cable companies, and others, free from regulatory obstacles designed for another era. It is an effort to stimulate broadband deployment, plain and simple.

Broadband connections, both to the home and around the world, will put the New Economy back on track. When that happens, I am confident the American public will experience the full potential of the digital age.

Thank you for your attention, and the opportunity to be with you this morning. I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.