TECHNOS

July 20, 2008

TECHNOS QUARTERLY Spring 1997 Vol. 6 No. 1

Interview with Reed Hundt

By Mardell Jefferson Raney

Reed Hundt was named Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by President Clinton and was sworn in by Vice President Gore on November 29, 1993. Hundt's tenure at the FCC has been guided by two principles: that the FCC should make decisions based on the public interest and that they should write fair rules of competition for the communications sector. Under Chairman Hundt, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted, and the FCC conducted the first spectrum auction in U.S. history, raising more than $18 billion for the national treasury. Hundt is strongly committed to the vision of the President and Vice President to network every classroom and library in the U.S. to the information superhighway by the year 2000.

How do we balance the necessity for huge expenditures of money for the Internet with those needed for today's crumbling school buildings and infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms with inadequate equipment, and teacher shortages and training?

Technological literacy will be a necessity—not a frill—in the 21st century. The most important single benefit that the communications revolution can deliver to each and every child in this country is an advanced cutting-edge 21st-century education. The way to do this is to provide modern communications technology to every teacher and every student in every classroom in every school in the country.

About eight years ago, I was teaching school; and for my class, I had only 35 books for 175 students. Any handouts I wanted to create, I copied on a mimeograph machine. I remember those years and those students. I learned more from them than they did from me, but more important, I learned what they need to succeed in today's world. For children to have a fair chance to make the American Dream come true, they must all be taught both with and about the latest technology.

Is it fair, reasonable, and wise to put so much of our educational resources into the Internet?

The drive to integrate technology into our nation's schools goes far beyond the Internet. If the Internet didn't exist, advanced technology would still have so many valuable educational uses—distance learning applications, collaborative learning, and so forth—that far larger investments than are being contemplated would be justified.

By the beginning of the 21st century, 60 percent of the new jobs will require skills in computers and technology. Already more than half of our high-wage jobs require the use of networked computers. Our mission at the FCC is to ensure that our policies promote private competition and deliver public benefits. Investments in educational technology are key components to achieving this mission. Leveraging communications technology for education is essential if our goal is to train knowledgeable workers to fill the high-paying jobs of the 21st century. Although nine percent of today's classrooms have Internet access, 91 percent still do not. We have much to do to reach our goal.

You've said that your mission as FCC Chairman is to ensure that the benefits of the communications revolution are available to every American. Is this possible, and can we promise access and equity to every segment of society?

The dawning of the Information Age represents an opportunity for equality that we have not enjoyed since Horace Mann first championed the idea of free public schools. In a true 21st-century classroom without walls, all children—whether from our poorest neighborhoods or richest suburbs—can travel as far as their thirst for knowledge will take them.

Does this apply to lifelong learners, adult retraining, and higher education, as well as K–12 classrooms?

Once networked, classrooms and libraries can become community nodes on the information superhighway. When the school day is done, parents who can't afford computers at home can come in to the school to use the networks. The opportunity for parents to learn new computer skills, look for jobs, and take classes will allow them to pursue the lifelong education they'll need to remain competitive in the marketplace. They'll also be able to e-mail family and friends, and to read from libraries located miles away. The benefits of networked classrooms and libraries can and should extend to the entire community. We know that technological literacy is a strong determinant of success. Access to networked computers is a crucial step towards ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed.

One of the key motivators for the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was President Clinton's belief that it would accelerate the pace of integrating technology into America's schools and classrooms. What's happened since then?

In his second Inaugural Address, President Clinton stated that we must guarantee that in the next century “the new knowledge and power of the Information Age will be within reach, not just for the few, but for every classroom, every library, every child.” When Congress passed the Snowe-Rockefeller Amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they set the precedent that all schools and libraries should be guaranteed advanced telecommunication services.

On November 7, 1996, the Joint Federal-State Board on Universal Service gave concrete form to the notion that all American children are entitled to the same quality of education, regardless of how poor they are and where they live. This Joint Board, compiled of state and federal representatives and a member from a consumer association, was given the task by Congress to provide the FCC with a recommendation on how to restructure the universal service funding mechanisms.

This Joint Board, made up of state and federal regulators and a state consumer advocate, recommended a plan that would work as follows: All the nation's phone companies will contribute a small percentage of their revenues to a fund. From this fund, the Joint Board recommended that $2.25 billion be made available every year to provide discounts for schools and libraries when they buy telecommunications services. That's ANY telecommunication services.

Is this happening, and what's the timeline for implementation?

The FCC's goal for fulfilling the wishes of both Congress and the President is September 1997—only seven months away. By September, all phone companies will have started to pay into the fund, making discounts available to our schools.

Will convergence and competition mean increased connectivity for hard-so-serve educational areas such as poor, isolated, rural schools or impoverished urban classrooms and libraries?

Increased competition across various sectors of the telecommunications industry means that more providers will compete to provide services to schools and libraries. The Snowe-Rockefeller Amendment means that schools and libraries will be able to purchase telecommunications services at affordable rates.

The Joint Board recommended that schools and libraries can receive discounts on purchases of advanced telecommunications services. The Recommended Decision on those eligible to receive the highest discounts included schools and libraries that are economically disadvantaged, as well as those located in areas that are expensive to serve.

One of the FCC's new missions—and the goal of President Clinton and Vice President Gore—is to promote competition in all sectors of the communication industry: to give users the opportunity to choose from competing products and services. How are private industry and government working together to accomplish this? Will it become a reality?

The goal of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill—and the working mantra of the FCC in implementing that bill—is to move us from monopoly-based communications policy to a competitive-based competition policy. Many proceedings crucial to achieving this goal are still in progress, and have deadlines in the Act past the first year anniversary date.

Proponents of this bill said that, in time, barriers between telephone, cable, and wireless industries would be eliminated and competition increased, which would benefit end users by lower rates and better service. When should we begin to see this happen, and where will the first benefits be seen?

We've seen developments over the last year that are the direct results of Congressional and FCC pro-competition policies, such as: doubling of wireless investment; declining cellular phone rates, particularly in markets that new PCS services have launched; competitive long distance rates; dropping of Direct Broadcast Receivers from prices of more than $1,000 in 1994 to as low as $99 in some markets today; increases in DBS subscribership, which competes directly with cable TV. Creative businesses will respond to these pro-competitive market forces, and consumers will benefit. What is crucial is that, if our competition policy is a success, the government will never be in a position to declare an industry or a firm to be a winner or a loser. The market will do that.

The FCC has discovered how, with new digital technology, to make the “sixties” channels available for auction, which would make available monies for school rebuilding and wiring. Is there such a plan in place, and how would these funds be distributed to address greatest needs?

The FCC has asked for public comment, in its on-going proceedings, to allocate digital television channels, on a staff proposal to reallocate unused spectrum on UHF television channels 60-60 for other purposes, and if that is done, how to best utilize that spectrum. A number of proposals, including auctioning the spectrum and using the proceeds for expenses to connect schools and classrooms to the Information Highway, have been presented to the FCC and are under review. While it's premature to speculate about how these questions will be answered, I strongly encourage your readers to contact the FCC and let us know their views on this subject.

Will licensees comply with the intent of these requirements, or merely adhere to the letter of the law?

We'll be considering views on what kinds of public interest requirements the holders of digital TV licenses should fulfill as a condition to their license to utilize the publicly owned spectrum. Vice President Gore has announced that the administration will convene a special advisory group to study and recommend what the nature of the public interest obligations of digital broadcasters should be. A national debate on this question, through this advisory group, is an excellent idea. I totally support the idea that no DTV license should be issued unless and until it is clearly understood that licensees must serve the public interest in a variety of ways.

The idea that spectrum is the property of the American public—not a commodity to be given out to lobbyists—was a revolutionary and wonderful concept. Your auctions have been enormously successful, but they've created some powerful adversaries, I'm sure. How have you dealt with these entrenched entities?

President Clinton declared, in his 1997 State of the Union Address, that our greatest enemy is inaction. Indeed, the status quo is always a formidable adversary. That's why it took so long to reform telecommunications law. But we have now opened a dialogue in this country about the use of spectrum. Thanks to a wide range of leaders, from the President and Vice President to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, I hope we can continue this discussion.

What will spectrum rulings mean to the average American?

As we enter the digital era, all Americans should be aware that we are about to bestow on broadcasters a new grant of prime spectrum, and they'll be able to use this spectrum to provide a handful of channels (as many as five or six each). I don't think it's too much to ask each broadcaster to set aside five percent of this spectrum for the public interest. This public interest programming could include the educational shows and civic debate features that would help us reform our current campaign system, for example. As you stated in your original question, the spectrum is the property of the American people, and there is absolutely no reason why the people should not know how it is being used and receive benefit from that use.

Although you deal with the newest, most futuristic, and most glitzy of technologies and ideas, you've expressed great understanding and appreciation for American values, culture, and institutions. Certainly one of our oldest, most valued, and yet most maligned institutions is education. Can these new technologies help reform and shape traditional education for the information age without destroying education as we know it?

I think that education has changed as America has changed, and the best way for us to prepare our children for the 21st century is to keep pace with the information age. While every shipping clerk at Wal-Mart has access to networked computers, it doesn't make sense for our nation's children to go to school in a 19th century world of chalk-and-blackboard technology.

Will we adopt an entirely new, more pragmatic concept of education?

By the beginning of the next century—less than three years from now—60 percent of the new jobs will require skills possessed by only 22 percent of the young people entering the labor market. Already more than half of high wage jobs require the use of networked computers. And jobs that require computer use pay about 15 percent more, on average, than those that do not. But in addition to technological literacy, networked computers can also help children learn the 3Rs. When Vice President Gore long ago coined the term, “information highway,” he articulated the vision of the schoolgirl in Carthage, TN, who could go to the Library of Congress to get the learning not available in her small town in rural America.

In too many schools today, teachers are forced to buy supplies out of their own pockets because of lack of school funds. Beleaguered but committed teachers can't possibly buy computers, software, or printers for their students—no matter how desperately they want to give them every opportunity to advance, to meet education standards, or to compete. There's still a vast disparity among states and school districts when it comes to school funding. What about those students where there is no money or other resources, and what of their futures?

The FCC is reintroducing competition to the field of telecommunication so that these services can be made available to everyone at a reasonable price. One of the two goals we have at the FCC is to keep the public interest and public benefits in mind in everything that we do. Increased competition in the marketplace will aid in lowering the prices that schools and libraries pay for telecommunication services.

In addition, a Joint Federal-State Board recommended that all elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health-care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services at a discount.

In the Recommended Decision, the Joint Board determined that schools could receive discounts ranging from 20 percent to 90 percent on all eligible purchases of telecommunications services, including support for internal connections. The action by the Joint Board gave concrete form to the notion that all children in America are entitled to the same quality of education, regardless of how poor they are, their color, culture, or gender, and where they live.

Just last week, when President Clinton sent his FY1998 budget to Congress, he included an increase of $500 million for two key educational technology programs to help schools and libraries access the information superhighway. These two programs are the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund which, under the President's FY1998 would receive an increase of $200 million, bringing the total to $425 million, and the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, which would allocate another $75 million for schools located in poor school districts.

The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, established in February 1996, created a public-private partnership with state, local, and private sector efforts to ensure that schools are able to provide all children with the technology and education they need to succeed in the 21st century. When Congress passed the FY 1997 budget on September 11, 1996, they allocated $200 million for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. As you can see, we're seriously addressing these issues of equity and access.

“Hundt's Law” states that access + bandwidth = Communications Revolution. So how do we accommodate our insatiable appetite for increased bandwidth?

The Internet and other new interactive services are sorely constrained by the circuit-switched capillary telephone network we have today. It will take arteries of bandwidth to realize the potential of these technologies. The network of networks will need to grow and evolve to support these new services, and to maintain the high level of reliability we've come to expect. We must free the public switched telephone network to meet the demands of higher bandwidth and packet-switching. Wireless, cable, and satellite systems will compete for this same goal. In other words, our most effective bandwidth policies will be the promotion of competition and deregulation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 should really be called the Big Bandwidth Act, because that's what it will mean if we do our job right.

What role will market competition play?

In a competitive free market, companies have to innovate and invest or die. Microsoft virtually killed off its own MS-DOS market with Windows, and now it's in the process of killing off earlier versions of Windows with Windows 95 and NT. Microsoft keeps innovating because, if it didn't eat its own lunch, someone else would. If the communications industry were as competitive as the software industry, I have no doubt that we would see companies falling all over themselves to invest in radically greater bandwidth. That's what customers are demanding, and that's where the vast market opportunities will be for service providers.

What about bandwidth policies and legislation?

On January 23, 1997, we held a public forum on access and bandwidth in which we brought together representatives of the telecommunications and Internet industries and others to address the bandwidth challenge. We've also issued a Notice of Inquiry, seeking comment on what policies would provide the most efficient incentives for companies to invest in the networks of the future.

Is bandwidth the only—or chief—technological impediment to this revolution?

All the bandwidth in the world doesn't matter if you don't have an affordable way to access it. That's why the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service has recommended that we spend $2.25 billion a year to connect every classroom and library in the country to advanced telecommunications and information services. By bringing the Internet to schools, we will not only revolutionize education, we will stimulate the continued expansion of advanced networks to every corner of America.

ABOUT THE FCC

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency responsible directly to Congress. Established by the Communications Act of 1934, it is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Its jurisdiction covers the 50 states and territories, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Contact the FCC at <fccinfo@fcc.gov>.