On November 23, my grandmother, Ms. Mamie Sue Taylor, will turn ninety. Several years ago I asked her what had attracted her to my grandfather. She said it was his buggy. "He had the finest surrey in all of Yalobusha County, Mississippi. He would ‘come calling’ for me in that surrey and we would ride through the countryside talking and enjoying each other’s company."

I recently asked my grandmother how she compared her life today with her surrey riding days gone by. Without hesitation, she said:" I had a good life in Yalobusha County. Every day I went to the spring and filled the water bucket. Our whole family drank from the same dipper out of that bucket until my father grew some gourds that he later carved into drinking cups. I boiled clothes over a big old black pot outside and washed my face in a basin filled with cold spring water. My father had his own smokehouse, a large garden, and his own beehive so we had plenty of honey for the homemade biscuits. In the winter we ate the smoked meats and canned preserves that my mother and I put up."

I asked her how she "communicated" with her friends and family elsewhere. I asked if she wrote letters or talked on the phone. "Talk on the phone?" she exclaimed, as if I should have known better. " We didn’t have telephones, and although I could read and write, we were country people. Most of our people could not read or write. We socialized mostly at church functions."

I asked her why she thought she had a good life. Without hesitation she said: " I don’t think I had a good life, I know I had a good life--but now I have a better life. Nowadays, in my apartment, I wash my clothes in a washer and dryer, I wash my face in a sink with running hot water, and I talk on the telephone to my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren whenever I wish. I had a good life then, and I have a better life now."

A better life, a better world. In the simplest of terms, that is what today’s technological revolution promises. As one of the principal regulatory agencies entrusted with the public interest, the role of the Federal Communications Commission is to pursue the promise of a better world in communications. In seeking to fulfill this promise for all Americans, we are guided by the belief that competition and choice in our marketplace will lead to a better life.

When November 23 comes this year, I will send my grandmother an animated electronic birthday greeting card over the Internet, and I will probably buy her gift using some form of electronic commerce.

A few years ago e-commerce was virtually non-existent. In four years, retail trade on the Internet could reach $100 billion, and business-to-business trade is expected to exceed $1 trillion. In 1996, only 8 percent of American classrooms were wired to the Internet. Today, more than 50 percent are plugged into the World Wide Web, and we are well on our way to connecting every classroom. Through the FCC’s E-Rate Program and the education program supported by the cable industry, we are plugging American children into a dynamic future.

Throughout the entire communications sector, dramatic changes and rapid innovations are driving a global economic juggernaut. As industries converge and new technologies develop to bring improved products and services to market, average American consumers are benefiting enormously. We see broadcasters, cable networks, telephone companies, utilities, and wireless and satellite providers all entering one another’s industries. The digital age has brought us wireless phones that can send e-mail and computers that can be used as phones. Choices are expanding. Services are improving. Prices are dropping.

Presently, we are in the midst of one of the most contentious and compelling debates in recent history. The debate centers on whether the government should require cable companies to provide access to the cable platform for competitive Internet service providers (ISPs) and online service providers (OSPs). In the course of this debate, diametrically opposed forces have implored the FCC to choose sides. On one side, there are advocates calling for "open access" who want the Commission to intervene and regulate the Internet access marketplace, citing the local telephone model. On the other side, there are advocates who want the Commission to adopt a completely "hands-off" approach to the Internet access market. However, it is far too simplistic to distill this issue down to the notion of "open" or closed systems. Almost every interest group, irrespective of its position in the debate, agrees that "openness" is the desired goal.

As I see it, the crux of the debate centers on whether government should mandate access to the proprietary cable platform, or whether market forces will accomplish such an objective. Unequivocally, FCC Chairman William Kennard favors open systems, and we believe that a competitive market is the most effective driver of an open system. The cable industry has said consistently that it wants openness. This, of course, would mean that cable companies would build in open interfaces to accommodate multiple ISPs and OSPs as they build out their infrastructure. If not, the talk about openness is just rhetoric. We are cautiously optimistic that this approach can work, but if those conditions do not develop, we may have to step in to make sure that consumers get competitive Internet choices.

Our goal is to expand the benefit of broadband technology to all Americans. We know this is the same goal that local franchise authorities, consumer advocates, and ISPs share. One of the reasons my grandmother can afford to call her grandchildren throughout the country today is because competition among long distance telephone providers has reduced rates to affordable levels. If the Commission can create the conditions for new companies and technologies to enter the Internet access marketplace, then one day soon, we will have high-speed Internet access through DSL, cable modem and wireless systems, that will provide my grandmother with several low-cost options. If, however, anticompetitive conditions develop, or consumer welfare is threatened, then intervention may be necessary.

For now, the Commission has chosen to adopt the role of a market facilitator rather than that of a market regulator. We believe that by adhering to a national policy and by forbearing from regulatory action at this time, the cable, telephone, and wireless industries will have ample time to develop and deploy broadband technology and services throughout the market, and that a healthy measure of competition will ensue. All of the signs of a potentially robust competitive industry are in place: when cable modem service has been deployed in key markets throughout the country, DSL has quickly followed, and prices have dropped. Investment in both sectors has surged.

There are billions of dollars and new social paradigms at stake. Equally important, we recognize that the Internet can serve as a great equalizer in this country—it can connect the unconnected and bridge the gap between the information haves and have-nots. While many things have improved since my grandmother’s days, there are still Americans who do not have basic telephone service or who have not set foot on the Information super-highway. The communications industry has the resources and wherewithal to improve the lives of all Americans. But our society will not see the better life that new technologies promise unless the journey is inclusive.

I have told my grandmother all about broadband, and I can’t wait until she is completely connected. But if I know Mamie Sue, once she masters her new computer, she won’t be content unless she can connect with her friends and family in the remote areas of Yalobusha County, Mississippi.

I believe that if competition flourishes, and the communications industry lives up to its commitment to include all Americans, then broadband Internet service will be one of the improvements my grandmother cites when she reflects on her better life today.