WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, chaired a hearing this morning to discuss draft legislation regarding broadband mapping and data collection. The legislation seeks to address the lack of accurate information about the nature and extent of broadband service across America in order to pave the way for the development and implementation of a comprehensive national broadband strategy.

Below is Chairman Markey’s opening statement:

Good Morning. I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us this morning.

I want to begin by emphasizing that the legislation addressing broadband data collection and mapping issues is in draft form and we welcome suggestions for improvements to it. My goal is to work toward a bipartisan, consensus bill and I look forward to working with Ranking Member Upton, Full Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, Chairman Dingell and our other Committee colleagues on this measure as we move forward.

I believe at this point there is growing consensus – if not unanimity -- around the fact that current data collection methods used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are inadequate and highly flawed. Currently, the FCC counts a single broadband subscriber in a 5-digit zip code as indicating the entire zip code has broadband availability, even if the sole subscriber is a business and not a residential consumer. This can lead to highly inaccurate and overly generous notions of actual broadband availability and use, particularly in rural areas where zip codes are quite large.

In addition, the Telecommunications Act compels the FCC to assess the nationwide availability of “advanced telecommunications capability,” which Congress defined as having “high-speed” capability. The FCC implemented this provision and defined “high speed” in 1999 as meaning 200 kilobits per second. The problem is that the FCC has not kept pace with the times or technology. Simply put, in 2007 terms, 200 kilobits per second is not high speed. The bill proposes increasing this ten-fold to 2 Megabits per second.

It is important to keep in mind that from an international perspective, 2 Megabits per second isn’t even that fast. For instance, at our recent hearing on international broadband issues, we learned that in the United Kingdom, British Telecom and dozens of other competitors use advanced technology to get significantly more speed out of existing copper wire connections than we do here – approximately 8 Megabits per second and they have plans to boost it to 16 Megabits very soon. In Japan, consumers can get 50 Megabits per second. So having the FCC go from 200 kilobits to 2 Megabits for purposes of a national “high speed” broadband assessment is relatively modest in this context.

In addition, under almost any set of measurements, the United States lags other nations not only in availability and speed but also in the value. The 50 Megabit per second service in Japan, for instance – which is not even available to residential consumers in this country -- is available to Japanese consumers for roughly 30 dollars. Here in the U.S., consumers typically pay $20 for about 1 Megabit of service and $30-40 for roughly 4 Megabits of service. Now, all of these are advertised speeds and depending upon the network and time of day the actual speeds consumers enjoy are often much lower.

Measuring “high speed” broadband in kilobits is akin to assessing broadband using horse-and-buggy era metrics. A 21st Century broadband strategy should not use a “horse-power” measurement of success.

The state of knowledge around the status of broadband services in the United States also affects the ability of policymakers to make sound decisions. For instance, the Federal government can do a much better job in reforming multi-billion dollar grant and subsidy programs – whether at the Rural Utilities Service or at the FCC – if we have better data on where we truly need to target government assistance. Similarly, States can focus limited State resources for economic assistance, computer adoption, and broadband promotion if ample and accurate data is available indicating where such resources should be deployed.

This is precisely what has happened in a State that is ironically more known for horse-power than broadband prowess: Kentucky. Connect Kentucky has been a wildly successful effort and has demonstrated the palpable benefits to mapping broadband for various public policy benefits.

The risks of not developing national data will undermine our goal of achieving a national plan for universal, affordable broadband. This, in turn, adversely affects consumers and communities across the nation. The benefits of higher speeds, lower prices, and more choices for broadband services include greater economic opportunity, job creation, worker productivity, access to health care and educational resources, promotion of innovation, and global competitiveness.

Again, I look forward to working with all our committee colleagues on the draft broadband data collection and mapping bill and thank our witnesses for their time and efforts.