four channels and having the data flow across the network. today, in a single channel, you can get 138 megabits per second service downstream. start multiplying that by four and you get a potential for 152 megabits downstream and the upstream, we're still doing to channels, so we have the potential of 54 upstream. you can move from 4 to 8 and 8 to 16. as we're able@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ >> first of all, it is significantly reducing scarcity. there will be a great new use,

the way should be. some of the congestion issues that cable has had in the early days of broadband can be alleviated as we're able to devote more capacity. this capacity increase and getting more broadband availability reduces the need for content regulation generally. it is a was premised on scarcity. scarcity of opportunities to speak. today commissioner clyburn has mentioned that with a couple of hundred dollars you can be a speaker. and even in high-definition video. the barriers to communication are falling by the wayside. the fact that doxis 3.0 because

been about 80% of our service area, we brought broad band competition to the marketplace. we brought first and drove competition from phone companies and satellite companies and increasingly, the wireless companies. in many ways, it reduces the need for network subsidy. we're able to get broadband on cable systems to more parts of the country. ironically, even as competitive phone companies receive federal subsidies to compete with us. so i think will have more of an impact on reducing federal subsidies. i think it will increase the urgency of breaking down other barriers to what broadband can do. one reason i was running late was i was completing a blog post about virginia passing a tele- medicine bill for broadband

services. these are the kinds of barriers, reimbursement in health care, correct liam -- correct curve -- correctly m -- curriculum barriers in education -- if we address these effectively, it needs to be more of a policy focus for us as we go forward. i also think more than with increases the need to talk about new regulatory paradigms'. this is something i will defer to link about. he referred to the new democrat network about how the internet ecosystem looks completely different than anything we have seen in traditional telecommunications. it begs for a new regulatory approach that recognizes the ecosystem consists of networks and applications and devices. consumer interests are at stake

as far as how all three of those are developed and managed. >> spending most of my time focused on internet technology policy issues, i look at trends. and some of trying to predict what new technology may be coming up in the short term or long term, i thought i would focus on a couple of friends i think are important in the technology arena. one of the things i think is right on spot which is used quite often is that in the short run, we overestimate the impact and in the long run we underestimated. we tend to think there's a big splash and it will take over the world, but it's a combination of range of factors, including the consumer adopted and how they adapt to it and how it adapts to them. so it takes longer than we may think for the impact of technology to have an impact in our society and policies. it is a technology that has value andygyg?ç?ç?ç?w?w?wñóóçñwç

-- the capacity on cable networks. we have been employing two different technologies that are increasing the capacity. one is a technology using a set of protocols -- and a second is the fourth generation technology around the set of other type of technologies. those will increase capacity, and the ability to adapt to increasing demands over time. they have the ability to expand,

at least fios does. a think over time we can do more with the spectrum also. all of us have heard of moore's law. there are two other their rooms used in engineering. one is cooper's law -- how mobile networks have doubled in speed every couple of months. the other is the prediction that something will double every nine months. i have blogged a lot for verizon. and i look back at my experience with respect to speed on the internet -- i started back in the 1980's with a 19 -- within 18 kilobit modem. i looked back at my experience and technology. it was about every 20 months that the speed would double.

so, it has been persistent. with respect to fios, the first version was called the g-pon, now we are testing something else: ang-pon. we're taking attend gigabit connection to a home last december. i did a press release talking about how the technology did work. it is not scale get, but has the capability fiber networks to expand without putting a lot of new infrastructure in place. you have to change the electronics, but you can do it without changing your networks themselves. that is a huge benefit. the capacity issue on the fiber side, home connections, is significant.

it will provide a lot of ability over the long term for people to use them in new ways. on the wireless side, the technology is -- right now we're constructing some early parts of the networks for the deployment of 4g lt technology. we expect around 100 million at the end of this year to be able to access it, around 30 cities. the speeds so far have been far in excess of what i expected. we saw 86 megabits per second down. around 25 up. we have said it could be within a certain range down and up. distil much faster than most thandsl technologies today. a huge amount of increasing capacity for wireless networks. that has major impact on policy.

everything from competition, to networks expanding, but also competition to put more speed in there. companies are trying to one of each other. a second area is connectivity increases and changes. we are around to 65 million homes that already have broadband. going from 8 million or so in 2000 to that level, it is pretty amazing. the connectivity and the way it is done is changing. look at wireless and mobile. machine to machine connectivity will be increasingly a major part of how he will use mobile broadband technologies.

essentially, devices that help you monitor remotely different services and technologies. those that allow you to remotely monitor medical conditions. to help you monitor your energy consumption at home. to change it. these are devices communicating, not people. if you look historically at that, we first measured it based on location. where people had a phone was how we considered connectivity. then, based on persons, personal communications, so that mobile phones for the first important piece of personal communication. we moved from 95% of house's having a connection on the old phone system to about two million having connections on mobile phones today. now it is personal. we think that will increase dramatically. now you will have machine to machine connections. in many cases the devices will

do things for the people. the result is from capacity on the works, the expansion from 3g to 4g. we have changed our business model quite a bit. from the phone packaged with the service with the applications -- now we see changes in the models. for example, we saw something called the open development initiative. we have a new lab, testing process. we offer wholesale access to mobile networks. now people can bring in monitoring devices. if they want, can bring in a cell phone, so it directly to people, connected on the wholesale services we offer. it allows people to come in, try new things. test devices, get them on the network.

the old testing process, when we did the whole thing with the retail model -- it would take between 12 and 18 months. this process takes about five to eight weeks. you are tested mainly for connectivity. then if you want to offer services -- that is a whole different business model. it is driven partly by capacity, partly by changes in technology, but also by competition. the industry knows many people have cell phone servis. now we looking at other ways to connect other things. the other thing i mentioned with connectivity -- is that we're getting closer to a globe that is really connected. most people in the next five to

10 years will have a connection to each other. it will mostly be mobile. it is astounding. a lot of good can come from that. joe mentioned technologies that flow from these. i had six. those two are the first one to focus on. the ones he mentioned in terms of policy, i agree. the key issue is that connectivity and increased connectivity, more capacity, competition -- two others -- the need for spectrum. the fcc's broadband plan is focusing on something very important. how to be identified and make available for use more spectrum? it will be important for the new 4g technologies. the other thing joe mentioned it is a competition policy. speaking to our senior vice president who gave a speech a couple of weeks ago, trying to frame how we think a new

framework would look like -- he really focused on three primary principles. one is he believes we have to focus a lot on how to make sure consumers feel secure and protected online. we have to do with privacy. a second thing was how we create and build off the existing collaborative, largely self- governing model of the internet. how to build it into the kind of regulatory framework we have. it has been more command and control, ex-ante-regulatory. the third thing is how industry will play a strong will. providing much more advice and good ideas on norms, practices. a lot of these issues we face are really rooted in the technical problems that have to do with no work management,

congestion. the advisory group would include advocates who have technical expertise. to think about what kinds of things we can do to suggest those practices, better ways to manage networks. >> all right, moving on. >> 012 think the two groups -- i want to thank the two groups. i'm proud to serve on the nomination committee. they have done a super job. for all of you out there on c- span-land, please join. i have two technologies i want to talk about. both are already out there, and are already radically changing the regulatory environment.

the first is spared radio technology. essentially allows for greater sharing of spectrum. smart radios can sense there is interference on a frequency and go to another one. people know about the white spaces that allow for unlicensed use. whenever this happens, these devices will be able to be used. it cannot be used on licensed spectrum. what is important about smart media technology, because it allows for sharing, it causes questions of both the notion of physical scarcity -- if the government is still giving not exclusive licenses to certain entities, then you will still

have scarcity. but certainly, it calls into question whether spectrum is physically scarce. as many of you know, that was the underpinning of the red lion kansas which allowed for greater content regulation. it also questions the need for exclusive licenses. ok, if radios can sense when there is a difference in go to another frequency, what you need exclusive licenses? if you do not have them, and you can have more people using the spectrum, then and like my friends who might disagree with a bit, it puts technology and the ability to speak in more people's hands. then you really do have competition. the problem with their competition analysis is their companies still have that exclusive-type -- the exclusive control of the the network.

while they may be competing with each other, nobody else can join the party. but if you have more unlicensed spectrum, more dynamic sharing, and federal spectrum could also be used for this dynamic sharing as one of the things that harold of my organization has talked about a lot -- there is something of their on companies that we should just find more spectrum. let's take a week intra from the federal government. let's go to the department of defense and the federal aviation administration and pay or force them to get off their spectrum. that is a mighty difficult task. the more technologies come into play, this modern devices get -- they're getting smarter every

day, it will only continue to get smarter. that will shake up how is think about spectrum, and competition. that is number one. the second thing this, and i might be taken as a way from alan -- i apologize -- the cloud. it is certainly a development. a development that is radically changing the environment. the cloud essentially allows you to put all of your content, services somewhere other than hard drive. somewhere in the ether so you can connect, download, play it from any device anywhere. maybe one. -- maybe from your clothing, not a device. you do not need to carry around a pc to play music, or even an ipod.

he showed me how you could basically connect his 10,000 song library from any device. he is being sued, which is one of the issues of about in a minute. but basically untethers you from needing a hard drive. copyright issues are immediately raised. michael robinson for the second time in 10 years is being sued by the recording industry for this service. every time that you publish something to the cloud you are making a copy. it was last revised in 1976 -- it is ridiculous in the digital age. there was a big case finally resolved earlier this year that had to do with cablevision wanting to do a network dvr. instead of having a tivo with a

hard drive in your house, you click and it would go to cablevision servers. you would record in the cloud. cablevision would provide the movie or show just as if you had tivo. so, this was challenged all the way to the supreme court by a number of cable networks and by the motion picture association. ria was also involved. luckily, they lost in the second circuit. the solicitor general urged the supreme court not to take the case. the cablevision case is not the end of these kind of battles. it is the beginning. one of the arguments made by the content-holders was, again, every time you click that button and cablevision made a copy, and was making a copy that needed to be licensed. when they sent a copy to your home, i want tothe seediving

bell and the butterfly" one of my favorite movies. it gets sent only to me, but they claim that it was a public performance, as if it were a song played on the radio. they also claim buffer cubbies necessitate a license. those that come up when you do what streaming, the copyright owner's claim there was a cover that needed to be licensed -- when you do web-streaming. when other people come up with interesting cloud technology, a suspect -- as with michael robinson's -- and he is being sued for a lot of money by the recording industry -- so copyright is huge. second is jurisdiction. alan kentucky better than i,

people heard about the google executives who were sued and werein a absentia in italy because of the youtube video that was not taken them fast enough -- they were sued in absentia in italy. there are no youtube servers in italy, so why would they have jurisdiction? it raises -- is out there everywhere. what court has jurisdiction? who has the power to tell google whether or not they did the right or wrong thing? finally, the issue is privacy. maybe it is more secure than your hard drive. a good hacker could probably hack into a cloud. any new technology seems to raise privacy issues these days. those are my two.

>> alan? >> maybe i'll take a slightly different bent on this. i will try to summarize some common things, and say something that is true. the most important technology development we have been talking about for the last decade and will for the coming one is have clearly the continued success of the internet, the open user- controlled, de-centralized internet. people say, of course. but it was not obvious 10 or 15 years ago. it has been demonstrated clearly by the recent fcc broadband plan. one thing you can say about it is it has put the internet and broadband front and center as the critical medium for access to ideas and information, and

economic opportunities. i would touch on a couple of trends. one is the fact that computing power is continuing to increase in ways you not have predicted would continue. there are all sorts of laws. moore's were you see the continued increase in computing power. even more importantly, what is happening with storage capacity. in the past 20 years competing power has increased thousands of times, but storage capacity on hard drives and in memory has increased millions of times. the changes what we're capable of doing. connectivity, the fact that we now have a 1.5 billion or more online. it is growing radically. that changes access to information around the world. one thing we did not talk about

too much as mobility. the fact that we have 1.5 billion pc's out there, but close to four billion cell phones. for many around the world, that will be their access to the internet and broadband. we are finally beginning to see the sort of thing people have been talking about for 10 or 15 years, the rise of these amazing global services. location-based services. a lot of that has to do with the cloud. we see the shift in computing models away from the desktop model alone, and towards the model for people are getting more computing power out in the cloud. web-based e-mail as a great example. if you have yahoo!, gmail, you

are using those cloud. google's own search engine, and with others -- we all operate in the cloud. we give tremendous computing power to people in the short bursts to do powerful things they could not on their desktop, review been -- certainly not on their cell phones. these trends are really making the internet even more valuable. i think we will see the continued disruptive set of technologies coming out around the internet. in terms of impact on policy it is important to look back to see what we were right, what we were wrong about over the last decade or longer. something joe this on, especially impact on the first amendment, we got it right, the supreme court got it right when i first looked at the internet in aclu v. reno in 1987.

the internet really is a medium that is different that requires it ought to have the highest levels of first amendment protection. some of the rationale for control -- scarcity first, do not exist on the internet. it is right that we continue to for the highest level of protection for the internet. things like -- liability sections. one trend is the continuing rise of user-general accounting of the fact the, as we always said, users are publishers on the internet. every user can be a speaker. it has become more and more true with facebook, twitter. blogs. literally, people are publishing, speaking every day.

for that reason, the liability protections are even more important. so, the fact that isp's, search engines, of the hosting companies are not necessarily the gatekeepers of content, or responsible for content they do not create. we set of structures. it will be extremely important in the coming years. one thing i think we got it wrong -- it is the notion that a little bit of the internet means you have got unlimited freedom. there was a sense maybe 10 or 15 years ago that the internet would be an unstoppable force for freedom. if you get the internet, you had unlimited access to in