this unbundling would create i think a lot of thanks to the market and i think we've got to be careful if these people are willing to go out with a capital to do it, i think the fcc has got to be careful with this idea of unbundling which would mean that a corporation after they spent all the money, made the investment and without limit and successful time it has to rip up out the corporation into three segments because of the government. so that's one area i'm a little concerned about. and as i mentioned some of the others, i think these are things that we have to be cautious about more than anything. i think the goals of this broadband plan are excellent and as for interesting reading. i hope a lot of the citizens of this country will take time because the productivity america is going to come from this type of deployment, broadband fourth-generation wireless, high definition television, these three together are going to increase productivity in america and we have other proprietary information here in this country so that will be on the vanguard of this development and there was not

. >> host: another criticism was that the plan could lead to fcc mandates for unbundling on broadband services in the same way there were unbundling mandates on regular voice service in the 1990s. >> guest: yeah. >> host: maybe you want to explain what unbundling is, but is that what you understand the plan to be suggesting? >> guest: there are a number of things currently under law that require incumbent phone companies. there has been, you know, a lot of different proposals for doing additional kinds of unbundling on some other way requiring a broad spectrum of those things. what we said in the plan is that what we want to do is primarily drive private investment. and so, for example, one of the things that has really driven private investment in the past is availability of spectrum. so we were focused on the spectrum issues that were very important. another place is how do you drive investment to those areas in rural america that aren't getting it? and so we have, you know, various things for universal service reform. and then in the market where there is opportunities for competit

there are a lot of different proposals for doing additional kinds of unbundling or requiring incumbents to share facilities. there is a broad spectrum of those things. we want to primarily drive private investment. one thing that is really driven private investment in the past is the availability of spectrum. we were focused on the issues that were very important. how do you drive investment to those areas in rural america that are not getting it? we have various things for universal service performance. whether opportunities for competition, to what extent do you do that? it is traditional bottleneck analysis. there are things in the plan where we talk about how to get into the context of competition. a lot of those proceedings are very specific and more. for specific rule making. we have a competitive agenda. some things are already subject to existing proceedings. the should determine those proceedings. -- the fcc should determine those proceedings. set top boxes is where we think we need to change the rules to drive investment, innovation, and american leadership in integrating trad

it does not speak about unbundled elements. >> i cannot predict with the commission will do here. >>an predict what the commission will do your. >> i cannot answer at this time. >> i hope not. [laughter] >> my time is running out. mr. chairman, the plan mentions wireless services as a source of the spectrum. on february 16, 2010, i sent a letter to the commission outlining my concern that it would result in interference with satellite radio signals. can you unequivocally assure me that this will not be the case? yes or no? >> if the agency says that there is no interference, then there will be no interference. >> i did not hit the enter. >> if the engineers at the agency say that there will be no interference, then there will be no interference. >> will it allow for comment prior to its implementation? yes or no? >> i do not see why not. that is the way we always do. >> ladies and gentlemen, they do very much. i reiterate my request for the privilege of sending a letter for further questions to the commission and have answers inserted into the record. >> thank you. the record of this

it does not speak about unbundled elements. >> i cannot predict with the commission will do here. >> i can predict what the commission will do your. >> i cannot answer at this time. >> i hope not. [laughter] >> my time is running out. mr. chairman, the plan mentions wireless services as a source of the spectrum. on february 16, 2010, i sent a letter to the commission outlining my concern that it would result in interference with satellite radio signals. can you unequivocally assure me that this will not be the case? yes or no? >> if the agency says that there is no interference, then there will be no interference. >> i did not hit the enter. >> if the engineers at the agency say that there will be no interference, then there will be no interference. >> will it allow for comment prior to its implementation? yes or no? >> i do not see why not. that is the way we always do. >> ladies and gentlemen, they do very much. i reiterate my request for the privilege of sending a letter for further questions to the commission and have answers inserted into the record. >> thank you. the record of

this so-called unbundling resulted in a glorious mess.colleague and i moved legislation through the house to eliminate unbundling requirements with respect to carriers' investment in broadband facilities. the senate, as it is unfortunately often to do, did not pass this eminently sensible legislation, but eventually adopted the bills essence in its triannual review of 2003. the result has been enormous investments by carriers in broadband, both in my state of michigan and across much of the nation. chapter 4 of the national broadband plan signals the commission's intention to revisit the unbundling statute. this, i think, is to reopen an old fight, and it gives me great concern. it could very well serve as a disincentive to necessary investments in broadband facilities. in conclusion, i would like to remind the witnesses today that the congress is the sole progenitor of the commission's authorities. to "sam rayburn, if the commission remembers it works for us, everything will turn out fine. in keeping with the sentiment i have just articu

chapter 4 of the national broadband plan signals the commission's intention to revisit the unbundlingatute. this, i think, is to reopen an old fight, and it gives me great concern. it could very well serve as a disincentive to necessary investments in broadband facilities. in conclusion, i would like to remind the witnesses today that the congress is the sole progenitor of the commission's authorities. to "sam rayburn, if the commission remembers it works for us, everything will turn out fine. in keeping with the sentiment i have just articulated, i respectfully suggest the commission stay focused on the congress's simple goal of assuring that broadband is accessible and affordable to all americans rather than to seek to rehash old and unproductive policy debates and to start counter-productive fights which are quite unnecessary. mr. chairman, i think you for your courtesy. i ask unanimous consent to submit letters to the commission to finish out the questions we need to ask today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. the record of this hearing will remain open

i would agree with the chairman dingell that the fcc requirement on carriers to unbundle their fiber will not be met by this legislative body. do not change the rules after investments have been made. do not put up roadblocks to new investment. finally, i have concerns about spectrum proposals that could cause harm to consumers and broadcasters as a result of the digital transmission. broadcasters return over 100 megahertz to the government and at the same time increase their services. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. congratulations to the federal communications commission. when i put the language in the stimulus package mandating that the federal communications commission had to return this as a report back to the american people on the future of broadband, just 30 months ago, i can tell you right now that you met the highest expectations i had when i answer to that language into the law. the table of contents is just an indication of how thoroughly you have examined this subject -- health care, educati

interestingly, in the legislation before congress, -- there are demonstrations unbundle payments andof the things i will show you -- and other things i will show you. the secretary has the ability to waive regulation and necessary to be able to conduct a demonstration. we presume what they are talking about are these particular clinical integrations. we are not really sure how they will proceed in this legislation passed. with respect to payment reform, these were some of the findings that came out of our task force. virtually all of the participants in our task force, there were about 25 ceo as representing a wide spectrum of hospitals -- which i said, hospitals are very diverse. . diverse as well. in addition rural pop eulogies that are far scattered in frontier areas. everyone pretty much agrees that fee for service is on its last legs. also that incentives for payment methods and that they have to change in ways that we can align the incentives and provide a significant time frame for transition so that payment reform can lead to the means to the end of delivery system reform. pa

second it implies the commission should mandate the unbundling of fiber and other network elements thate been deployed since the agency deregulated some of the components per as a result, fiber deployment has spiked in recent years. rather than reverse course, the commission should ensure any future actions will not create regulatory uncertainty and litigation risk that could care wait -- scare away capital investment. third, the plan refers to the elephant in their room preceding that shuttering the plan since last fall the neutrality proceeding although it does not take a position, and i give it credit for that i take this opportunity to reiterate my serious concerns regarding this journey to begin with. additionally i question the recommendation that appears to ask congress to fund the new communications venture that unlike current funding for public broadcasting would cover new platforms beyond fcc license holders. i could not in good conscience endorsed federal spending for this sort of their ideas when the governor is spending record to stick on monumental levels of debt made whil

i think the need for some of the competition policies that we a public knowledge talk about -- unbundling, a line sharing, but not be necessary. but it's like technological development that will take care of it. it's a regulatory development. until a technology is created that allows one to provide internet access service without a wire or license for spectrum, the only way we're going to have competition is if the government acts. there's no two ways about it. maybe the miracle technology is 20 years down the road but it is not realistic now. if the fcc and the government move away from a licensing system and more toward unlicensed, i don't think all should be, but now you have the smart radio technology that allows dynamic sharing at preventing interference when two people run the same frequency, thus our radio bumps you to another frequency, that could allow for more internet access, more competition and that might be a realistic development where perhaps you do not need the other competition policies we've been talking about. >> what would it take for you to think maybe the license do