Remarks by Vice President Al Gore 1994-01-11

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

                            THE WHITE HOUSE


                      Office of the Vice President




________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                   January 11, 1994




                   REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
                             (as prepared)


                            Royce Hall, UCLA
                         Los Angeles, California
                            January 11, 1994




     It's great to be here at the Television Academy today.  I feel I
have a lot in common with those of you who are members of the Academy.
I was on Letterman.  I wrote my own lines.


     I'm still waiting for residuals.


     At first, I thought this could lead to a whole new image.  And
maybe a new career.  No more Leno jokes about being stiffer than the
Secret Service.  Maybe an opportunity to do other shows.  I was elated
when "Star Trek: The Next Generation" wanted me to do a guest shot --
until I learned they wanted me to replace Lieutenant Commander Data.


     The historian Daniel Boorstin once wrote that for Americans
"nothing has happened unless it is on television."  This of course
leaves out a few major events in our history.  But this meeting today is
on television -- so apparently this event is actually occurring.


     I join you to outline not only this Administration's vision of the
National Information Infrastructure but our proposals for creating it.


     Last month in Washington, I set forth some of the principles behind
our vision. Today I'll talk about the legislative package necessary to
ensure the creation of that national infrastructure in a manner which
will connect and empower the citizens of this country through broadband,
interactive communication.


     We've all become used to stumbling over cliches in our efforts to
describe the enormity of change now underway and the incredible speed
with which it is taking place.  Often we call it a revolution -- the
digital revolution.


     Speaking of cliches, I often use the analogy to autos, saying that
if cars had advanced as rapidly as computer chips in recent years, a
Rolls Royce would go a million miles an hour and cost twenty-five cents.


     The last time I used it was at a meeting of computer experts and
one of them said, "Yeah -- but that Rolls Royce would be one millimeter
long."


     What we've seen in the last decade is amazing. But it's nothing
compared to what will happen in the decade ahead.  The word revolution
by no means overstates the case.


    But this revolution is based on traditions that go far back in our
history.


      Since the transcontinental telegraph that transmitted
Abraham Lincoln's election victory to California in real time,
our ability to communicate electronically has informed and shaped
America.


     It was only a year before that election that the Pony Express was
the talk of the nation, able to send a message cross country in seven
days.  The next year, it was out of business.


     Today's technology has made possible a global community united by
instantaneous information and analysis.  Protesters at the Berlin Wall
communicated with their followers through CNN news broadcasts.  The fax
machine connected us with demonstrators at Tiananmen Square.


     So it's worth remembering that while we talk about this digital
revolution as if it's about to happen, in many places it's already
underway.  Even in the White House.


     The day after Inauguration, I was astonished to see how relatively
primitive the White House communications system was.  President Clinton
and I took a tour and found operators actually having to pull cords for
each call and plug them into jacks.  It reminded me of the switchboard
used by Ernestine, the Lily Tomlin character.


     And there were actually phones like these all over the White House.
They're still there.  But we made progress. They're only in the press
room now.


     Those phones didn't meet our needs.  So now, especially on trips, I
use a cellular phone.


     Our new ways of communicating will entertain as well as inform.
More importantly, they will educate, promote democracy, and save lives.
And in the process they will also create a lot of new jobs.  In fact,
they're already doing it.


     The impact on America's businesses will not be limited just to
those who are in the information business, either.  Virtually every
business will find it possible to use these new tools to become more
competitive.  And by taking the lead in quickly employing these new
information technologies, America's businesses will gain enormous
advantages in the worldwide marketplace.  And that is important because
if America is to prosper, we must be able to manufacture goods within
our borders and sell them not just in Tennessee but Tokyo -- not just in
Los Angeles but Latin America.


     Last month, when I was in Central Asia, the President of Kyrgyzstan
told me his eight-year-old son came to him and said, "Father, I have to
learn English."


     "But why?" President Akayev asked.


     "Because, father, the computer speaks English."


     By now, we are becoming familiar with the ability of the new
communications technologies to transcend international boundaries and
bring our world closer together.  But many of you are now in the process
of transcending other old boundaries -- the boundary lines which have
long defined different sectors of the information industry.  The speed
with which these boundaries are eroding is quite dramatic.


      I'm reminded of an idea of Stephen Hawking, the British physicist.
Hawking has Lou Gehrig's disease.  But thanks to information technology
he can still communicate not only to his students and colleagues but to
millions around the world.  Incidentally, I read the other day that his
voice box has an American accent -- because it was developed here in
California.


     Anyway, in that American accent, Hawking has speculated about a
distant future when the universe stops expanding and begins to contract.
Eventually, all matter comes colliding together in a "Big Crunch," which
scientists say could then be followed by another "Big Bang" -- a
universe expanding outward once again.


     Our current information industries -- cable, local telephone, long
distance telephone, television, film, computers, and others -- seem
headed for a Big Crunch/Big Bang of their own.  The space between these
diverse functions is rapidly shrinking -- between computers and
televisions, for example, or inter-active communication and video.


     But after the next Big Bang, in the ensuing expansion of the
information business, the new marketplace will no longer be divided
along current sectoral lines.  There may not be cable companies or phone
companies or computer companies, as such.  Everyone will be in the bit
business. The functions provided will define the marketplace.  There
will be information conduits, information providers, information
appliances and information consumers.
     That's the future.  It's easy to see where we need to go.
It's hard to see how to get there.  When faced with the enormity
and complexity of the transition some retreat to the view best
enunciated by Yogi Berra when he said:  "What we have here is an
insurmountable opportunity."


     Not long ago this transition did indeed seem too formidable to
contemplate, but no longer.  Because a remarkable consensus has emerged
throughout our country -- in business, in public interest groups and in
government.  This consensus begins with agreement on the right, specific
questions we must answer together.


     How can government ensure that the information marketplace emerging
on the other side of the Big Crunch will permit everyone to be able to
compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to
all willing customers?  How can we ensure that this new marketplace
reaches the entire nation?  How can we ensure that it fulfills the
enormous promise of education, economic growth and job creation?


     Today I will provide the Administration's answers to those
questions.  But before I do let me state my firm belief that legislative
and regulatory action alone will not get us where we need to be.  This
Administration argued in our National Performance Review last year, that
government often acts best when it sets clear goals, acts as a catalyst
for the national teamwork required to achieve them, then lets the
private and non- profit sector, move the ball downfield.


     It was in this spirit that then-Governor Clinton and I, campaigning
for the White House in 1992, set as a vital national goal linking every
classroom in every school in the United States to the National
Information Infrastructure.


     It was in this same spirit that less than a month ago, I pointed
out that when it comes to telecommunications services, schools are the
most impoverished institutions in society.


     And so I was pleased to hear that some companies participating in
the communications revolution are now talking about voluntarily linking
every classroom in their service areas to the NII.


     Let me be clear.  I challenge you, the people in this room, to
connect all of our classrooms, all of our libraries, and all of our
hospitals and clinics by the year 2000.  We must do this to realize the
full potential of information to educate, to save lives, provide access
to health care and lower medical costs.


     Our nation can and must meet this challenge. The best way to do so
is by working together.  Just as communications industries are moving to
the unified information marketplace of the future, so must we move from
the traditional adversarial relationship between business and government
to a more productive relationship based on consensus.  We must build a
new model of public-private cooperation that, if properly pursued, can
obviate many governmental mandates.


     But make no mistake about it -- one way or another, we will meet
this goal.


     As I announced last month, we will soon introduce a legislative
package that aggressively confronts the most pressing telecommunications
issues, and is based on five principles.


     This Administration will:


          -- Encourage Private Investment


          -- Provide and Protect Competition


          -- Provide Open Access to the Network


          -- Take Action To Avoid Creating a Society of
             Information "Haves" and "Have Nots"


          -- Encourage Flexible and Responsive Governmental Action


     Many of you have our White Paper today, outlining the bill in
detail.  If you didn't get your copy, it's available on the Internet,
right now.


     Let me run through the highlights with you -- and talk about how
they grow out of our five principles.


     We begin with two of our basic principles -- the need for private
investment and fair competition.  The nation needs private investment to
complete the construction of the National Information Infrastructure.
And competition is the single most critical means of encouraging that
private investment.


     I referred earlier to the use of the telegraph in 1860, linking the
nation together.  Congress funded Samuel Morse's first demonstration of
the telegraph in 1844.  Morse then suggested that a national system be
built with federal funding.  But Congress said no, that private
investment should build the information infrastructure.  And that's what
happened -- to the great and continuing competitive advantage of this
country.


     Today, we must choose competition again and protect it against both
suffocating regulation on the one hand and unfettered monopolies on the
other.


     To understand why competition is so important, let's recall what
has happened since the breakup of AT&T ten years ago this month.


     As recently as 1987, AT&T was still projecting that it would take
until the year 2010 to convert 95% of its long distance network to
digital technology.


     Then it became pressed by the competition. The result?  AT&T made
its network virtually 100% digital by the end of 1991.  Meanwhile, over
the last decade the price of interstate long distance service for the
average residential customer declined over 50%.


     Now it is time to take the next step.  We must open the local
telephone exchanges, those wires and switches that link homes and
offices to the local telephone companies.


     The pressure of competition will be great -- and it will drive
continuing advancements in technology, quality and cost.  One
businessman told me recently that he was accelerating his investment in
new technology to avoid ending up as "roadkill" on the information
superhighway.


     To take one example of what competition means, cable companies,
long distance companies, and electric utilities must be free to offer
two-way communications and local telephone service. To accomplish this
goal, our legislative package will establish a federal standard that
permits entry to the local telephone markets.  Moreover, the FCC will be
authorized to reduce regulation for telecommunications carriers that
lack market power.


     We expect open competition to bring lower prices and better
services. But let me be clear:  We insist upon safeguards to ensure that
new corporate freedoms will not be translated into sudden and
unjustified rate increases for telephone consumers.


     The advancement of competition will necessarily require more
opportunity, as well, for the Regional Bell Operating Companies.
Current restrictions on their operations are themselves the legacy of
the break-up of AT&T and must be re-examined.


     This Administration endorses the basic principles of the
Brooks-Dingell bill, which proposes a framework for allowing
long-distance and local telephone companies to compete against each
other.


     Regulation and review of this framework should be transferred from
the courts to the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications
Commission.


     This process of change must be carefully calibrated.  We must make
sure that the Regional Bells will not be able to use their present
monopoly positions as unfair leverage into new lines of business.  That