[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 25, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-69
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-889 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Witnesses
Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 140
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 154
Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 158
Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 164
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Submitted Material
Op-ed by Chairman Pai entitled, ``The FCC Wades Into the
Newsroom,'' Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2014, submitted
by Mr. Doyle................................................... 92
Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman
Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................................... 94
Letter of October 24, 2017, from ConsumersUnion to subcommittee,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 96
Statement of Chairman Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle................ 102
Working paper of the Mercatus Center entitled, ``How FCC
Transaction Reviews Threaten Rule of Law and the First
Amendment,'' submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................... 103
Letter of October 25, 2017, from the LPTV Spectrum Rights
Coalition to Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 133
Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman
Pai............................................................ 135
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta,
Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores, Brooks,
Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch,
Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Butterfield,
Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also Present: Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Tonko.
Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Kelly Collins,
Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications
and Technology; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications
and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Brighton Haslett, Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth,
Senior Professional Staff, Communications and Technology;
Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex
Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Evan Viau,
Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; Hamlin Wade,
Special Advisor, External Affairs; Sean Farrell, Professional
Staff, Communications and Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority
Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; Evan
Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; David Goldman, Minority
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany
Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health
Advisor; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis,
Minority Staff Assistant; Lori, Maarbjerg, Minority FCC
Detailee; Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member
Services Coordinator; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim
Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority
Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and
C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order. And the chair recognizes
herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
And I do want to welcome each and every one of you,
obviously a hearing of interest as we have a full room in front
of us. And it is our first hearing in 2017 with a fully formed
Federal Communications Commission.
As often seems to be the case, the Senate takes their dear,
ever-loving time to get things done, but I am pleased to see
that the Commission is back up to speed. And I will tell you, I
am pleased that we have five members of this Commission, and
they have different points of view to bring to the discussion
on all things telecom related. And I think that that is healthy
for the telecommunications and technology industry.
And we are here today to conduct oversight of the agency,
which is this subcommittee's primary role. It is very important
that we fulfill these obligations, because we have given the
FCC a critical mission and critical task to fulfill. From the
Commission's disaster response efforts, to its work supporting
the deployment of rural broadband, to its efforts to streamline
and modernize the regulatory environment impacting some of
America's greatest creators and innovators, you are all doing
important work, and we appreciate what you do.
One of the FCC's many jobs is to regulate broadcasters who
accept and fulfill unique public interest obligations due to
their use of valuable public spectrum. While we were in the
final stages of planning for this routine oversight hearing,
some of my colleagues asked that the committee hold an entire
hearing about comments by the President on Twitter regarding
certain broadcasters' work. So I fully expect them to question
the Trump tweets.
And, Chairman Pai, since we have a very full slate of
issues, my hope is that you will address that concern so that
we can focus on the work and responsibilities of the
Commission.
The Commission has conducted entirely appropriate oversight
of broadcast licenses. There is no indication it has any
interest in regulating political content, unlike some in our
chamber who have urged the FCC to adopt a new fairness doctrine
mandating that broadcasters provide equal time to the
opposition if they allow anyone to express any type of
political opinion on air.
The outrage over the President's Twitter musing stands in
sharp contrast to the silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of
conservatives, sexual assault victims, and potentially anyone
who posts something they just don't like for whatever reason,
all this on a platform so powerful and far-reaching that you
could argue that it is the modern day public square. And some
on Twitter have even called to suspend the President's account.
And after my recent experience, I will say I wouldn't put it
past some people.
The latest Twitter scandal is an attempt to distract from
the Commission and the American people from the FCC's real
work, which is delivering on a mission to unleash American
innovation.
So, Chairman Pai, no matter what questions are said, I hope
that we are going to stick to keeping our eye on the ball and
making certain that we address things like media ownership
rules, the Lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural
broadband, and restoring a free and open internet. That is
something that we want to see done by the end of this year.
And at this time, I yield 1 minute to the vice chairman of
the subcommittee, Mr. Lance.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Good afternoon and welcome to our first hearing in 2017
with a fully formed Federal Communications Commission. As often
seems to be the case, the Senate has taken its time, but I'm
pleased to see the Commission back up to speed with five vastly
different opinions about everything telecom-related. We're here
today to conduct oversight of the agency, which is this
subcommittee's primary role.
It is very important that we fulfill our oversight
responsibilities, because we have given the FCC a critical
mission and critical tasks to fulfill. From the Commission's
disaster response efforts, to its work supporting the
deployment of rural broadband, to its efforts to streamline and
modernize the regulatory environment impacting some of
America's greatest creators and innovators, you are all doing
important work, and we appreciate it.
One of the FCC's many jobs is to regulate broadcasters, who
accept and fulfill unique public interest obligations due to
their use of valuable public spectrum. While we were in the
final stages of planning for this routine oversight hearing, my
Democratic colleagues asked the Committee to hold an entire
hearing about comments by the President on Twitter regarding
certain broadcasters' work.
So I fully expect them to use this opportunity to try to
turn this hearing into the Trump Tweet hearing. Chairman Pai,
since we have a very full slate of issues, my hope is that you
will address that concern so we can focus on the work of the
Commission.
This Commission has conducted entirely appropriate
oversight of broadcast licensees. There is no indication it has
any interest in regulating political content, unlike some of my
Democratic colleagues who have urged the FCC to adopt a new
Fairness Doctrine, mandating that broadcasters provide equal
time to the opposition if they allow anyone to express any type
of political opinion on air.
The outrage over the President's Twitter musings stands in
sharp contrast to the silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of
conservatives, sexual assault victims, and potentially anyone
who posts something they just don't like for whatever reason.
All this on a platform so powerful and far-reaching that you
could argue it serves as a modern day public square.
Some left wingers on Twitter have even called for the
company to ban the President's account. After my recent
experience, all I will say is I wouldn't put it past them. The
latest Twitter ``scandal'' is an attempt to distract both the
Commission and the American people from the FCC's real work:
delivering on its mission to unleash American innovation.
Chairman Pai, no matter what loaded YES OR NO questions may
be posed today, or what insinuations are made about a would-be
plot by the FCC to crack down on political speech, I urge you
not to be distracted. Keep your eye on the ball. We are waiting
for important reforms to address the media ownership rules, the
Lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural broadband
and restoring a free and open Internet, and we want to see them
by the end of this year.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Chair. And welcome to
Chairman Pai and the now full complement of commissioners. What
a good-looking group. Thank you for appearing before us today.
Since our last oversight hearing in July, the Commission
has continued its important work on issues such as disaster
relief and recovery in the communities affected by the recent
hurricanes, commercial spectrum availability, fraud prevention
in closing the digital divide. The Commission is also moving
forward in the process to roll back the misguided Title II
reclassification of ISPs from the previous administration.
Here on the subcommittee, we have recently taken a
bipartisan step forward in reauthorizing the FCC for the first
time since 1990. I applaud the chairman and ranking member for
their leadership in reasserting this vital oversight tool. I
also thank Commissioner O'Rielly for joining me in the district
I serve in August for a 5G industry roundtable. I commend his
leadership at the Commission pursuing innovation-friendly
spectrum and infrastructure policies that will be important in
our efforts to win the race to 5G.
Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing. And thank you to all the witnesses for appearing
before us today. Let me just say that I really enjoy our time
here together, as I am sure all of you do. And I would
encourage the chairman to continue to hold these get-togethers
far more often.
Mrs. Blackburn. Absolutely.
Mr. Doyle. Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back. Your
work on the homework gap has been missed.
Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your confirmation. I
hope that as you establish your agenda, that you remember that
the guiding principle of the FCC is to act in the public's
interest. It is a standard that I will hold you to as well.
Chairman Pai, many people around the country, including
myself, and many of colleagues are deeply alarmed by your
response to the President Trump's threats against the media,
and specifically his tweet threatening NBC. In 2014, you wrote
in The Wall Street Journal that the government has no place
pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
You took 6 days to respond to the President's tweet. And when
you did, you did not directly address the President's threat at
all or its chilling effects on the media.
While the President and the administration can dispute the
veracity of any story, even ones that are demonstrably true,
they cannot attack the free institutions that enable our
democracy. As Senator Flake said yesterday, it is time for our
complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.
Besides this issue, the Commission's agenda under your
leadership has already had a profoundly negative effect on our
country. From increasing cost on small businesses, driving up
the cost of calls to family members in prison, and claiming
that wireless broadband is competitive, even when people in
rural America know it is not, it seems that in every fork of
the road you have chosen the path that leads to higher consumer
cost, fewer choices, and less innovation. And if it sounds as
if the worst is yet to come, news reports suggest that you
unveil plans tomorrow to vastly alter the media landscape in
this country, clearing the way for more media consolidation,
including the Sinclair-Tribune merger.
Yesterday, the Commission eliminated the main studio rule
that had ensured for 77 years that local news was gathered and
reported locally. What good would a studio and reporters in New
York have done for broadcast stations in Houston or Florida
after the hurricanes? What good is local news if it isn't
local? Other news reports suggest you will announce an order to
repeal the FCC's open internet order around Thanksgiving.
Madam Chairman, I sincerely hope that, if this true, that
we have a chance to talk to the Commission in advance of a vote
on that order. The idea that such a significant order that
would affect so much of our economy would be voted on without
oversight is unconscionable and would be a dereliction of this
committee's duties. If the chairman is intent to act, I believe
that his actions should be done under the scrutiny of Congress
and in the light of the public.
That concludes what I want to say. And I am going to yield
the remaining part of my time to Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the gentleman for yielding his remaining
time to me.
I want to associate myself with our ranking member's
comments, particularly to what the President said that was a
direct assault on the First Amendment and, with all due respect
to you, Mr. Chairman, your delayed and rather tepid response to
that. I want to place verbally in the record the First
Amendment of the Constitution of our country.
It was written, adopted by----
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you--December 15, 1791. It is as new and
as important today as the day that it was adopted.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press--they were very clear.
They were very clear--or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
I hope you will choose to enlarge on the public statement
that you put out.
And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back to the ranking
member.
Mr. Doyle. And I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize the Chairman of the full Energy
and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden, who has been in the chair
all day along with the hearing downstairs.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to
welcome especially Commissioner Carr. Welcome aboard. We are
glad to have you here for the first time in this capacity. And
welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel. It is sure good to see
you on the Commission. And we look forward to continuing our
work with you and the other members. Chairman Pai, thank you
too for being here and for your leadership.
I couldn't agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this
Commission has some very, very important work to do. The United
States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this
year, including wildfires that have devastated literally
hundreds of thousands of acres in my home state. And we know
the tragedies all across the West from these fires. These
catastrophic weather events have shown the importance of
maintaining the most reliable and modern communication systems
possible. And we certainly owe the work many of us were engaged
in on FirstNet and going clear back to 2012, and we need to
make sure that works as planned.
I look forward to hearing updates on the agency's
contributions to the overall Federal relief efforts underway in
these areas as well as those impacted by Hurricanes Irma,
Harvey, and Maria, although some of the affected areas are
almost back up to speed, which is great, thanks to a lot of
hard work on both industry and government. We know we are
facing enormous challenges elsewhere in restoring essential
services, in places like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as
well as others here on the mainland.
We appreciate the Commission's efforts to streamline
permitting, advance funding, and provide much needed assistance
in these situations. We also appreciate the Commission's work
to keep us informed through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on
FCC hurricane response efforts that we requested and that
Chairman Pai's team quickly provided at the beginning of this
month. Thank you for doing that.
As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a
number of key items to emerge from the Commission. In no way
does this committee expect our oversight to delay the
Commission's important work. Rather, hearings like this are
vital to keeping open the lines of communication and exposing
commissioners and committee members alike to different
perspectives, yielding better understanding and better
decision-making. But we expect the Commission's work to go
regardless, just as it did under the previous administration.
The subcommittee continues its work as well having just
finished a markup on an FCC reauthorization bill for the first
time in many years. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle for their work on this effort as we continue to
move toward full committee markup soon.
Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and
opportunities presented by the repacking process that the
Commission has embarked upon. I commend the Commission's
continuing efforts to release funding and work with every
broadcaster to ensure their needs are being met as this
transition evolves in a timely manner. Your input has been and
will continue to be extremely important to this committee as we
look at options to solve the remaining issues. And we certainly
know there are some out there.
Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a
forum to rehash, once again, the arguments for dumping cutting
edge broadband internet service into the stale, musty bucket
that is Title II. In any case, if anyone was wondering, my
position hasn't changed on that, and I don't sense others have.
This Commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the
previous Commission's partisan maneuver, which upended stacks
of Commission precedent, disregard reams of legislative history
to achieve the results that were demanded by then President
Barack Obama. It is up to the Commission to set the optimal
regulatory conditions to fuel broadband investment and
deployment. And I hope to see a new bar set in this regard
before the end of the year.
Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the
net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that
passion here on both sides. And I have been continuing my
efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues
to engage the various affected parties in productive
discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority
have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point.
I would love to see that change, by the way. The door remains
open.
We are willing and able to codify net neutrality
protections and establish a Federal framework in statute for
providing certainty to all participants in the internet
ecosystem. I don't think we need Title II to do that. We have
the same end goal: Preserving the internet as a free, open,
dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive our
economy, while also doing everything we can to extend its
benefits to every American. We should be able to work together
to clear this issue off our plates.
With that, again, I thank the Commission for being here
today. We are glad to see you fully constituted and confirmed.
And as you can imagine, we have a lot of issues to hear from
you on and to have good discourse back and forth. So thanks
again.
And with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to welcome Commissioner
Carr for the first time, and welcome back Commissioner
Rosenworcel as this subcommittee continues in its long
tradition of active oversight of the FCC.
I couldn't agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this
commission has some very important work to do. The United
States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this
year, including the wildfires that have devastated hundreds of
thousands of acres in Oregon and across much of the West. These
catastrophic weather events have shown the importance of
maintaining the most reliable and modern communications
systems, particularly in emergencies.
I look forward to hearing updates on the agency's
contributions to the overall federal relief efforts underway in
these areas as well as those impacted by Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria. Although some of the affected areas are almost
back up to speed, thanks to a lot of hard work on the part of
both industry and government, we are facing enormous challenges
in restoring essential services in other areas.
We appreciate the commission's efforts to streamline
permitting, advance funding, and provide much needed
assistance. We also appreciate the commission's work to keep us
informed, through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on FCC
hurricane response efforts that we requested and that Chairman
Pai's team quickly provided at the beginning of this month.
As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a
number of key items to emerge from the commission. In no way
does this committee expect our oversight to delay the
commission's important work.
Rather, hearings like this are vital to keeping open the
lines of communication and exposing commissioners and committee
members alike to different perspectives, yielding better
understanding and better decision making. But we expect the
commission's work to go on regardless, just as it did under the
previous Administration.
The subcommittee continues its work as well, having just
finished a markup of an FCC reauthorization bill for the first
time in many years. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle for working with us to see this effort through,
and continuing that work as we move toward full committee
markup.
Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and
opportunities presented by the repacking process the commission
has embarked upon.
I commend the commission's continuing efforts to release
funding and work with every broadcaster to ensure their needs
are being met as this transition evolves in a timely manner.
Your input has been, and will continue to be, extremely
valuable as this committee explores initiatives to solve for
the issues that still remain.
Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a
forum to rehash once again the arguments for dumping cutting-
edge broadband Internet service into the stale, musty bucket
that is Title II. In case anyone was wondering, my position on
this has not changed.
This commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the
previous commission's partisan maneuver, which upended stacks
of commission precedent and disregarded reams of legislative
history to achieve the result demanded by President Obama.
It is up to the commission to set the optimal regulatory
conditions to fuel broadband investment and deployment, and I
hope to see a new bar set in this regard before the end of the
year.
Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the
net neutrality debate. And I have been continuing my efforts to
negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage
with the various affected parties in productive discussions
toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have been
largely uninterested. I would love to see that change.
We are willing and able to codify net neutrality
protections and establish a federal framework providing
certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem, and we
don't need Title II to do it.
We have the same end goal: preserving the Internet as a
free, open, dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive
our economy, while also doing everything we can to extend its
benefits to every American. We should be able to work together
and clear this issue off our plates.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Anyone seeking the remainder of the chairman's time?
No one else. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Doyle, for holding this hearing today. And I appreciate that
you are maintaining the subcommittee's tradition of oversight
of the FCC. I know some people here today would prefer you
wouldn't.
Congressional oversight is especially important now because
the FCC is on a path to take up a number of controversial
issues in the next few months. Nonetheless, it is curious that
this hearing is scheduled for today in particular, just one day
before Chairman Pai is expected to make public at least one
proposal that enriches a single company above others, and that
would clear out any last obstacles to Sinclair broadcasting's
purchase of Tribune Media Company. This will be the single
largest owner of television broadcast station, and they would
be buying the second largest.
So Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply
coincidence that his actions are all timed to benefit Sinclair.
But if that was the case, why can't the members of this
committee see the latest proposal that he plans to circulate
tomorrow before the Commission came before us? And now Chairman
Pai has refused repeatedly to respond to my questions about
allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. And this kind
of evasiveness with Congress does not help put anyone's
concerns to rest. These moves are just another example of how
this FCC values large companies over small ones and always puts
companies before consumers.
The most glaring example of this, of course, is Chairman
Pai's commitment to eviscerate net neutrality protections by
the end of this year. Net neutrality protects consumers,
protects small businesses, and protects free speech. And I hope
that the FCC is spending this time reviewing the millions of
comments that had been filed, including comments from the
Democratic members of this committee. And I also hope the FCC
considers the thousands of consumer complaints that have been
made public since the comment period closed. These complaints
demonstrate that consumer problems with broadband providers is
much farther reaching than the FCC's proposed rulemaking lets
on.
Now, together, these items have the potential to
drastically remake the way Americans communicate. And in taking
on these issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate itself
from the political pressures from the President. Chairman Pai
has claimed that he has restored independence to the FCC, yet
he refuses repeatedly to put any distance between himself and
President Trump, whether it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or
even protecting a free press. And that evasiveness does not
inspire confidence.
I have said many times, and I think I have told some of the
Commission members, that I remember earlier this year when Sean
Spicer was at a press conference and he said that the President
would have the FCC repeal net neutrality before the FCC even
addressed the issue. So, again, it just seems that everything
is, whatever the President wants, and there is really no
independence at all on net neutrality or the other issues. And
the FCC has a long tradition of bipartisanship. But,
unfortunately, that is simply not the case today. Hardworking
American consumers and future Congresses are sure to take a dim
view of the current partisan politics at the FCC, and it is
time to restore that bipartisan tradition.
But, again, I thank the chairman and the commissioners for
all being here today. And I would like to yield a minute each
to Mr. McNerney and Matsui. I guess I will start with McNerney.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Doyle for
holding this hearing today. I appreciate that you are
maintaining this subcommittee's tradition of oversight of the
FCC--I know some people here today would prefer you wouldn't.
Congressional oversight is especially important now because
the FCC is on a path to take up a number of controversial
issues in the next few months. Nonetheless, it's curious that
this hearing is scheduled for today in particular--just one day
before Chairman Pai is expected to make public at least one
proposal that enriches a single company above others, and that
would clear out any last obstacles to Sinclair Broadcasting's
purchase of Tribune Media Company. This would be the single
largest owner of television broadcast stations buying the
second largest.
Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply
coincidence that his actions are all timed to benefit Sinclair.
But if that was the case, why can't the members of the
Committee see his latest proposals that he plans to circulate
tomorrow before the Commission came before us? And now Chairman
Pai has refused repeatedly to respond to my questions about
allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. This kind of
evasiveness with Congress does not help put anyone's concerns
to rest.
These moves are just another example of how this FCC values
large companies over small ones and always puts companies
before consumers. The most glaring example of this, of course,
is Chairman Pai's commitment to eviscerate net neutrality
protections by the end of the year.
Net neutrality protects consumers, protects small
businesses, and protects free speech. I hope that the FCC is
spending this time reviewing the millions of comments that have
been filed, including comments from the Democratic members of
this Committee. I also hope the FCC considers the thousands of
consumer complaints that have been made public since the
comment period closed. These complaints demonstrate that
consumers' problems with broadband providers is much farther
reaching than the FCC's Proposed Rulemaking let on.
Together, these items have the potential to drastically
remake the way Americans communicate. And in taking on these
issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate itself from the
political pressures from the President. Chairman Pai has
claimed that he has restored independence to the FCC. Yet he
refuses-repeatedly-to put any distance between himself and
President Trump, whether it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or
even protecting a free press. That evasiveness does not inspire
confidence.
The FCC has a long tradition of bipartisanship, but
unfortunately that is simply not the case today. Hardworking
American consumers and future Congresses are sure to take a dim
view of the current partisan politics at the FCC. It's time to
restore that bipartisan tradition.
I thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before
us today. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
I have noticed a troubling trend in the FCC's recent
actions. The very core of the FCC's mission is in the public
interest. In fact, the words ``public interest'' appear over
100 times in the Communications Act. But by taking steps to
limit access to information and content, the Commission has
gone against what I think is the public's interest. This is
evidenced by the Commission's current efforts to dismantle net
neutrality protections. It is further evidenced by the steps
the Commission has taken to undercut localism from reinstating
UHF discount to eliminate the main studio rule. These and other
actions signaling favorable treatment for Sinclair.
And then there was the chairman's initial silence regarding
the President's threat to revoke broadcast licenses on the
basis of viewpoints, followed by the chairman reluctantly
making a statement, but one that was too late and insufficient.
I am disappointed in these actions and the effect that they
will have on the information my constituents and Americans
across the country have access to.
With that, I yield to Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. Thank you for yielding.
In order to expand broadband deployment across this
country, it is critically important that we accelerate our work
to free up spectrum for commercial use. Additional spectrum is
necessary both to expand wireless coverage across rural America
and build capacity across all of America. We must also focus on
locking more spectrum frequencies that will allow new and
innovative technologies to grow. This means everything from
precision agriculture, public safety communications, telehealth
services, the Internet of Things, and connected devices. All of
this to rely on access to spectrum's invisible infrastructure
of the 21st century.
Access to the spectrum would depend on the FCC conducting
auctions that will allow additional low-, mid-, and high-band
spectrum to be delivered to commercial users. That is why
Congressman Guthrie and I introduced the Spectrum Auction
Deposits Act yesterday. Without this fix, future auctions may
be put on hold indefinitely. And I look forward to working with
Chairman Pai, the committee, and Congressman Guthrie to work
together to enact this into law.
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
And I see no other members requesting time, so this
concludes our opening statements.
I would like to remind members that, pursuant to the
committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made a
part of the record.
We want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be
here today and for preparing for the hearing, submitting your
testimony. We do appreciate this. Today's witnesses will have
the opportunity to give opening statements, followed by the
questions that are going to come from our members.
Our witness panel for today's hearing: The Honorable
Brendan Carr, Commissioner Clyburn, Chairman Pai, Commissioner
O'Rielly, Commissioner Rosenworcel. We appreciate that you all
are here for this.
And as the tradition of this subcommittee, we will go in
the order of seniority. So, Chairman Pai, you will be first,
followed by Commissioner Clyburn, and then Mr. O'Rielly, Mr.
Carr, and Ms. Rosenworcel.
So, Chairman Pai, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; MIGNON CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND JESSICA ROSENWORCEL,
COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI
Mr. Pai. Thank you. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this
hearing today. I appreciate this opportunity to update you on
the FCC's work to advance the public interest.
That work has been substantial. In my written statement, I
outlined progress in four key areas: Promoting public safety,
bridging the digital divide, modernizing our regulations, and
combatting unwanted robocalls. Additionally, I commended the
subcommittee for its work on reauthorizing the FCC.
Of particular importance is the provision just mentioned by
Congresswoman Matsui that would allow the deposits placed by
bidders in spectrum auctions to be sent to the Treasury.
Without this measure, the FCC won't be able to launch a large
spectrum auction for the foreseeable future.
But this morning, I would like to address an area of
concern for all members and for me: The First Amendment. I have
said again and again and again that the First Amendment must be
at the heart of our work. That is why I oppose the prior FCC's
critical information needs study, an ill-conceived initiative
which would have involved sending government funded agents into
newsrooms to second-guess editorial judgment. And that is why
just last month I spoke at the Newseum about the importance of
the First Amendment.
My record on these issues is clear. And these issues are
not new. President Kennedy targeted The Washington Post and NBC
directly telling one of my predecessors that a particular story
was outrageous and to, quote, ``do something about it.'' More
recently, some have said that the FCC should reject a
transaction involving the transfer of FCC broadcast licenses
because of editorial judgments. And six members of this very
committee, including the current ranking members of the
committee and subcommittee, once demanded that the FCC
investigate a broadcaster based solely on the content of a
documentary that they didn't like and that hadn't even aired.
Let me be clear. I stand on the side of the First
Amendment. I firmly believe that journalists should heed to
their viewers, their listeners, and their readers, not the
dictates of officials in Washington, D.C. But don't just trust
my words. For if you believe, as I do, that the Federal
Government has no business intervening in the news, then we
must stop the Federal Government from intervening in the news
business. And that is why this afternoon I shared with my
fellow commissioners an order that will reform our media
ownership rules and help pull the government, once and for all,
out of the newsroom. We will vote on this order at our November
16 meeting.
The marketplace today is nothing like it was in 1975.
Newspapers are shutting down. Many a radio and TV stations are
struggling, especially in smaller and rural markets. Online
competition for the collection and distribution of news is even
greater than it ever was. And just two internet companies claim
100 percent of recent online advertising growth. Indeed, their
digital ad revenue alone this year will be greater than the
market cap of the entire broadcasting industry. And yet the
FCC's rules still presume that the market is defined entirely
by pulp and rabbit ears. As one newspaper has put it, making
the argument that the current rules are outdated is easy. That
radical right wing rag was The New York Times in 2003.
Now, if this order is adopted, the FCC will belatedly
recognize reality and match our rules to the modern
marketplace. First, the order will, once and for all, eliminate
the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule. As President
Clinton's first FCC chairman has explained, under current
conditions in the media business, the FCC's rule is perverse.
And the Third Circuit has said that it remains at, quote,
significant expense to pro-competitive arrangements.
Second, the item will eliminate the radio-television cross-
ownership rule, which is unnecessary into today's marketplace
given the Commission's separate local radio and local
television ownership rules.
Third, it will revise the local television ownership rule
to eliminate the eight-voices test and incorporate a case-by-
case review of the top-four prohibition. This better reflects
the competitive conditions in local markets.
Fourth, it will eliminate the attribution rule for
television joint sales agreements, finding that JSAs serve the
public interest by allowing broadcasters to better serve their
local markets.
Fifth, it will retain the disclosure requirement for shared
services agreements involving commercial television stations.
And, sixth, it will finally, finally, establish an
incubator program to encourage greater diversity in and new
entry into the media business and seek comment on what the
details of that program should be. And unlike under the prior
administration, I have ordered that the text of this decision
be made publicly available tomorrow, 3 weeks before we vote on
it. That too is news that is fit to print.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the
committee, thank you once again for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the chairman.
Commissioner Clyburn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIGNON CLYBURN
Ms. Clyburn. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you for
the opportunity to once again appear before you today.
We are 9 months into a new administration, making it
appropriate, I believe, to reflect on the tremendous change
that has taken place when it comes to our outlook on consumers,
competition, and viewpoint diversity. Beyond the Washington
acronyms, inside of the beltway jargon and flashy press
headlines, are a series of actions, I fear, that are
jeopardizing the FCC's role as the referee on the field
protecting consumers and small business interests.
Now, I ask you not to take my word about this. In my hand
are 80 mostly handwritten letters I have received in the recent
months. They express concern ranging from open internet and
proposed mergers to inmate calling and a lack of affordable
broadband in their communities. Amid the many policy changes,
what may have gone unnoticed are the enforcement actions that
we have failed to take against the Nation's largest regulatees,
where they have violated the public trust and the Commission's
rules.
In March, for example, millions of consumers were unable to
call 911 for 5 hours. Similar outages in the past few years
resulted in the Commission collectively fining companies more
than $30 million. These past fines were a recognition that we
depend on 911 being available during times of greatest need.
How did the current FCC handle this year's outage, one of the
largest fines ever? No penalty and no report that addressed the
question of whether the Commission's rules were violated.
Now, I am all for taking enforcement action whenever the
public's trust has been violated. But what is clear is that the
majority's focus is on targeting individuals and small
businesses, where we are least likely to collect any fines.
Turning to policy. It is a source of great disappointment
that as we approach the holiday season, 2.7 million children
continue to wait for this agency to make good on its word to
bring about real reform when it comes to the inmate calling
regime. In April, the FCC majority welcomed Industry
Consolidation Month by reinstating the technologically obsolete
UHF discount. The result: Opening the door for a single
broadcast station group to reach more than 70 percent of the
television households. In that same month, we paved the way for
huge rate hikes on business data services, formerly known as
special access, that will not only negatively impact small
businesses but rural hospitals, schools, libraries, and police
departments as well. Instead of looking out for millions of
little guys, the Commission's majority once again chose to
align with an interest of a handful of multibillion dollar
providers.
In August, we began an inquiry that may actually put us on
a path of lowering the bar for what we now consider to be high-
speed broadband. As I travel across this country, the refrain I
hear is that service is too expensive and speeds are too low.
We should be aiming to lead the world in having the fastest,
most robust broadband, not heading in the opposite direction by
green-lighting broadband service at excruciatingly slow snail-
like speeds.
Now, last month, we took another worrisome turn with the
adoption of our latest mobile competition report. Ask those
that I have met in rural America who are struggling with 2G and
3G service. What they want is reliable wireless connectivity.
What they have is lackluster noncompetitive service, simply
put.
Our reports' findings do not match the experiences on the
ground and in the communities across this great Nation. And if
I am to believe the reports that I am hearing and reading, in
just a matter of days, as you have heard, the chairman will
circulate a series of items that include rolling back the best
elements of our media ownership rules. If true, the already
consolidated broadcast media market will become even more so,
offering little to no discernible benefits for consumers.
Our actions, most often the ones that fail to make the
headlines, have real everyday consequences. And while I keep
and will keep doing everything in my power to make sure that we
do not dial back any further when it comes to consumer
protections, just, reasonable, and fair phone rates for all of
our citizens, media ownership opportunities, and digital
inclusion, I remain fearful, in part, because the rhetoric is
not in line with the actions. I have submitted a longer
statement for the record.
But once again, allow me to thank the subcommittee for
providing me the opportunity to testify today. I look forward,
I believe, to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Commissioner Clyburn, you always look
forward to the questions, and we are delighted you are here.
Commissioner O'Rielly, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be before the
subcommittee once again as it conducts further oversight of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Before I discuss certain policy and other matters, I would
like to address the recent tweets by the President of the
United States raising matters within the purview of this FCC.
Let me be clear, I do not speak for the President, and I have
never met him. However, I think it is fair to say that the new
President and his administration have received what can be most
kindly called unbalanced coverage from various media sources.
But you don't have to take my word for it or corresponding
studies showing the same. Former President Carter stated over
the weekend: I think the media have been harder on Trump than
any other President, certainly that I have known about.
With that said, I do not believe that the Commission's
licensing decisions should be influenced or decided by
politics. Similarly, like my objections to the cozy
relationship between the past administration and the
Commission, I continue to support the FCC as an independent
agency. Moreover, I strongly believe in the Constitution of the
United States, which includes the First Amendment, and have
sworn to support and defend it as part of my oath of office.
But this is somewhat immaterial, because the beauty of the
Constitution is that it is the highest law of the land, and the
rights that it affirms and provides supersede my belief or any
action by the Commission. It serves to protect us all, even the
unwitting bystander or active hostile.
Turning to substantive matters. A top priority of mine is
to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is being put to the
most efficient use possible. My overall goal of this work is to
position the United States and our wireless carriers for
overall success in the coming years. We know that
internationally several nations seek to corner the market on
next generation wireless technologies, commonly known as 5G, to
reap the economic benefits and dictate the world's wireless
future. I intend to ensure that the United States' ingenuity
and technological development are not unfairly hampered by
others' quest for this premier position.
Moreover, as the insatiable demands of consumers for more
mobility and broadband offerings continue, the Commission has
the arduous task of reclaiming, reallocating, clearing, and, in
some cases, facilitating spectrum sharing. A prime location for
such efforts is the mid-bands, including a 3.5, 3.7 to 4.2, and
3.1 to 3.5 GHz bands. In terms of unlicensed spectrum, the time
has come to determine whether the DSRC remains the best use of
the 5.9 GHz band. If it no longer makes any sense, the
Commission could combine the 5.9 GHz with the rest of the 5 GHz
band and potentially the 6 GHz band to expand current
unlicensed operations and promote continued growth.
Once spectrum is made available, additional auctions will
be needed to assign licenses. But as Chairman Pai testified,
the Commission faces difficulty in securing a financial
institution to meet the statutory requirements to hold our
upfront auction payments. Without a willing partner or a change
in law, the Commission believes that it is unable to announce a
schedule for future spectrum auctions, much less hold an
auction itself.
While the subcommittee has included a technical fix within
its larger reauthorization bill, it is possible that this
larger legislation may take additional time. Accordingly, I
want to thank Representatives Guthrie and Matsui for
introducing the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act of 2017, a stand-
alone bill for this purpose, and express my support for moving
this rifle shot approach as soon as possible.
In terms of process reform, I believe that the Commission
is more open and transparent now than it has been since I
started following its activities. However, I continue to
believe that additional changes to the Commission's procedures,
both formal and informal, are necessary and prudent. On that
note, the Commission's perpetual struggle over the excessive
use of delegated authority continues. To rectify this, I have
put forth what I consider to be a balanced plan to accommodate
the competing interests of permitting commissioners to vote and
resolving matters expeditiously. I would be pleased to work
with the subcommittee on this and any other process reform
ideas.
I thank the members of the subcommittee for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. And so far, he
is winning the prize for most time yielded back.
Mr. Carr, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before
you today. This is a particular honor for me because this is my
first opportunity to testify since I was sworn in as a
commissioner in August. For the 8 months before that, I served
as the general counsel of the FCC, after joining the agency
originally as a staffer back in 2012.
In my 5 years at the Commission, I have enjoyed working
with you and your staffs on policies that promote the public
interest. I want to commend you in particular for your efforts
to enact bipartisan legislation, such as Kari's Law, the
Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act and, most
recently, the markup of an FCC reauthorization bill.
Having served in various roles in both the majority and the
minority at the FCC, these experiences have instilled in me an
appreciation for the importance of bipartisan consensus and
working toward common ground. I commit to carrying that forward
in my time on the Commission.
In my testimony, I want to focus on the ways the FCC can
continue to incentivize broadband deployment. This is
particularly important as we make the transition to 5G, a shift
that will require a massive investment in both wired and
wireless infrastructure. But if we get the right policies in
place, this transition could mean $275 billion in network
investment, 3 million new jobs, and half a trillion added to
the GDP.
As I see it, there are at least three keys to getting
there: Spectrum, infrastructure, and ensuring we have the
skilled workforce in place to deploy these NexGen networks.
First, we need to get more spectrum into the market. I am
pleased the FCC is pressing forward on this front. We have a
proceeding underway that is looking at broad swaths of spectrum
between 3 and 24 GHz. And the chairman has announced that we
will vote later this year on opening up additional bands above
24 GHz. These are really great steps towards maintaining the
United States' leadership in the global race to 5G.
Second, we must modernize the Federal, State, and local
regimes that currently govern broadband infrastructure
deployment. 5G is going to require a 10- to 100-fold increase
in the number of cell sites in this country. The current regime
is simply not tailored to support this type of massive new
deployment. It costs too much, it takes too long. So we need to
find ways to drive the unnecessary regulatory costs out of the
system, and we need to speed the timeline for obtaining
regulatory approvals. Doing so will be particularly important
for rural America.
One recent study shows that regulatory reform can shift the
business case for entire communities. Streamlining alone could
make it economical for providers to deploy 5G to nearly 15
million more homes than under the existing and more burdensome
regime. The lion's share of those would be in less densely
populated parts of the country.
Third, we need the skilled workforce necessary to get this
transition across the finish line. Last month, I participated
in a roundtable hosted by the Wireless Infrastructure
Association outside of Baltimore. A broad range of stakeholders
from wireless companies to independent infrastructure providers
all talked about the shortage of skilled workers that can
deploy the small cells, distributed antenna systems and other
infrastructure necessary for 5G.
Now, while there is no direct regulatory role for the FCC
here, I think we need to focus additional attention on this
issue and potential solutions, including the role that
apprenticeship and other job training programs can play. And to
that end, I will be participating at an event next month at the
Department of Labor on workforce development.
One last point. While technology continues to evolve, one
constant is the FCC's obligation to promote public safety. This
has been highlighted in a most devastating of ways over the
past 2 months with the hurricanes that have overwhelmed
communities across the country and now currently with the
wildfires that we see. The FCC has been working hard since well
before the first hurricane made landfall. And Chairman Pai has
kept the agency focused on the immediate task of supporting
restoration efforts, including by forming a hurricane recovery
task force that is coordinating the agency's work. Right now,
the FCC is focused on the emergency situations in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while continuing to assess
restoration efforts across the country. I will see some of
those firsthand on Friday when I visit Houston to hold a
roundtable with broadcasters, meet broadband providers, and
visit a 911 call center. I will be taking stock of the progress
that has been made and the ways the FCC can continue to support
those efforts.
So, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of
the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Commissioner Carr. You did well
in your first appearance.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
and the other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. This is my first appearance
before you since returning to the FCC. I had a little vacation
courtesy of your friends in the United States Senate.
Of course, a little distance provides some perspective. And
in my time off, one thing became abundantly clear: The future
belongs to the connected. No matter who you are or where you
live in this country, you need access to modern communications
to have a fair shot at 21st century success. But the fact of
the matter is that, today, too many Americans lack access to
broadband. Let's put a number on it. Right now, 34 million
Americans lack access to high speed-service. That number
includes 23 million Americans living in rural areas. That is
just not acceptable. We need to do better.
But, of course, statistics alone don't tell the whole
story. To get a picture of just what it means to be consigned
to the wrong side of the digital divide, consider kids and
homework. Today, 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires
internet access. But data from the FCC show that as many as one
in three households do not subscribe to broadband. Where those
numbers overlap is what I call the homework gap. And according
to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, the homework gap is
real, and it affects 12 million children all across the
country.
I have heard from students in Texas who do their homework
at fast-food restaurants with fries just to get a free WiFi
signal. And I have heard from students in Pennsylvania who make
elaborate plans every day to get to the homes of friends and
relatives just to be able to get online. I have also heard from
high school football players in rural New Mexico who linger in
the school parking lot late at night in the pitch-black dark
because it is the only place that they can get a reliable
connection. These kids have grit, but it shouldn't be that
hard, because, today, no child can be left offline.
Developing digital skills is essential for education and
for full participation in the modern economy. So I hope that
adds a human dimension to what it means to not have access to
broadband.
Now, let me tell you what we can do about it. If we want to
get serious about addressing our broadband problems, we need to
know exactly where those problems are most pronounced. We need
better mapping. Nearly 9 years ago, in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, Congress had a good idea. It created a
national broadband map identifying where deployment has and has
not occurred. But if you check that map online now, you will
last see that it was updated 3 years ago. And I don't have to
tell you, in the internet age, 3 years is an eternity.
You cannot manage what you do not measure, so I think it is
time for a national broadband map that offers an honest picture
of both wired and wireless broadband across the country. And,
of course, we can build this map with all sorts of datasets
here in Washington. But I think it would be great if we had a
clearer picture on the ground. I am a big believer in the
wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If
any of your constituents have not been able to get service or
live in an area that lacks it, help us make that map and write
us at [email protected].
I set up this account to take in the public stories and
ideas, and I will share everything that comes in with the
chairman and my colleagues, because I think it is time to make
every one of those broadband fails into something better:
broadband success.
Finally, I want to point out that, with broadband, speed
matters. The FCC has a statutory duty to annually assess the
state of broadband deployment. Today, our national standard is
25 megabits. But the agency has sought comment on scaling this
back to 10 megabits. That is crazy. We won't solve our
broadband problems by lowering our standards. We need to
correct this course immediately and start setting bigger goals
if we want to do bigger things.
Let me close by thanking you for having me at this hearing
today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. We thank everyone for the testimony. And
this concludes our testimony portion, and we are going into the
Q&A portion. And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Chairman Pai, I am going to come to you first. I want to
stay with that freedom of speech theme. During the last
administration, the Commission had proposed a multimarket study
of critical information needs, and you had made the comment
that you thought it thrust the Federal Government into the
newsrooms across the country. And Chairman Upton, Chairman
Walden, and many members on this subcommittee, including
myself, sent Chairman Wheeler a letter calling the study what
we thought would be unconstitutional, and urging him to put a
stop to the attempt to engage the FCC as the news police.
Fortunately, Chairman Wheeler did heed our call.
And I want to know if he put a stop to it, but can you tell
us more about that project? How close was it to actually
happening? How much money got spent on that project?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Chairman Blackburn,
and thank you for your advocacy several years ago. The critical
information needs study was a study that was conceived in the
prior FCC. It spent approximately $900,000, as best I can
discern it. And the project involved sending government-funded
researchers into newsrooms to ask questions about why they were
or were not covering eight different categories of news that
the government thought were important, asking questions to news
directors and the like about perceived bias, and asking a whole
host of other intrusive questions.
It seemed to me that this was not compatible with the
agency's obligations under the First Amendment. And so I wrote
up an op-ed about it. And I am grateful that Chairman Wheeler
ultimately scrapped that study, but not before, as I said, a
great deal of money had been expended and a rubicon of some
sort had been crossed.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now, when Chairman Wheeler pulled the
plug on it, the FCC said that some of the questions may not
have been appropriate and that the Commission would be
modifying the draft study. So what is the current status on
this?
Mr. Pai. That study will not proceed and--period.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I just want to ask, for each of you on
the Commission, is there anybody on this current Commission
that would support such a study?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, Madam Chairman, one of the things that I
take issue with is how that was couched. I was a part of that
study, which started out being a study of studies, looking at
what the Commission gathered in terms of information about the
entire media ecosystem. And as a result of us not having
information, we have been kicked back several times to the
court about not having justification, not having information,
not having data. When it comes to certain policies, the court
has spoken. We don't have the information needed. We are making
decisions by putting a finger up in the wind and seeing where
the political winds are flowing and going in terms of
information, in terms of our decision-making.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Ms. Clyburn. And that is why we have a UHF discount that
has no justification. And that is because we have no
information that we are gathering. We are just making decisions
based on political----
Mrs. Blackburn. So you would support the FCC being in the
newsroom?
Ms. Clyburn. I will support the FCC not being in the
newsroom, because I am a First Amendment prophet. I had a
newspaper for 14 years, and dare not anybody come into my
newsroom and tell me what to print. That is not what I am
saying.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Let me ask you all this. In
2009, Anita Dunn, the White House communications director said
of Fox News: We are going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent. We don't need to pretend that this is the way that
legitimate news organizations behave. This overall attitude
culminated in the exclusion of Fox News From access in numerous
large and small ways.
As deputy press secretary Josh Earnest wrote in an email to
a Treasury official, and I am quoting: We are demonstrating our
willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant
interviews.
Did any of this raise First Amendment concerns with any of
you?
Yes or no. Commissioner Carr, start with you, and go right
down the line.
Mr. Carr. I think it underscores the need for the
Commission to just stay focused on every action that the agency
takes being consistent with----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. We are going to learn to do yes and no.
OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. I am trying to grasp what are you saying. All
I know is I am very consistent on First Amendment principles.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. So exclusion from asking questions or
being included, would that bother you?
Ms. Clyburn. Exclusion----
Mrs. Blackburn. Excluding a news outlet, would that bother
you?
Ms. Clyburn. Excluding a news outlet from--that is not how
I conduct myself.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. All right.
Chairman Pai?
Mr. Pai. I agree with Commissioner Carr.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Chairman Blackburn. Yes. OK. Follows instructions well.
All right. Chairman Rosenworcel?
Mr. Rosenworcel. Tension between administration----
Chairman Blackburn. Yes or no. You have got to learn to do
it.
Mr. Rosenworcel. Tension between administrations are as old
as the republic.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right.
Mr. Rosenworcel. Nothing strikes me about what you have
just described as being particularly new or unique.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. That is unfortunate.
All right. Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Commissioner O'Rielly, in the spirit of Chairman Dingell, I
have a number of questions that I want to ask you with--just
requiring yes or no answers. And I would appreciate you doing
that as rapidly as possible.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. You got it. You used to work on this
committee.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. And you helped draft legislation that prevented
one entity from owning broadcast stations that reach more than
39 percent of the national population, correct?
It is a yes or no.
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you.
In response to a question for the record from me, did you
state that you believe only Congress can change the cap via the
passage of legislation?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. At that time that you worked on this
legislation, did you understand that a UHF station signal, the
ones above channel 13, could not travel as far as VHF signals?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Were you aware at that time that the FCC did not
count the entire reach of UHF stations against the 39 percent
national ownership cap?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. And in a twist of fate, since the DTV in 2009,
digital UHF stations can now reach a larger audience than VHF
stations, right?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. The UHF discount now allows a single entity to
own stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national
population, correct?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Even though there is no technical reason for
this discount anymore, right?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. So the UHF discount just allows companies to
reach close to 80 percent of the national audience, right?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Do you believe the Congress intended to create a
loophole in the law?
Mr. O'Rielly. That is a no.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Did you state in a response to me that, even though you
think only Congress can change the national cap, this entire
issue may need to be litigated through the judicial process to
determine which position is accurate?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Did you also say that you suspect your position
will ultimately prevail at the end of the day?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, always.
Mr. Doyle. Does that mean you believe the court will find
that only Congress can adjust the 39 percent national cap?
Mr. O'Rielly. Both parts, yes, national cap and the UHF
discount.
Mr. Doyle. But did you also state that you will support
whatever action is necessary to see that the issue gets its day
in court?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. So are you saying that you are willing to vote
to raise the cap, even though you think Congress prohibited the
FCC from taking that action?
Mr. O'Rielly. I am saying that I need to see what the item
is. I don't want to----
Mr. Doyle. It is a yes or no question.
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, yes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
If the 39 percent cap is statutory, as you and I both
believe, will you oppose any attempts by companies to
contravene congressional intent?
Mr. O'Rielly. I believe that they comply with the law.
Mr. Doyle. Specifically, if the Sinclair-Tribune merger
resulted in a combined entity reaching more than 39 percent of
the national audience, that would contravene congressional
intent, correct?
Mr. O'Rielly. No.
Mr. Doyle. Why not?
OK. Thank you. I will let you get by on that one.
So if that is the case, though, if it did contravene the 39
percent, would you oppose the merger?
Mr. O'Rielly. I don't talk about any pending merger before
the Commission.
Mr. Doyle. If the Sinclair merger goes through and the
courts determine that you were right, that Congress prohibited
companies from exceeding the cap, should the FCC undo the
merger?
Mr. O'Rielly. I don't talk about any pending mergers before
the Commission.
Mr. Doyle. Well, let me just say, I think this is a
dangerous path, because your response to my questions for the
record and some of your answers here today suggest that you may
take steps to evade the law by approving a merger, even though
you and the majority of the Commission agree that it would
violate congressional intent. And I hope that you will
reconsider that.
Let me ask Commissioner Rosenworcel if she has anything she
wants to add to the line of questioning that I have had
regarding that merger.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you. I believe that 39 percent is
the figure that Congress chose to put in the law and that this
Commission needs to abide by it.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record five documents. One is the chairman's 2014 Wall
Street Journal op-ed, his response; a letter also that he sent
regarding a letter that a number of members sent regarding the
President's threats against the media; a letter from Consumers
Union; and the statement for the record that Commissioner
O'Rielly had sent back to me.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. I see my time is just about
expired, so I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, it has.
And, now, Chairman Walden, you are recognized.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes or no, Commissioner O'Rielly, do you wish
communications issues were as simple as yes or no?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Now, moving on. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I am glad you
raised the ARRA issue. I was on the committee at the time when
the stimulus bill came through. And I fought like the dickens
to get the maps done before the money went out the door, and I
failed in that effort. And so the money went out the door, then
they drew the maps.
What I am trying to figure out is why are the maps 3 years
old? Does the FCC not have a responsibility to keep those up to
date?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. I agree with
you. I think we should be keeping them up to date. I think the
fact that we spend billions of dollars on Universal Service
Fund every single year without having a full sense of where
service is and is not is a problem.
Mr. Walden. I fully agree.
Ms. Rosenworcel. And it is my understanding that the funds
that were used to support that map at the Department of
Commerce ceased to be available when the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act came to an end, and I think that the FCC has
been collecting data through its own 477 process. But it is
not----
Mr. Walden. And how valuable is that 477?
Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. Compatible with the data from
the Department of Commerce.
Wherever you are sitting on this issue, it just seems to me
that with better data we are going to make better decisions----
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Ms. Rosenworcel. And that is the point I----
Mr. Walden. I actually agree with that and hope you all can
figure out what the best reporting improvement mechanism is to
get to those data points, because we shouldn't be overbuilding
or wasting the ratepayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to. That is precisely why,
several months ago, I asked the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees for a reprogramming of funds to enable us to
discharge that important function. And I am glad to report that
each committee agreed with that recommendation and that task is
now underway and certainly welcome Commissioner Rosenworcel's
support for it.
Mr. Walden. Ms. Rosenworcel.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I just want to point out that that sounds
terrific, but it is my understanding that that is only for
wired broadband. And I think an adequate map at this point has
to include both wired and wireless.
Mr. Pai. Certainly, if the committees give us additional
reprogramming funds, we would love to pursue it. We cannot act
in the absence of congressional authorization from our
appropriators, as this committee well knows.
Mr. Walden. Very good. Maybe we can get everybody on the
same page on this one. We stand ready to work with you on it.
Chairman Pai, we have spent a lot of time together over the
years before this committee, and one of my concerns has been
that the FCC did not always operate in an open and transparent
way. I argued for making some of the proposed orders public and
have it actually circulated so Commissioners could read it, the
public could read it.
Have you done anything to improve that process down there?
Mr. Pai. I believe I have, Chairman Walden. I announced a
pilot project in the second week I was in office that, for some
of the upcoming meetings, we would be publishing at least 3
weeks in advance the actual text on the internet of these
orders----
Mr. Walden. Had that been done before?
Mr. Pai. It had never been done, and I had been told not
only was it potentially unlawful for it to be done, but it was
also unwise for it to be done. And I think the success of the
pilot program has disproved each one of those claims of fear.
And, just yesterday, I announced that--or 2 days ago,
rather, that this would be a permanent project, that we would
be doing this on a permanent basis for every meeting that the
FCC will hold into the future so long as I have the privilege
of leading the agency.
Mr. Walden. There was an issue about delegated authority
and Commissioners wanting to be able to take it off delegated
authority. Have you made any changes on that one?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely. One of the things that Commissioner
O'Rielly and I noticed in the minority is that if one of us or
both of us requested that an item that was reportedly going to
be done on delegated authority--if we requested that item be
considered by the full commission, my predecessor would
typically ignore that. And so I said, if there are two
Commissioners who want to handle something on the full
commission level, we will do that. And that is what we have
done.
Mr. Walden. Good.
Main studio rule----
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. I think I am the only one on the panel that
actually had to comply with that, as an FCC licensee for more
than two decades.
Obviously, you believed it outlived its purpose. I believed
it outlived its purpose. It made no sense. We very seldom, if
ever, had anybody come into the main studio for the purpose of
looking at the public file. That is now online, I believe,
right?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely right.
Mr. Walden. And so I am trying to get to this issue of why
some people think it was like the holy grail of local
communication. Because I don't see it that way; I didn't see it
that way. We acquired three other stations in another market.
It would have been nice to be able to consolidate in overhead
and put the money, like we did, into more news gathering and
into the proramming and all of that. People still knew where we
lived, and we knew where we lived. And so I commend you for
getting rid of that rule.
I think there are a whole bunch of other antiquated rules
that are legacy, that make no sense in today's internet
communication world, that other providers and competitors in
the market have no obligation to comply with. I don't see
Twitter with their local community rule in any community they
serve or any of these others. I realize they are not licensed.
But, obviously, there is a lot of debate going on now about how
all these communication mechanisms work in today's environment.
My time is gone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Commissioners, for all the good work you do. We
look forward to having you back up here on a regular basis.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chair for the hearing.
And I thank you, Commissioners, for your work. It is not an
easy job. And it is interesting to see the different viewpoints
that you all have.
Mr. Chairman, I recently had a chance to visit The Huddle,
which is a coworker space in my district where startups go
together to bring innovative ideas and working hard to get
their businesses off the ground. But they are very worried
about the impact that doing away with net-neutrality
protections will do to their businesses.
If net-neutrality protections are weakened, as you propose,
can you commit to me that small businesses and jobs will not be
hurt in my district? Please answer with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, I don't know that particular
company, but, obviously, we support a free and open internet
that allows small businesses like that to thrive.
Mr. McNerney. Commissioner Clyburn, do you think that that
will hurt small businesses?
Ms. Clyburn. I think, if we shift gears, that they would
not have the certainty that they need.
And I think that what doesn't get enough attention is the
impact on universal service. And we can talk about that later,
but the Chairman is not speaking clearly about what the impact
on universal service would be if we shift from Title II.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, there has been a series of
reports on the Sinclair-Tribune merger. I am very concerned
about the impact that this merger would have.
The FCC has a critical role to play in the merger approval
process. From your perspective, how do you think the Commission
has handled the review of this merger and the related
proceedings?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
Frankly, I am concerned. I think any broadcaster reaching
more than 70 percent of United States households would be
unprecedented.
I am also concerned that, if you look at the series of
media policy decisions that has been made by this Commission,
they all seem to serve Sinclair Broadcasting's business plans,
from reinstating the UHF discount, to changing the 39-percent
rule that was enacted by Congress, to possibly foisting on all
of our households a new broadcast standard for which they own
many, many patents.
I think it has reached a point where all of our media
policy decisions seem to be custom-built for this one company.
And I think it is something that merits investigation.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That is a pretty strong statement.
Mr. Pai, should the FCC be doing more to ensure local
officials have local resources and know how to use the WEA, the
Wireless Emergency Alerts?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. That is part of the
reason why I supported the proposal last year to work
cooperatively with local officials and stakeholders to see if
we can strengthen that system.
Mr. McNerney. So we can count on your support in terms of
producing resources and education?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely. Our public safety bureau and I
personally are committed to making sure that that system is as
robust as it can be.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Pai, last September, the FCC adopted a further notice
of proposed rulemaking that addresses increasing the accuracy
of the WEA geotargeting. The final round of comments was due on
January 9. When does the Commission plan to move on that?
Mr. Pai. We don't have a particular timeframe, Congressman.
I will note two things, however: First, the reason that we have
that geotargeting proposal is because my office last year urged
the full Commission to include it. And that is part of the
reason why I was pleased to support it.
The second thing is that we are still working very
cooperatively with local officials, with stakeholders, and
others to figure out the right way forward. So, while I can't
give you a specific timeframe, I do want you to know that this
is under active consideration, and we are going to do the best
we can to make sure that the system, as I said, is robust.
Mr. McNerney. Well, would you commit to giving the
committee a quarterly report on the progress of that?
Mr. Pai. I would be more than happy to do so.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Chairman Pai, during our last FCC oversight hearing, I
asked you if you would commit to turning over to this committee
any reports, requests, memoranda, and server logs related to
the alleged May 7 DDOS attacks on the FCC's electronic systems.
You said that you had hoped to consult with IT staff and
attorneys to see if there were any applicable technical or
legal prohibitions against you sharing information with this
committee. You then committed to sharing the requested
information with the committee to the extent that you could do
so.
So far, no one from your staff has followed up with my
office regarding this matter, and we still have not received a
single document in response to the request.
Do you recall consulting with the IT staff about this
issue?
Mr. Pai. I do remember meeting about this issue after the
hearing. If you don't mind, I will take a look at it. My
understanding was that we had gotten in touch, perhaps not with
your office but with the committee. But I will double-check to
make sure, and we will get you the information that you need.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I will follow up on that, then, and
make sure we get that information.
Mr. Pai. OK.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
Good afternoon to members of the Commission.
And, regarding the First Amendment, let me say that I think
you, Chairman Pai, and all members of the Commission, are
devoted to the First Amendment, as, of course, we are in
Congress. I am proud that New Jersey was the first State to
ratify the Bill of Rights in 1791.
You mentioned President Kennedy, Chairman Pai, in The
Washington Post. Before you were born and, I would imagine,
before any member of the Commission was born and when I was a
little boy, John Kennedy canceled his subscription to the
Herald Tribune, the great Republican newspaper in New York, and
my late father, who was involved in public policy in New
Jersey, sent him a subscription to the Herald Tribune. And we
have in our family files a very sarcastic and curt letter back
from Pierre Salinger saying we should stay out of the
subscription business of the White House.
And so, from my perspective, all presidents, on occasion,
criticize various news agencies. I don't find it necessarily
attractive. My reading of American history is that this is done
by various presidents. And I have great confidence in you,
Chairman Pai, and in members of the Commission in this regard.
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Lance. To Commissioner Carr and to Commissioner
Rosenworcel, congratulations on your confirmation.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, you recently applauded the
AIRWAVES Act, introduced by Senators Gardner and Hassan, for
identifying more spectrum that can be made available for
wireless broadband.
How would the AIRWAVES Act arm the FCC with tools to keep
pace with consumers' significant demand for bandwidth and for
the race to 5G?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question and the
delightful family story.
Mr. Lance. I hope I haven't bored you.
Ms. Rosenworcel. The best part of the AIRWAVES Act is
something incredibly simple: It is full of deadlines. It
chooses certain spectrum bands, and then it tells the agency
that it has to auction them on a very clear calendar. I think
that calendar is useful for all aspects of the wireless
ecosystem, and I think it is vitally important.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pai, last month, I believe without warning, Google
blocked Amazon's new Echo Show devices from showing any YouTube
videos. As of November 2016, YouTube was by far the leading
internet video portal in this country, with 79 percent market
share. Netflix was ranked second, with 8 percent. The same
study found that users age 25 to 34 years spent an average of
178 minutes each week watching online video. So access to
YouTube is a deal-breaker for videos devices like the Echo
Show.
From your perspective, Chairman Pai, should the FCC be
involved in any way in this matter?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, our internet regulations do not apply
to edge providers or to conduct of the kind you are describing.
So, as a matter of law, they simply don't, at this point.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. And I think that this is a serious
matter, and I don't know exactly the venue we should pursue.
But is there any other member of the Commission who would
like to comment on this?
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will yield back a minute and a
half.
Mrs. Blackburn. We are rolling. You might get the prize.
Mr. Lance. I hope so.
Please, everyone else, may I have the prize?
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now we are into a competition. I have
Goo Goos in the office. We will see who wins.
Mr. Ruiz, you are recognized.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. And, yes, I vote
to give him the prize.
This hearing is timely for a number of reasons, but, in
particular, I would like to focus on the FCC's role in the
ongoing recovery effort in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
By way of background, I have training in humanitarian
disaster relief from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. I am
an emergency medicine physician. And I was on the ground in
Haiti as the medical director for the largest internally
displaced camp in all of Port-au-Prince after the earthquake in
2010. So I have seen firsthand the challenges that arise in a
humanitarian crisis and the importance of communication systems
and coordination amongst agencies, local governments, and NGOs
in the field.
Two weeks ago, I flew down to Puerto Rico to see the
conditions for myself and to do a needs assessment based on my
training and experience. And I found two things that I would
like for you to carry back and figure out how we can work
together to improve. One is a lack of clarity of leadership as
to which agency is really running the show and taking the
leadership on the ground. And two is a lack of coordination
amongst agencies, NGOs, the local governments, out in the
field, not necessarily in San Juan.
And so my first question is for Chairman Pai.
Has the FCC been in the room during these conversations in
leadership? What is your footprint in Puerto Rico, and what are
your efforts in coordinating with the other agencies on the
ground?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and thank
you for your attention to this issue, including personal
attention in the island itself.
I have spent a lot of time over the last several weeks
involved in Puerto Rico and the recovery efforts. I have
regularly consulted with FEMA, with Puerto Rican officials,
with wireless companies, with tower companies----
Mr. Ruiz. ``Regularly'' means what? Are you invited to
weekly, daily briefings?
Mr. Pai. So we get daily briefings on some of the situation
there----
Mr. Ruiz. Do you have people on the ground full-time?
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruiz. Do they go to those meetings in San Juan?
Mr. Pai. My understanding is that they do liaise with----
Mr. Ruiz. Just follow up with that. Do they go down into
the periphery and the municipalities as well?
Mr. Pai. The FCC staff I have spoken with have described to
me how difficult it was, in some cases----
Mr. Ruiz. It is.
Mr. Pai [continuing]. To go from place to place.
Mr. Ruiz. Very difficult.
Mr. Pai. Because, in some cases, the roads weren't even
cleared----
Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
Mr. Pai [continuing]. So it was very difficult.
Mr. Ruiz. So that is good to hear, that you personally are
involved in getting calls for sure.
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
Mr. Ruiz. And, in this case, we have some lessons learned
that could save lives.
I have also made some calls with telecommunication carriers
that have run into a myriad of barriers, including--and please
take notes here--one is a lack of security available to keep
their engineers and equipment safe so they can make the repairs
necessary to restore service; two, inconsistent coordination
with power providers that could have freed up critical
generators for use elsewhere on the island; and, three,
failures in the backhaul infrastructure that have prevented
towers from coming online even when they are powered and
repaired; and, four, logistical delays that kept temporary
satellite trucks, which were utilized, for example, in Texas
and Florida to provide temporary wireless service, literally
waiting on the boat for days.
So, while a disaster of these proportions is hopefully a
rare occurrence, Hurricane Katrina and Sandy have shown us that
hope is not a luxury that we can rely on.
Two weeks ago, I submitted a proposal to have the FCC
create a list of best practices for telecommunications
infrastructure and preparedness in hurricane and disaster-prone
areas. I hope we can work together on this proposal to find a
commonsense solution that fosters improved coordination and
more efficient response efforts in the future.
So, Chairman Pai and to the other Commissioners, will you
work with me on this important issue?
I will go down the line.
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz. Wonderful. I appreciate your willingness to work
on this critical issue.
Finally, Commissioner Rosenworcel. You have been outspoken
on the need for FCC action in response to Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria. What more do you think the FCC can do to help
with recovery efforts right now as well as better prepare for
future disasters?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question and your work
on this subject.
I think we just need to take a playbook from what we did
with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. We held hearings.
We held hearings and talked to people on the ground in
locations that are different than Washington, D.C. We came up
with ideas, we put them in reports, and then we changed our
rules to make sure that we are better prepared the next time.
While I appreciate that we have a task force, I am
confident that all good ideas do not reside in our building on
12th Street. And so I think we should be getting out, holding
hearings, issuing reports, and then changing our rules to be
better prepared in the future.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate you all being here. Opioids, NDAA conference,
and then here, so I apologize for missing some of the opening
statements. It has been a busy day.
And I just caught the last end of the comments from you,
Commissioner Rosenworcel. And Chairman Pai was out to my
district, and I appreciate that, visiting on an issue that many
of you know that I have been working on, 911, going back to
when we officially made it the national cellular number, all
the way until next generation. And the interesting thing about
the trip was that it was multiple counties, rural counties,
working together to move forward.
And then we had a roundtable. And the roundtable, from my
point, the people who talked about vesting in the program, they
said the good and the bad. People who hadn't yet joined talked
about why, but why they are thinking about it.
So I know you have made--and this is to the Chairman.
I know you have made a lot of trips to rural America. I
would like to know what some of your takeaways are, other than
just the next-generation 911, but other issues that have been
raised in your travels.
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and for
the hospitality you and your folks showed in Harrisburg.
The key takeaway I have from the trips I have taken, over
4,000 road-miles in small towns across the country, is that the
digital divide is real and that it leaves human capital on the
shelf, particularly in rural towns that don't have internet
access. And that is why I am deeply committed to doing
everything that I can and hopefully the FCC doing everything it
can to bridge that divide.
We have seen the payoff in places like Harrisburg, where,
as you mentioned, 15 rural counties, predominantly lower-
income, are able to band together and create a next-gen 911
system that enables everybody to be safer than they were
before.
We have seen the potential in education, where rural
communities that have high-speed internet access are able to
give their kids distance-learning opportunities and better
educational opportunities overall.
We have seen the change in telemedicine. I personally
visited a small town in southwestern Virginia that has been
able to cut the sepsis rate by 34 percent by using advanced
technologies like remote monitoring.
And we have seen the power in precision agriculture. I have
been in feed lots in Allen, Kansas, and farms in Maryland and
other places that tell me that the notion of an analog tractor
is long gone. Right now, technology is the key driver for
agricultural growth.
So, to me, it just reaffirms the mission of this agency, so
long as, again, I have the privilege of leading it, that the
digital divide has to be our top priority.
Mr. Shimkus. So let me follow up on the Universal Service
Fund issues that have been addressed. A lot of House Members
have talked about how it is insufficient. Letters have gone
back and forth. My colleague Congressman Cramer and, I know,
Congressman Peterson from Minnesota has also taken an interest
in this.
What do you have in the forefront of your plans to address
the funding issue on the Universal Service Fund?
Mr. Pai. It is a difficult question, Congressman.
Obviously, some of the bigger-picture initiatives that we have
been able to get across the finish line, like the Mobility Fund
Phase II and CAF Phase II, have been more successful in terms
of getting off the ground.
In terms of the budget issue for the rate of return for
carriers you are talking about, unfortunately, we are in a
pickle. Last year, the Commission made a decision--over my
dissent, I would add--that I forecasted at the time would leave
us with a shortfall. And here we are, and the shortfall is
here.
So one of the things that I have suggested to my staff is
that we should think about getting a notice of proposed
rulemaking out by the end of the year, to think about some of
these budget issues, to be able to tee up before the end of the
next budget cycle, which I understand ends at the end of June
2018, to be able to address this issue in a timely way so that
rate-of-return carriers and, more importantly, rural consumers
have the certainty they need in order to participate in the
digital age.
Mr. Shimkus. And with my 54 seconds left, does anybody else
want to--I don't want to leave out the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Clyburn?
Ms. Clyburn. What you are not hearing is a call for
contribution reform. And that is the elephant in the room--no
party pun intended----
Mr. Shimkus. No, that is fine.
Ms. Clyburn [continuing]. That nobody is talking about. And
if we don't have a rational conversation about that, we are
going to stay in a pickle.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, I appreciate that.
Commissioner O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. Two parts. One is, I do believe there is an
opportunity to use some of our reserves for rate of return to
balance out both the legacy and the model side to provide--we
are not going to provide all the money they are requesting, but
I think there is some opportunity to increase the budget. They
have nothing to do with the reforms that we adopted last year,
which are mostly guardrails to prevent bad behavior.
And then, two, in terms of contribution reforms, since I
happen to be the chair of the Joint Board on Universal Service,
we are trying to move forward on that, but there is a great
difference of opinion on some of those things, so we have had
to sideline that for the time being.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, my time has expired. I think there is
still a great difference of opinion among a lot of Members of
Congress too. So I appreciate the challenges, and I appreciate
you being here.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Loebsack, 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I do agree with my friend Mr. Shimkus that we have to
deal with the funding issue. The question is going to be how
are we going to do it.
First, Commissioner Rosenworcel, great to see you back.
Appreciate that. I haven't seen you since you were actually in
Newton and Baxter, Iowa----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. Way back in 2016. And people
there were very happy to hear you talk about the homework gap
issue and, just generally speaking, these rural broadband
issues.
I saw that at a recent field hearing you did highlight the
need for better data collection. And now you have this
crowdsourcing proposal. After you mentioned that, I quickly
went to your Twitter account and checked it out to see what was
going on there, because I do want you to talk about that a
little bit more.
But, before I do that, I am grateful that the subcommittee
took up my Rural Wireless Access Act and we did move it
forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have to get that out of the
full committee.
It is great to talk about making sure that we have better
data. I remember, Chairman Pai, when we talked last, you had
mentioned going through northwest Iowa, going from southwest
Minnesota to northwest Iowa--or maybe it was the other way--and
you had a lot of problems, obviously, with cell service. As
someone who has 24 counties in Iowa, I am fully aware of this
problem, as are all my constituents.
But my bill, hopefully we are going to get it out of full
committee, get it on the floor, and get this thing enacted at
some point, and hopefully sooner rather than later, to make
sure that you folks have statutory authority, as much as
anything, to do the things that you are talking about today.
But can you elaborate a little bit on your crowdsource
proposal?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure.
Listen, for a long time, the way that the FCC collected
data about broadband is we found, if there was one subscriber
in a census block, we presumed that it was available throughout
the block.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we all know that that is not a
fair assumption anymore, and we are leaving too many households
behind.
We also have been collecting data and shapefiles from
wireless carriers, and sometimes they get it right, but
sometimes, as you probably know, you can drive through places
and find that you have no bars and no ability to make a call.
We are going to have to work hard to have more precision in
our maps to target our policy efforts, and I think we should be
asking the public for help. I think they know better than
anyone else where they live, where they get service and they
don't. And I feel like it is time to start incorporating public
comment into our maps if we want to make them effective and
accurate.
Mr. Loebsack. I appreciate that. It is democratizing the
process, and that is----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Exactly.
Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. Very important. I think we can
all agree with that. Thank you.
For all the witnesses, at the recent repack hearing that we
held, American Tower's witness said in his testimony that there
was a shortage of qualified tower crews. There are some of us
who have some ideas about how we can address that issue.
Do you agree with that assessment, and do we have enough
crews to get the job done in 39 months? If not, what will
happen to broadcasters who can't complete the transition in
that time?
To any of you folks who would like to address that issue.
Yes, go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Pai. Well, I will simply say that we try to structure
the phases such that we would be able to accommodate variations
in terms of weather and availability of crews and the like.
If we get information that there is a bottleneck like that
that might stand in the way of the 39-month deadline being able
to be met, we will certainly work with Congress and with
stakeholders to take the appropriate action.
Mr. Loebsack. Anyone else want to comment?
Mr. O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have raised this issue a number of
times with different industry groups to see where we were, and
I was concerned that there was a shortage of crews. And we have
seen an increase of the number of crews, some of those
sponsored by the wireless companies who would like to take
advantage of those licenses on an early basis.
So it has been relatively positive, but I think the
Chairman is exactly right. We have to get through some of the
phases and see where we are.
Mr. Loebsack. Any of the other Commissioners want to speak
on that issue? No?
It is a workforce development issue too. We have to get the
right number--we have to get the people trained so they can do
that. And I have talked to my friend Mr. Shimkus about that
too. We have to move forward on that.
While we are on the subject of the Universal Service Fund--
and, Commissioner Pai, you know that I have written to you
about moving the resources to the U.S. Treasury and some of the
concerns I have about that, making sure that the funds actually
are used as they are supposed to be used.
Would you like to address that issue? Because I think that
is a legitimate issue. If we move the funding, you know, to the
U.S. Treasury instead of from the bank, then I think that is
going to be a really difficult issue that we have to resolve.
Go ahead, if you want.
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman. And I appreciate your
concern.
The issue, as I understand it, from a financial
perspective, is twofold. Number one, from a legal perspective,
it is safer for Federal funds of this kind to be stored with
the United States Government as opposed to a private account.
Secondly, given some of the issues that arise when these
funds are kept in a private bank account--for example, if there
is somebody who owes money to the IRS and that person is also
at the same time getting money from the FCC, the Federal
Government is limited in its ability to have an offset, so to
speak. Keeping the money in that Treasury account allows
essentially the Federal taxpayer to be whole, that we are not
sending money out the door in a way that, at the end of the
day, Congress might not want.
And so we have been exploring with Treasury and with others
the way to move forward on this. But, obviously, we are happy
to take any input on ways to accommodate multiple interests.
Mr. Loebsack. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you look like you
wanted to say something.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I appreciate what my colleague just said.
I think we have gotten conflicting advice over the years on
this from OMB and GAO.
But I just want to make this point: We get about $50
million in interest income every year from the accounts as they
are held today. $55 million can go far for rural broadband----
Mr. Loebsack. That is right. Exactly.
Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. For connecting schools and
students. We are choosing to forgo those dollars. I don't think
that makes sense.
Mr. Loebsack. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Pai. If I may, Congressman, if, God forbid, something
were to happen to those funds when they were in a private bank
account and all the billions of dollars of Universal Service
Funds somehow went away, we would be accountable to Congress.
And you would be asking me, as the leader of this agency, why
did you jeopardize taxpayer funds by keeping them in a private
bank account when thousands, if not millions, of Americans are
depending on those funds? That is a tough tradeoff I have to
make.
Mr. Loebsack. I think it is a----
Ms. Clyburn. That is why we need to put this out for
comment.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. It is a difficult issue.
We have to deal with it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. You are welcome.
And, Mr. Latta, 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
today's hearing.
And thanks very much to the Commissioners for being with us
today. As always, it is great to see you all.
And just following up on my friend from Illinois, I really
appreciate, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Rielly, for you
coming out to my district, because I think you take an
interest. And, in this one case, when the Chairman was out with
the very small rural telecoms that you met with. And it wasn't
really a roundtable; we were actually sitting around a square
table. But there were quite a few people there that day that
you addressed, and they appreciated it. And, Commissioner
O'Rielly, for coming out and talking to our smaller
broadcasters in the area, I appreciated that. So it is good
that you are listening to the folks back home.
Chairman Pai, if I could start my questions with you. Like
you, I believe modernizing regulations is critical to spur
innovation. For instance, I would like to see the FCC
streamline procedures for small entities to seek regulatory
relief. The current waiver regime has a one-size-fits-all
construction. It is disproportionately burdensome on small
entities and, when needed, diverts the resources from
infrastructure investment to regulatory compliance.
Do you believe there is a need for a more efficient and
expedited process that allows small entities to seek relief
from these unnecessary regulations?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I appreciate the question. And I do
think, consistent with my views, that we should try to minimize
the regulatory burdens on smaller providers, that that is an
approach that has merit.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Commissioner O'Rielly, what are your thoughts?
Mr. O'Rielly. I agree. I think it has incredible merit.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Commissioner O'Rielly, in your statement on the
Commission's adoption of the mid-band spectrum, NOI, you noted
that the 6 gigahertz band is adjacent to the unlicensed 5
gigahertz band. Would you elaborate on the potential benefits
if the 6 gigahertz band is made available on an unlicensed
basis?
Mr. O'Rielly. So we have to deal with incumbency issues
within 6 GHz, but I think that there will be tremendous benefit
by combining it with 5 GHz. Wider channels provide opportunity
for greater speeds, latency reductions, and consumer experience
will go through the roof.
We have a shortage of WiFi spectrum or unlicensed spectrum
going forward, and we need to address that. There are
estimates, by 2025, we will need somewhere between 500 MHz and
1 GHz of additional unlicensed spectrum. Six GHz makes a great
platform for that solution.
Mr. Latta. So when you are talking about especially how
badly congested that 2.4 to 5 GHz bands--are already available
to the unlicensed community. So the congestion is how bad,
would you say?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I don't have an exact measurement, but
when I talk to folks in the industry, they barely will use 2.4.
Five gigahertz is obviously popular, but that is becoming
extremely more popular, and so we are running out.
That is why I have spent a great deal of time on 5.9 and my
colleague and I have worked really hard on 5.9. But then 6
gigahertz, being right next door, is a great platform.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Voice-activated virtual assistants, like Siri, Alexa, and
Google Assistant, are becoming an increasingly popular consumer
gateway to the internet. Someday soon, they might even become
the consumer-preferred interface with the internet, leaving the
age of the desktop Google search behind.
You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn
radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through
private partnerships among these companies to have their apps
interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition,
the consumers' access to other internet content is limited or
completely blocked. It is the question of who answers Siri's
question when you ask Siri something.
Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, under our current internet
regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers.
Mr. Latta. And, Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel, do
you think this is a concern for the open internet?
Ms. Clyburn. Again, our jurisdiction is very limited. I
think there is an impact, an influence, but, in terms of our
ability, it is very limited to negligible.
Mr. Latta. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I would agree with both my colleagues that
our jurisdiction does not extend to that.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back, but he is not in
the running for a prize.
OK. Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And welcome to you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Carr, congratulations to you.
Commissioner Clyburn, it is always an honor to have you
here at the committee, get to know you.
Commissioner O'Rielly, terrific to keep the Irishmen
together here. You're a set of bookends.
And to Commissioner Rosenworcel, it is really terrific to
have you back.
And I think that it all represents a win for the American
people, hopefully.
Mr. Chairman, I have been debating something inside of
myself, so I am just going to make a statement. I don't want to
go on and on about it, but I need to say something. To bring
together President Kennedy with Donald Trump I don't think is
palatable. And I am just going to leave it there.
You know, Mr. Chairman, that I have raised deep concerns
about RT. Our intelligence community has determined, with high
confidence--that is the highest level of agreement between all
of the agencies--that they interfered in our democracy. The
intelligence community described them as the Kremlin's
``principal international propaganda outlet.''
I wrote to you May 8, urging you to consider applying
broadcast transparency requirements to state-sponsored media
outlets like RT so the American people would know whether
foreign governments are behind the content they are reviewing.
I found your response to be ambiguous, and, most frankly, I
don't think you answered my questions. And it is curious that I
get a response to my letters at about 6:30 in the evening the
night before the day we are going to have a hearing with you.
I think that this is a very serious issue. The intelligence
community and all of the Members of the House participated in
that briefing. It was a classified briefing, but there was also
an unclassified report that was put out, and that unclassified
report was replete with RT.
Now, I don't know what I need to do to either impress upon
you that this is a serious issue and that you take it
seriously--so I want to ask you, will you commit to us that you
will apply or consider applying broadcast transparency
requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if
not, why not?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, you are welcome.
Mr. Pai. As I understand the law, there is no
jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license,
for example, that allows the FCC to assert jurisdiction. If----
Ms. Eshoo. But what about those that have a license and
carry them? Doesn't the FCC have any say-so in that? Or is
this--as the intelligence community said, that they are a
principal international propaganda outlet. So are they just
going to operate in the United States no matter what?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act
and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have,
currently, a jurisdictional hook for doing an investigation of
that kind.
If you are privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified
information that suggests that there might be another agency
that has obviously a direct interest in the issue, we are
obviously happy to work with them. But, at the current time, as
I have been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor
under the Communications Act do we have the ability to----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, the First Amendment applies to free speech
in our country. It doesn't mean that the Kremlin can distribute
propaganda in our country through our airwaves.
I don't know if you are looking hard enough. Maybe if
Commissioner Carr were still the general counsel, he could
advise you better. But I am not going to give this up.
I want to move to something else, and that is this issue on
media consolidation. Three years ago, Mr. Chairman, the
Commission voted unanimously to prohibit two stations in a
market from jointly negotiating retransmission consent. And you
were part of that unanimous vote.
Now, by eliminating the duopoly rule, which reports
indicate you are preparing to do next month, you would permit
two of the top four stations in a market to merge.
So how do you explain this?
Mr. Pai. Well, those reports are inaccurate. As I outlined
in my opening statement and as you will see tomorrow when we
publish in unprecedented fashion the actual text of this
document, we were doing a case-by-case review in particular
markets----
Ms. Eshoo. So this will apply to Sinclair?
Mr. Pai. It applies to any broadcaster that seeks to enter
into an agreement that otherwise would be in violation of the
top-four prohibition. So some----
Ms. Eshoo. With 73-percent dominance of a market, how does
that fit? Where does that fit?
Mr. Pai. So some had argued we should just get rid of the
top-four prohibition----
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, he can answer the question.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes.
Mr. Pai. Some had argued that we simply get rid of the top-
four prohibition. My recommendation to our staff was to draft
it so that there would be a case-by-case review. We would not
get rid of it. We would review, if there were particular facts
that a particular broadcaster would bring to us and that
presents a compelling case that that combination would be in
the public interest, then we will take a look. But, otherwise,
the prohibition applies.
Mrs. Blackburn. Time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo. I wish I had more time.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, everyone, for being here.
And, Commissioner Carr, welcome.
And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back.
We look forward to working with you guys over the course of
this term.
First, Chairman Pai and Commissioner O'Rielly, thanks for
letting us know about the auctions and the inability for the
financing fix that you need. I know that the chairman in the
overall authorization bill is taking care of this. But also,
yesterday, Congresswoman Matsui and I did drop a bill to
specifically fix the issues so we can move forward, hopefully,
on the auctions moving forward.
I had a question. In 2013--and I was one of the households
affected by this--there was a carriage dispute between CBS and
Time Warner Cable, and CBS blocked Time Warner Cable internet
customers from viewing its shows online through its cbs.com
website. So I couldn't get any of CBS or Showtime or any of
that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner
Cable was our cable provider and internet service provider, you
couldn't go to cbs.com--it was blocked--or Showtime to watch
any of those shows that were coming out. And that is when some
new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find
that.
But some Members of Congress did bring this up, and I think
Chairwoman Clyburn was acting Chairwoman at the time and said
that she didn't believe the agency had the jurisdiction to
intervene in this situation.
And, Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you
think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a
similar case?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I think the legal authorities have
not changed. To the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a
party is acting in bad faith in the context of a retransmission
dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absent
such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we
couldn't take further action.
Mr. Guthrie. But, currently, the Title II open internet is
still in effect. How would that affect it?
Mr. Pai. Oh, yes. To be clear, I should have added, as
well, then, our internet regulations would not apply to that
kind of content, to the extent you are talking about the
blocking of online distribution of----
Mr. Guthrie. Because it only applies to the service
provider, not to the content provider?
Mr. Pai. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. So I brought your name up there, Commissioner
Clyburn, to comment on that. So, being an advocate for the
Title II--and I think Commissioner Rosenworcel, when she was on
the Commission, as well--should it be expanded, where it
doesn't just affect internet service providers but you should
also have jurisdiction on the content side as well? If it is
good for one, should it be good for the other is my question.
Ms. Clyburn. Well, I am not in a position to comment at
this time. I just know what is in front of me and what the
rules of the roads are at this time.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Same answer, I guess?
Ms. Rosenworcel. No. To be clear, that behavior was
problematic. From a consumer perspective, that stinks, right?
Mr. Guthrie. Yes. I was a consumer.
Ms. Rosenworcel. But I would point out that what we are
talking about when we talk about telecommunications service and
telecommunications under Title II is about the provision of
service by a provider of broadband, and the jurisdiction does
not extend to the content providers, as you described.
Mr. Guthrie. Yes, that was my point. Yes. Thanks a lot.
So I have some questions on spectrum. I am cochair with
Congresswoman Matsui on the Spectrum Caucus. So Congresswoman
Matsui and I sent a letter last summer--this is to Commissioner
Pai, Chairman Pai--last summer regarding a pending license
modification petition for the L band satellite-terrestrial
network.
What is your ideal timeline for getting information from
the other agencies you are working with? Do you think the end
of the year is reasonable, or will you need more time?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, we don't have a specific timeframe in
mind at this point. What I can say is that it is a matter that
is under active consideration and that we are collaborating
with other agencies and private stakeholders to see if we can
reach a resolution.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
And for all the Commission, given the efforts of the
Spectrum Caucus, I strongly support a further deep dive by the
committee on wireless issues. And so, just getting your
opinion, going down the committee, for auctions, could you each
give me what you think is the top spectrum issue that we should
be focusing on this upcoming calendar year for moving forward
on auctions? What do you think is the top issue for the
committee?
All of you who would like to answer that. Commissioner Carr
first.
Mr. Carr. Sure. Thanks.
Obviously, we have the hurdle right now in terms of our
authority to conduct the auctions in terms of the money. And so
the top focus that I have over the next year is going to be
infrastructure deployment on the wireless side. I think we have
a lot of progress that we can make there to help maintain our
leadership.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Ms. Clyburn. And for me, it is to ensure multiple
providers, no matter what size, and if they have the ability to
participate. So it would be contours, the size of the bidding
areas.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That is a good answer. Thank you.
Mr. Pai. In the tried and true tradition of pandering to my
questioner, I think the Guthrie-Matsui legislation is the
number-one issue. We cannot have any spectrum auctions,
certainly of any significance, without that fix. It is a
bottleneck for the agency.
Mr. Guthrie. Yes, I think you may be about next, so that
was a good pandering.
Commissioner O'Rielly, about 10 seconds.
Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with my colleagues there,
infrastructure and freeing more spectrum.
Mr. Guthrie. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
Ms. Rosenworcel. All right. I agree with my colleagues
there, but I also want to quickly read you a list: 470 to 512
megahertz, 3.5 gigahertz, 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz, 6 gigahertz,
28, 37, 39, 24, 32, 42, 47, 50, 70, 80, and 95 gigahertz are
all under consideration at the Commission right now.
What we need, instead of that blitz of spectrum, is a
calendar that makes clear we have some bands that we are going
to auction earlier than others so that the wireless ecosystem
and financial markets can organize around it.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That is helpful.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My questions are to Chairman Pai. And I want to discuss
your reaction to the President's attacks on the press. And I
have a number of questions, so if you could keep your answers
to yes or no, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said,
``Network news has become so partisan, distorted, and fake that
licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked''?
Mr. Pai. Is that from a tweet?
Mr. Pallone. That is a quote. Yes. The question is, are you
aware of that quote?
Mr. Pai. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said, ``It
is frankly disgusting that press is able to write whatever it
wants to write and that The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS,
and CNN are the enemy of the American people''? That he said
that, are you aware?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Now, do you think that these types of statements are
appropriate for the President of the United States to make?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I am going to speak to my own views
and my own words. And my views are that I stand with the First
Amendment. I am not going to characterize the views of anybody
else.
Mr. Pallone. But, Mr. Chairman, you did say on another
other occasion, and I quote, that the American people are being
misled about President Obama's plan to regulate the internet,
right? You said that.
Mr. Pai. Because that was a direct compromise of the
agency's independence on a particular pending issue where the
agency was already heading in a different direction.
Mr. Pallone. But if you are not shy about speaking out
against President Obama, let me ask you this: Would you condemn
attacks on the press if they had come from President Obama?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I always focus on the facts and the
law. That is our job, in terms of licensing----
Mr. Pallone. Well, I just think it is a double standard
here.
Before coming to the FCC, you worked for then-Senator Jeff
Sessions, correct?
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. Are you aware that, when asked if he would,
and I quote, jail reporters for doing their job, he said he
cannot make a blanket commitment to that effect?
Mr. Pai. I am not aware of that. I hadn't heard that.
Mr. Pallone. Well, he said it.
When you spoke at the Mercatus Center last week, did you
say, ``Under the law, the FCC doesn't have the authority to
revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of
a particular newscast''?
Mr. Pai. Yes, I did.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you understand why reporters might be
concerned when the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FCC
leave open the threat of punishment and even jail time?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, again, I wasn't familiar with General
Sessions' statements, and I am certainly not familiar with the
perceptions of journalists. All I will simply say is that this
FCC stands on the side of the First Amendment, and that
includes the ability of journalists to gather news as they see
fit.
Mr. Pallone. But the problem is that the people raising
this issue, Mr. Chairman, are concerned that your silence or
your overly lawyered responses contribute to a culture of
intimidation that can chill free speech. And so, that is why I
am trying to clear the air, because I am concerned about the
impact of either silence or an overly lawyered response.
At the Mercatus Center, you said that you would not act
based on a particular newscast. Would you revoke a license
based on multiple newscasts?
Mr. Pai. No.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Now, I have here a working paper--I don't know if it is in
the record, Madam Chairwoman, so I am going to have to ask if
we can enter it into the record.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. I have a working paper produced by the
Mercatus Center. In this working paper, the Center suggests the
FCC is able to threaten free speech through other mechanisms,
like license transfers.
Do you commit that your Commission will not threaten
broadcasters' license transfers based on the content of the
reporting?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will
not launch investigations into companies based on the content
of the reporting?
Mr. Pai. Sorry. Can you repeat that?
Mr. Pallone. Do you commit that your Commission will not
launch investigations into companies based on the content of
the reporting?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will
not take any acts of retribution against companies based on the
content of the reporting?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Well, let me look. I appreciate working
that out, because I think that is important.
So, finally, Chairman Pai, when you first took office, you
committed to me that you would be responsive to Congress even
if a request came from Democratic Members. Now, I have heard
complaints from my colleagues that your responses to a number
of their letters have also been nonsubstantive and evasive. You
have even avoided multiple times answering my questions about
allegations involving your relationships with Sinclair
Broadcasting, including refusing to even answer my letter.
So let me just say, we are going to look into your
continued evasiveness on some of these important issues,
including Sinclair. And I just want you to know that I am not
happy, and I am not going to tolerate the agency not responding
to us, because I don't really feel they have, with regard to
Sinclair and so many other issues. That is just my opinion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
much.
Before I begin my questioning, Chairman Pai, I know you
inherited a backlog of petitions related to the
Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act. This is an area of
real concern to many individuals across various industries. I
look forward to your response and future action to this topic.
I will move on here.
Commissioner O'Rielly, during the last oversight hearing, I
had a discussion with Chairman Pai regarding interference
complaints and pirate radio operations. I know that this is an
important area. I know you care about it, very much, to resolve
it.
Can you share the differences between repercussions pirate
radio operators face as compared to robo-callers?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I will give you an example of a couple
different items, enforcement actions that were taken by the
Commission.
In terms of pirate radio, we just did one for--and the NAL
was $144,000 for pirate radio operating in Florida. In terms of
a robo-call, it was $82 million. And in terms of a cramming
call, cramming behavior and slamming, it was $3.9 million. So
$3.9 million, $82 million, $144,000. The difference between the
two--or between the three is amazing.
Mr. Bilirakis. Wow. Wow.
OK. Related to this topic, again, for you, Commissioner, do
you or any of the Commissioners here on the panel know of any
instances where pirate radio operators interfere with public
safety or military use frequencies?
We will start off with you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. So, technically, it wouldn't be pirate radio
because that is someone operating within the AM or FM band, but
they have violated the sanctity of public safety. Just
recently, we had an enforcement action of someone in New York
that was violating the New York public safety system, and they
were fined, or they had an enforcement action against them.
They are still in prison at the time, but we will see if we get
that money.
Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else?
OK. I will go on to the next question.
Chairman Pai, I regularly advocate for seniors and, again,
improved quality of life for seniors. I think you know that. 5G
technology promises great benefits for our growing elderly
population.
What can the FCC do to advance specific telehealth
technologies like remote patient monitoring to allow seniors to
remain independent and age in place?
Mr. Pai. That is a great question, Congressman, and it is a
growing need as our population ages. I don't want to steal her
thunder, but Commissioner Clyburn has been the leader on this
issue in pioneering the Connect2Health Initiative, but I----
Mr. Bilirakis. Oh, I would like to give her an opportunity
as well.
Mr. Pai. And I don't want to throw it in her lap, but she
has been a leader on it.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK.
Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that we are proud of, as the
Chairman has endorsed, is the Connect2Health Task Force, as he
mentioned. And one of the things that it is doing is looking at
that intersection of broadband, technology, and health.
And another thing that it is doing is very helpful. It has
developed a broadband mapping tool that looks at what is going
on on a county-by-county basis in the United States and looking
at where broadband is available, where healthcare providers are
or are not, and is informing communities as to how best to
approach different business models, different initiatives that
might be needed in particular areas.
And so we are really on--as quiet as it is kept, even
though people in the ecosystem know about it, we are front and
center on providing a means for people to be informed so they
can make better critical decisions.
And this will help us also on our Healthcare Connect Fund,
which we need to talk about enhancing that. Because, in order
to make all of these things more ubiquitous, allowing people to
age in place and address their needs, connectivity is key,
affordability is key. And I am looking forward to working with
you as we progress.
Mr. Bilirakis. I, too.
Everyone on board with this? Anyone want to make a comment?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, just to the last point maybe, that we
have to balance all those things with all our budget overall.
And so, we talk about expanding services; we have to figure out
how we can pay for all of that. And that gets----
Mr. Bilirakis. Of course.
Mr. O'Rielly [continuing]. Back to the conversation on
contributions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
Chairman Pai?
Mr. Pai. I will simply add to Commission Clyburn's able
disquisition on the issue that I think the importance of remote
monitoring, in particular, cannot be overstated. If you are an
older person who has difficulty coming into a hospital or you
have just had surgery and you have just returned home, the
worst thing that can happen for you is to get an infection or
some sort of illness that will require you to come back.
And so I have seen for myself in Staunton, Virginia, how a
hospital center is using remote monitoring, as I said earlier
in response to a question, to decrease the sepsis rate by 34
percent, disproportionately, I think, among older individuals.
And that is something, if you can intervene quickly, thanks to
this technology----
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
Mr. Pai [continuing]. Everyone is better off. The
healthcare system is better off because you are not spending
money on an in-hospital regimen of treatment.
And so it is something that I am really excited about. And
I am glad that Commissioner Clyburn has been a pioneer on this
issue.
Mr. Bilirakis. Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Dingell, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no voice. Too
much talking.
It is great to have all of you here. The Dingell names have
a long connection with the FCC, sometimes good, sometimes not.
But I want to first start on the important topic of privacy and
how it relates to the ATSC 3.0.
I am really worried about privacy, and I think you all need
to be too. This new broadcast standard allows for interactive
TV, personalized ad placements, and for granular collection of
data about who is watching what.
Chairman Pai, if someone is looking to take advantage of
this personalized content, they would like to give up
information about themselves, would they not?
Mr. Pai. So, sorry, would they be----
Mrs. Dingell. So, if someone wants to use it, they are
going to have the tell the provider what personal information
about themselves?
Mr. Pai. The individual consumers?
Mrs. Dingell. Yes, the consumer.
Mr. Pai. Well, it depends on the particular--these are
nascent services. I don't know----
Mrs. Dingell. Yes, the personalized content. So, as we are
looking at this ATSC 3.0, it is going to be more personalized
content.
Mr. Pai. Right. Yes. I see where you are--yes.
Mrs. Dingell. So how is the FCC considering privacy
concerns as the Commission is looking at this new standard?
Mr. Pai. A great question, Congresswoman.
Right now, we are looking at just the technical standard,
should we be able to proceed with this new next-generation TV
standard and, if so, what should the technical parameters be. I
would imagine that, as those privacy concerns and others like
that come to the fore, that the agency is going to be looking
at that too.
Mrs. Dingell. I think it is really important.
My staff wouldn't let me ask some of the other questions I
wanted to ask today. But I don't think people realize that,
when we will have televisions watching us, that there is
reverse, as people are using all of these great new gadgets,
how much information is being collected about them.
And who has responsibility for letting people know that
kind of data is being collected?
Mr. Pai. Right. I think, in the first instance, the Federal
Trade Commission has generally been the cop on the beat of
privacy----
Mrs. Dingell. They have, but so much of this is with the
FCC. I think you all have a responsibility to really look at
some of this.
And do you think that this new data that is generated will
be kept in house by the provider, or do you think it is going
to be sold to third parties?
Mr. Pai. Again, here, it is a nascent--the standard hasn't
even been adopted, so we are not sure how any particular
service----
Mrs. Dingell. But should this be part of looking at a
standard?
Mr. Pai. As the services materialize, Congresswoman, we
will certainly be monitoring all those kinds of concerns.
Mrs. Dingell. OK.
The last time you were here, in July, you agreed to follow
up with this committee on the steps you were taking to mitigate
DDOS attacks. What updates can you share with us?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, we have provided a detailed
response to the committee, and I would be happy to provide that
to you with some of the particulars in that regard.
But what I can say is that our IT staff is always vigilant
to make sure that we have the protocols in place to make sure
that our IT systems are up and running. And I have appreciated
the chance to work with this committee, as well as our
appropriators, to get the funding to make sure that continues
to be the case.
Mrs. Dingell. I will leave you off the hook and ask
Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think that the public-interest
standard requires that you look at the effect of Commission
actions on small businesses and consumers?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely. Small businesses create two-
thirds of the new jobs in the economy. The Commission should
always be thinking about the impact on small business, and I
think the public-interest standard incorporates that.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
A lot of us have already asked this question, so I am just
going to make an observation and see if you all agree or
disagree with me.
Mergers of the scale of the Sinclair-Tribune are not always
popular, but I can't ever remember when everybody was so
opposed to the idea. Can any of you think of a merger that has
met this type of united opposition?
Ms. Rosenworcel. No.
Mrs. Dingell. Commissioner Clyburn?
Ms. Clyburn. I can say that, within my last 8-plus years,
this is the most energized that I have seen diverse parties.
Mrs. Dingell. And anybody else that wants to say something.
Mr. O'Rielly. I will jump in here. I used the word
``energize.'' But I would say that I have seen it before, and
that is the reason we have a 39 percent cap. It was a result of
a transaction that caused a lot of uprest between the
relationship between the network and an affiliate. And that is
the reason the Congress stepped in at the time and addressed
it.
So in terms of the excitement or energy, I have seen the
energy level far beyond what it is today in that----
Mrs. Dingell. But the broad spectrum of people opposing is
unusual.
I may yield back my 9 seconds, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the
commissioners for being here today.
I have heard some buzzwords that caught my attention. Full
Chairman Walden talked about the complexity of the telecom
environment and how difficult your job is, and I agree with
that. Commissioner Clyburn talked about how the technology is
necessary to create opportunities for Americans, particularly
in rural America. And it took me back a little bit, and I have
been thinking about this for the last several months, how
important your job is.
If we look at the hundred years of American history, from
1868 to roughly 1970, we started out in 1868 at the most
divided point that our Nation has ever been in, at the end of a
brutal and bloody Civil War. We healed our internal wounds to
go in to fight off tyranny in Europe in two world wars,
mobilizing from scratch both times, practically. Did the same
thing in Korea. And at the same time in that hundred-year
period, from 1868 to 1970, we saw one of the most explosive,
innovative periods in human history: the light bulb, the
combustion engine, the automobile, the mass production of
automobiles, the assembly line process, the industrialization
of Western cultures, the airplane, powered flights, space
travel, landing a man on the Moon, organ transplants,
telecommunications and computing technologies, nuclear power.
That, I think, the case could be made that that was one of the
most innovative periods in human history.
I talk about that a lot to people that I represent back in
Ohio, because then I follow it with a question. What have we
done since 1970? You know what answer I get most often? The
internet, telecom. And why is that the case? I believe that is
the case because it is the one area that the Federal Government
couldn't figure out how to regulate. If you go back to the
1970s, that is when the EPA came into being, that is when the
Department of Energy came into being, that is when the
Department of Education came into being. All of a sudden back
in the 1970s, Washington kind of thought that the American
people had it wrong for all that time.
Instead of telling the American people what we should be
innovating on and what we should be focused on to create
opportunities for the American people, Washington started
talking about how to innovate, where to innovate, when to
innovate, why to innovate, and in many cases, picking the
winners and losers and determining who should be able to
innovate.
So I throw that out there just as a thought provoker to you
folks. Your job is so vitally important. We can't throw water
on the campfire of American innovation and ingenuity. And I
would submit that if we really want to create opportunities, if
we would just look at our own Nation's history and realize that
if Washington would just get out of the way, in many regards
that the American people are more than capable of creating
their own opportunities through innovation and ingenuity. And I
think that is an important thing for you folks to remember. And
I see the attitude of the Commission today, and I think that is
what you are trying to do. So I applaud that.
Let me ask you one quick question here, and it is a yes or
no question, so it will be easy, especially for Commissioner
O'Rielly. He is good at this. In 2013, it was reported that the
Justice Department had spied extensively on Fox News reporter
James Rosen in 2010, collecting his phone records, 2 days'
worth of his personal emails, and tracking his movements to and
from the State Department. So in the 32 seconds that I have
remaining, each of you, starting with Mr. Carr, Commissioner
Carr, did this raise First Amendment concerns for you at that
time? Yes or no.
Mr. Carr. I think what I said is that it reinforces----
Mr. Johnson. Come on now, follow Mr. O'Rielly.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. The importance of the Commission, as
everyone has said, being committed to the First Amendment in
everything that we do at this agency.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Ms. Clyburn. That is an interesting question. I will say it
raised personal and privacy and other concerns.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
Mr. Pai. I agree with Commissioner Carr.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. You are good.
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is a disturbing tale. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, welcome. I am glad to see all of you here,
and I especially want to welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel
and welcome Commissioner Carr.
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. As co-chair of the Congressional Spectrum
Caucus with my good friend, Representative Guthrie, we are very
focused on the opportunity to unleash new spectrum that will
help us get to 5G. We have introduced legislation that provides
financial incentives to Federal agencies to reallocate unused
or underutilized spectrum holdings.
Commissioner O'Rielly, will you commit to working with us
to try to strike an appropriate balance for the 3.5 gigahertz
band that will be the foundation for 5G deployment?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I am not in charge of the 3.5. The
chairman was nice enough to have me take some of the lead. But
we are going to work as an agency to dispose of our item that
we adopted yesterday. So I will work with, of course, the
committee in any capacity and take its views into account in
terms of my vote.
But in terms to your point that you raised, which is the
incentives for Federal agencies to clear bands, I have also
made the point that it is not just incentives; we need the
carrot and the stick. So we need some more of the stick. And so
I think that those two pieces have to go hand in glove. And I
would be happy to work with you on putting some of the stick
into your legislation.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I think we
talked about this before. Would you like to add a comment or
two?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. I believe carrots work better than
sticks. And I think when it comes to spectrum policy, what we
need to do is make Federal users internalize the cost of their
holdings. They need to be able to report at some level what the
value of what they have today is, and then we need to figure
out how to give them incentives so that they see gain and not
just loss from reallocation.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I can see a carrot and a stick here working
very well together. So thank you.
Today, everyone needs a broadband connection, we all know
that, in every part of the country. And I have over 20,000
constituents utilizing the Lifeline program to obtain access to
broadband. This is a real program that is helping low-income
families access communications that are essential in our
digital academy. The National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier
will be a significant step toward this goal, but will not be
fully up and running until 2019. Now, in August, I wrote to the
Commission to request steps that the FCC is taking to implement
the verifier.
Chairman Pai, I received your response last night. Could
you give me an update on getting the National Verifier fully up
and running, and commit to providing me and the committee with
regular updates in the future?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I will take the second piece first.
Yes, the quarterly reports will be forthcoming, and I think our
staffs have talked about that going forward.
In terms of the first point, which is the update, we are on
track. I have been advised to, in December of 2017, for what is
called a soft launch of the National Verifier, with a full
launch in early 2018. The first states that will be considered
for the National Verifier, there are six of them, it is
Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
And in 2018, USAC will roll out at least an additional 19
states in the National Verifier. And USAC has been working with
other stakeholders under our oversight, with your consumers
groups and carriers and others, to make sure that that verifier
works and actually serves consumers' needs.
And so we would be happy to work with you continuously on
this issue. And I thank you for flagging it for our attention.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Clyburn, can you talk about what is needed at
the FCC to ensure the Lifeline program remains an option for
low-income households to access the communications or broadband
moving forward?
Ms. Clyburn. We need to have the mechanism to encourage
providers to get involved and to provide more opportunity. If
you know, back in February, we stopped nine providers that did
nothing wrong from gaining access and for offering
opportunities. And some of them had to even discontinue
service. So we need to give the states the power and the
ability they need to include to have Lifeline providers
particularly for broadband. And we need to get out of the way.
The FCC is not getting out of the way and allowing these
reforms that have been--the contours that have been laid out to
happen. So we are in the way of Lifeline becoming a phenomenal
program.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, at this point.
Thank you very much. And I will yield back some of this
time, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. Awesome. Not in the running for the prize,
but getting close.
Mr. Flores, 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to welcome
Commissioner Carr, Commissioner Rosenworcel to the Commission.
It is great to have you here for your first testimony today.
We all know that reliance on mobile networks is growing at
a breakneck pace. My question is this: What more does the FCC
and Congress need to be doing to ensure that we keep up with
consumer and business demands for mobile?
So I will start with you, Commissioner Carr.
Mr. Carr. Thanks for the question.
Mr. Flores. Just short answers, if you can.
Mr. Carr. Yes. My principal focus right now is
infrastructure deployment. We have to streamline the rules. The
current regime, we have relatively few small cell deployments.
We are going to need to get to millions of cell sites pretty
quickly here, so we have got to streamline the process.
Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. We need to focus on the areas where we have 2
and 3G service. That is why I was pushing so much for the
Mobility Fund Phase II. And we need to talk about
affordability, which is why I am pushing for a Lifeline
program.
Mr. Flores. OK. Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. I agree with my colleagues. I would also add that
spectrum, of course, is a critical input from 600 megahertz all
the way up to 95 gigahertz.
Mr. Flores. OK. And I think Commissioner Rosenworcel went
through that list, although I couldn't write that fast.
Commissioner O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. Three things. Infrastructure, which means
preemption. Two, it is spectrum, which we have talked about.
And, three, it means deciding what to do on those hardest-to-
reach individuals we don't have a plan for today.
Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I will give you one thing, which is we
should set a time for auctioning the 28 gigahertz band, make it
our first millimeter wave band so that we can lead the world in
5G and millimeter waves.
Mr. Flores. And so the first priority is that auction. Is
that correct?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
I want to go back to the First Amendment conversations we
have had today. Yes or no answers will be appropriate for this
one. In 2013, the Justice Department revealed that they had
been secretly combing through the work, home, and cell phone
records of almost 100 Associated Press reporters and editors in
what appeared to be a fishing expedition for sources of leaks,
as well as an effort to frighten off whistleblowers. Did this
action raise First Amendment concerns for you, Commissioner
Carr?
Mr. Carr. This is what drives some of the importance of us
committing to the First Amendment and always acting consistent.
Mr. Flores. OK. That is a yes.
Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. Not sure how to answer that at this point.
Mr. Flores. Yes or no would be easy.
Ms. Clyburn. Yes or no. I'm sorry.
Mr. Flores. Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Ms. Rosenworcel. That sounds troubling.
Mr. Flores. All right. I appreciate the work you all have
been doing for AM revitalization, particularly your orders from
February and September. Let's continue along that line for a
minute. In general, what is the status of your efforts to
revitalize AM radio?
We will start with you, Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. So the
translator window has been a success. A great many folks have
applied for an FM translator, and we are in the process of
processing those. I would anticipate by the end of the year we
will have several hundred of those that will be processed. And
going forward, we are thinking about some of the bigger-picture
issues that are of interest to broadcasters. And we are trying
to sort through the record and see if we can find a consensus
on some of those issues.
Mr. Flores. OK. And you answered my second question in that
regard as well.
What can this committee do to be helpful to encourage a
revitalization of AM radio?
Mr. Pai. Certainly, we will take all the support from
whatever corridor we can get it. I can tell you, as my
colleagues will probably agree, that I have never been shy
about the issue of AM revitalization. So you don't need to
encourage me. But I will say that it is important to talk about
the importance of the work that AM broadcasters do in their
communities every day. And I know you visited some of these
stations. I have too. And to me they are not just call signs.
WRDN and KZPA and KKOW. These are folks who really are keeping
the lights on and keeping their communities informed.
Mr. Flores. In my community it is WTAW and KWTX.
I assume the entire Commission's on board with that?
OK. Everybody shook their heads yes. That is good.
Mr. Pai. That is across the board, I hope.
Mr. Flores. Across the board. That is what I meant. It
seemed to me like that was one area where we had good
cohesiveness among the Commission.
For all of you, I understand that other countries are
moving rapidly to make mid-band spectrum available for 5G
services. Particularly China, Japan, and South Korea are all
making spectrum available to win the global race to 5G. My
question is this, for each of you--two questions. One is, in
the United States, are we risking falling behind those other
countries if we don't catch up on making mid-band spectrum
available for 5G?
Commissioner Carr?
Mr. Carr. I think we are in good shape right now with the
high-band spectrum that we have opened up. But as your point
says, we have got to keep the pedal down and keep moving
forward. And we have a number of proceedings right now that the
chairman has teed up that will let us do that. So I am
confident about where we stand right now.
Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. I agree. And our spectrum management policies
have to be all of the above to make sure we get the optimal use
with the optimal players.
Mr. Flores. OK. Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. High-band spectrum is great and it is part of
the equation, but we have to address the mid-bands. 3.5, 3.7 to
4.2, 3.1 to 3.5, we have to take action on those going forward.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I am not the only one with a list.
Mr. Flores. That is right. That is good.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we are at risk of falling behind.
And I think we need something simple. We need a calendar for
which bands are moving at what time.
Mr. Flores. OK. I would like to work with you on that some
more, if we can, on the calendar.
So thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I thank
our Ranking Member Doyle. I thank our commissioners, Chairman
Pai. And Commissioner Carr, welcome.
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Rosenworcel----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Perfect.
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Welcome back. Of course, it is
good to see you, Commissioner Clyburn.
I wanted to just talk about how important today's hearing
is. There is so many pressing matters and changes happening
under the FCC's authority, on a daily basis it seems. And I can
say that it has been quite instructive and interesting just
listening to today's proceedings and your answers regarding
these issues and the significance in facilitating announced
changes.
So I want to talk about a couple of things that are
currently on my mind. And as co-chair of the Multicultural
Media Caucus with colleagues Rep. Cardenas and Rep. Chu, we are
extremely interested in the recent media ownership changes.
As you have indicated, Chairman Pai, the Commission is
poised to take up an item to modify the local TV ownership rule
at the next Commission meeting. This important rule provides
for diversity of voices and ownership at the local level by
limiting ownership of more than one TV station to the largest
markets. So hypothetically, Commissioner Pai, if the Commission
were to modify the local TV ownership rule next month by
adopting a case-by-case approach, who do you think should have
the burden of proof? Those seeking more consolidation or those
seeking to maintain diversity of ownership?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, as always is the case, if a
prohibition remains and the party is seeking a relaxation of
that prohibition on a case-by-case bases, the petitioner would
bear the burden of proof that that application was in the
public interest.
Ms. Clarke. So let me ask Commissioner Clyburn and
Rosenworcel. Do you have any substantive or process concerns
with the potential modification of local TV ownership rules?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, one of the things that we were demonized
for was trying to look at the media ecosystem. I don't think we
have the tools and the data needed to make these wholesale
changes. There are 67 women-owned broadcast stations, 12
African-American-owned stations. Clearly, our policies must be
out of sync because that is not diversity and inclusion in any
stretch of the way.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
Listen, media ownership matters. What we see on the screen
says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities,
and as a Nation. And right now, when you look at the ownership
structure, it does not reflect the full diversity of this
country. I am worried that with more consolidation, that is not
going to get better; it is going to get worse.
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. Can I just comment and say----
Ms. Clarke. Certainly.
Mr. O'Rielly [continuing]. The situation we have today is
under our current rules, and those rules have been in place for
so long, they haven't worked. We ought to try something new.
Ms. Clarke. Here's the question: You are saying that it
hasn't changed. We are not certain whether what you are
proposing will make it even worse.
Mr. O'Rielly. It is really hard to get much worse.
Ms. Clarke. You think so? I know that that is not the case.
Mr. O'Rielly. The numbers are so low. I mean, 12. The
numbers are really low, and it has been----
Ms. Clarke. Right.
Mr. O'Rielly. And there are a lot of reasons why they are
going to go even lower, because----
Ms. Clarke. And what you are saying is your new proposal is
going to transform that?
Mr. O'Rielly. No. I am saying that the current----
Ms. Clarke. No. What I am asking you is your new proposal
is going to transform that?
Mr. O'Rielly. I think it is given----
Ms. Clarke. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. O'Rielly. I am saying----
Ms. Clarke. Are you saying here today that this new
proposal is going to transform that? Yes or no.
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it is not my proposal and----
Ms. Clarke. I am just asking.
Mr. O'Rielly. But, in general, I am hopeful that it
provides a better opportunity----
Ms. Clarke. You are hopeful. OK.
Mr. O'Rielly. Because the current situation isn't working.
Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Pai.
Mr. Pai. Yes. The answer is yes.
Ms. Clarke. You think it will?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely. Part of the reason why we don't have
more diversity is because the Commission, several years ago,
the prior majority, rejected my suggestion for an incubator
program and other diversity proposals. Part of the reason why
we don't have diversity is because the prior administration let
the diversity committee lapse, so we haven't had input from
stakeholders. I reconstituted that diversity committee several
months ago, and specifically tasked one of the working groups
with promoting more diversity in the broadcast business. Part
of the reason we don't have more diversity is because the prior
administration outlawed JSAs.
I have met with Pervis Parker----
Ms. Clarke. Are you saying that this is going to be a pilot
project or is this going to be a wholesale change?
Mr. Pai. We are seeking comment on the scope of the
incubator program, but we will----
Ms. Clarke. Are you saying this is going to be a wholesale
change or a pilot program?
Mr. Pai. The incubator program?
Ms. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Pai. If we get the public input we need, this is going
to be a real program.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Let me move on to my next question, because
I only have 18 seconds left. And I would like to ask--and we
can talk about that further.
I have been working with Congresswoman Plaskett with
respect to the U.S. Virgin Islands. And specifically, is the
FCC engaged to assist Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
regain the telecom capabilities in the wake of last month's
hurricane season? And what must we learn from these hurricanes
and their impact on existing communications infrastructure?
Mr. Pai. Yes, Congresswoman, is the answer to your
question. I have personally called the Congresswoman's office
and offered our assistance as well. In addition, I make sure
that I have talked to some of the stakeholders, just as I have
in Puerto Rico, stakeholders, tower companies, wireless
companies and others, who might have had infrastructure
affected in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I also conveyed to FEMA
and to others that, to the extent there are power issues in the
U.S. Virgin Islands, we would love for those communications
power requirements to be elevated in terms of getting that
infrastructure onto the island. And, obviously, there are
hospitals and schools and other things that are competing for
attention, but communications networks are critical too. So we
are working on it.
Ms. Clyburn. And as the chairman would also tell you that
we forwarded a universal service--we green-lit universal
service money so people have hard dollars to rebuild their
telecommunications systems.
Mr. Pai. And I proposed just yesterday doing something
similar for E-rate, for schools and libraries to be able to
help those in need.
Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, I yield back. And thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. You are welcome.
Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today,
and welcome the two newest FCC commissioners.
5G deployment is important to my district where the
majority of the residents have multiple wireless devices and
are increasingly using IoT technology. Further, investment in
5G deployment has the potential to create over 2,300 jobs in my
district. A recently released survey found that 5G will improve
business operations and competitiveness, which further
demonstrates the need to deploy this technology.
Since joining the subcommittee at the beginning of the
year, I have focused on issues related to the sitings of 5G
infrastructure. Earlier this month, the Governor of California
vetoed a bill that would have established uniform standards
across the state for the installation of 5G equipment. The bill
would have limited the ability of local governments to block
antenna placement. It would have also capped installation rates
on public properties such as traffic lights. But California
isn't the only state where siting is an issue. I would like to
get your thoughts on some of the issues 5G deployment is
facing.
Chairman Pai, can the FCC take immediate action to work
with states and localities to streamline the siting process?
And if so, could you briefly discuss what the Commission can do
to address these issues?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The
answer is yes. And we teed up earlier this year in our wireless
infrastructure proceeding a number of different tools that we
could use to help streamline that approval process. And I am
hopeful that together we can move on that relatively soon.
Mrs. Walters. All right. Great.
And, Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your
confirmation.
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Mrs. Walters. Your testimony mentioned the importance of 5G
and the need for infrastructure to deploy this technology. Are
you concerned that local zoning requirements throughout the
country, not just in California, are impeding the deployment of
the infrastructure necessary for 5G services?
Mr. Carr. I am concerned. I was disappointed to see the
veto of that small cell bill. Again, we are going to see a
massive new deployment of small cells. The current regime is
not tailored to support that type of deployment. If we are
going to get 5G across the finish line, this could be the real
bottleneck is these infrastructure deployment rules. So I am
glad that we actually have a number of steps teed up at the
Commission, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
get them across the finish line.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
And this third question I have, and you touched a bit on it
just a few minutes ago. But, Chairman Pai, as you know,
wireless networks in Puerto Rico were devastated by Hurricane
Maria. Networks in east Texas and Florida were impacted by
Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. And the fires in my home state have
damaged wireless infrastructure in California. And I commend
you for speeding the availability of USF funds to carriers in
Puerto Rico to accelerate rebuilding of these critical
communication networks.
Will the FCC contemplate similar efforts to support
reconstruction in other states impacted by this fall's natural
disasters?
Mr. Pai. We are certainly open to hearing that case and to
taking action if appropriate.
Mrs. Walters. OK. All right. Thank you.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. And the winner is. All right. Way to go,
Mimi.
All right. Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Welcome to the full
Commission. It is really tremendous to see you at full
strength. Congratulations on your confirmation.
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. It is very good to have you back, Commissioner.
It wasn't a swift process, but it had an end result.
And, Mr. Chairman, congratulations to you as well.
Mr. Pai. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. Net neutrality we have talked about some. And we
know the debate here, in my view, was that the actions of the
previous Commission made a lot of sense. But my understanding
is that your Commission is opening that up. You have heard
millions of comments. The apprehension among the industry has
largely been that there may be a new Commission at some point
that is overbearing, but they won't necessarily agree to put in
a statute. There are assurances that they give privately and
publicly that they won't do anything to interfere with net
neutrality. So there is a skepticism on their part about the
durability of the current practice, which worked well.
But isn't it fair for consumers to have some skepticism
that when CEOs change in these companies, when shareholders
start demanding a bigger return, that there won't be the
pressure to do things that advantage the company at the expense
of the folks who need solid net neutrality?
Chairman Pai?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. Obviously,
we are now engaged in the question of what is the regulatory
framework best calibrated to preserve the free and open
internet----
Mr. Welch. Here's my question, though. Why not have it be
embodied in a statute? They are saying to us, as I assume they
are saying to you, that they want to maintain that neutrality.
But that is who is in those executive offices now. There will
be other people there later. So do you consider that to be a
valid concern on the part of those of us who want to make
certain that we preserve net neutrality?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, all I can say is what I said in the
wake of the 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision myself, which is
that the proper course, I think, is for Congress to ultimately
decide what the rules of the road are going to be. That is
obviously----
Mr. Welch. I don't have a lot of time.
So, Commissioner O'Rielly, you looked like you wanted to
say something. Quickly.
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think, if I heard you correctly, you
said embody it into statute. And I would say, yes, that is the
law, and you have an opportunity in this committee to craft a
law and then decide whether we should go forward. And I think
that is what members of this committee were contemplating for a
number of months.
Mr. Welch. But we haven't seen the statute. The majority
has to act on that.
Commissioner Rosenworcel.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I support net neutrality. Our internet
economy is the envy of the world. It is built on a foundation
of openness. I think our current rules support that openness.
They have been sustained in courts, and they are wildly
popular. I am at a loss that we would decide to take them away.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you. A lot of us are from rural
America, Republicans and Democrats up here. In fact, Mr. Latta
and I started a rural broadband caucus. A real concern we have
is not only deployment. We are so lagging behind. It is the
speed. And there has been some movement toward reducing what is
considered to be the adequate speed. That would be very
damaging to us in rural America.
Commissioner Clyburn, do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Clyburn. I think any talk about slowing things down--
sub 253 is problematic. It is problematic for keeping and
ensuring that rural America catches up. You haven't caught up,
and that is problematic. So that is why this talk of loosening
these standards, of lowering speeds is just very problematic to
me, and that is not the direction we need to go.
Mr. Welch. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you were in
Burlington, Vermont, I appreciate your visit, talking about the
homework gap. Burlington is not where we have the issue. That
is an urban area. They have high speed. But a lot of Vermont is
much like a lot of rural America; it is slow. And rural America
in rural Vermont is on its heels economically. We have to have
this tool to have any shot at getting back in the game. Your
view on it lowering the standards.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Oh, I think lowering the standard is
crazy. I believe you have to set audacious goals if you want to
do big things. And deciding that we can get 100 megabit speed
to everyone in this country is worth the effort, including
rural America.
Mr. Welch. OK. Chairman Pai, you have got a real history of
rural America, so----
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Welch. I am hoping that you are not going to be in
favor of changing the definition for rural America.
Mr. Pai. A few different points, Congressman. First, the
actual proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. There is no
proposal other than that. Secondly, I am a little puzzled by
the criticism, because when the prior majority actually had the
pen and had the ability to do something for folks in rural
America, in December of 2014, they decided to allocate billions
of dollars of funding for 10 megabit per seconds connectivity
in rural America. According to them now, that is not broadband.
Last year, when we reformed the Lifeline program, I
specifically suggested that we increase the speeds to 25
megabits per second to say, well, if the FCC is saying this is
broadband, poor consumers should get broadband. The prior
majority specifically rejected that suggestion. And so I think
it is a little hollow now to somehow just be grandstanding on
this issue----
Mr. Welch. My time is up. I won't argue with you about
that, but you are in the chair now.
Mr. Pai. That is why a proposal is to maintain the 253
standard.
Mr. Welch. So does that give us assurance that there is not
going to be any suggestion to lower that standard?
Mr. Pai. Congress charged us with taking a look at what is
connectivity. And as a part of that, we have to seek comment on
what is the impact of mobile broadband? What do consumers use
the internet for? Are there some applications that they require
10 megabits per second or some other standard? That is
basically what we are trying to do. But the lead proposal is to
maintain that standard.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Olson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our witnesses.
And a special welcome, Commissioner Rosenworcel. I spent a few
weeks with my dad in ICU. It is not a pleasant time to have a
loved one, a parent, in the hospital, so thank you so much for
coming. We are praying for you.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. My first question and comments are for Chairman
Pai. Thank you so much for coming down to Houston to see the
devastation of Hurricane Harvey firsthand. You saw it with your
own eyes. Hit us twice, came back. Fifty inches of rain in
parts of the district, parts of the county. We did very well,
but we can do much better.
I would just like to ask you, what do you see with respect
to forwards of communication networks throughout the region
during Hurricane Harvey? What are the steps the FCC is taking
to support the restoration and recovery efforts back home?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your
leadership on this issue. I know you have been active in trying
to inform your constituents about where they could get help.
A few different things. Number one, the FCC is working very
proactively to make sure that we assist state and local
partners in Texas. And I personally, as you mentioned, visited
and offered my assistance.
A few different things that we could do going forward.
First, I was quite taken by a point that I learned at the
Harris County 911 center, which is that part of the reason why
the networks were relatively reliable compared to, say, Florida
and Puerto Rico was because--despite the fact that 33 trillion
gallons of water, as you know, were dumped on the Houston
surrounding area, was because of the backhaul they had that was
fiber-based as opposed to copper-based. And despite the fact
that there was a huge amount of weight placed on those
networks, because they were fiber, they were relatively more
resilient. If it had been copper, it might have degraded or
just disintegrated altogether.
The second thing is that we all need to work together. We
are all in this together. And I heard time after time that
state and local partners and the industry relied on our
disaster information reporting service, which was very helpful.
And they also found it useful to have a point of contact at the
FCC that they knew could provide assistance. So a lot of things
that we are excited about going forward in terms of our
disaster response. And we are going to apply some of that in
Puerto Rico, and have already.
Mr. Olson. And thank you.
How about what is called the network resiliency framework?
That, as you know, is the wireless industry initiative to
better prepare and respond for times of emergency. Do you think
this framework helped restore coverage faster than other recent
natural disasters?
Mr. Pai. There is no question. I heard firsthand from
wireless providers when I was in Texas about how useful that
had been. The other piece that I should mention that was very
useful is that, as I understand it, the Governor's office,
Governor Abbott's office, provided some of these wireless
companies with information as to where the flooding was. And
some of the companies were able to overlay that information on
where they saw their cell networks up or down. And they were
able to target in some places, OK, we see there is huge
flooding here, but there are people actually on the network. We
need to get help there. And so that overlay is the kind of
serendipitous, I think, benefit that, going forward, we will be
able to take advantage of in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Olson. Anything we could learn from Harvey? Anybody
want to comment on those? I know he was down there. He saw it
firsthand, but----
Ms. Rosenworcel. I would just want to mention, the wireless
network resiliency that you cited was the industry coming
together in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And, in fact, we
have it in place because we learned from that past disaster.
And it is my hope that we will learn comparably from this one.
Mr. Olson. Great. Well, I am about out of time here.
Commissioner Carr, I believe you are going to Texas,
Houston, see for yourself?
Mr. Carr. Yes. On Friday I will be in Houston meeting with
broadcasters to hear about what the FCC can continue to do to
support the recovery efforts down there.
Mr. Olson. Great. They are thrilled to hear that.
One thing I have to warn you about. Can you say y'all?
Mr. Carr. I will work on it.
Mr. Olson. And can you say ``beat L.A.''?
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Mr. Olson. Well played.
And, Commissioner Pai, I know you are a baseball fan, a
huge baseball fan of pro baseball. And as I sort of alluded to,
the L.A. Dodgers are playing my Houston Astros in the World
Series. Yesterday, we had a rough day. Didn't quite do as well
as I wanted. But that morning, all over Capitol Hill, signs
popped up about that game, especially, this sign popped up on
the door of the majority leader from California.
In having jurisdiction over Federal communications, let's
make sure that is not some Federal offense you are looking at.
I neither confirm nor deny my involvement in those operations.
And one thing too, Commissioner Pai, just what is your
prediction? Astros in five, six, or seven games?
Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, first I want to reiterate. I
stand in favor of the First Amendment and your right to plaster
everybody----
Mrs. Blackburn. And the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Olson. I like the word ``plaster.''
Mrs. Blackburn. Mrs. Brooks, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you and
congratulations to all of those who have recently gotten
confirmed.
Just recently, I joined with my colleague across the aisle,
Debbie Dingell, to form a 5G caucus. And we had our first
briefing with congressional staff yesterday, led by CTIA. And I
am learning more and more about 5G. This is not something that
I think is commonly understood among the citizens of our
country. And a slide was put up during the presentation that
talked about the global race being on for 5G. And, quite
frankly, because we have often been the leaders in innovation
and technology in the world, I was a bit surprised to see it
appears that China and Europe and others may be further along
in 5G deployment than in the United States.
Now, obviously, some of those countries, particularly
China, for instance, don't have the division in governments
between Federal, state, and local jurisdictions the way that
our great democracy does. But how are we taking that into
account, and what should our role be in Congress? And what can
the FCC and our role in Congress do to better partner with our
state and local governments? Because I think we are struggling,
quite frankly, particularly in state legislatures, either
educating or understanding what this race is about and how we
are, I think, falling behind.
Chairman Pai, would you like to start as to what we could
be doing differently and better? Because I think we all, from
what I can tell from your responses today, we are in agreement
here that we all need to do a lot more and a lot better. But
what does it mean for us, A, to fall behind, and what should we
be doing? And I am pleased, Indianapolis, that I represent the
northern part of, is a 5G test site. But I think we are way
behind these other countries.
Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. I have an answer, Congresswoman. And before I
start, thanks for the hospitality you showed me in Noblesville
back in the district.
With respect to the first, I think there is a significant
opportunity cost that attaches to American inertia on this
issue. If we don't lead, there are plenty of other continents
and countries that are more than happy to take that lead. And
one of the things I have learned in this role as I liaise with
my counterparts in other countries, is that they are quite
eager to capitalize on what they see is a lesson of the 4G
revolution, which is that America was forward-thinking in terms
of spectrum and infrastructure. And as a result, not that long
ago, we had 4 percent of the world's population and 50 percent
of the world's 4G LT subscriptions. Europe and China, among
others, they don't want that to happen with 5G. And so they are
trying to be very aggressive in terms of spectrum and, in some
cases, infrastructure as well.
I think it is important for the FCC, but not just the FCC,
to think very creatively about this issue. Working with
Congress and with state and local governments, as Commissioner
Carr first pointed out in his testimony, we really need to have
a serious conversation about what is the appropriate regulatory
framework for 5G. Is it this trifurcated or even quadfurcated
system of regulation, or is there a more streamlined approach
that we need to consider? I recognize the equities are
difficult here. But at the end of the day, if national
competitiveness in the wireless world is our priority, then we
have to make some very difficult decisions.
Mrs. Brooks. And I appreciate the need for a calendar, the
need for the discussions with state legislatures. But what is
the FCC doing--and I'm sorry that I might have missed part of
that--relative to educating state legislatures and local
communities? Because in our state, which did pass some
legislation this last session, it was a fight between local
jurisdictions and the state legislature. And so what can we and
the FCC be doing, I think, to maybe educate, in large part, or
have these really tough discussions? I don't know if
Commissioner Carr----
Mr. Carr. Sure. There is a number of steps that the FCC is
taking and can continue to take on this. We have an advisory
committee where we have representatives from local government
on that that we can help have these discussions. But to your
broader point, this is critically important. The U.S., that we
heard, led the world in 4G. The regulatory structures we have
right now are going to be the bottleneck that hold us back. But
I am confident that, right now at the Commission, we have the
momentum to move forward to try to streamline some of those,
and it is going to make a real difference. As I have said in my
testimony, we can shift entire communities from being
uneconomical for the private sector to deploy to to becoming
economical simply by streamlining the deployment rules.
Mrs. Brooks. Can, briefly, someone say why it is important
that we win this? Anyone?
Mr. Pai. Well, risk capital is fickle. It will go to any
country in the world where it thinks that innovation will find
a home and that an investment will yield a return. And that
doesn't necessarily have to be the United States in the 21st
century.
Ms. Clyburn. I think if our policies are flexible that we
include the needs of all communities, the voices of all
communities, that we will win this race.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Doyle for----
Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to
waive Mr. Tonko onto the committee today?
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Tonko. So ordered.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Blackburn and Ranker
Doyle, for you conducting what I think is a very important
hearing. And welcome to all of our commissioners, and thank you
for your service on what are very critical issues for the
growth of our economy.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, I recently introduced the Access
Broadband Act to create an office of internet connectivity and
growth within the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. Under this bipartisan legislation, that office
would coordinate broadband deployment programs across our
governments, among other things, to make sure we are all
working together, pulling in the same direction.
In your time at the FCC, do you believe that our agencies
could do better coordinating with the various programs that
serve broadband interests?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
Yes, more coordination is always going to make scarce
dollars go further. And I think that is particularly true with
respect to the FCC and the folks who are just up the road from
us at the Agriculture Department, at the Rural Utilities
Service, which runs grant and loan programs for rural broadband
too. The more coordination, the better.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Any other comments from any of our commissioners?
Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. And also, when we are green-lighting those
devices, we need to work closely with other agencies, in
particular when we talk about telehealth and telemedicines.
There are so many synergies that can be realized if we leverage
those relationships we have inside of government.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Anyone else?
If not, my bill would also task this office with tracking
just how many consumers each of these programs serve so that we
have a better sense of how many people are being connected, the
cost of these programs, and where the consumers live.
So, Chairman Pai, today, does the FCC know definitively how
many Americans it helps to serve through the Connect American
Fund?
Mr. Pai. We have an estimate, but it is not as definitive
as the metric that I think your legislation contemplates.
Mr. Tonko. Right. Is there any way you can commit to
providing my office or this subcommittee, the committee in
general, with that information before the end of the year?
Mr. Pai. So that information being the number?
Mr. Tonko. Right.
Mr. Pai. We would be more than happy to provide any
information that we have that bears on that question.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, if put in the right context,
do you believe that the information would be valuable for
policymakers, not just as it relates to the Connect America
Fund but for all of the government's broadband programs?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely. We can't manage what we don't
measure. And if we get better broadband data, that can inform
all of our communications policy. But as Commissioner Clyburn
has acknowledged, it can inform things like healthcare policy
too. So I think it is imperative.
Mr. Tonko. Right. Thank you.
I have found that sometimes people without high-speed
broadband at their homes may not understand all the benefits
that broadband can bring, and so education becomes important.
That is why the Access Broadband Act includes educational
components to help people learn what broadband can do for them
and the difference it can make in a community, and what it
means toward a stronger bit of economic recovery.
So, Commissioner Clyburn, do you believe that there is
value in the educational component of what we are attempting to
do here?
Ms. Clyburn. You talk about the educational component in
terms of us, you know----
Mr. Tonko. Broadband awareness and what it provides.
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. Again, the commissioner talks
about not measuring what--whatever you said is true. But
sincerely, if you don't have the exposure, you don't know what
is possible. You don't know what is possible for you to better
age in place if you have connectivity, if you are not aware of
the options and opportunities that you have. So there are so
many things from an educational standpoint. We mentioned
health. In terms of keeping in touch and knowing what is going
on in government in real time. Those are the types of things
that can better empower individuals only with connectivity,
only with the awareness. And I think all of us have a role to
play in ensuring that the public is informed so they can be
better enabled to live those lives more fully.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And finally, I know that
there was some exchange with our colleague from Vermont. But
the Commission is considering lowering its definition of
broadband, or could. To be honest, it is hard to make sense of
this proposal when I receive calls from my constituents day in
and day out asking for faster broadband speeds. They don't want
the FCC to lower the definition of broadband. They want a
faster internet access.
So while we did hear some of that exchange, are there other
comments you would want to make about that definition of
broadband to speed, definition?
Mr. Pai. Two different points, Congressman. First, as I
said, the proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. The second
point I will add is that if you look at some of the decisions
we have made in terms of our Universal Service Fund, we have
been always trying to push the envelope. And that is why in the
very first vote that happened after I became chairman was to
deliver $170 million in funding to unserved parts of upstate
New York so that they can have the connectivity that folks in
big cities often take for granted.
Mr. Tonko. Anyone else?
With that, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Engel for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with
funding for the repack. I understand that the FCC has reduced
its total cost estimate for the repacking process downward,
from approximately $2.1 billion to $1.86 billion. Many have
told me, though, that they think the amount is likely higher.
So, Chairman Pai, do you think that Congress should provide
additional funding for the repacking process?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. And that
number could fluctuate up or down. It is not set in stone at
this point.
What I said to the other committees on the Senate side was
that, to the extent that we don't have the ability to be on the
$1.75 billion that is in the relocation fund, that additional
funding from Congress will be necessary in order to meet that
gap that, otherwise, broadcasters would have to pay out of
their own pocket in order to fill.
Mr. Engel. Let me also ask you this, Mr. Chairman. If
Congress provides additional funding, do you believe that low-
power TV stations and TV translators should also be eligible
for that funding?
Mr. Pai. That is obviously a decision for Congress to make
in the Spectrum Act. Congress decided not to give those
entities rights in terms of reimbursements. So if Congress
changes that determination, then certainly the FCC would be
duty-bound and would happily administer it.
Mr. Engel. So you don't personally have a position on that?
Mr. Pai. Well, I have been talking to a lot of these low
powers and translators, and they are in a tough situation. And
so I can tell you I have been pushing for them since September
28, 2012, when we issued the notice of proposed rulemaking on
this issue that whatever consideration the FCC can give them,
and Congress too, would be welcome.
Mr. Engel. Because there is another group that we have
heard from, FM radio stations, who are impacted by the
transition, but not included----
Mr. Pai. Correct.
Mr. Engel [continuing]. In the initial reimbursement fund.
Mr. Pai. And we have heard those concerns too that, under
the Act, they aren't entitled. But to the extent they are
piggybacking, essentially, on infrastructure that is owned by
the television broadcaster, then here too Congress, I think,
could step in and provide some relief.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Let me ask Commissioner Clyburn, how important is it to
ensure that there is money for consumer education in this
transition?
Ms. Clyburn. Oh, my goodness. It is just so obvious, you
know, in terms of, you know, looking at what impact, if any.
Hopefully, negligible that would happen in this--as we move
toward relocating and making our ecosystem more efficient. The
public needs to be aware that the low power--the stations and
those who are not protected but impacted, they need to be
informed. And we need to continue to do what we can to protect
them to make sure they don't have to do relocation twice. All
of these things are very important for us to be at the
forefront of ensuring that the transition is smooth as
possible.
Mr. Engel. Yes. I don't think anybody would really
disagree.
Let me talk a bit about cybersecurity. And, Commissioner
Rosenworcel, I am going to ask you a question. We have seen
from high-profile data breaches at companies like Equifax and
Yahoo, that consumers are having everything exposed, from
social security numbers to login names and passwords. So do you
think that the FCC has the necessary authority to address
cybersecurity?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
I do. I believe the very first sentence of the
Communications Act references our obligation to make sure that
we make available communications for the purposes of national
defense and for the protection of safety of life and property.
I believe that encompasses what is modern, which is
cybersecurity. At the same time, I recognize that our cyber
aggressors will always move faster than any regulation. And so
the task is can we bring people together so that we can come up
with good best practices and implement them widely to make sure
our networks are more secure.
Mr. Engel. Did the Congressional Review Act rescinding the
FCC's broadband privacy rules have any effect on the FCC's
cybersecurity authority?
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is a good question. I think the
primary problem right now with cybersecurity is that my
colleagues don't agree with me. In addition, I think there is
the fact that our Communications Security, Reliability,
Interoperability Council used to be tasked with coming together
and identifying good practices for cybersecurity. But in its
current iteration, that is not part of their agenda.
Mr. Engel. And finally, how did the CRA impact the security
of consumers' private information?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Only time will tell. But I am worried
about that as well.
Mr. Engel. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Clyburn. Let the record reflect I cosigned.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
For everyone's awareness, they are going to call votes in
about 15 minutes. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is seeking to be UC'd
to the committee for the purpose of asking a question. Without
objection, so ordered.
You are recognized.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for
giving me the opportunity to join you today.
The internet has revolutionized the lives of millions of
Americans and is vital to an individual's economic potential in
the 21st century. Unfortunately, many in eastern Washington
live with a digital divide that is limiting employment,
educational, health, and economic opportunities.
Ensuring that hardworking families in eastern Washington
have reliable access to broadband technology is a top priority
of mine, and we must use every tool in the toolbox to provide
greater opportunity. That is why I am excited in the
opportunity the build-out from the broadcast incentive auction
can provide to rural America. Many individuals and families in
the most rural parts of my district struggle to get a signal
for a cell phone, let alone connect to the internet. I am
encouraged by the commitment the private sector has made in
purchasing this spectrum and the practical effect it will have
in eastern Washington.
Deployment of infrastructure and technology as a result of
the auction will support millions of jobs and generate billions
in economic opportunity in rural America. An increased
broadband will help the U.S. continue its leadership in
technology and innovation by providing an on-ramp for 5G
network deployments. That is why I led a letter with
Congresswoman Eshoo and a bipartisan group of 54 of our
colleagues urging the FCC to continue supporting the current
timeline for the repack resulting from the auction. This issue
is too important. Ensuring that the repack remains on schedule
will mean that many in eastern Washington will gain reliable
broadband access in a matter of months, not years.
I want to thank the FCC for putting a renewed emphasis on
closing the digital divide, and I am encouraged by the
engagement of the Commission in looking for new innovative ways
to deliver broadband to the 35 million Americans without
access. I believe we have a great opportunity working together
in a bipartisan manner to provide every American the
opportunity they deserve, regardless of where they live. So I
look forward to you making that a reality.
So at this time, I would like to submit to the committee
this letter that Congresswoman Eshoo and I lead with the 54
colleagues.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Before I go, I would also like to
ask you, Chairman Pai, on Title II, until the last FCC chairman
acted late in the previous administration to upend really
decades of bipartisan work in fostering broadband
infrastructure, providers of this service were subject to a
light regulatory touch. As you have made the rounds throughout
the country, are you concerned about achieving the level of
broadband investment necessary to deploy broadband deeper into
rural areas if the U.S. does not go back to the light
regulatory touch model? And can you tell us what is on the
horizon to remove this uncertainty over investment for folks
that just want fast and reliable internet service?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and for
the way you captured, I think, both the peril and the promise
of bringing connectivity to folks in eastern Washington.
We are, as I mentioned earlier, engaged in open proceeding
to figure out what is the best regulatory framework that is
calibrated to both promote the free and open internet and
preserve as much infrastructure investment as possible,
especially in parts of the country that don't have it. And so
we have taken a fair amount of public comments at this point,
and we are studying the record and trying to figure out the
appropriate way forward.
And what I can tell you is that we want to make sure, not
just in this proceeding, but in every proceeding, that we have
first and foremost in our minds closing the digital divide.
There are far too many Americans, as you pointed out, who are
on the wrong side of that divide. Those are individuals who
don't have the opportunities that others have. Those are
families that don't have the chance to thrive. Those are
communities that are increasingly going to wither on the vine.
And ultimately, it is the country that is weaker as a result of
leaving human capital on the shelf. And that is why the first
day I was in office I said this would be our top priority. And
it is going to remain so, so long as I draw a paycheck at the
FCC.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Well, I thank you for that
commitment.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
There being no further members wishing to ask questions of
the panel, you all have been generous with your time for the
over past 3 hours, and I thank you all for being here today.
As we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
following letters into the record: The five documents offered
by Mr. Doyle, Mercatus Center paper offered by Mr. Pallone, the
letter from the LPTV Coalition, and the McMorris-Eshoo repack
letter. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind
members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their
responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the
questions.
Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today,
without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]