[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONTINUED 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 FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-70
[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
98-157 WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILLY LONG, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CHRIS COLLINS, New York officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 74
Witnesses
Tom Wheeler, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Answers to submitted questions............................... 106
Ajit Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission........ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 118
Submitted Material
Article entitled, ``How the FCC saved me $1800,'' Forbes, July 6,
2015, submitted by Ms. Eshoo................................... 76
Statement of the American Hospital Association, submitted by Mr.
Latta.......................................................... 79
Letter of July 24, 2015, from Carepayment to the subcommittee,
submitted by Mr. Walden........................................ 89
Statement of CTIA--The Wireless Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 92
CONTINUED OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Barton,
Shimkus, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger,
Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo,
Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Rush, Matsui, Lujan, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for
Communications and Technology; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman,
Counsel, Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; Tim Pataki,
Professional Staff Member; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom;
Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Clerk; Christine Brennan,
Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff
Director; David Goldman, Democratic Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Ashley Jones, Democratic
Director of Communications, Member Services and Outreach; Lori
Maarbjerg, Democratic FCC Detailee; Tim Robinson, Democratic
Chief Counsel; and Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. We will call to order the subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, and I want to welcome everyone
here today, and wish a very good morning to Chairman Wheeler
and Commissioner Pai. Delighted to have you back before the
subcommittee again this year. We appreciate the work you are
doing at the FCC, and look forward to your testimony, and our
opportunities to pursue some issues. At the risk of sounding a
bit like a broken record, however, I continue to be concerned
with the Commission's failure to adhere to sound regulatory
process.
For the nearly 5 years that I have had the opportunity to
Chair this subcommittee, as you all know, I have consistently
pushed to make the FCC a better, more transparent agency, and
yet it seems like the chasm between Commissioners deepens over
time. When the Committee considered process reform legislation
a few months ago, I had hope we had reached the bottom of that
well, that the Commission would begin to find its way back to
the collegiality and honest policy debates and compromises that
have characterized it since 1934. Unfortunately, that appears
not to be the case. And if Commissioner Pai's testimony is any
indication, things might actually be getting worse at the
Commission, and that is disappointing, to say the least.
With all that is going on at the Commission, and in the
world of communications, we have much ground to cover in
today's hearing, which likely will necessitate a second round
of questioning. To get things started, let me highlight five
areas of policy concern that I, and some other members of this
Committee, have. First, the auction. For a successful auction
we all know that the sellers and buyers need to fully
understand and support the rules. Yet, when it comes to the
band plan, questions and uncertainty still abound. Layered on
top is growing concern regarding how the re-pack will work,
including as it relates to the future of low powered television
stations and translators. Now, it was never our intent that
these diverse voices in the marketplace would get fully
silenced. And then there are the issues of potential
interference which have come up, which, as we all know, when
mishandled, can doom an auction, as has occurred in the past.
Second, the FCC's action on the designated entity issue
raises some concerns for many of us. While the FCC majority
claims that its changes will strengthen the integrity of the
program, a goal we all share, sadly, I am afraid they simply
replace one set of rules that were gamed with a new set yet to
be gamed. The Commission's new rules remove the obligation to
provide facilities-based service, and permit leasing of 100
percent of the spectrum purchased. Now, that sets the stage for
sophisticated spectrum arbitragers, financed by taxpayer
dollars, to participate in the next spectrum auction, bringing
nothing to the competitive market. The Chairman's advocacy for
this outcome is puzzling, given the assurances that the changes
would protect the program from ``slick lawyers taking advantage
of loopholes in the program to unjustly enrich their
sophisticated clientele.''
Third, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. My colleague
from New Mexico and I have had serious bipartisan discussions
about the approach the FCC has taken as it relates to the
fundamental nature of democracy and American practical
communications in a wireless ago. Beyond that, members of the
Subcommittee are just beginning to hear from adversely affected
users about the disruption this new ruling will have on a
variety of companies, and the consumers they try to serve.
Fourth, expansion of the Lifeline Program. All one has to
do is read today's story in Politico regarding the problems
over at the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service
to understand why it is so essential, before any agency moves
to spend money, it should have tight control and a budget.
Unfortunately for ratepayers, in a party line vote the FCC
decided to rush forward to expand the Lifeline Program into
broadband with little reform, and no limit on the spending.
Fifth, admit the swirl of controversy that continues to
surround the actions the Commission takes, let us not lose
sight of what is not getting done. For example, the AM
revitalization proceeding has been described by some as
grinding to a halt, despite the Chairman's assurances to this
subcommittee. The quadrennial review of the limitations on
ownership of broadcast properties continues to languish, in
open violation of the Commission's legal obligation.
Let me close with this. Each member of the Commission is
very bright, talented, and thoroughly passionate. And yet, as
evidenced by recent public comments of Commissioner O'Reilly,
and the testimony today of Commissioner Pai, it is clear that
they believe the process at the FCC too often fails to include
them in a meaningful and substantive way. And we hear similar
complaints from stakeholders who feel ignored or shut out
altogether. This is neither necessary nor helpful, as the
Commission, and all of us in Congress, try to work through the
complicated issues in today's rapidly involving communications
world.
And on a final note, on the good news side of things, at
least if you have the background I have, I am pleased to note
that AT&T today announced that they reached an agreement to
allow FM chips in cell phones, making at least the second
carrier to do so, and we hope that other carriers will follow
suit.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning everyone. Good morning Chairman Wheeler. Good
morning Commissioner Pai. Thank you both for joining us this
morning.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I continue to
be concerned with the Commission's failure to adhere to sound
regulatory process. For the nearly 5 years that I have chaired
this subcommittee, I have consistently pushed to make the FCC a
better, more transparent agency, only to see the chasm between
the Commissioners deepen over that time. When this Committee
considered process reform legislation a few months ago, I had
hoped that we had reached the bottom of the well. That the
Commission would begin to find its way back to the collegiality
and honest policy debates and compromises that have
characterized the FCC since 1934. Unfortunately, that hasn't
been the case. And if Commissioner Pai's testimony is any
indication, things might actually be getting worse. This is
disappointing, to say the least.
With all that is going on at the Commission and in the
world of communications, we have much ground to cover in
today's hearing which likely will necessitate a second round of
questioning. To get things started, let me highlight five areas
of policy concern that I, and other members of this
Subcommittee, have:
First, the auction. For a successful auction, we all know
that the sellers and buyers need to fully understand and
support the rules. Yet when it comes to the band plan,
questions and uncertainty abound. Layered on top is growing
concern regarding how the repack will work, including as it
relates to the future of low power television stations and
translators. It was never our intent that these diverse voices
in the marketplace would get fully silenced. And then there are
the issues of potential interference, which as we all know when
mishandled can doom the auction, as has happened in the past.
Second, the FCC's action on the designated entity issue
raises concerns for many of us. While the FCC majority claims
that its changes will strengthen the integrity of the program,
sadly they simply replace one set of rules that were ``gamed''
with a new set to be gamed. The Commission's new rules remove
the obligation to provide facilities-based service and permit
leasing of 100% of the spectrum purchased, setting the stage
for sophisticated spectrum arbitragers financed by taxpayer
dollars to participate in the next spectrum auction bringing
nothing to the competitive market. The Chairman's advocacy for
this outcome is puzzling given his assurances that the changes
would protect the program from ``slick lawyers'' taking
advantage of loopholes in the program to unjustly enrich their
sophisticated clientele.
Third, Telephone Consumer Protection Act. My colleague from
New Mexico and I have had serious, bipartisan discussions about
the approach the FCC has taken as it relates to the fundamental
nature of democracy in America and practical communications in
the wireless age. Beyond that, members of this Subcommittee are
just beginning to hear from adversely affected users about the
disruption this new ruling will have on a variety of companies
and the consumers they try to serve.
Fourth, expansion of the Lifeline program. All one has to
do is read today's story in Politico regarding the problems
over at the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service
to understand why it is essential before any agency moves to
spend money it should have tight control and a budget.
Unfortunately for ratepayers, in a party line vote, the FCC
decided to rush forward to expand the Lifeline program into
broadband with little reform and no limit on the spending.
Fifth, amid the swirl of controversy that continues to
surround the actions the Commission takes, let us not lose
sight of what is not getting done. For example, the AM
revitalization proceeding has been described by some as
``grinding to a halt'' despite the Chairman's assurances to
this subcommittee. The quadrennial review of the limitations on
ownership of broadcast properties continues to languish in open
violation of the Commission's legal obligation.
And let me close with this: Each member of the Commission
is very bright, talented and passionate. And yet, as evidenced
by recent public comments of Commissioner O'Rielly and the
testimony today of Commissioner Pai, it is clear that they
believe the process at the FCC too often fails to include them
in a meaningful, substantive way. And we hear similar
complaints from stakeholders who feel ignored or shutout
altogether. This is neither necessary, nor helpful, as the
Commission-and all of us in Congress-try to work through the
complicated issues in today's rapidly evolving communications
world.
Mr. Walden. With that, I have used up my time, and turn to
the gentlelady from California.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning
Chairman Wheeler, Commissioner Pai. Welcome back to the
Committee. We are happy to see you, and as I said, we welcome
you back.
Today's hearing marks the Chairman's third appearance
before our Subcommittee in just over 4 months. In fact, the
Congressional Research Service tells me that the Chairman's
eight appearances before Congress this year marks a new record.
So congratulations, Mr. Chairman. Put that one up on your wall.
In the past 14 years no FCC Chair has testified more times
before Congress in a single calendar year, and of course we are
only in the seventh month of 2015. It is our subcommittee's
responsibility to conduct robust oversight, and in so doing we
should hear regularly from the Chairman and his fellow
Commissioners.
Responsible oversight includes recognition that the FCC--
and I think that we should be doing this. There are many things
to raise that are legitimate, at least in the minds of those
that raise them, but we should include a recognition that the
FCC is undertaking an unprecedented series of steps to promote
competition, enhance public safety, and ensure that consumers
are protected against deceptive or misleading billing
practices. Here are a few highlights of the Commission's work
over the past year. Modernize the E-rate Program to increase
the presence of Wi-Fi in classrooms, and bolster higher
capacity Internet connections to the anchor institutions in our
communities across the country, our schools and our libraries.
Raised a record 44.9 billion, with a B, dollars from the AWS-3
auction. Repealed the outdated and anti-consumer sports
blackout rules which, for 4 decades, 40 years, prevented fans
from watching games on television when they were not sold out.
I think there are a lot of people in the country that are
really thrilled about that. Launched a new consumer help center
to streamline the complaint process, and improve how consumers
interact with the FCC. And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record a really
terrific article from Forbes entitled, ``How the FCC Saved Me
$1,800''. If you haven't read it, everyone should, so I ask----
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information apears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. Freed up 150 megahertz of spectrum in
the 3.5 gigahertz brand for mobile broadband. Established
indoor location accuracy rules for wireless calls made to 911.
That could be a lifesaving step right there. Adopted bright
line rules that prevent broadband providers from engaging in
blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Levied a $100
million against a major telecommunications provider for
misleading consumers about their unlimited data plans. Pre-
empted state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that
prevented local communities from deploying broadband, which
they want to do across the country.
All of this and more in just one year, and there is much
more ahead as the FCC prepares to undertake the world's first
voluntary incentive auction, and a technology transition to an
all IP world that preserves the core values of competition,
public safety, and consumer protection. So I thank both the
Chairman and the Commissioner for your continuing commitment to
a modern telecommunications marketplace, and I yield the
remainder of my time to the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Welcome, Chairman Wheeler
and Commissioner Pai. We really appreciate the work that you
are doing. Just a couple of points. I am very encouraged by the
tech transitions progress that you have been making. That is
going to be very helpful to many more businesses that need
efficiencies, and this is going to be helpful to consumers. I
hope you don't stop there. One of my main concerns, I know a
concern of many of us, is to have competition as much as
possible in this area. We really do believe that that leads to
innovation, and better prices for the consumers. So the special
access issues continue to be of top concern to me.
And then finally I would like to just remind you of the
bipartisan rural working group that Mr. Latta and I have set
up, because there is so many of us, even if we represent urban
areas, that have rural districts that have special problems,
and oftentimes aren't the big markets, so we want to continue
to work with the entire Commission to try to make certain that
the rural service is there, and will be there, and will be the
highest quality. Thank you very much, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back, the gentlelady
yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
welcome you both. We appreciate that you are here. I will say I
disagree with my colleague from California, as she talked about
Tennessee. We saw that as stepping on states' rights, Mr.
Chairman, and you know that you and I disagree on that. I am
pleased that you all are here. I know you all saw the CTIA
report last week, and I am sure you have read the op-ed in
today's paper by each of your predecessors, Mr. Janikowski and
Mr. McDowell. Getting spectrum to the marketplace is where we
need to have our focus. And rather than getting off into all
these tangential issues, your focus should be the core of your
mission, which is dealing with spectrum deployment and usage.
And when you look at the expected increase in the wireless
arena, it draws more attention to this.
I was thinking, as I was preparing for this hearing, when
you go back and look at the industrial revolutions that we have
had in this country, looking at the agricultural and the
industrial mechanization revolutions, when you look at
technology, information, we are almost at a point of being able
to say there is this wireless revolution that is going on,
because business transactions, health care, so many things are
going to depend on this spectrum, and we want to make certain
that you are focused on this. So we welcome you. We know that
we have to be diligent in this. We look at what South Korea is
already talking about doing, South Korea, and Japan, and the
5G, and recapturing the momentum that at one point they had.
And we don't want them to be the world leader. We want to be
the world leader, and we have got to have you work with us on
this.
At this time I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and I thank the
gentlelady for yielding. And I want to thank Chairman Wheeler
and Commissioner Pai for being with us again. It is great to
see you both, and I look forward to your statements, and also
to our questions today.
The communications and technology industry is a very
productive and dynamic sector of economy. This is largely due
to bright, innovative minds, and in part because this industry
has been lightly regulated, with the ability to grow and evolve
to the demands of the consumers. Therefore, we cannot afford to
overlook the significance of the regulatory policies and how
the FCC's decisions impact the industry's success. This is why
I am concerned with many of the actions proposed--by the FCC,
and the general lack of transparency, efficiency, and
accountability at the agency. I hope today's hearing will
provide us with an opportunity to discuss in more detail the
Commission's policies, decisions, and processes. And I thank
the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yield back my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Pai for coming back here
today. I know it has been a busy few months since you last
testified before this Subcommittee, and I appreciate your
willingness to come and give us an update.
I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to hear
from Chairman Wheeler about how he is addressing the priorities
of the Democratic members of the subcommittee, many of which
are shared by our Republican colleagues. Our members are
champions for improving universal access to broadband in the
many underserved rural areas of our country. They have also
been tireless advocates for the rights of residents of our vast
tribal lands, and too often those living on tribal lands are
unfairly left on the wrong side of the digital divide. I hope
to hear how the FCC can help our efforts to improve deployment
to these areas where the economics along are not enough.
Our members have also been devoted to improving public
safety communications. This is especially meaningful for those
of us whose districts were impacted by disasters like Hurricane
Sandy, who believe that everyone should be able to call for
help in an emergency, and I hope we hear more about what the
Commission is doing to make our vision into a reality.
Our members also share Chairman Wheeler's commitment to
competition. That is why we led the charge to overhaul the
FCC's designated entity program. Under the new rules that the
FCC recently adopted, the program encourages robust
participation from bona fide small businesses, while allowing
innovative business models more in line with today's dynamic
wireless market. And we have also stood with our Ranking Member
Eshoo in her battle to free up more spectrum for unlicensed
use. These airwaves can lower barriers to entry, and allow for
more vigorous competition.
And finally I hope to learn more about what the Commission
can do to support our work to protect consumers. For instance,
I know several members of the Subcommittee have been focused on
the FCC's recent actions to address robocalls. We all agree
that more needs to be done to crack down on unwanted commercial
calls, and I hope to hear what the Commission can do to address
the issues our members have raised.
I would like to yield 1 minute each of the time--well, I
guess a minute and a half to Mr. Doyle, and then a minute and a
half to Ms. Matsui.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone, for yielding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and to
Commissioner Wheeler and Commissioner Pai, thank you both for
being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the accomplishments
of the Commission, and of this Chairman. Since Tom Wheeler took
over as Chairman, the FCC has done much to advance our nation's
telecommunications agenda. From establishing the FCC's open
Internet order, to keeping the incentive action on track,
updating the Lifeline Program for the Internet age, and meting
out steep fines to telecommunication companies that abuse
consumers.
I also want to comment the Chairman for advancing a pro-
competitive agenda, both in wire line and wireless service. The
Commission's upcoming vote on tech transitions, its action on
special access, and the establishment of the spectrum reserve
in the incentive auction are all important steps towards
preserving and promoting competition. Mr. Chairman, keep up the
good work, thank you. And I will yield to our colleague, Ms.
Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much for yielding to me. Welcome
back, Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Pai. It is great to see
you again. I know you have a busy agenda, and I want to briefly
highlight two priorities that I know we are all interested in.
The first is making more spectrum available. Spectrum is
our nation's invisible infrastructure of the 21st century. It
is critical to keep our wireless economy growing. We need to
talk about how to put more spectrum into the pipeline so we can
continue to meet the demand. Congressman Guthrie and I have a
bipartisan bill to create new incentives for Federal users. We
need to continue to explore these solutions.
The second is making broadband access more affordable.
Millions of Americans are still on the wrong side of the
digital divide. The Lifeline Program can, and should, help
these Americans get, and stay, connected. I know the FCC has
started work on these very important reforms, but we need to
finish the job.
I look forward to working with the whole Commission as we
talk about these matters, and hopefully make progress on this.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back, the gentleman
yields back. And I think all time has now expired. So now we
will go to our two distinguished witnesses, the Chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Wheeler. We are
delighted to have you back. Apparently we are really delighted,
because we have you a lot, and that is a good thing. And so we
welcome you and Commissioner Pai, but Mr. Wheeler, why don't
you go ahead and lead off? Yes, it is a modern technology
thing.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE TOM WHEELER, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND THE HONORABLE AJIT PAI,
COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
STATEMENT OF TOM WHEELER
Mr. Wheeler. I am tempted to make some comment about being
national champion of appearances before, but I wouldn't want--
--
Mr. Walden. We can arrange that.
Mr. Wheeler. I wouldn't want to go down that route. But in
the 10 weeks--in all seriousness, in the 10 weeks since I was
last before this Committee, there has been a lot happening, and
I look forward to discussing it with you today. We have made
significant progress to begin the incentive auction on March
29, 8 months from tomorrow, so there is a lot of pressure on
here. We have continued to grapple with the tech transitions
issues that were raised by the movement from analog to IP
networks. And we have approved one merger, with conditions.
Another was withdrawn, and a new one was added. And then, of
course, on top of that, the Appeals Court denied the request
for a stay for the open Internet rules.
But one issue which, frankly, caught me by surprise was
that which was raised by a letter signed by every member of
this subcommittee having to do with local number portability,
and I wanted to report directly to you on that. Our rules
require that local number portability be ubiquitous, but it
looks as though the manner in which the industry has set up the
system does not fulfill that requirement, and I appreciate this
committee bringing this to our attention. Implementation of the
rule apparently requires that a mobile carrier have a presence
in the home market of the ported phone number before the
transition can occur. And this is something, of course, that is
not possible for smaller regional carriers.
So the effect of this is that if I were to move from
Washington to a market served by a carrier not in Washington,
and to choose that carrier in a competitive choice process, I
couldn't port my number. That is contrary to our rules, and I
have asked that it be fixed. Yesterday I wrote the four major
carriers, as well as their trade associations, asking that they
identify a solution and report back within 60 days. I believe
the carriers are in the best position to fix this, and I look
forward to their response. But I do want to say to this
Committee, after raising this issue in unanimity, that if this
approach doesn't fix it with dispatch, we will have to find
other approaches that do. But I really appreciate the way that
this Committee called that to our attention, because we had not
seen that previously.
On another matter frequently raised by the Committee, I am
pleased to report that the FCC has completed an exchange of
letters with the Telecommunications Agency of Mexico, IFT, to
harmonize TV and wireless spectrum on both sides of the border.
Mexico is in the midst of its DTV transition, and we, as you
know, are heading into an incentive auction and relocation of
broadcast and mobile licenses. Where on the spectrum Mexico
places its DTV licenses could, therefore, affect us, and our
U.S. licenses, and where we place our licenses could affect
them. But thanks to the hard work of the International Bureau
and the Spectrum Auction Task Force, and the good faith
negotiations of the Mexican IFT, this major hurdle has been
vaulted. And I want to especially thank my counterpart in
Mexico, Chairman Contreras Saldivar, and his Commissioners, for
their leadership on this matter. To the North, we have been
making similarly productive progress with our friends the
Canadians. I believe that once we have a decision next week on
incentive auction procedures that we will be able to conclude
that coordination as well.
And finally, we have had frequent discussions with this
Committee about the open Internet rule. Now that the D.C.
Circuit has put it on an expedited track for judicial review,
we are only 6 months or so away from that ruling, which I know
we all have been waiting for. So thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member. I look forward to discussing these, and any
other issues you may want to raise.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Chairman, appreciate the update. We
will now go to Commission Pai. We are delighted to have you
before the subcommittee again, and please go ahead with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Walden, Ranking
Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify. This hearing comes at a critical time.
The FCC is making judgments that will shape the communications
landscape for years to come. I will start with the broadcast
incentive auction. The FCC is empowered to conduct this auction
because of your bipartisan efforts. It is therefore
disappointing that this proceeding has been run in a partisan
manner. Time and again Commissioner Mike O'Rielly and I have
offered common sense ideas for improving auction rules and
procedures. Often, we receive no response at all. When we do
receive a response, it is almost always no.
Fortunately, it isn't too late to change course.
Broadcasters, wireless carriers, and unlicensed advocates all
agree that the Commission's current band plan is seriously
flawed. I stand ready to work with these stakeholders, and my
fellow Commissioners, to do what Congress did when it passed
the landmark incentive auction legislation: compromise to find
a consensus solution.
Here specifically is what we should focus on. The proposed
band plan allows for too much variability, and would put too
many broadcast stations in the wireless portion of the 600
megahertz band. This will both impair spectrum that will be
sold in the forward auction, and cause interference between
broadcast and wireless services. In my view, the Commission
should try to minimize band plan variability. If broadcast
stations must be placed in the wireless portion of the band,
they should go in the uplink spectrum, not the downlink, or the
duplex gap. And, in order to reach a compromise, we also need
to make more information public. Right now, stakeholders and
Commissioners alike are essentially being asked to take on
faith that, unless we adopt every aspect of the Commission's
proposals, the incentive auction will end in an apocalyptic
failure. But I prefer the Reagan approach: trust, but verify.
Next, I would like to discuss the FCC's Designated Entity,
or DE, Program, which has been plagued with abuse. Even though
the program is supposed to help small businesses, large
corporations routinely try to game the system. And that is why
I was disappointed when the FCC recently voted to make it
easier for big companies to profit from the program. We were
promised FCC action to close loopholes that could be exploited
by slick lawyers. Instead, the Commission re-opened loopholes
that it had closed on a bipartisan basis years ago, loopholes
through which a minimally competent attorney could drive a
truck. Specifically, the FCC paved the way for DEs to obtain a
35 percent discount on auctioned spectrum, and then turn around
and immediately lease 100 percent of it to a large incumbent
carrier.
Now, at the time we were told that opening up new loopholes
in our DE rules was an ``attack on economic inequality'', but
this assertion is baffling. So let us be clear, those who will
profit from these new DE loopholes are speculators who are
already firmly ensconced in the famed one percent. Case in
point, under the new rules Donald Trump would be allowed to own
most of a DE, get a taxpayer funded discount on spectrum, and
then lease all of that spectrum to AT&T or Verizon. So, during
the Commission's deliberations, I made simple proposals to
prevent this kind of abuse of the DE Program. For example, I
proposed that anyone making over $55 million a year should be
prohibited from owning a DE and getting taxpayer funded
benefits. Unfortunately, the majority rejected this, and other
common sense reforms.
Shifting gears, when it comes to broadband, as Congressman
Welch pointed out, too many rural areas are being left behind.
Specifically, we are failing areas served by small
telecommunications carriers. That is because of a quirk of
regulatory history. Our rules governing these carriers give
universal service support only to companies that offer
telephone service, not standalone broadband service. That is
why I put forward earlier this month a specific plan for
correcting this historical accident. My plan is based on the
principles set forth in a May letter by 115 members of the
House of Representatives, led by Congressman Kevin Cramer. This
group urged the FCC to adopt an immediate, targeted solution to
the standalone broadband problem, and to implement a much
simpler and straightforward plan for rate of return carriers
than was adopted for price-cap carriers.
I humbly submit that is exactly what my plan does. It
implements a single page of rule changes to existing universal
service regulations to solve the standalone broadband problem.
These simple amendments would let rural consumers choose
broadband as a standalone service. It would give carriers the
assurance they need to increase broadband deployment. And,
critically, they would do all of this within the existing
budget.
Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the
subcommittee, thank you once again for inviting me to testify.
I look forward to answering your questions, and continuing to
work with you, and your staff, in the time to come.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Commissioner Pai. We appreciate your
testimony as well.
Chairman Wheeler, as you know, LPTV and translators play an
important role in providing important information and
programming to consumers and businesses, and especially when it
comes to the translators serving difficult to reach terrain and
rural communities. What do you plan to do to minimize the
impacts of re-packing on LPTV and translators to help ensure
that their important programming continues to reach viewers?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we share your
interest in making sure that this voice continues. As you know,
the spectrum legislation does not create a re-packing role, a
role in re-packing, for translators. So the question becomes,
what do you do about it? So here is what we are going to do.
One, there are channels--we are going to help them find
channels, if they get displaced as a part of the auction.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Wheeler. One of the things that is the reality of an
auction is you don't really know where the displacement is
going to happen, because you don't know the outcome of the
auction. So step one is we will work through that. Step two is
that we are going to begin a rulemaking that will allow for
channel sharing by LPTV stations. Just as we are counting on
channel sharing----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In the broadcast auction. And
that kind of technology should provide the similar kind of
solution. And thirdly, the rule is constructed in such a way
that they don't have to vacate until the wireless carrier, in
fact, is ready to turn off service. So there is a significant
buffer of time in there. But we believe that, as we help them
find new channels, and as we have a new rule that allows for
channel sharing, that that will be able to mitigate the kind of
impact that you are concerned about.
Mr. Walden. And aren't you going to also give them--like in
the DTV transition there was an opportunity to apply, they got
some preference to move.
Mr. Wheeler. I am----
Mr. Walden. In the application process. I will get back to
you.
Mr. Wheeler. Let me get back to you on----
Mr. Walden. It was the displacement relief.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. We are laying out a whole process that
will help them through this process in finding those kind of
new channels.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. I want to talk about some
of the financial issues, because you have spoken about them
eloquently before the Appropriations Committee, and publicly,
and I know that you addressed field agents during a recent
agenda meeting regarding the issue of closing the field
offices. And you seemed to take special point that your budget
comes from Congress and all, which is true.
And I want to ask Commissioner Pai, is it true that the
Enforcement Bureau's front office management staff has more
than doubled size since 2008?
Mr. Pai. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Walden. Is that true, Mr. Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.
Mr. Walden. It is not?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. The enforcement staff is now--I can
give you the exact statistic--20 percent smaller than it was
under Chairman Martin, and that, since I have come into office,
we have reduced the front office staff by 14 percent.
Mr. Walden. OK. Yes, we want to follow up, because
obviously there is a disagreement among you two on this----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Matter. Isn't it also a fact that
the Enforcement Bureau has more vehicles than field agents?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Wheeler. I went to Anchorage--I have been trying to
visit----
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The offices. We have a policy
that says you have to have two employees in each vehicle--one
that is driving, and one that is working the equipment. It is
like texting and driving. We have two people in the Anchorage
office, and we have two vehicles.
Mr. Walden. Is that--but we are talking----
Mr. Wheeler. That----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Across the--it is more than just
Anchorage----
Mr. Wheeler. This was one of the problems that we inherited
when we walked into the door, that there had been this
purchasing. So what we're trying to do now is reposition those
vehicles----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. So they will be available for the
strike teams when they come in.
Mr. Walden. And what about--we keep hearing stories that
you all have cars and drivers, and all that sort of thing at
the Commission. Is that true? Actually, I don't know about you
all, I don't have a car and driver, other than my little Prius
out there. But is that true? Don't you----
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, it is true----
Mr. Walden. Yes?
Mr. Pai [continuing]. Although I do try to walk whenever I
can.
Mr. Walden. It shows. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. And I have got a----
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Fitbit to try to----
Mr. Walden. Yes. All right. My time has run out.
Mr. Pai. It is not my walking, but----
Mr. Walden. Turn to the gentlelady from----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. I want to start with Chairman
Wheeler. I just want to ask my questions, and then you can
respond to them. And I have----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. One for Commissioner Pai. You said
in your opening statement that the upcoming incentive auction
has ``more moving parts than a Swiss watch'', and I agree. And
one example is the reserve trigger, which I think is really
very, very important. And it is critical that we get it right,
because we want to ensure that competitive providers have real
access to spectrum. So can you commit to addressing the
concerns of the competitive carriers prior to the start of the
auction? So that is my first question.
My second question is, some of the medical community have
suggested that the FCC delay implementation or consideration of
its technical rules for the use of channel 37 by unlicensed TV
white space devices. Now, delay is, I think, highly concerning,
because this is one of the three channels that tech companies
say are, at a minimum, needed in this band to stimulate and
sustain investment in enhanced Wi-Fi. So do you think that your
proposal already adequately protects patients, and will prevent
harmful interference to hospitals? I could ask a lot of
questions, but I think that those two are really important.
And also this year, Mr. Chairman, there have been eight
broadcast television blackouts involving almost 30 U.S. cities.
Can you tell us when the FCC will complete its review of the
good faith rules, and when we can expect new rules to be put in
place to better protect consumers? So those are my questions to
you, and a quick one to Commissioner Pai.
I read recently, and he is not here, but--something that
Commissioner O'Reilly said, and it is a quote of his, but it
does deal with the FCC's governing principles. And he stated
that one of the FCC's governing principles should be that the
Internet is not a necessity in the everyday lives of Americans.
And I know that he brought up that it is not even close to
being a human right. I don't think that is the jurisdiction of
this committee, human rights, but it is disturbing to me that
we would move away from that, relative to a principle, and I
wanted to know if you agree or disagree, you want to add or
subtract from it. So I will go to Chairman Wheeler first, and
then to Commissioner Pai.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Ms. Eshoo. Let me see if I can hit
those one, two, three.
What we have tried to do is to make sure that there is
reserve spectrum available. It has never before been done. As
Mr. Welch and others have pointed out, it is an important
component of delivering service to rural areas. The question
then becomes, after you do that, do you want to create rules
that allow people to withdraw from the auction early, and not
have to pay as much as if an auction had been ongoing? And that
is what is being requested. That is not what is currently in
our proposal. We don't think that there should be a quick out,
I have got what I want, let me stop the bidding right now for
reserve spectrum.
Secondly, we have changed, from 180 meters to 380 meters,
the distance that an unlicensed device would be allowed close
to these facilities that are using channel 37. That number was
arrived at as a result of some studies that were done by the
medical telemetry folks, and so that is why that number was
increased.
There is a failsafe in here, however, and that is, as you
know, that all unlicensed spectrum has to go through a
coordination process that involves a database, where you----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Get permission to use it, if you
go by--knowing that there is nobody there. If that 380 meters
is insufficient in a particular area because of some rare
equipment they have got that database can be adjusted to say,
``no, you can't do it here.'' So I think that what we have
done, in regard to medical equipment, is two-fold. One, to
expand the absolute blackout area, and two, then to have in
there a flexible system that will reflect what reality is and
shut down if there is a situation that would cause
interference.
In regard to your third question, regarding TV blackouts
and good faith negotiations, we intend to have an NPRM out by
September the 4th, as this Committee has told us to do, on that
topic, and to be discussing exactly what are the full set of
issues that should be involved in good faith.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I
embrace the FCC's charge as given by Congress. In fact, the
first charge in the Communications Act is to make available, so
far as possible, to all the people in the United States rapid,
efficient nationwide communication services. And in the digital
age that increasingly, as you know, means broadband. And I
believe that not only because I am a son of rural America,
whose parents currently live on the opposite side of the
digital divide, but I also have seen it as a Commissioner
across this country.
A few weeks ago I was in Dillard, Nebraska, population 287,
where I visited C and C Processing, a husband and wife owned
meat processing plant that, 20 years ago, was literally a two-
person operation, and now, thanks to a broadband connection,
they export at retail to every state in the country, and around
the world. They have exported wholesale to Whole Foods and----
Ms. Eshoo. So you are saying you disagree with----
Mr. Pai. Well, what I am saying is that I embrace different
policies to make sure that broadband deployment is as wide and
as deep as possible. I will leave the semantics for others to
debate. I am focused on our job, as enmeshed in Section----
Mr. Walden. The gentlewoman's time----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walden. The gentlewoman's----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OK, Commissioner
Wheeler, I want to thank you for your letter dealing with the
spectrum auction in small businesses. We got it yesterday, and
I may come back to you with a couple of more questions on that.
You know my concern, and I appreciate your responses. All
right. I think we can all agree that we are for a successful
spectrum auction. Everybody agree for that?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I am so happy we are all on the same
page. Make your day, right? Let us talk about the steps. And,
Commissioner, you were just laying out some of the steps you
thought were necessary. Let us back it up a little bit. And I
think when you look at the CTIA report that came out--I want to
submit that for the record, if no one has put that into the
record.
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I think that the prelude to a
successful auction, and to the steps that you just articulated,
is to know how much spectrum that you have. And we know Federal
agencies are squatting on a lot of spectrum, and that they are
not utilizing it. They are sitting on it just in case they
think they might want to do something with it. And when you
look at 13 years between the auction and the deployment, that
is a lot of time. And you look at the increased usage that we
are expecting, I think that it is dangerous to, first of all,
not inventory and know exactly what you have got. So, Mr.
Chairman, to you, have you inventoried the Federal agencies,
and do you know how much spectrum they are squatting on, and
what you can recoup?
Mr. Wheeler. First off, Mrs. Blackburn, I would like to
identify with exactly what you are talking about.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Wheeler. We share the same goals.
Mrs. Blackburn. I am so excited that we agree on something.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, this is--we could be----
Mrs. Blackburn. This is a good day.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Violent agreement as well.
Mrs. Blackburn. Good.
Mr. Wheeler. You know, I----
Mrs. Blackburn. Good.
Mr. Wheeler. When I was President of CTIA, I happened to be
the guy that negotiated the first deal with the government to
repurpose Defense Department spectrum. Here is what I found, as
a way of answering your question about squatting. The Corps of
Engineers, for instance, said they were fully utilizing a piece
of spectrum because once a month it took a reading on a dam
level.
Mrs. Blackburn. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. I don't think that is fully utilizing. So the
question we have to work through is how do you encourage
Federal agencies, and all users, to think in terms of what is
full application? So the answer to your question is we know who
uses what spectrum. The specific use inside that spectrum,
however----
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Is something that the licensee
controls.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I don't want to run out of time. Now,
if you know who has how much spectrum, have you put this into
one report? Mr. Pai, Commissioner Pai, have you seen a report
that says this is how much that is out there? Could you
quantify a number----
Mr. Pai. I have not seen a particular report about how
Federal users are actually using the spectrum that they have,
and I do agree----
Mrs. Blackburn. And how much they have?
Mr. Pai. And it would be very helpful to have that.
Mrs. Blackburn. I think it would too, before we get too far
down this road. What I would like to ask you to do is quantify
this. And you and I know, all of us know, the way you can re-
pack this, and tighten it up, you can better utilize the
spectrum, but these Federal agencies--yes, I have got to tell
you, we have just done an IG report on wasteful spending, and
not following what the IG has asked them to do, looking at 4
years of these IG reports. If you don't force the issue, they
are not going to take the action. And spectrum is a very
valuable commodity right now, and we cannot allow Federal
agencies, through laziness, or lack of creativity, or lack of
innovation, to squat on this spectrum.
So, before we get too far afield with the 350 megahertz
auction and further, I would like for you to come back to us
and say, this is what each of these different departments has,
and this is what their utilization is, and this is how we can
pull that back and re-deploy this into the marketplace and
auction it. Because if we need a Federal override for
something, just like with the AM band, come back and do
something like that, but don't let them squat on this spectrum.
Mr. Pai, before my time has run out. I will come back for
the second round. Yield----
Mr. Walden. All right, the gentlelady's time has expired.
We will now go to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wheeler, I
have three questions in three different areas I want to try to
get in, so I am going to ask you to respond fairly quickly, if
you can. You committed that the FCC would complete a proceeding
by the end of this year to make our wireless networks more
resilient--this deals with communications and emergencies--and
I wanted to thank you again for that commitment. Last week
former Commissioner Adelstein promised that the tower industry
would work closely with your staff to install new rules for
network resiliency. We are approaching the heart of hurricane
season, and the third anniversary of Sandy is almost upon us,
so what is the status of the FCC's proceeding on network
resiliency?
Mr. Wheeler. So we are working with the industry on that,
Mr. Pallone. It is essential that a tower be able to stand up.
I think we probably also have to address the backup power issue
because if you don't--if the tower is standing, but there is no
juice to it, so it is not worth anything, so these all fit
together into a total package. And I would be happy to do a
more detailed response on that, if you would like.
Mr. Pallone. OK. If you do have something you could update
us with now, through the Chairman, I would like to maybe have a
written response, if we could, without objection.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Then the second question is, with
regard to designated entities, in my opening statement I
mentioned I support your recent decision to modify the FCC's
designated entity rules, and since the rules have passed,
however, I have heard criticism that just as the FCC closed
some loopholes, it opened others. So how do you respond to
those critics that question these decisions?
Mr. Wheeler. I think that we have tightened up the rules
substantially, and would be happy to discuss the specific ways
in which we have done that. I have got to be real careful at
how I talk about this, because it is a pending proceeding, but
if you look at what is currently on the record with regard to
the DEs and their relationship with Dish in the AWS-3 auction,
we used a totality of circumstances test that had never been
applied before to say, we don't think that that is a good idea,
at a staff level. That is coming to the Commission, so, again,
I have to rule on that, so I won't go any further.
The fact of the matter is that we then took that totality
of the circumstances and put it into the DE rules in this re-
write that we just did. So I think that we have shown that
there is a total picture you have to look at, one, and two,
that we have whatever it takes to step up and blow the whistle
and say, ``that is not right.''
Mr. Pallone. OK. With regard to the incentive auction and
consumer outreach, as we head towards the incentive auction in
the early part of next year, I become concerned about whether
consumers will be prepared for the transition. In many ways,
this education effort will be even more difficult than the one
we faced with the digital TV transition, because we don't have
funding for consumer outreach this time, and we will have to
deal with a flash cut.
So I raised this issue with the National Association of
Broadcasters, and I can say that they committed to working with
us to start planning on how best to reach out to consumers. My
question is, can you commit to working with us and the
broadcasters to devise a comprehensive plan to ensure that
consumers will know what they need to do to continue to watch
over the air TV?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. OK. You have actually answered all this in 4
minutes, so I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. Well done.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Barton, up next.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you and the
Ranking Member for this hearing. Thank our two Commissioners,
the Chairman, Commissioner Pai, for being here.
I am one of the advocates for low power television, and, as
we all know, they don't have any real standing in this
repackaging of the spectrum, if the mainline broadcasters give
it back. But they do have a product. They have provided
valuable service to the country, and I would like to see them
helped in some way, if at all possible. So my question to both
of you, we will start with the Chairman, and then Commissioner
Pai, what can be done to ensure that we still have low power
television once this repackaging is complete?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Barton, and I would like to
associate myself with this position that you have taken. Low
power is an important voice in the community, and translators
as well. I set up a special meeting with low power operators
out at the NAB last year, at their big convention, to make sure
that I was hearing from them, and we were talking about it. I
think that there are multiple things that we can do inside the
statutory constraint that you referenced. One is that we will
help them find new channels after the moving of the--firstly,
we don't know which low powers are going to be affected,
because we don't know what is----
Mr. Barton. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Going to happen in the auction.
We don't know what is going to be available for them to move,
so we don't know what is going to happen there. So we all have
to kind of sit in limbo, and watch for that. But then, even
beyond that, we are going to begin a rulemaking from which we
will allow low power and translators to share a channel, just
like we are allowing licensees--broadcast licensees, full power
licensees, to share a channel. That will take advantage of the
benefits of digital, and create another path.
Mr. Barton. So you do see that there will still be a role
for low power television?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. OK. Mr. Pai?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I share your assessment, and the
Chairman's assessment, that low power television provides
valuable service in Texas, Utah, Nebraska, all across this
country. And that is why I flagged, almost 3 years ago, the
importance of making sure that, within the statutory
constraints, the FCC does what it can, in the context of the
incentive auction, especially in markets where we don't need
spectrum, to help them stay in business.
My concern is, however, that certain of the policy cuts
that we are on the brink of making might end up impairing LPTV,
and the vacant channel proceeding is one example of that, where
the FCC has said, OK, if there is a vacant channel, or two
vacant channels available after the incentive auction, then we
will reserve those from unlicensed uses. And, not to denigrate,
obviously, the importance of unlicensed, but nonetheless, this
is the TV band that we are talking about, and if LPTV stations
don't have a place to go, it seems to me that we should do what
we can to prioritize their staying in business.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. Thank the both of you, and with
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman----
Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Walden. I am just going by the list that your staff----
Mr. Doyle. I was here well before the gavel----
Mr. Walden. Well----
Mr. Barton. I will give my 2 minutes to Mr. Doyle. I had a
minute 55.
Mr. Walden. I am just going by the list your staff
provided, so----
Ms. Matsui. I don't want to get in the middle of this.
Mr. Walden. We will go with whatever you want.
Mr. Doyle. You don't go in order?
Mr. Barton. If Mr. Doyle will vote for my bill----
Mr. Doyle. I will yield to Ms.----
Mr. Barton [continuing]. To repeal the ban on crude oil
exports----
Mr. Doyle. I am going to yield to Ms. Matsui. Go ahead.
Mr. Walden. I am just going by your list, so go ahead, Ms.
Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, and Mr. Doyle, thank you
very much too.
Chairman Wheeler, after next year's incentive auction the
FCC would have implemented the last auction Congress identified
in the 2012 Spectrum Act, yet consumer demand for wireless
services that rely on spectrum continues to explode, and we
know it takes a long time to plan for any new spectrum auction.
Mr. Chairman, do you agree that we need to create a spectrum
pipeline for the next decade?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Now, what do you think are the first steps
for the policymakers to consider?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I think that you and Mr. Guthrie have
pointed a way towards that by providing some Congressional
oversight and encouragement in the process. As Mrs. Blackburn
indicated, clearly the FCC has a role to say, ``OK, where are
the current allocations?'' But it then goes to the Executive
Branch to determine the allocation within----
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Specific executive agencies, and
to answer those questions. I would look forward to working
with--and we do have a good working relationship with NTIA
and--to try and address these issues. I think that this is
something that both NTIA and the FCC can work together on.
But I also need to be really candid and say that the kind
of leadership that you and Mr. Guthrie are showing, that this
Committee has shown, in keeping the spotlight on, and keeping
the pressure on, is essential to paying attention to things
downtown.
Ms. Matsui. Well, we intend to keep the spotlight on, so
thank you. Congress tasked the FCC with balancing many
priorities in the upcoming incentive auction, unleashing new
spectrum for licensed mobile broadband, protecting consumer
access to local broadcasting, and creating new opportunities
for unlicensed spectrum use. If done right, the FCC can ensure
that the incentive auction clears a significant amount of
beachfront spectrum needed to fuel our wireless economy, while
protecting over the air broadcasting, and preserving the chance
for unlicensed innovation.
I know a lot of concerns have been raised, and that the FCC
is scheduled to make some key decisions at your August meeting.
Chairman Wheeler, what is the FCC doing to make sure
stakeholders can feel confident in the incentive auction?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. The challenge
of the incentive auction is like a very complex crossword
puzzle, except for the fact that there is no picture on the
front of the box, OK?
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. And so what we have been trying to do is to
make sure that, of all the parties that are interested, that
they can walk away with a solution. It may not be what they
have come in and asked for. And as a person who used to also go
in and ask the FCC to do things my way on spectrum auctions, I
know it doesn't always have to be that way, but you need to
make sure that, for instance, as Ms. Eshoo and I discussed for
medical devices, that you have an answer there, that you have
an answer for wireless mics, that you have an answer for
unlicensed spectrum. And all of these have to balance out. And
I believe that the item that we are bringing forward contains
that kind of balance. Would I like to tweak it here or tweak it
there, certainly, but you push here, and something----
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Busts over here. And so I think
that the spectrum auction team, headed by Gary Epstein and
Howard Symons, have done an excellent job in wading through all
of this.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I am going to ask you too, are we on track
to see the incentive auction successfully completed next year
in a way that preserves the goals that Congress intended?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I am a longtime advocate for modernization
of the Lifeline Program. Broadband is a necessity, whether it
is applying for a job, growing a small business, or parents
helping their kids with homework, and I applaud the FCC for
starting a rulemaking earlier this year to bring Lifeline into
the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, what are the next steps for
Lifeline reform?
Mr. Wheeler. I hope that we will have a rulemaking to
follow up on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as soon as
comments are closed, and we can sift through them and move
forward. Let me address an issue that Commissioner Pai was
dealing with a moment ago. Broadband is the information
pathway----
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Of the 21st century, and to deny
access to that is to deny access to the 21st century.
Ms. Matsui. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. I think we need to have policies that make
sure that everyone in America has access to that essential
pathway of the 21st century.
Ms. Matsui. I agree with you. Thank you very much, and I
yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady's time has expired, and yields
back. The Chair now recognizes the Vice-Chair of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again,
gentlemen, thanks for being here. Commissioner Pai, if I could
start my questions with you. We all know that consumers are
offered an array of video choices today, and new Internet
delivered options are also complimented by the growing use of
consumer apps to watch traditional TV on mobile devices. As a
result, it seems that more online entertainment options, such
as Netflix, and other over the top providers have transformed
the marketplace. I am going to ask these couple questions. With
that said, Commissioner, what is your assessment of the video
marketplace, and can you remember a time when consumers have
had so much choice in that market?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, thanks for the question. I can't
think of a time when consumers of video services have ever had
it better. Having grown up in the era of three broadcast
stations, and no satellite, and no cable, I can tell you that
now, when I can power up Crackle on my laptop wherever I want,
on whatever device I want, it is really a benefit. And I think
that is part of the reason why I came out a couple weeks ago,
and said that I don't think that the FCC needs to regulate so-
called over the top video. And that is consistent with what the
Digital Media Association, which represents Apple, Amazon,
Pandora, Sony, YouTube, and others, said just last week. This
is not a marketplace that has failed. It is thriving, and let
us leave well enough alone.
Mr. Latta. So, in your opinion, that is what is driving
innovation?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely, and that is one of the great things
about the broadband revolution, that all these business models
are thriving because everyone can deliver these services over
the Internet.
Mr. Latta. OK. Let me follow up with this. Should the
government be out there picking winners and losers in this
space, or trying to impose new technology mandates to
potentially so that--slow that innovation and limit that
choice?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely not. I think the worst thing the
government could do would be to regulate either the entire
marketplace, or pick out particular business models for
disparate regulatory treatment. That will simply serve to
distort the marketplace, and we will never know which business
model consumers really would prefer.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Turning to you, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, my district is Northwest/West Central Ohio, and you are
kind of familiar with it in your days back in Ohio. I have a
lot of general community hospitals, and other larger hospital
associations in my district, and a number of these hospitals
have expressed a very serious concern to the Commission
regarding the technical rules for the use of the channel 37 by
unlicensed TV white spaces devices.
It has already been decided that channel 37 will be
available for use by unlicensed devices in part of the
incentive auction proceedings, however, technical rules that
protect wireless medical telemetry service, WMTS, systems and
also allow for the safe use of the TV white spaces devices that
have not been mutually agreed upon. Let me ask you, do you
agree that because wireless devices could cause harmful
interference to hospital operations, and jeopardize patient
safety, it is vitally important that all parties have the
opportunity to work cooperatively to reach a consensus industry
agreement on this issue before the Commission considers it in
the August open meeting?
Mr. Wheeler. So I agree that there is a technological
challenge that we have to make sure that we deal with, and I
believe that we have a belt and suspenders approach to that.
The belt is to say that 380 meters from such a site is a no-go
zone, which is essentially tripling of where we were before in
response to what the WMTS folks have said, and some of the
trials they have run up in Minnesota.
But the suspenders are also that the coordination database,
that must be used for unlicensed purposes, gets information fed
into it if there is a problem in Northern Ohio or a particular
area, and that then becomes a no-fly zone. And so what we have
put in place is hard rock, and flexibility, that is going to
deliver the kind of security that I think that both you and we
are looking for.
Mr. Latta. But do you think they have enough time to make
sure they get that information to the Commission before your
August meeting? Do you think there is enough time? Because,
here we are on the 27th of July, or 28th that we are right at
that point?
Mr. Wheeler. So they have just submitted to us additional
information from these field tests, and it was based upon that
that we altered what our proposal is. This is not an issue that
hasn't been dealt with since you passed the Spectrum Act. This
is something that has been going on for multiple years. Their
tests were really helpful in that regard. That is why we tried
to make sure that we harmonize with the kinds of things that
they discovered in those tests, and provide the flexibility to
move in and do something if, in fact, there is an aberration.
This kind of goes to Mrs. Blackburn's point about sharing.
This is the whole reality about sharing, that we want to create
a structure that says that you can deal with the aberrations.
And this Committee told us in statute to do that, and that was
a wise decision on your part, and we are following through on
that.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would
like to submit for the record a statement from the American
Hospital Association.
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Vermont. Just kidding. Mr. Doyle from----
Mr. Doyle. Boy, that----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Pennsylvania.
Mr. Doyle. That would have really gone bad.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, if your goal was to get his
attention, you succeeded.
Mr. Walden. Just wanted to make sure he was awake. Mr.
Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, welcome.
Commissioner Pai, I was just listening to your opening
statement, where you were lamenting how you and Commissioner
O'Reilly have all these wonderful ideas that are met with
either no response, or no. And I just want you to know, we on
the Democratic side, we are feeling your pain. It is called
being in the minority.
Mr. Walden. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Doyle. We know that feeling.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Just for a second. We have been
informed by the folks that do the streaming, Mr. Wheeler, if
you could pull that microphone closer? In the Internet Age,
they are not able to hear you quite as well, so----
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr.--we feel your pain, I just want
you to know. Chairman Wheeler, I have questions for you. I
know, like me, you are a strong advocate for a competitive
telecommunications marketplace, and you have been a great
advocate in moving these long stalled issues forward. I have a
number of questions and concerns about the special access
proceeding. First, I am concerned that the window for moving
forward on special access reform is narrowing, particularly
with this latest extension of the comment window. Additionally,
I have heard that the FCC still hasn't made the data from the
special access data request available to the stakeholders. With
the comment deadline looming, when will the stakeholders be
able to access this data in order to make fully informed
comments for the proceeding?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. I don't know the
specific date. We will announce a specific date. I can't free
form it here, but obviously there have been multiple challenges
with special access that start with a collection of data that
was thwarted for years, and we were finally able to begin
collecting that data. Insofar as--we will make sure that data
is on the record, and on the record in a timely manner. And I
share your interest in wanting to make sure that we have an
opportunity to address the special access question, but it
needs to be fact-based.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. I mean, can you give us any idea when you
anticipate the Commission taking action on the proceeding? Is
it going to be in my lifetime?
Mr. Wheeler. Sir, I hope it is while I am Chairman, and
that that is a shorter period than your lifetime.
Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you another thing. And, like a lot of
people on this Committee, and our Ranking Member, Ms. Eshoo, I
also have concerns about the trigger for the spectrum reserve
in the incentive auction. We have all been working hard to
ensure that this auction will enhance competition for wireless
broadband, and that consumers will reap the benefits of lower
prices and greater innovation. To that end, what is the
Commission doing to address the concerns that many of us have
about the reserve trigger, particularly in regard to the
trigger coming into play so late in the auction?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, let me be sure which trigger you are
talking about. Are you triggering the assignment round issue?
Mr. Doyle. No, the reserve.
Mr. Wheeler. The reserve? So the question then becomes,
``are you going to cut back on the amount of bidding that goes
on for reserve spectrum?'' And we have taken the position that
you should not. That, first of all, the reserve has been
created. That in itself is a huge step, that there are a lot of
people on this Committee, and on the Commission, disagree with.
Then the question becomes, ``do you want the auction to
function through the whole process, or do you want to truncate
it for a quicker trigger for this spectrum, while the other
spectrum auction keeps going?'' And it seems to me that what
that ends up doing is reducing participation in the auction. It
probably reduces the prices people will pay, because it means
that, here in the reserve you stop, while the bidding keeps
going on up here in the unreserved. And I think an auction is
something that proceeds to a conclusion, not an auction that
gets terminated to favor one party or another. So the
establishment of the reserve is a huge point. I think what we
should not be doing is picking winners and losers inside that
reserve.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. You both
agree that, to facilitate rural broadband deployment really is
going to take USF reform, is that correct? Would you----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir, we both----
Mr. Shimkus. And Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And, Commissioner Pai, in your opening
statement you mentioned some principles. Can you re-state those
real quickly again for me? I caught a couple of them, but I
didn't----
Mr. Pai. So with respect to my rural broadband plan, it
would be a two-fold plan. First and foremost would be targeted
changes to our universal service rules to allow essentially
rate-of-return carriers to get universal service support for
the costs that they incur for deploying broadband in rural
areas. And so currently that support only extends to voice
service. I would let them get that support if they offered
broadband as a standalone service.
Secondly, creating a voluntary path where rate-of-return
carriers could, at their option, get into a similar Connect
America Fund that we have for price cap carriers. And obviously
the so-called ACAN model in that regard isn't perfect, but
nonetheless, if rate of return carriers find it to be
preferable, they should be given a limited window to be able to
do that.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. Chairman Wheeler, these are all
kind of rural questions for rural service, so it is really
appealing to the constituary representing about a third of the
State of Illinois, so it is like a lot of the rural areas. So
this is on this dropped call issue still. I mean, I go to some
of my either family-owned phone----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Companies, or the co-ops that I
still have out there, and I think we talked about the last
couple hearings----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. That we have been with, and the
intermediary carriers called the least cost routers, they----
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Seem to be the problem. Can you
tell me how we are going to--because you know these companies.
They get blamed if the call gets dropped. It is an intermediary
carrier that is doing it, and it causes all sorts of problems.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, and you put your
finger on--it is the intermediate carrier, and it is the
failure on the part of the major carriers to police their
subcontractors, if you will. So we have done several things.
First of all, there used to be a game that got played where
they would give a false ring to pretend the call was being
completed, when it really wasn't. We have got a rule in place
saying that is out of business.
Secondly is that we have been enforcing this. Within the
last few weeks we fined Verizon $2 million, and required them
to do $3 million of additional improvements to stop this,
because in 26 rural areas they weren't paying attention to
this, which is the heart of the problem. It is this going to
what you call the intermediate carriers that they need to be
paying attention to.
And thirdly is that we have a data survey out there right
now to try and identify exactly what the extent and other
causes might be so that we can take additional action, if
warranted. But yes, sir, we understand that the call completion
is a serious issue, and we want to be all over it.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, that is good, because we are going into
the August break, and I know they will have----
Mr. Wheeler. You are going to hear about it.
Mr. Shimkus. They are going to come visit me again during
the break, and they are going to ask, and so I am glad I got a
chance to ask the question, and continue to address this issue.
Last question, Commissioner Pai, when it comes to the IP
transition, and the ability to upgrade technologies, we kind of
talked about that earlier, do all providers face a regulatory
level playing field when it comes to making upgrades and
provide their customers with the newest technology?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I don't think they do. I think that
some segments of the industry face no barrier to deciding to
deploy next generation infrastructure that connects people to
digital opportunities. On the other hand, another segment faces
antiquated rules that essentially require them to maintain the
networks of yesterday, the copper-based TDM networks. And
obviously every dollar they have to spend maintaining those
networks is by definition a dollar they can't spend deploying
fiber that would allow them to compete with others.
And so that is why I have said that, look, if we want to
have more broadband competition, let us have a level playing
field, regulatorily speaking, in which every single provider
has the strongest possible incentive to deploy fiber to the
home to compete for that customer's attention.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. And I will just end on--Chairman
Wheeler, thank you for your work on 911. I am glad we talked
prior, and I look forward to getting together with Ranking
Member Eshoo to----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. There is always work to be done in this----
Ms. Eshoo. Right.
Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Field, and----
Ms. Eshoo. Would you yield just----
Mr. Shimkus. I would----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. For----
Mr. Shimkus. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Ten seconds? Thank you. I thank the
gentleman, and we are going to work together on that. How does
the Commission come up with the amount of what a fine is going
to be? I mean, in one case it is $100 million. You just
mentioned $2 million. These are considerable sums, so how do
you--do you have a set of rules around that, or----
Mr. Wheeler. For some kinds of issues, such as Lifeline,
there is a schedule. For others it is, again, a totality of the
circumstances kind of a situation, where you make a judgment
call.
Ms. Eshoo. And your department----
Mr. Shimkus. My time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Makes the call?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Walden. Time has expired. Now go to the gentleman from
Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I thank both of you for
joining us today.
Chairman Wheeler, universal service, a really important
issue, and I know that you have been implementing some reforms,
and I am asking you to tell us what is the status of that, and
what are you doing to make sure at the FCC that public
resources are being responsibly used? And, actually, you can
both answer that.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman, because Commissioner
Pai and I share the belief that he has been talking about here,
insofar as the dichotomy between narrow band and broadband, and
that needs to be fixed. I think I go a little further in my
approach than Commissioner Pai does. I have developed what I
have now started calling the Walden Rule, because----
Mr. Walden. Please.
Mr. Wheeler. Because I read the other day that you said,
Mr. Chairman, ``that USF should spend money where no one else
will spend''. And that is a core principle. And as this
Committee has been telling us so often, you need to review what
our rules are.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. The fact that we are spending money to
subsidize the telephone company around Disney World, just
because we always have, doesn't make a lot of sense. We just
had a man in Hawaii go to jail for tax fraud. He is a recipient
of rural universal service funds, and it ended up that he was
charging his family's education expenses to universal service,
and people were having to pay for it. We ought to have some
standards for what is in OPEX. We ought to have some standards
for what is in CAPEX.
I was just asked the other day to approve a waiver for a
universal service trial to a company that could not produce
audited financial statements. That is wrong. This isn't my
money. This is the people's money. We need to get it out. That
is why Commissioner O'Reilly, Commissioner Clyburn, and I are
working together on a bipartisan package of reforms for how we
are going to deal with making sure that rate of return carriers
have what Commissioner Pai I think has called a two track
solution, and that is that we have a model that deals with the
new broadband realities, and then we have a review of what the
standards ought to be for the old system.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. And we are moving down that path.
Mr. Welch. Let me hear a little from Commissioner Pai.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I think you captured the sentiment
perfectly in your opening remarks, when you said that, when it
comes to broadband, rural service should be there, and be high
quality. And that is exactly why I have proposed this plan, to
make sure that, when it comes to rural Americans, we don't
leave them on a so-called slow lane when it comes to broadband.
We give them the exact same opportunity they would have whether
they were in Montpelier or in New York City.
And my concern, however, is that, given the timeframe that
we have committed to, which is to get this done by the end of
the year, I think it would be better to embrace the approach
that Congressman Cramer, and over 100 other members, including
20 members of this Committee, embrace, which is to have a
targeted solution to the standalone broadband problem. I
completely agree with the Chairman, there are abuses in the
system that need to be corrected, and I stand willing and able
to work with him and the other Commissioners to change that,
but we can't let the necessary and the perfect be the enemy of
the good.
Mr. Welch. Well, thank you very much. The other thing,
Lifeline, my view is that it is a really important program, but
there is fraud, there is abuse. And one of the things that
happens around here is that, out of frustration, when there is
fraud and abuse, sometimes we attack the very existence of the
program, rather than reform it. And I think where there is
bipartisan agreement is that anything we can do to limit fraud
and abuse, obviously, we want to do. What is the progress on
Lifeline?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Welch. The----
Mr. Welch. And that is for both of you.
Mr. Wheeler. We are going to have a rulemaking on Lifeline
hopefully before the year is out. It depends on the comments
and everything that we receive. And it begins with overhaul.
There are two problems with Lifeline. One, it was designed
wrong; and two, it was overseen wrong. Other than that,
everything is fine. But it was designed wrong.
I must say, this was put in place by a previous
administration, which we have inherited. It is ridiculous to
have the people who are benefiting from the receipt of the
funds be those certifying that the folks--get them to the right
folks. It is ridiculous that you not require those people who
are receiving the funds to keep records. On the administration
side, it is ridiculous that you not have a database for
duplicates. So what we have done, since we came in, 25 percent
reduction on expenditures on Lifeline. 20 million people who
were inappropriately on it are no longer on it. And $100
million in penalties.
So we have done what we can to fix the oversight. What this
rulemaking is going to do is continue that, and fix the
underlying rule problems.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. My time is up, but I don't know if
you want to let Commissioner Pai add anything?
Mr. Walden. He might address the eligibility database. I
don't think we got to that. Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I obviously support the Chairman's
vision, at least, of having a more fiscally responsible
program. My problem, however, is that we didn't adopt some of
the more basic reforms. For example, capping or putting a
budget on the program, as every other universal service fund
program has. Targeting broadband adoption, which is really the
critical issue, we want these funds connecting people who are
offline to help them get online. But currently 34 percent of
American households, over 40 million households, are eligible
for the program. And so if we are going to modernize the
program to target broadband, let us make sure we have fiscal
responsibility measures in place, and let us make sure we
target the help to people who really need it. And that is, I
think, an important conversation to have.
Mr. Walden. What about the eligibility database? Where are
you on that?
Mr. Wheeler. So----
Mr. Pai. Sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Wheeler. Go ahead, no.
Mr. Pai. No, after you.
Mr. Wheeler. The duplication database is working quite
well. Insofar as the eligibility database, the issue is our
ability to get access to data held by state agencies, and we
are in the process of working our way through that.
Mr. Walden. That is something we need to get done,
obviously.
Mr. Wheeler. I agree.
Mr. Walden. I will go now to the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Lance, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Pai, I
want to speak with you about the FCC's recent order regarding
TCPA. You stated in your dissent that the attempt to modernize
it, ``is likely to leave the American consumer, not to mention
American enterprise, worse off''. Can you elaborate to the
Committee how you believe the Commission may not have gotten
this correct, and what it should have done to protect the
American consumer?
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I begin
from the premise that unwanted robocallers are a plague on the
American consumer. I don't want to get those calls, I know the
Chairman doesn't want to get them. Nobody wants to get them. My
problem, however, with the Commission's order is that it takes
us in the opposite direction. For one thing, it exempted entire
industries from the TCPA. So now, for example, the prison pay
phone industry can robocall you. Additionally, it dramatically
expanded the range of devices that are now considered to be
auto-dialers. So now, if you use your smartphone to make a
telephone call, that is technically an auto-dialer, subject to
the TCPA.
Similarly, it opened the loopholes for reassigned numbers.
There are 37 million numbers that are re-assigned every single
year. A lot of legitimate businesses have no reason to know if
they have that number in stock, and they have the prior phone
number's owner--the consent of that owner--they have no reason
to know that that number has been reassigned, unless they can
face TCPA liability. Those are the kinds of loopholes that I
think are simply going to generate even more litigation, and
litigation has already become a flood. There were 14 class
actions filed in 2008. Last year alone there were something
like 1,918. And so my concern is that we are opening up a lot
of these loopholes.
At the same time, we are not cracking down on the really
bad actors, which are the unwanted robocallers. For example, we
didn't create, contrary to what I would have preferred, a safe
harbor for carriers to allow them to develop technology to
block foreign robocallers. We didn't take more aggressive
enforcement measures, despite the fact that we got 96,000
complaints last year for violations of the Do Not Call
registry. In the first 7 months of this year, even though I
called for it in January, we have had one citation from the
Enforcement Bureau against the Do Not Call registry violators,
and that is unacceptable to me.
Mr. Lance. Why do you think the Commission did not have a
safe harbor rule?
Mr. Pai. I am not sure why, to be honest with you. But what
I can tell you is that it has created tremendous uncertainty
among the host of legitimate businesses that have their
consumers' consent, and want to communicate important
information. Everyone from restaurants to the Los Angeles
Lakers have faced class action lawsuits for trying to
communicate with people who have voluntarily communicated with
them.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Chairman?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Lance. Several things. First of
all, let me just go down Commissioner Pai's list. Exemptions,
we wanted to make sure that there were opportunities if your
doctor, or a hospital, needs to do something because of a
medical emergency, or your bank needs to contact you because of
fraud, or something like that, that there should be those kinds
of exemptions, and they are not big loopholes.
Secondly, you get to make one mistake, and discover that
the Lance phone has been transferred. You don't have to do this
three, four, or hundreds of times, as some people have. You can
say, ``excuse me, this is not the number,'' and just provide
notification.
Thirdly, it was the Congress that created the private right
of action, and that is something that is a decision that is out
of our hands. But to your key point about the safe harbor and
the carrier solution, specifically we address that, because the
carriers were saying to us, ``we are afraid to offer blocking
services, because you might charge us with blocking calls,
doing just that,'' which would be a violation of our rules. And
so we amended the rules to say, ``no, that is not a
violation.''
And we now have a workshop coming up where we are bringing
the carriers, and other affected parties, in to sit down to
say, ``OK, exactly how do you do it?'' Because how you handle a
VOIP call is different from how you handle a TDM call. And how
do you put those in place? We have said to the carriers, ``our
rules now specifically allow you to block calls where you are
requested by consumers. Please do.''
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Any sur-rebuttal, Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I would simply point out that the
safe harbor wasn't given enough granularity, to say the least.
And if a carrier is willing to trust an agency that has proven
itself to be more than willing to fine a company up to $100
million for a violation of rules that don't exist, I would urge
them not to rely on a safe harbor that doesn't provide much
guidance at all.
Mr. Wheeler. You are not encouraging folks not to not black
calls? Are we together on the fact that, yes, we want them to
be blocking calls?
Mr. Pai. On that we agree, which is precisely why I
proposed that the agency create a very detailed, specific
guideline for how the safe harbor would operate.
Mr. Wheeler. I don't want to send mixed messages--say, no,
we can't do it because there is----
Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time has expired, and thank you
for the rebuttal, the sur-rebuttal, the sur-sur-rebuttal, and
the sur-sur-sur-rebuttal.
Mr. Pai. And feel free to call either one of us at home if
you would like to follow up.
Mr. Wheeler. That is right.
Mr. Walden. I have got a pre-recorded message we will----
Mr. Wheeler. That is right.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Send you. I do think there are
issues the Committee will proceed to talk about on this issue,
though, as it relates to democracy and----
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walden. We will go now to Mr. Loebsack of Iowa for 5
minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really just want to
come back to one issue that was already brought up, and have
you elaborate a little bit on that, Mr. Wheeler. But before I
actually ask that specific question, I always just like to talk
about rural broadband, as you might imagine, both of you, and
just how important it is for places like Iowa, but not just
places like Iowa, just all over the country. And I know we have
bipartisan support to make sure that we have rules in place,
make sure that we have programs in place, incentives in place,
to expand that broadband availability to so many folks around
the country.
We know it is an economic development issue. We know it is
a health issue when we talk about the spectrum, for example,
issue for hospitals, making sure that--I heard from someone
this morning about that, making sure that they have the
broadband available, and makingsure that they can do what they
need to do for their patients.
We know it is important for education. I often talk about
the University of Iowa, how they have a program where they
offer AP classes, but it doesn't do any good in those rural
areas if those folks cannot access what the University of Iowa
offers. And we know that farmers, it is very, very important
for farmers to be able to have access to broadband so they can
make decisions, obviously, for planting, and for their
businesses in general, and on and on and on. I was in
Centreville, Iowa for one of my 24 town hall meetings on
broadband--small town, and there were 27 people at that meeting
on a weekday afternoon at 2:00 in the afternoon because it is
just so absolutely critical for them to be able to have this
broadband coverage.
So really my question goes back to what I think was already
mentioned. You know, earlier this year 115 members, myself
included, wrote to you, Chairman Wheeler, urging reform of the
portion of the high cost program that supports small rural
broadband providers so that they could receive USF support for
lines, over which customers opted to purchase only broadband,
rather than traditional voice service, as is the current
practice. The rural broadband industry submitted a data-only
broadband reform plan to the FCC in 2013, but the FCC has not
yet acted on this plan. Are there issues with the reform plan
specifically proposed by the Rural Broadband Industry that
prevent the FCC from acting on it as proposed? And if you could
just elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. There are something
like 114 different carriers in Iowa. You represent the poster
child of the rural challenge for rate of return carriers. And
it is outrageous that if you live in rural America you are 30
times more likely not to be able to get broadband as if you
live in an urban area.
So there are two components. One is dealing with things
through the price cap carriers. And we recently released what
will be $10 billion over 6 years to seven carriers to build
their facilities. I love seeing the headlines that pop up
across the country that we get in our report that so-and-so
carrier announces they are going to spend $27 million to bring
broadband to this area, as a result of our funds.
Then we go to the rate of return carriers. The challenge
with rate of return carrier, and how we deal with it, is that
the program has been in place for so long, and the
circumstances have changed over that period. Now, as I say, I
agree strongly with Commissioner Pai that this bifurcation
between narrow band and broadband doesn't make any sense, but
we have got to do better than just slapping that Band-Aid on.
We have to be saying, ``how do we make sure that we can bring
this whole program forward?''
So we sat down with the rural carriers to say, ``how can we
do that?'' And to try and reach a consensus, because there are
a couple of rural carrier associations who don't agree with
themselves, as you know, how do you do that? It is encouraging.
Everybody has agreed on this two prong process that I laid out
a minute ago. And I am optimistic that Commissioner O'Reilly,
and Commissioner Clyburn, and myself, who are all working
together with the rural carriers to come up with a package
proposal, will be able to get this done, and that we will be
able to live up to the commitment that we made over in the
other body to have it done by the end of the year.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you,
Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognize
the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here. And my first question is for Commissioner Pai, and
it is three parts. I will ask, and if you need it repeated, I
can do so as well, but this all flows together. But why do you
oppose putting broadcasters in the duplex gap, and why is it
important to minimize the number of broadcast stations placed
in the wireless portion of the 600 megahertz band after the
incentive auction? And I can stop there. I will go ahead and
give you the three, and see--maybe you can answer one. Why do
you believe it is preferable to put broadcast stations in the
uplink portion--or the wireless band, rather than the downlink?
And you have suggested that the Commission hold an en banc
hearing to discuss issues related to the 600 megahertz plan.
Why do you such a hearing would be helpful?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, thanks for the question. I was
transcribing as quickly as I could, so if I miss one, please
let me know. In terms of putting broadcasters in the duplex
gap, one of the things that a typically disparate industry, as
the wireless industry, the broadcasters, and unlicensed
advocates agree on, is that placing broadcasters in duplex gap
would be a terrible idea. Wireless companies don't like it
because it would impair downlink spectrum, which they have told
us is more critical for them, in terms of meeting consumer
demand. Broadcasters have told us it is not optimal because the
duplex gap is the only exclusively reserved spectrum for
wireless microphones, which a lot of broadcasters rely on, and
unlicensed advocates have told us as well that if you have a
full powered broadcaster out there, unlicensed devices will get
drowned out. And so that is part of the reason why I have said
consistently that we need to do what the record suggests, and
that is moving them somewhere other than the duplex gap.
That raises the question, well, where do you put them? And
as between the downlink and the uplink, I don't think there is
any question, certainly not in terms of the record itself, that
there is tremendous opposition to putting them in downlink. If
you think about it, everyone carrying a smartphone around now
relies tremendously on downlink spectrum. We are always
downloading things from the Internet. So putting a broadcaster
in the downlink--first of all, it will impair a lot of the
spectrum that is slated to be sold at auction and make it a lot
less appealing. Secondly, it will end up causing tremendous
problems, in terms of interference between broadcast and
wireless.
And here the 700 MHz auction is really a cautionary tale.
Think about all the efforts that the Commission had to deal
with because we had broadcasters in channel 51, and we had
wireless carriers in the adjacent A block of the 700 MHz band.
Those issues took a long time to resolve, and it was really
challenging. Here we are talking about co-channel, in addition
to adjacent channel interference. Plus, remember, this is the
last spectrum auction, hopefully, we are going to have in some
time with respect to this band, so broadcasters placed in
downlink will be there essentially permanently. So this is not
a problem we will be able to work around.
So that is why I would prefer, based on what I have seen in
the record, to place broadcasters, if they have to be put in
the wireless band, to be placed in the uplink. Wireless
carriers have told us it is technically preferable for a couple
of reasons. First, they can minimize the amount of--or they can
minimize the problems it would cause, in terms of interference,
because you could just simply put a base station filter on. It
would be a lot easier, since base stations are smaller in
number, fixed in location, as opposed to putting a filter on a
mobile device, which everyone is carrying around, and is always
moving.
So in terms of the en banc hearing, which I think was your
third question, one of the reasons why I think it would be
helpful is that the Commission has simply not made available
enough data, in terms of the simulations for these clearing
scenarios, the data, and the assumptions that underlie those
simulations. And we have heard from everybody, from unlicensed
advocates, to broadcasters, and wireless carriers, we need more
data, and we need to give you more meaningful input before you
make a decision.
And so that is why I thought, let us just bring them all
into a room, let us have everybody participate, and so then we,
the Commissioners, can have a fully informed discussion before
we vote on August 6, or whenever it is, to make sure that the
band plan is right. I mean, Congress only gave us one chance to
get it right, and if we don't, then I am afraid the cost could
be substantial.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I am going to try to get another question
in, and for Commissioner Pai as well. So you said hopefully
this is the last spectrum auction for a long time, I think you
said?
Mr. Pai. With respect to 600 megahertz, yes.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, do you believe enough is being done to
ensure there is a long term national strategy to make
additional spectrum available for commercial use, and if not,
what else do you believe should be done?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question. I think, consistent with
what the Chairman has said, what Congresswoman Matsui and
Congresswoman Blackburn have said, we need to make sure that
there is more spectrum in the pipeline. I look at, the
proliferation of broadband as a consumer, and I think that is a
great thing. I look at it as a Commissioner, I wonder, how are
we going to supply this spectrum that all these devices
connected to the Internet are going to need? And that is part
of the reason why I have been so bullish about getting more
licensed and unlicensed spectrum out there.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you think congressional action is needed?
Mr. Pai. I think in some cases it might be. With respect to
Federal users in particular, it would be very helpful. And I
know that you and Congresswoman Matsui have been leaders on
that, and I thank you for that legislation.
Mr. Guthrie. Chairman Wheeler, I only have about 20 some
seconds, but to comment on what he was about, the national--
more available spectrum?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. May not be enough time.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir, and I would like to identify with
what you and Congresswoman Matsui are doing. And, if we get a
chance, I would like to also respond to your first question as
well.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. I only have 9 seconds, so I yield back,
sorry.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
Ranking Member. I, of course, thank our panelists this
afternoon for your updates regarding the agency's activities.
I have a few concerns that I would like to have you
address, and one of them worries me a bit, and it is what is
not in your testimony, it is how the Commission will address
continuing challenges in diversity and representation in the
media and telecom industries. We are in the 21st century. We
look at our nation, and its diversity, and I think there is a
widespread acknowledgement that what we see, in terms of
industry, is really just not reflective of who we are as a
country.
So I would like to ask, first of all, Chairman Wheeler,
where is the Commission's focus on the completion of the
diversity studies, and how can this data be used to create more
nuanced and tailored policies and reforms that advance equity
and inclusion? And second to that is what metrics and
accountability structures are in place to ensure that
vulnerable populations and their communities will be adequately
served through these proposals?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke. The media
report that I had promised to the Committee by the middle of
next year will include a topic on diversity. It has, frankly,
been an issue that has caught up previous reports. I think that
there are a couple of things we can take up. There is a
substantial increase in the number of broadcast licensees since
I became Chairman, minority broadcast licensees in large part,
because of what we did on the JSA rules. Those rules were being
used to keep opportunity away from minority entrepreneurs and I
am proud of that effort.
Secondly I think we all have to recognize, as a point that
Mr. Latta was raising previously, the importance of how the
television business is changing, and the opportunity that is
reflected by over the top providers. There has been a
difference up here on whether we ought to do what this
Committee did for direct broadcast satellite for over the top.
And that is to say that you can't hold content back. You can't
have various leverage points, because I think over the top
programming creates incredible new opportunities for
minorities.
And lastly, we have been talking a lot about the designated
entity rules and the wireless auction. I feel strongly that
what this Congress asked us to do was to create opportunities
for minorities, women, and rural individuals to participate in
wireless. That is what we did in the DE rules. The suggestions
that have been made by my colleagues on the Republican side
actually would have limited the ability for real live DEs,
rather than hypothetical DEs, to participate.
Ms. Clarke. So on the subject of DEs, and Commissioner Pai,
excuse me, I will have you respond as well. It appears that we
have probably cracked the code of only one part of supporting
small businesses, gained access to capital to enable to compete
in the wireless industry. How can the Commission facilitate
more secondary market transactions for DEs and other small
businesses, especially those owned by women and minorities,
with the private sector?
Mr. Wheeler. Were you addressing that to him? So I think
that we need to make sure that--again, the JSA rule was very
helpful in that regard, and has performed as expected. We have
made it clear that when broadcast licensees come in for
transfers, and they are complying with the rule which says that
they can't now have control of multiple licensees in a market,
that we will look favorably upon them selling those assets to
minority entrepreneurs. And, in fact, that has been successful.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman. Commissioner, I have run
out of time, but hopefully we can get a response from you as
well. Thank you.
Mr. Pai. Right now, or for the record, or--whichever.
Mr. Walden. Probably for the record, because I want to keep
moving forward, I think.
Mr. Pai. OK.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Olson from Texas, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome Chairman Wheeler
and Commissioner Pai. Since I have been on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, since 2011, consumer privacy has been a
focus of my work for the people of Texas 22. In the 112th and
111th Congress, that work was done on the Commerce,
Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee because they had
jurisdiction over the FTC. But the FCC has grabbed that
authority to regulate the broadband ISPs, taken it from the
FTC, and now it is with the FCC, and now it is under this
Committee's jurisdiction.
The good news is you haven't lost me. I am still with you.
But folks back home want to know why. What was the problem with
the FTC and broadband ISPs that forced this change? And a
matter of time, would you--Chairman Wheeler 1 minute, and you,
Mr. Pai, 1 minute to respond to his comments. Chairman Wheeler,
why was it changed----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. As you know, the FTC
Act, writ large, says that it does not have jurisdiction over
common telecommunications carriers--common carriers. And so
when we said that ISPs were telecommunications carriers, it
triggered that. What your constituents should know, however, is
that we work closely with the FTC, their jurisdiction, insofar
as its providers. And whatever we do on our privacy proposals,
which will be forthcoming in the next few months, we will do
our best to harmonize so that there is a common set of concepts
that govern privacy.
Mr. Olson. OK, great. That gave me some time back. Mr. Pai,
you response, Mr. Pai.
Mr. Pai. Congressman, unfortunately, the FCC's
reclassification of Internet Service Providers as common
carriers had a two-fold hit on consumers. First, it deprived
the FTC of jurisdiction, as the Chairman has pointed out,
because of the common carrier exemption, jurisdiction that the
FTC has explicitly been given congressional authorization for
under things like COPPA.
Secondly, because the FCC then arrogated that issue for
itself, unfortunately, our authority under the statute is
relatively circumscribed. As you pointed out, Section 222, CPNI
is a pretty narrow, arcane piece of the privacy puzzle, if you
will. So we don't actually have any rules in place.
And, moreover, the guidance, so-called, that we have given
out has been completely unhelpful. For example, in May of this
year, our Enforcement Bureau put out a guidance with respect to
privacy and it said, and I quote, ``The Enforcement Bureau
intends that broadband providers should employ effective
privacy protections in line with the core tenets of basic
privacy protections.'' What does that mean? I have no idea,
ISPs have no idea, consumers have no idea.
Mr. Olson. I have no idea.
Mr. Pai. And so I would rather have let the experts of the
FTC, who have protected consumers lo these many years, handle
this issue based on law that you have given them.
Mr. Olson. And so you believe it is important that the FTC
has expertise to handle these issues, as opposed to the FCC,
correct?
Mr. Pai. Expertise and legal authority, yes.
Mr. Olson. OK. And the Chairman talked aboutanother issue,
about privacy and edge providers. Chairman Wheeler, a consumer
interest group filed a petition asking you to start a
rulemaking to oppose consumer privacy protections on edge
providers. When are we going to see your response? Do you
believe that edge providers should have a different standard
protection than ISPs?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much, Congressman. First of
all, the Commission has, for decades, been enforcing privacy
under the CPNI rules on telecommunications carriers. So it is
not as though we fell into this patch. There is a long history
of privacy protection regarding telecommunications carriers.
Insofar as extending our jurisdiction to the edge
providers, I have said repeatedly that that is not our
intention. I don't know when the specific response to that
specific petition will be coming out. I will be happy to get
you a date. I don't know what the planning process on it is.
Mr. Olson. OK, thank you. Commissioner Pai, your response?
Mr. Pai. I think this is part of the problem. When the FCC
crossed this Rubicon on February. If you believe, as the
majority did at the time, that the Internet is a virtuous
cycle, and you have Internet Service Providers and edge
providers acting with one another to provide a better consumer
experience, it would seem to follow logically, then, that if an
edge provider is acting in an anti-competitive or anti-consumer
way, then why shouldn't the FCC have the jurisdiction to extend
those same rules to edge providers.
And, moreover, if you look at the Internet conduct
standard, it is not clear to me, a priori, why the FCC should
limit its focus on Internet Service Providers. You could easily
see a dominant edge provider engaging in anti-competitive
conduct. And so that is part of the uncertainty that,
unfortunately, the FCC opened up, and I hope we don't follow
that to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you both. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you and the Ranking Member for today's hearing. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioner Pai, I welcome both of you to today's
hearing. So good to see you once again.
Mr. Chairman, I want to lift up one of the most troubling
and egregious matters that is under the consideration of the
FCC. And I am referring to the prison phone call rates. I
understand that FCC is poised to make a ruling on in-state
phone rates for prison phone calls. That said, Mr. Chairman, we
must stop this immoral practice of avaricious greed and
unabashed exploitation of the poor, the very ones least able to
afford this phone rate robbery.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, once and for all we must do
away with the practice of site commission kickbacks, and we
must cap in-state phone rates. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the
prison call industry is a multi-billion dollar business. And if
there is any doubt, I want to call your attention to a recent
Huffington Post article entitled ``Prisoners Pay Millions to
Call Loved Ones Every Year. Now This Company Wants Even More''.
And this article referenced how Securus--a company called
Securus, the 7th largest company in the prison phone call rate
industry, Securus bragged to its investors about its $404.6
million future profits on the backs of the very same poor.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have been fighting this issue
for over a decade, and it is now time for the FCC to take
action, and rein in these predatory practices by capping the
rate at five cents per minute, and eliminating all ancillary
fees. But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, the FCC must also be
a step ahead of these predatory companies that are right now
trying to circumvent the laws by offering video phone calls at
the same predatory rates that they offer for telephone calls.
Mr. Chairman, my question is, when will the FCC rule on
this legalized telephonic terrorism?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. I agree, this
is a very serious issue, and people across America owe a huge
debt of gratitude to Commissioner Clyburn--this issue that had
been sitting on the desk of the FCC for 10 years, since Martha
Wright filed her first petition and brought it forward, so that
there was a decision about inter-state.
But you know what happens, is that whack-a-mole starts
getting played here. OK, we can't do it here, so we will move
it over here. Well, next month we have a decision on that, on
intra-state, that we are doing next month. The point that you
make about video phones is another legitimate point. The
reality here is that what we are talking about is a monopoly
that is granted to prisons to determine how people communicate.
And like any monopoly, it ends up being exploitive. And the
people who are hurt by that exploitation are the very people
who rely on it. And I can assure you, sir, that Commissioner
Clyburn keeps our feet to the fire on this, and that I am fully
supportive of her efforts.
Mr. Rush. That is good news, Mr. Chairman, and I am just
apoplectic about this situation. And I don't know--well, let me
move on. If I have--my time is up.
Mr. Walden. Time has expired. Yes, I should tell you, we
are going to do a second round of questions, so if you are here
for that, there will be more time. We will now go to the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Thanks to both of you for showing up today, and thank you for
your testimony.
Chairman Wheeler, in March we discussed public safety
interference complaint responses, and a resulting quarterly
report, which you thought was a good idea. I know you have
provided some information. Have you posted what you provided
the Committee on the Web site so the public can see what is
going on, and what you are doing?
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
Mr. Bilirakis. You have?
Mr. Wheeler. No, I am saying--would we, or----
Mr. Bilirakis. Have you posted online----
Mr. Wheeler. I can't answer that question specifically,
sir. I will get you the answer----
Mr. Bilirakis. Can you get that information----
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. To us as soon as possible?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. And if you haven't, I mean, can you
post that online as soon as possible?
Mr. Wheeler. I think that is a good point, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, very good. Commissioner Pai, there has
been a lot of attention and concern regarding the designated
entity auction rules. Do you believe there are now correctly--
are they now correctly balanced, and if not, what should be
done to fix them?
Mr. Pai. Unfortunately, Congressman, I don't think they
are. In fact, the agency has moved in the opposite direction.
My principle for this small business program is that it should
benefit small businesses. But, unfortunately, the agency,
having loosened some of the restrictions that were imposed on a
bipartisan basis several years ago, has now opened the door for
large corporations to abuse the program and, ironically enough,
squeeze out a lot of the small businesses, minorities, women,
and others, who need access to capital in order to provide
facilities-based service.
And we saw that in the most recent AWS-3 auction, where
small carriers tried to compete, but they weren't able to
because the deep-pocketed Fortune 500 corporation used shell
companies to prevent them from bidding. And that is part of the
reason why I proposed what I thought were pretty common sense
reforms. If you are making in the upper eight figures, you
don't need a taxpayer-funded discount in order to participate
in a spectrum auction. If you are a genuine small business,
with less than $15 million of revenue, you don't need more than
$50 million of taxpayer-funded bidding credits in order to get
spectrum at an auction. If you are a genuine business, you
should be able to provide facilities-based service, not simply
flip your spectrum to a large incumbent corporation the minute
the auction is over.
Unfortunately, they fell one vote short, all of those
proposals, which would, I submit, have restored public faith in
the small business program.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Chairman Wheeler, in the open
Internet order you committed to take steps to prevent increases
in poll attachment rates that might result from reclassifying
broadband. What steps have you taken since the order to prevent
such increases, and what additional steps are expected, sir?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. There is a proceeding
underway to do that that we started in the last 6 weeks, 8
weeks, somewhere like that. It is designed to make sure that
there is parity between telecommunications service and cable
service attachment fees.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Again, can you continue to update us on
this?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Appreciate it very much. All right, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. OK. Yes. So now we will go to--Mr. Johnson is
next----
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wheeler, in
a recent response to questions for the record as to whether you
think stakeholders who cannot afford to have regulatory lawyers
or lobbyists in Washington, D.C. should also have the same
access that other stakeholders have, you made a point that the
Commission does not have funding for routine field hearings,
and similar activities, yet your emissary, Ms. Sone, has been
routinely traveling to various events. In fact, it seems that
both you and Ms. Sone have been wheels up quite frequently in
your travels. So let me pose the question this way. Given that
you apparently have a robust travel budget, isn't the real
issue how you elect to spend the money?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. I think the people who
I keep turning down, saying ``no, I am not going to come
talk,'' would probably disagree. My travel is significantly
less than other members of the Commission but your point is a
well taken point, and that is that decisions get made. There is
a travel budget that each Commissioner has, and that is for his
or her discretion. There is not----
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, you have answered my question. It
really is up to your discretion on how you spend the money. So
could you let us know, for the record, how much the FCC has
spent on travel in fiscal year 2013, 2014, and 2015 so far?
Mr. Wheeler. By----
Mr. Johnson. Could you----
Mr. Wheeler. By Commissioner?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Get that back?
Mr. Wheeler. By Commissioner?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sure.
Mr. Johnson. OK, great. I would like to see that.
Commissioner Pai, I was listening closely to your discussion
with my colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, regarding the designated
entity program, and I am really struggling a bit with Chairman
Wheeler's decision to eliminate the attributable material
relationship rule, and the facilities requirement in the
competitive bidding rules for a couple of reasons, and you
pointed those out. You made a compelling case that this sets
the state for arbitrage.
So how are we going to prevent that from happening? What
actions does the Commission need to take to make sure that
these rural small carriers are able to get the credits that the
Designated Entity Program was designed to give them so that
they can serve those underserved, unserved areas?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. I think, to
be honest, we first need to return to the status quo, before
the most recent decision, and we need to adopt some common
sense reforms to make sure that large corporations don't game
the system again.
And to be sure the order did take some of these measures,
prohibiting a single corporation from using multiple bidders in
the same market and the same auction, but, that is low hanging
fruit that is already prohibited by the criminal anti-trust
laws. I am talking about genuine reforms of the DE Program to
make sure that the people who need the help, the people who
want to serve folks in Ohio, or Kansas, can be able to do that.
And I have proposed some of those reforms, such as limiting
the amount of bidding credits people can get, making sure that
large companies can't own a majority of a DE, making sure that
we preserve that AMR, as it is known, so that people don't end
up flipping all of the spectrum to the entrenched incumbents,
those are the kinds of common sense reforms that don't have a
partisan affiliation to them. And I wish the majority had
agreed with me.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, I can tell you that it is a real
concern for me, and I am sure for other colleagues that
represent rural areas of the country. I have got high school
students that don't have access to broadband Internet service,
and, as a result, they either have to go to a public library
nearby, or some other location, maybe to where they can get a
wireless signal or something like that, to do their homework,
to do research, to do that kind of thing. And this is 2015, for
crying out loud.
Mr. Pai. If I could just add a coda, one of the reasons why
the facilities-based requirement is so important is because in
a lot of cases the larger providers don't see the business case
in building out to that school, or to that area, whereas a
smaller rural provider, who actually does want to connect those
folks to the Internet wirelessly, they have a strong incentive
to make sure that those folks are connected. So when those
rural providers are squeezed out, because there is no more
facilities-based requirement, and speculators can come in and
take the spectrum and flip it to the big incumbents, that
really does impact those consumers.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. And now we go to the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today. Chairman Wheeler, on July 24, 4 days ago,
your agency announced that--granted with conditions approval of
the transfer of control licenses and authorizations from
DirecTV to AT&T. We hear much about your agency's 180 day shot
clock for reviewing such transfers, yet your agency's
conditional grant of approval took over twice that amount of
time, as you are well aware, over 400 days. I have got some
questions that I would like to have answers to. Number one,
what is the point of the shot clock?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, the shot clock is aspirational, to begin
with, but it is something that we try to manage to. The
difficulty in this particular situation was that we were hung
up by a court proceeding and a court Decision that itself took
as long as the shot clock. And that specifically dealt with the
kind of information that we could have on the public record. We
had to get through that before we could get through the
decision.
Mr. Long. Well, on the 170th day of the 180 shot clock your
agency stopped it for 3 months. What----
Mr. Wheeler. Because of the court Decision. We had----
Mr. Long. That was the same thing you are talking about,
the court----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Long [continuing]. Decision?
Mr. Wheeler. So the reality here is that there is right
now, pending before Commissioner Pai and me--have you--yet? I
mean, that is not a set up question. I don't know the answer to
it.
Mr. Pai. On what? I am sorry.
Mr. Wheeler. On the protective order.
Mr. Pai. I just saw it yesterday, so----
Mr. Wheeler. OK. So we have put out an order to outline how
you protect confidential information so that we can be in
compliance with the court so that this will not happen again.
And the absence of that was what held up this proceedings.
Mr. Long. OK. Commissioner Pai, same question to you. Do
you have the same opinion on why the shot clock was stopped at
the 170th day, or what the benefit of the shot clock is?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I do have a different view. The
agency inflicted a wound on itself, which is why the court had
to intervene. The court didn't simply, out of whole cloth,
decide to participate in this proceeding. What happened was, in
the context of that transaction and another transaction, the
agency decided to try to get all kinds of confidential
information from programmers and--without any kind of due
process. And so the programmers naturally sued.
I urged the agency to try to reach a settlement, because
this information wasn't really necessary to resolution of the
issues in the transaction, and a unanimous D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals agreed with me, calling the FCC's decision an
unexplained and substantial departure from previous policy. And
miraculously, even though they remanded it and told the FCC,
look, here is the road map you need to follow if you want this
information, despite having said the information was critical,
ultimately the agency didn't even seek it or rely on it in
making the decision. So that is why I said, look, the shot
clock needs to be more than aspirational, it needs to be a
rule. Just as there are 24 seconds in the NBA, there should be
180 days, period, for the FCC, with extensions for extenuating
circumstances. But, nonetheless, we need to give both the
public and the parties a lot of certainty as to how the FCC is
going to do----
Mr. Long. OK. Let me move on. I have got another question
here for Chairman Wheeler. 3 days prior to your agency's
conditional grant of approval of the transfer, control of
license and authorization from DirecTV and AT&T, the Department
of Justice announced that, after an extensive investigation, it
concluded that the combination of AT&T's land-based Internet
video business with DirecTV's satellite-based video business
does not pose a significant risk to competition.
Although the Justice Department closed its investigation
without imposing any conditions on the transaction, your agency
announced that it was imposing a number of conditions to
address potential harms presented by the combination of AT&T
and DirecTV, despite the Justice Department's view that the
combination of the two video businesses did not pose a
significant risk to competition. What significant risks to
competition did your agency identify that the Justice
Department apparently missed?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman, and we worked closely
with the Justice Department on this, and I don't think that
there was a sliver of light between us. The reality----
Mr. Long. And how can----
Mr. Wheeler. The reality----
Mr. Long. How can you say that----
Mr. Wheeler. Because we have a different test. We have----
Mr. Long. You have a what?
Mr. Wheeler. We have a different test. They have an anti-
trust test that they face. We have a public interest test that
we are supposed to measure by. So we have actually two
different standards that we measure to. And what was happening
here was that in about 25 percent of AT&T's service area,
DirecTV was a competitor to AT&T for video service. And so
eliminating that competition, the question became, ``does that
create an incentive, then, to eliminate broadband competition
as well?''
So what we required was that AT&T expand its broadband
coverage, which increased competition for broadband by a
significant amount, and created an opportunity for those video
providers not to have to go through an increasingly
decreasing--increasingly--a decreasing choke point----
Mr. Long. You just wanted to see if I was paying attention.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Insofar as----
Mr. Long. We have got a red light on our backboard. My 5
minute shot clock has expired, so I will be back for round two.
Mr. Wheeler. Good.
Mr. Long. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wheeler, the big
issue that I have been involved in is pirate radio, which you
may know. And back in early June pretty much every New York
member of Congress, as well as----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. New Jersey sent you a letter. And
while the issue may not be a terrible issue, in some parts of
the country, it truly is in New York City, as evidenced by--not
often can you get 27 members of New York to agree. Upstate and
downstate, we are like two different worlds. So to sum it up,
we are extraordinarily disappointed that the FCC has clearly
said it is not a priority. We just got the letter from you
yesterday.
And I understand budget concerns, and the point I want to
emphasize is this is an issue, even though it is not to you,
and you are the Chairman. We really don't appreciate you saying
that--as you put in here, the time and expense of pursuing
these cases present particular difficulties in the current flat
budget environment, where the Commission's staffing is at its
lowest point in 30 years. Overtime is less available, so,
accordingly, we must prioritize our work based on existing
resources and harm to the public. Thus, matters posing an
imminent threat to public safety, or directly harming large
numbers of consumers, must take precedence over other matters,
such as pirate radio.
So, I understand what you are saying, but what is the size
of your budget?
Mr. Wheeler. So that letter, and those particular words
which I wrote were not designed to say that this is a low
priority, but designed to say that first issue is public
safety. Pirate radio has to exist inside that, and I believe
that we have been very aggressive. During my Chairmanship, we
have had 200 private radio enforcements. In the last year we
have had 100 alone. And----
Mr. Collins. How many in New York, just----
Mr. Wheeler. I don't know the exact number, but I would say
maybe not--80 percent of those. And so what we have done is,
and Commissioner O'Reilly, when he was meeting with the New
York broadcasters, really focused on that, and he helped us
focus on that. So we formed an inter-agency task force, to work
with the NAB and the New York broadcasters on this issue to
make sure----
Mr. Collins. Well, so you had that meeting, and the fourth
point on that that came out was basically that you need more
folks in your local enforcement office. That point number four
of that hearing was additional FCC enforcement options.
Mr. Wheeler. That was one--right, that was one of the
things that they----
Mr. Collins. But in another hearing we talked about how you
have been reducing the local field offices, and pulling those
folks back to headquarters. And some of us would presume that
is to be ready to enforce Title 2, which we can disagree on as
well. But it seems a little disingenuous, and our big concern
is words are words, actions are actions, and the actions have
not convinced me, and I think other members, that it is at all
a priority. Your letter, while it said maybe someday, if we
have got nothing else to do, we will see what we might want to
find in pirate radio, that is--it is a low priority for the
FCC.
Mr. Wheeler. If that is how you interpret it, I apologize,
because that is not what was meant. So the New York office, the
Boston office, and the Miami office, which is where pirate
radio tends to exist--those three areas. This is a whack-a-
mole--I keep using the whack-a-mole today, but this is a whack-
a-mole kind of situation----
Mr. Collins. Well, sure, that is what pirate radio is.
They----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Where people keep----
Mr. Collins. Absolutely.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Moving around. So one of the
things I think that I encouraged in that letter is that
Congress can also be helpful, because we can go and shut
somebody down, and he or she moves to this spot, boom, they are
up again.
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. And we are just constantly chasing. If
Congress could also enact--make it illegal to aid and abet the
carrying out of this--and I think that is also what the NAB
group has recommended. If we can get at those who are aiding
and abetting--because there is a cabal that pulls this off,
right? Well, he moved to my apartment over here, you move to
this space over here. We didn't know anything about this. And
so there is a totality of the package here. I mean, 200
enforcements. We have a task force working on it. We could use
some additional authority so we could have some teeth.
Mr. Collins. I am about out of time, so two things. One is,
maybe this is a rhetorical question, but I will ask it. There
have been suggestions that the FCC has actually directed field
offices to step down and back away from enforcement. Any truth
in that?
Mr. Wheeler. I have heard that----
Mr. Collins. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Suggestion. I have not----
Mr. Collins. So I am going to put it right out here.
Mr. Wheeler. I have heard that suggestion. I have not seen
that command.
Mr. Collins. And it did not come from you?
Mr. Wheeler. Did not come from me.
Mr. Collins. Could you provide me the language that you
might suggest? Because I can appreciate--don't bring me a
problem without a solution. Can you bring me the language that
we might put in----
Mr. Wheeler. Great.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. To some other legislation that
would assist you on the pirate radio?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Collins. It is an important issue for us in New York,
and we just don't want to be the last thing on Friday afternoon
at 4:59, somebody said I have 1 minute until I go home, let me
see what I can do on pirate----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Radio. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank the Chairman, and the Ranking Member,
once again for suffering along with me as you wait for the last
questioner. And thanks to both of you as well. And thank you,
Commissioner Pai, for referencing the letter that 114 of my
closest friends and I sent to the Chairman and to the FCC
regarding standalone, and to both of you for addressing it so
thoroughly today. And I might just hone in a little bit on some
of the finer points regarding the timeline. Because in the
letter I received, Mr. Chairman, from you yesterday you often
referred to a lack of consensus. There seems to be some
consensus. You pledged that by the end of the year we will
solve this, but we need more consensus from stakeholders. As
you both know, of course, the community presented a plan in
2013, modified somewhat over the last couple of years to meet
moving targets.
I might ask you, Commissioner Pai, you have offered up I
think your quote there from your plan was simple amendments to
existing rules as an outcome. And one of the things I have
noticed around here, and I have certainly noticed in regulatory
bodies, having served on one, we can tend to complicate simple
things. My goal is usually the opposite of that. Are there
issues in the plan that prevent this from going forward, or
prevent us from utilizing that as the model, or are there other
issues that have caused this to take so long?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman, and thank
you also for your kind words about my proposal, which in turn
is modeled on your letter. Stepping back 60,000 feet, I think
the problem is basically this. There are a number of problems
with the high cost fund, A, B, C, D, E. Problem A, however, is
standalone broadband service, and my position has been
consistent with your letter, and a companion letter in the
Senate: let us adopt targeted changes to our rules to make sure
that rate of return carriers aren't penalized for offering
broadband as a standalone service. Now, that is not to say that
problems B, C, D, E aren't important, but, for the purposes of
this issue, standalone broadband service, let us get that piece
of it done, and then turn to the other issues.
Now as to the issue with the rate of return carriers and
the consensus, I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues to try
to find that consensus, but nonetheless, number one, it is not
necessary to resolve those issues, to adopt a standalone
broadband solution, and number two, if we end up waiting until
a consensus emerges on those other issues, I fear we are not
going to meet the deadline we set for ourselves publicly of
getting this done by the end of the year.
Mr. Cramer. Chairman Wheeler, can we meet the end of the
year deadline? Is there a reason we can't meet that, and are we
attaching too many other things to the simple solution?
Mr. Wheeler. Those are the two right questions.
Mr. Cramer. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. I am trying to do that. It is my goal to do
it. I expect to do it. A couple of points here. In order to do
that, you cannot be wedded to consensus. As you know from your
previous term, at some point in time you have got to pull up
and shoot.
Mr. Cramer. Indeed.
Mr. Wheeler. Boy, am I trying to get consensus. But if you
can't get everybody to agree at some point in time, we will put
forward a proposal on that in a timely basis in order to do
things by the end of the year. Because, at the root of this, is
that we have got to do better for rural consumers, period. And
it is not just one simple fix. It is a broader set of fixes.
Because I am in violent agreement on the narrow band/broadband
issue, but it is not enough.
And then we also have a responsibility to those people who
are paying for this every month in their phone bills, to make
sure that the money is spent responsibly. And I hope we have
consensus. I am working for consensus. But if we can't have
consensus, we need to have progress.
Mr. Cramer. Well, there are other issues the FCC has taken
up this year that I wish there would have been more consensus
on, so I don't want consensus to mean 100 percent, as you might
imagine.
Shifting, then, just a little bit with my remaining time,
we spent some time talking about, of course, the auction. I was
about to call it the voluntary auction. That is what it used to
be called. I think it still is. The word voluntary is how it is
often referred to, because, of course, it is, in fact,
voluntary, both opting in and opting out. And, as you know, the
$1.75 billion that Congress has put in for the repacking fund
is probably not going to be enough, considering that we are
looking at, what, 1,100, maybe, TV stations that are going to
have to involuntarily move.
Is there a plan to deal with that shortfall that I can
assure my rural North Dakota broadcasters that they won't have
to bear all the costs? Maybe Commissioner Pai first, and then
the Chairman with the remaining time.
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I have long suggested that we should
treat the 1.75 billion relocation fund as a budget at the FCC,
and structure the auction so as to minimize the possibility
that we would exceed it, and ultimately end up putting the onus
on the broadcasters to pay up.
The other issue that I have heard, most recently in
Nebraska from a group of broadcasters, is that the 36 months is
not necessarily as long as it might seem, that there is a
shortage of people who are able to do the work, there is a
shortage of the equipment that is necessary for the repacking
to be done, and that the Commission should be mindful of that
as well as it progresses. So I share your concern, and I want
to make sure that broadcasters, to the extent possible, are
held harmless, in terms of necessary expenditures.
Mr. Cramer. Chairman, do you want to speak----
Mr. Wheeler. I think Commissioner Pai has identified the
key issue, and that is we do need to make sure that we have to
live within a budget, and we want to manage things within a
budget. You gave us that number. We can't change that number,
and we have got to come up with a program that will make it
work.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. And if you hang around, Mr. Cramer, we are
going to do a second round. You could be, like, really quick on
the shot clock here. We are now going to go to the gentleman
from New Mexico, Mr. Luja AE1n, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having
us here today. Ranking Member Eshoo, it is an honor to be
with--here with both of you. Chairman Wheeler, Commissioner
Pai, thank you for joining us as well.
I appreciate the testimony centered around rural access. As
Commissioner Pai said, he is a rural guy, I am a rural guy. I
think Chairman Walden also represents a very rural district, as
we talk about many parts of the country that need broadband
access, and affordability. And you have heard me say this many
times, Chairman Wheeler, we can have connectivity at 30,000
feet when we are flying across the United States in an
airplane, there is no reason that we cannot have connectivity
when we are on the ground traveling all across America, not
only in rural communities, tribal communities, and states like
mine, in New Mexico.
With that being said, in New Mexico, for example, 77
percent of those living rural communities, and 89 percent
living in tribal communities lack access to advanced broadband.
Chairman Wheeler, as you said in your testimony, you have
pursued an aggressive agenda at the FCC that includes reforming
the E-rate Program, modernizing the Lifeline Program, and
establishing the Connect America Fund. Can you discuss what
this agenda means for people who lack sufficient access to
broadband and communication services, not just with buildout,
but also with making it more affordable so people are able to
take advantage once there is a buildout program?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman, and I hope
that we can do significantly better than the speeds that are
delivered in the air, and that is what we are doing. I have
been in New Mexico multiple times, in tribal areas, and other
very remote areas in New Mexico to personally visit and talk to
the individuals involved.
I remember a situation that--there was a fiber going down
this side of the road, a fiber on an Indian reservation, and
over here, about 100 yards away, was a high school, and up here
was the library. And they couldn't get a connection from the
fiber to the high school because it was cost-prohibitive, and
the E-rate Program wasn't paying for that. Now we pay for that,
and that is in large part because of these kinds of specific
examples that we have seen. We need to make sure this is the
case.
We also need to make sure that low income individuals who
are, unfortunately, disproportionately represented on tribal
areas have access to broadband support to connect them. And
that is why we are not only overhauling, but changing the
orientation of the lifeline program to go to broadband.
Mr. Luja AE1n. And, Chairman Wheeler, in all these areas--I
am going to submit some other questions into the record to
flesh these areas out, but, as we do this, I really appreciate
the conversation that we have had today, and the focus, and
seeing how we can grow the rural family as well, and see how we
get more attention there.
The other place that I want to complement both of you,
Commissioner Pai, Chairman Wheeler, and get your perspective is
on modernizing the FCC. You have embarked on expanding
electronic filing and distribution, decreasing backlogs, and
improving responsiveness to consumers. Can you both tell me
what you are doing to provide greater information to consumers,
including transparency and accountability, standardizing forms,
digitizing the process, including the submittal of documents?
Mr. Wheeler. Boy, am I glad you asked that question.
Mr. Luja AE1n. And you both support that effort?
Mr. Wheeler. The----
Mr. Luja AE1n. Yes, Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Yes?
Mr. Wheeler. On my first trip to our consumer operation in
Gettysburg, I saw in the corner a humongous machine that the
staff proudly announced to me could take 17 different forms and
put them into one envelope. And I said, ``well, why are we
sending out 17 different forms?'' And they said, ``well,
because that is the way we do it.'' So you contact the FCC on a
robocall issue, and we will send you the form for robocall, as
well as the form for loudness on commercials, as well as the
form for every other kind of complaint we had. And I said,
``wait a minute, we can do better than this.''
Mr. Luja AE1n. And those forms are required to be sent
back.
Mr. Wheeler. And the----
Mr. Luja AE1n. Those forms----
Mr. Wheeler. And I would talk to consumers who would say,
``what am I supposed to do with this? Which form am I supposed
to--? So we now have totally updated it and put it on the Web.
We just won a prize for being one of the best consumer
interface sites on the Web. And most of all, we are then taking
that information and putting it back into what should we be
doing to help us focus on our priorities.
Mr. Luja AE1n. That is great. Mr. Chairman, if there are
other areas that we can work on in this space, I look forward
to having those conversations. And if I am able to, because of
the length of the line, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the
second round----
Mr. Walden. Indeed.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Walden. I don't know if you can get there from here.
Which we are going to start now, so thank you.
I want to go back to this issue of LPTV and translators,
and maybe Commissioner Pai--Chairman Wheeler. There is all this
talk now at the Commission about setting aside an entire
channel for unlicensed. And I support unlicensed, we have made
a lot of unlicensed available, there is more to be done, but
won't setting aside a whole channel for unlicensed contribute
to the problem that we are hearing from translator and the LPTV
community? Commissioner.
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, it will by definition, to the extent
that a particular vacant channel is allocated solely for
unlicensed. In the TV band, that means an LPTV's station can't
occupy it post-auction.
Mr. Wheeler. In----
Mr. Walden. Chairman Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Reality, probably not, because
what we are talking about here are using TV white spaces, and
creating these kinds of additional applications for unlicensed
in those areas where the duplex gap is not sufficient. And that
is going to be a handful of areas that I doubt will be any
areas that are the typical LPTV rural kind of area.
Mr. Walden. So will you commit to LPTV and translators
having priority, then, over unlicensed?
Mr. Wheeler. No. We are going to--so it was really clear--
--
Mr. Walden. In the TV band?
Mr. Wheeler. I think that the mandate from this Committee
is clear. The mandate from this Committee is that there is no
priority given to LPTV.
Mr. Walden. True.
Mr. Wheeler. And the Committee also said, however, that we
need to be encouraging unlicensed. I don't think that it comes
down to that kind of a solution, though, Mr. Chairman, with all
due respect. I think that it is possible, and what we are just
breaking our tails on, is to be able to accomplish both of
these, and I think we will be successful.
Mr. Walden. Yes. I would say--my recollection of the
statute, which we together helped write here, was----
Mr. Wheeler. You wrote it.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. That unlicensed was never set
aside as a priority to go create a nationwide band. In fact, we
had a lot of discussion about that very fact, that you don't go
clear all this and then give it away to, in effect, some pretty
major operators. You know, Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. And this is part of the reason why I suggested
that we adopt a technically sound solution to where to put
broadcasters if we put them in the wireless----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Pai [continuing]. Band. If we put them in the uplink,
then we avoid this entire issue altogether, whereas in the
duplex gap, we not only impair unlicensed, which has to find a
home, but also downlink.
Mr. Wheeler. This is a really good point that Commissioner
Pai has raised, that there is serious concern on. So, first of
all, let us remember what we are talking about here--how do we
minimize the aggregate impact across the country? And that
means that in a handful of markets, it is a percentage that can
be in single digits, OK, that there is an issue. He is
proposing that you put it in the uplink, put the interference
in the uplink. What that does is knock out an entire bay
station.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. The impact is much broader.
Mr. Walden. I think you have got disagreement with
Commissioner Pai, but I am going to have to move along here. My
concern is there are a lot of--I hear from my colleagues all
over the west, there are concern these translators are going to
go dark because they are going to get squished out. And if they
get squished out because you created a whole band of
unlicensed, that only adds to the problem. And there is a
public interest obligation underpinning all of this at the
Commission to provide for.
Now, I realize they are not classy. I realize they don't
have all the rights, and all that. I was a licensee of
translators myself. I knew I could be pushed out. But through
this you have got some flexibility here to manage, and that is,
I guess, what we are calling----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we----
Mr. Walden. I want to switch gears to go to the TCPA issue
very quickly, because this issue of auto-dialer has come up.
And, in your order, you adopted a pretty broad definition of an
auto-dialer, although you acknowledged, and I quote, ``there
are outer limits of the capacity of equipment to be an auto-
dialer, and there must be more than a theoretical potential
that the equipment could be modified to satisfy the auto-dialer
definition.'' Is my iPhone an auto-dialer?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.
Mr. Walden. Then let me ask you this. There are at least
three apps that we found, Dial My Calls, Call Bot Automated
Calling, and Voxling that would turn my iPhone into an auto-
dialer.
Mr. Wheeler. So the issue that we were trying to deal with
in this order was not the hardware, but the impact, because
since Congress acted in 1991, the technology has changed. And
what Congress's instructions to us were is no contact from
auto-dialers without----
Mr. Walden. But----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Permission.
Mr. Walden. But my----
Mr. Wheeler. I am taking that----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Question to you, though, is if I
push somebody's name, Chairman Wheeler's--I don't ever dial
your number. I just push----
Mr. Wheeler. Correct.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Chairman Wheeler, and it dials. To
me--is that an auto-dialer?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.
Mr. Walden. OK. If I have a database of names that I want
to reach out to, let us say voters, and I want to turn them out
to vote, and I have a device that calls until somebody answers,
and then I can take the call, is that an auto-dialer?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. OK. So I no longer can do that? If I have a
tele-town hall in my office, which I do, and there is some
company that does--calls all those thousands of people in my
district, are they now prohibited from doing this?
Mr. Wheeler. Unless the consumer has asked to get this. The
statute is very explicit.
Mr. Walden. So tele-town halls now by members of Congress,
and most members do that, are now against----
Mr. Wheeler. All I am doing is----
Mr. Walden. No, I am asking you the question.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The statute. No, sir. That is
right.
Mr. Walden. So those are prohibited, and your contention is
always have been?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Wow. That is interesting. That would be news to
a lot of people. Commissioner Pai?
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the reason why it is
indisputable that a smartphone is an auto-dialer under the
FCC's new interpretation--if you look at the statute, it says a
capacity to randomly or sequentially dial a number. I
explicitly said capacity means the actual capacity. The
smartphone has, in itself, intrinsically, the ability to do
that. The majority rejected my argument and said, no, you could
download an app. There are all kinds of other things you could
do to effectively make the smartphone an auto-dialer, even if
it isn't intrinsically.
And that is part of the reason why literally every
communications device, other than a rotary phone, I give the
majority credit for excepting those, nonetheless is now subject
to TCPA liability as an auto-dialer. And that is not good for
consumers, that is not good for providers. It is not good for
anybody, other than trial lawyers.
Mr. Walden. Well, and we are hearing from others out there
who are--there is this issue with the health care exchanges,
and whether or not insurance companies can follow up and notify
you that it is time for you to come in and have some tests
done. I have been told that may be prohibited now. Are you
aware of that? Are you hearing those issues?
Mr. Pai. That is the first I have heard of it, but it
doesn't surprise me, because now we have seen it from a number
of different industries. They are just uncertain about what the
rules of the road are.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. So understand what we were doing, Mr.
Chairman, was responding to a series of petitions. We did not
issue a rule. People petitioned us and said, ``what is the
rule?''--what does your----
Mr. Walden. Right, but you interpreted.
Mr. Wheeler. And if somebody wants to petition us on the
kinds of things you talk about, we can deal with that.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. On the health care issue one, we specifically
had an exemption for bank fraud, health care, things like this.
And for government agencies.
Mr. Walden. And with changing technology, 40 percent of
Americans no longer have a land line, right?
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Mr. Walden. I know you spoke out and said, basically,
pollsters could go the way of blacksmiths, I guess.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, they have been right.
Mr. Walden. Well, I guess my point is--so that industry, in
effect, in terms of trying to do a random sample is now put out
this----
Mr. Wheeler. But----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. In this effect, right? How do you
do a random sample on a poll if you can't randomly sample and
dial?
Mr. Wheeler. So I once sat down with Peter Hart to write a
piece----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Exactly on that, insofar as
wireless, because you can't get to the wireless numbers.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. You don't know what they are. So that went by
the board. The issue here is, if you come to us and you say,
the statute says, which it does, that the only folks who are
allowed to be called are those who want to be called----
Mr. Walden. Got it.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And I am supposed to be a strict
constructionalist of the statute----
Mr. Walden. Well, we have seen some examples by the Court
where they would disagree with your interpretation of statute
on other issues----
Mr. Wheeler. Let me----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Rather violently and directly.
Mr. Wheeler. And you are constantly encouraging me to be a
strict constructionalist.
Mr. Walden. Well, I think we are just figuring out the
impact----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I understand.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. Of your ruling as it relates to--I
have gone way beyond my time, but I will now defer to my
colleague from California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is an
important discussion, and I think that we need to talk about
this some more, because what went into the statute was like
holding a mirror up to the country at that time.
Mr. Wheeler. In '91, right?
Mr. Walden. In '91. That is a long time ago. That is many,
many moons ago, when you think of how many generations of
technology changes have taken place. So whether someone wants
to be a strict constructionist or whatever, I think that we
have to have the elasticity to stay up with the times. I mean,
each one of us represents 750,000 people. Now, maybe we have
got to reach out to every single one of them if we possibly
can, but, in my view, meeting with people relative to a
telephone town hall meeting has been overwhelmingly embraced.
Not just accepted, but embraced by my constituents. Plus it
saves tons of money, and they get to just ask whatever they
want. So these are, I don't think they would be satisfied--
well, this is what the statute says. I think they would say,
change whatever you have to change, but keep up with the
changes that are taking place. So it is important.
Since we are going into a second round, and maybe it is
just the Chairman and myself. No, that is--two others? Good,
Billy and Ben. I want to talk about your budget. The House
appropriators have really screwed the FCC, in plain English, in
my view. And I don't think it is funny, I think it is serious.
We had members asking questions today about travel budgets. I
think that whatever you do, and however you do it, it would be
interesting to see if it tracks along with what--how members of
Congress are allowed to handle their MRA. I don't know, but it
may be something for us to discuss. Now, the fiscal year
appropriations bill has $315 million in it. That reflects a cut
of $25 million below the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, and
$73 million below the request. Now, they also have placed in
riders relative to net neutrality and all of that.
Now, what I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, is have
you had conversations with the appropriators? Is there anyone
from the majority here that has been asked to lean in with the
appropriators? I mean, we are constantly putting on the FCC,
and in oversight, all of these issues come up. I don't know who
is going to do this work and follow up with every member's
request about what they want? You wanted to close offices,
members said don't close them, we need them open. But, I mean,
there are so many things that are reliant on dollars. And I am
not talking about having a load of extra dough. I am talking
about the agency being able to carry out its responsibilities.
So what I would like to know from you is, have you had
conversations with the appropriators on the majority side? Have
you had conversations with the majority side here to see what
can be worked out with the budget?
I don't know, these riders, the President is not going to
sign something like that. And at the end of the day, I think
that the appropriations process is so messed up around here
because we don't have regular order, speaking of transparency,
and process, and all of that, that we are going to end up with
an omnibus bill. And I think that is what is going to happen.
So compare and contrast what your present budget is, because an
omnibus doesn't really allow for that much more, and address
for us any conversations, or how you are following up with
whatthe appropriators did to the budget of your agency.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have had
conversations with everybody who will listen, and some who
won't. And I mean that only in a flippant remark. I am----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Not saying people aren't
listening. We have talked to this Committee, we have talked to
their Committee. I was honored that the Chairman came to the
Appropriations Committee, which I think--the first time that I
have ever known that a Chairman has actually come----
Mr. Walden. Second time. I was there last year.
Mr. Wheeler. I missed you, then. I was--sorry.
Mr. Walden. I was right behind you and waving.
Mr. Wheeler. OK. So that he has got a record now for twice.
Ms. Eshoo. But that is not the point.
Mr. Wheeler. But the----
Ms. Eshoo. I want to know about the money.
Mr. Wheeler. But, yes, we have to live with the number that
the Congress gives us. It is that simple.
Ms. Eshoo. Have you, in response to what the appropriators
have done--and I don't know, Mr. Chairman, were you there to
support the appropriators in cutting the budget, or against it?
Mr. Walden. I was there to listen to the appropriators----
Ms. Eshoo. I see.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. You didn't testify?
Mr. Walden. No. No, I was there to hear what they had to
say.
Ms. Eshoo. I see. Have you come up with--you know what I
would like to ask you to do? Two things. What you will be able
to do----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. With a budget that is reduced by 25
million----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. And the top line things that you
have to do. We have got to move forward with the voluntary
auction, and all the top line items. And also, if we have an
omnibus bill, what that does. And I look forward to reviewing
that. I think it should be sent to everyone on the----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Committee.
Mr. Wheeler. We would be----
Ms. Eshoo. I would really like to see that, because----
Mr. Wheeler. Do you mean----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. We are walking into something that
I think the members of this subcommittee, that have oversight
responsibility, are going to have to understand, that we either
have to curb our appetite for giving the FCC assignments that--
if they don't have the dollars to carry them out, then they
don't have the dollars to carry them out. Something has going
to go.
Mr. Wheeler. I will tell you one interesting thing. We are
currently at the lowest number of full time employees in modern
history for the agency.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Thank the gentlelady. Now go to the gentleman
from Missouri, Mr. Long.
Mr. Long. I was very impressed that I got to follow the
Chairman for the first time----
Mr. Walden. You hang around long enough----
Mr. Long. Felt kind of like Sally Field. I thought, they
really do like me. Then I looked around and no one else was
here, so--Commissioner Pai, I have got a question for you. It
has been reported that the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau has
acknowledged that many of his cases fall into the legal gray
area where companies might not even realize they are doing
anything wrong. I know you have raised concerns about this. Can
you kind of explain your concerns, and what could be done to
address them?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. I think,
unfortunately, many of the FCC's more high profile enforcement
initiatives have betrayed that basic principle of due process,
and that is not an FCC law. That is going back to King John
signing the Magna Carta 800 years ago this summer at Runnymede.
And I think part of the reason why I have been so outspoken
about it is that if private actors, from companies all the way
to individuals, don't know what the rules of conduct are, then
they have no reason to know that their conduct is violating
what the FCC thinks should be the rule.
And with respect to certain notices of apparent liability
the agency has issued, it is almost more a quest for headlines
first, and we will figure out the law later, if at all. But
that has it precisely backwards. To me, we should look at the
facts, we should look at what the law is. If there is a gap in
the law, let us change it to make sure that people are abiding
by what we think is proper conduct. But we can't sanction
somebody for violating a rule that they have no reason to know,
or don't know, exists.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And, Chairman Wheeler and
Commissioner Pai, to the two of you, I am curious about the
Broadcasters Relocation Fund, and how those monies are going to
be spent. The fund is currently at $1.75 billion, as you know,
and obviously that fund was set up to pay for all of the
relocation costs to the broadcasters you are required by the
FCC to move to a new channel as part of the auction. After
examining these issues for the last few years, has the FCC
determined how many stations it is able to re-pack with that
$1.75 billion fund?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman. It is a moving target,
depending upon the characteristics of who participates in the
auction. Do you have to move an antenna? Do you have to build a
taller antenna? How far do you have to move it?
Mr. Long. Now, can you give me a ballpark on the number?
Mr. Wheeler. I can get back to you with one, sir. I don't
have one on the top of my head. But what we have tried to do is
to develop a set of rules that can live inside of that, and so
let me get you the number we use for denominator in that.
Mr. Long. OK. I would----
Mr. Wheeler. Because I don't know it off the top of my
head.
Mr. Long [continuing]. Appreciate it. And, Commissioner
Pai, same question to you.
Mr. Pai. I have heard estimates that it will cost somewhere
north of $3 billion to relocate all the broadcasters. And, if
that figure is correct, and we only have $1.75 billion in the
relocation fund, then it necessarily follows that broadcasters
would be out of pocket for that extra $1 \1/4\ billion. And
that is something that I hope to avoid, and certainly I am
willing to work with you and the Chairman, and my colleagues,
to make sure that doesn't happen.
Mr. Long. Well, do you have any estimate on the number that
the $1.75 billion--that is the number I am trying to get to,
how many that would cover?
Mr. Pai. No, unfortunately, I don't, because, as the
Chairman pointed out quite eloquently, there are a lot of
moving parts to this, and every broadcaster is unique.
Mr. Long. OK. Because I have heard some figures, and I have
difficulty believing that $1.75 billion will cover the
estimated number that they are talking about. So if both of you
could get back to me on that, I would appreciate it. And I am
going to yield back with a minute 37 to go.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja AE1n.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Thank you, Chairman Walden, and I would like
to associate myself with the questions that both Ranking Member
Eshoo and Chairman Walden were asking pertaining to what
appears now to be our inability to reach out to the American
people to be able to get feedback from them.
Chairman Wheeler, as we talked about these telephone town
halls, when I travel the 13th Congressional District of New
Mexico, especially in rural communities, one of the things that
I hear from members of the community that I represent was
sometimes I have to travel 3 or 4 hours just to get to town
centers, not even city centers, is how much they appreciate
being able to weigh in.
So if the rule requires them to opt into this program, how
would we reach out to seven, 800,000 constituents for them to
opt in? We can't sent them an e-mail because, based on a 2015
press release coming from the FCC, only 48 percent of those
making less than $25,000 have broadband service at home. And so
if we can't reach out to them to opt in, do I send them a
letter, which is what the FCC is working against? You don't
want to be sending letters and forms out to opt in, and then
you would have to check a box yes or no, and then you get the
letter back in. I certainly hope that we can look at this to
see how we can address this. And I know it is something that I
visited with Chairman Walden, and with Ranking Member Eshoo,
with both the majority and minority staffs on this, so I look
forward to working with you on that as well.
With that being said, just some additional questions about
broadband penetration. There has been a little bit of
conversation today about broadband, and, Chairman Pai, do you
see broadband penetration or accessibility in rural parts of
the country to broadband as a necessity or a luxury?
Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, thanks for the question. As I
said in response to Congresswoman Eshoo earlier, my goal has
been always to make sure that any American anywhere, whether it
is on tribal land in New Mexico, or somewhere in my home state
of Kansas, anyone who wants digital opportunity, in terms of a
broadband connection, should be able to get it. And that is why
I have laid out proposals on rural broadband, on e-rate, on
wireless infrastructure, on 5 GHz spectrum, to make sure that
we have a bunch of competitors out there all competing to
provide every American with that opportunity. And as far as the
semantic classification of it, that is something that I will
leave to wiser minds than myself, but my focus----
Mr. Luja AE1n. But with the semantics associated with the
difference between necessity and luxury, how would you
characterize the importance of accessibility to broadband in
rural parts of the country?
Mr. Pai. I think it is absolutely critical, and one of the
things I have enjoyed in this job is having a chance to travel
to small towns, from Diller, Nebraska, to Fort Yukon, Alaska to
be able to see how people have used broadband to get
opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. I am sure this is
the case in your district, but I have seen it in a lot of rural
districts that if people don't get that high speed connection,
they will move somewhere else. They will move to another state,
or a bigger city to get it. And that is unfortunate, because I
think there are a lot of ideas in rural America that are
probably withering on the vine for lack of that broadband
connection.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Yes.
Mr. Pai. And that is something that I am passionate about,
and I would be more than happy to work with you----
Mr. Luja AE1n. I appreciate that, yes. Well, I would
characterize it as a necessity, not a luxury. I really
appreciate you considering it or characterizing it as
absolutely critical. I would agree with that assessment as
well.
With that, Commissioner Pai, as we look to the Lifeline
Program as well--and in the testimony that--or your dissent to
the 2015 order, in it there were some concerns associated with
the cost to the program to date. And in your dissent you did
recognize that there had been some reforms, that we looked back
to 2012, understanding that in 2005, 2008, we saw a
transformation of Lifeline that went from land line phones to
being able to go into mobile phones, and now into smartphone
apparatus. Since then, in 2012, the Commission came forward
with a unanimous opinion, which resulted in a reduction of $214
million in savings in 2012, with a substantial projection going
into 2014. I am trying to still get the numbers on what those
realized savings were as well.
But in your dissent you also listed a concern where there
were providers that were signing people up fraudulently, which
we need to crack down on, and we share that concern. But in the
2015 order that you dissented, there was a reform in there that
did state that we would--that the FCC would remove the ability
for providers to sign people up for Lifeline--or for
verification.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Luja AE1n. Is that something that--with that principle,
is that something that you agree with, and were there other
areas that you disagreed with in the order? But is that
something that you could agree with that we could work on
together?
Mr. Pai. Well, I would love to work with you on that, and I
do think that verification is a critical issue. I think one of
the problems that I cited in my dissent is the fact that fly by
night operators, like Icon Telecom in Oklahoma, they just
created so-called Lifeline customers out of whole cloth, got a
lot of money for doing it, and the CEO ended up pocketing $20
million, and spent it on his own private expenses. And that is
something we need to weed out. We need more enforcement action,
we need to reform the rules, and we need to have that
conversation about how to have a fiscally responsible program.
Mr. Luja AE1n. And so I appreciate the reforms the
Commission has put in place. The last question I have is, is
$1.6 billion the right cap? Because you and I share a concern
with broadband availability in communities, but I would hope
that we both would agree that it is not just accessibility from
an infrastructure perspective to broadband, it is also an
affordability question in many rural parts of the country. What
is the right number for a cap, and should it be arbitrary, or
should it be based on data?
Mr. Pai. I do believe it should be fact-based, and that is
part of the reason why I suggested a cap or a budget of $1.6
billion, because the program was at $800 million in 2009. It is
now at $1.6, and that is the only one of the universal service
fund programs that isn't capped. And so what I suggested was,
we need to have a balance here. We need to make sure that we
target the people who are offline in the Lifeline Program.
We also have to make sure that we are responsible stewards
of the consumers' tax dollars. After all, this is paid for by
consumers, and $1.6 seemed to me to be a good conversation--a
good starting point to have.
Mr. Luja AE1n. But $1.6 is based on last year's numbers.
The only data associated there is that is what the number
rounds up, and year to year that number changes, understanding
that the inflation from 2008 to 2012 was because the reforms
were necessarily in place that helped us back that number down
with the reforms in 2012, and the recent actions by the FCC in
2015.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is an area maybe where we can work
on it together as well, but I look forward to have more
conversations in this space as well. Thank you for the time,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, and we appreciate your
participation, and that of our witnesses. And, speaking of
outdated data, just in closing, the quadrennial review I
referenced in my opening statement is now--I think the last one
we got is probably 8 years old, so I hope the Commission will
deal with the quadrennial ownership report on a basis as
required by statute. AM modernization is still something high
on a number of our priorities, and on the de-stack issue, we
ask in stellar that the Commission deal with the downloadable
security issues, and it appears that Committee was given
direction to work disaggregation of data on a video stream. So,
again, we are after the downloadable security issue.
I have one letter to put in the record from Care Payment,
without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. And I think you heard, Mr. Chairman, bipartisan
concerns here on TCPA. We realize you are implementing the law,
it appears a law that was created back in '91, when you got
charged for incoming phone calls. Nobody is talking about
robocalls here for cell phones. None of us want that. But I
think there is an issue here where we need to take a look at
that law.
So, with that, thank you for your diligence, and your
patience, and with that, subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
With communications and technology issues touching nearly
every part of our 21st century economy, these sectors need a
fair, consistent, and transparent regulator. I think it's a
good sign when we're having a healthy debate about the tough
questions before the commission--it means the system is
working. On the other hand, recent breakdowns in collegiality
and last-minute data dumps into the record erode and needlessly
distract from the commission's important work.
A number of significant decisions were considered in the
past year, and even more are on the horizon. For example, there
is substantial work that must be completed before the incentive
auction can take place. Proposals about the auction, such as
the proposed duplex gap, have raised concerns among all
participants that, without appropriate resolution, could
threaten the auction's success.
Real reforms, including a funding cap, must be made to the
Universal Service Fund to ensure ratepayer dollars are spent
wisely and the program is sustainable for years to come.
Additionally, the chairman's plan to start a rulemaking on the
commission's privacy authority under the new net neutrality
rules represents fertile ground for the temptation of agency
overreach--a temptation that must be resisted. How the
commission addresses these issues will tell us whether real
progress is obtainable.
As we continue our oversight of the Federal Communications
Commission, I remain concerned that little has improved since
our last oversight hearing in March. Our work to institute real
process reforms has traversed multiple chairmen and comes from
our desire to guide the agency in a direction that works for
the American people and enhances innovation, investment and
jobs creation.
It has been my hope that working together we can make the
FCC a shining example of an effective, transparent, and
apolitical government agency. As a Cubs fan, I still have hope.
An FCC at its best is one that will benefit folks in Michigan
and across the country as we continue to innovate and create
jobs in the 21st century.
I look forward to Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner Pai's
take about how we can make that happen. The American people and
our nation's economy deserve better than what we have seen.
Let's make sure they get it.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]