[Senate Hearing 114-228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-228
NOMINATION OF HON. JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
TO BE COMMISSIONER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 28, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-712 PDF 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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 28, 2015................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 3
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 17
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 19
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 20
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 22
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 24
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 25
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 28
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 33
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 36
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 38
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 41
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Letter dated October 28, 2015 to Hon. John Thune and Hon.
Bill Nelson from Maya Wiley, Counsel to New York City Mayor
Bill de Blasio............................................. 44
Witnesses
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Biographical information..................................... 6
Appendix
Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, prepared statement. 49
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jessica
Rosenworcel by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 49
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 50
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 51
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 52
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 53
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 55
NOMINATION OF
HON. JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
TO BE COMMISSIONER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Ayotte,
Fischer, Moran, Heller, Daines, Nelson, Cantwell, McCaskill,
Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Booker, Udall, Manchin,
and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. This nomination hearing will come to order.
Today, we welcome Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to
testify before the Committee as we consider her nomination to
serve a second term at the Federal Communications Commission.
Today's appearance by Commissioner Rosenworcel marks the
third time she has testified before the Committee this year,
and I know the Committee appreciates her willingness to come up
to the Hill to answer questions on a variety of issues before
the Commission.
Commissioner Rosenworcel has been serving as a Commissioner
at the FCC since May 2012, and, before that, she served as a
senior staffer on this committee for both Chairman Rockefeller
and Chairman Inouye. So she is a well-known individual to many
of us on this committee.
Every single American relies in some part on the nation's
vast communications system, and this system binds together our
21st century society. Congress has charged the FCC with
regulating interstate and international communications by
radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Moreover, the
mandate of the FCC under the Communications Act is to make
available to all Americans a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and
worldwide wire and radio communications service.
Our communications system is absolutely vital to the
nation's economy, so it is critically important that those who
lead the FCC do so by exercising regulatory humility, promoting
economic growth, trusting technological innovation, and working
within the framework provided by Congress to make world-class
communications available to all Americans in both rural and
urban areas.
Commissioner Rosenworcel has served during an eventful
period at the Commission. Perhaps most significantly, the FCC
voted along party lines to burden the Internet with Title II
common carrier regulation in February of this year, one of the
most polarizing and partisan decisions in the agency's history.
As I said at the time, the tech and telecom industries
agree on few regulatory matters, but there was one idea that
unified them for two decades, and that was that the Internet is
not the telephone network, and one cannot apply the old rules
of telecom to the new world of the Internet.
I believe there should be clear rules for the digital road,
with clear authority for the FCC to enforce them. And that is
why I sought and am still seeking to work with my colleagues on
a bipartisan basis to find consensus on a legislative solution
to preserve the Open Internet. And I will be asking
Commissioner Rosenworcel about this path forward.
Another important issue that I want to bring up today is
about an anomaly in the Universal Service Fund rules that
Commissioner Rosenworcel and her four colleagues on the
Commission made a commitment to me in March to fix by the end
of this year. This anomaly requires a rural consumer to buy
voice service from a small rural telephone company in order for
that carrier to be eligible for USF support.
I led a letter earlier this year, along with Senator
Klobuchar and 65 additional senators, calling on the FCC to
make this fix. It is now October 28, and I hope that
Commissioner Rosenworcel can provide an update on the progress
of the FCC in satisfying the commitment that she and her
colleagues made back in March.
Having said all this, I would like to thank Commissioner
Rosenworcel for her regular engagement with the Committee and
her willingness to serve another term at the FCC, and I look
forward to her testimony today.
With that, I am going to turn now to our distinguished
ranking member today for any remarks that he would make.
Senator Schatz?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Chairman for calling today's
confirmation hearing.
We are here today to consider the renomination of an
outstanding public servant, FCC Commissioner Jessica
Rosenworcel.
Welcome back, Commissioner Rosenworcel. It is good to see
you again. I want to congratulate you on your reappointment to
the FCC and thank you for your continued commitment to public
service.
Since joining the Commission in 2012, you have taken a
thoughtful approach to issues, helping the Commission to take a
light regulatory approach that encourages innovation, protects
consumers, and promotes investment and competition.
You have also been a leading advocate for kids. Your focus
on the homework gap has helped us all to think differently
about connectivity and the need to ensure that children have
access to the tools that they need to succeed at school in the
digital age.
And, finally, when you testified a few months ago in front
of this committee, you proposed many innovative spectrum policy
ideas to address the growing demands for wireless broadband.
Your ideas have helped to shape the upcoming incentive auction
and will help to frame the FCC's future work to promote 5G
wireless service and enable the Internet of Things.
With the pace of technological change and the growth in
demand for a variety of new communications tools and services,
the FCC must be agile within the policy framework established
by the Congress.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, you have demonstrated that
agility, and we are grateful for your service on the
Commission. Thank you for appearing before us here today, and I
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this committee can act quickly to
confirm the Commissioner's nomination for another term.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
And I want to turn now to our colleague on the Committee,
Senator Blumenthal, who is here to introduce Commissioner
Rosenworcel this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
this opportunity to introduce a friend, and I count her as a
colleague but, most important, a fellow Connecticut native.
Commissioner Rosenworcel hails from Connecticut, and it is a
great honor and privilege to welcome her here today.
And I want to thank her particularly for her very diligent
and dedicated work on behalf of a wide variety of issues and
people who are important to this committee, this Congress, and
the American people. Emergency responders, our schools,
everyday consumers have been priority.
And I want to thank her for joining me in Connecticut to
highlight the importance of avoiding cramming charges, which
has been part of her very important work on the Commission,
and, just 7 months later, joining me to urge that telephone
companies offer consumers new tools to block robocalls.
Those are just two examples of how she has helped consumers
and the people of Connecticut and our country, and also serving
as a tireless advocate for public safety officials, helping to
update the FCC's 911 rules to keep communities safe and
protected.
For children, as my colleague Senator Schatz mentioned, you
have also been a very steadfast advocate. And you have been, in
fact, the leading thinker at the FCC on creative ways to update
spectrum policy for both licensed and unlicensed use.
So I join in urging your swift confirmation. I certainly
will be working hard on your behalf. And I am honored to
introduce you to the Committee today. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
And we will turn now to Commissioner Rosenworcel.
Welcome, again, back to the Committee. We look forward to
hearing what you have to say today.
STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Thune, Senator Schatz, and members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today for my renomination as a Commissioner at the
Federal Communications Commission.
I joined the Commission a little over 3 years ago, and for
5 years before that I had the honor of serving this committee
as Senior Communications Counsel. As Senator Thune noted, I
worked for Senator Rockefeller and Senator Inouye and had the
privilege of assisting many of you who continue to serve on the
Committee today.
As a result, I am well acquainted with this room and the
deliberations of this body. But I can assure you that sitting
at this table is humbling.
I want to start by introducing my family. Sitting behind me
is my husband of 15 years, Mark Bailen. And sitting beside him
are our children: Caroline Frances, age 8, and Emmett Joseph,
age 5. They are our sweetest accomplishment and greatest joy.
And though they are not here today, I also would like to
note my parents, Elliott and Willa Rosenworcel, who are at home
in Hartford, Connecticut. Let me also note my brother, Brian
Rosenworcel, who is touring the country as the drummer for the
band Guster. So my parents have the unique ability to claim
they have children who are a rocker and a regulator.
It is a tremendous honor to have been renominated by the
President to continue to serve as Commissioner at the FCC. That
is because we are in the early days of a communications
revolution. Network technologies are reaching further and
faster into all aspects of our civic and commercial life. They
are transforming the ways we connect, create, employ, educate,
entertain, and govern ourselves.
For the Commission, all of this change means humility is
required. It also means we must recognize what is time-tested
and enduring. That is why I believe the work of the commission
must be guided by four essential values that have informed our
communications laws for decades.
First, public safety. Our networks must be available when
the unthinkable occurs and we need them most.
Second, universal access. No matter who you are or where
you live in this country, for a fair shot at 21st-century
prosperity, you need access to first-rate, modern
communications. That means we need policies that foster
deployment and adoption in urban areas, rural areas, and
everything in between.
Third, competition. Competition increases innovation and
lowers prices.
Fourth, consumer protection. Communications services are
multiplying, but the marketplace is also bewildering to
navigate. So we should always be on guard for ways to help
consumers make good choices.
These values derive from the law, and they have informed my
work at the Commission to date. In light of them, I am
especially proud of agency efforts to strengthen 911 service,
and I am proud of our work to increase access to broadband in
schools and enhance opportunities for digital-age education.
I also believe our spectrum policies for licensed and
unlicensed airwaves have made our wireless markets competitive,
innovative, and strong. Moreover, our spectrum auctions have
raised billions for the United States Treasury.
I am also aware there is more work to be done to bring
communications policy into the future. That includes supporting
the world's first spectrum incentive auctions, managing the
impact of this transition on our Nation's local broadcasters,
and building on our wireless success with the next generation
of mobile service, known as 5G. It requires new ideas to spur
competition, spark entrepreneurship, incentivize the deployment
of new networks, and help bring the benefits of the
communications revolution to everyone, everywhere across the
country.
If reconfirmed, I look forward to working on these tasks
with my talented colleagues and the skilled staff of the
agency. If reconfirmed, I will continue to be guided by these
fundamental values in the law. And if reconfirmed, I will
continue to respect the priorities of this committee. I also
pledge to continue to listen to you, those with business before
the Commission, and, above all, the American people.
So, in closing, let me thank the members of the Committee
today for the opportunity to appear here, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Rosenworcel follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
for my re-nomination as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications
Commission.
I joined the Commission more than three years ago. For five years
before that, I had the honor of serving this Committee as Senior
Communications Counsel. I worked for Senator Rockefeller and Senator
Inouye and had the privilege of assisting many of you who continue to
serve on this Committee today. As a result, I am well-acquainted with
this room and the deliberations of this body. But I can assure you that
sitting at this table is humbling.
I want to begin by introducing my family. Sitting behind me is my
terrific husband of fifteen years, Mark Bailen. Sitting beside him are
our children, Caroline Frances, age eight, and Emmett Joseph, age five.
They are our sweetest accomplishment and greatest joy. Though they are
not here today, I also would like to note my parents, Elliott and Willa
Rosenworcel. They are at home in Hartford, Connecticut. Let me also
note my brother, Brian Rosenworcel, who is touring the country as
drummer for the band Guster. My parents have the unique ability to
claim they have children who are a rocker and a regulator.
It is a tremendous honor to have been re-nominated by the President
to continue to serve as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications
Commission.
We are in the early days of a communications revolution. Network
technologies are reaching further and faster into all aspects of our
commercial and civic life. They are transforming the ways we connect,
create, employ, educate, entertain, and govern ourselves.
For the Commission, all of this change means humility is required.
It also means we must recognize what is time-tested and enduring. That
is why I believe the work of the Commission must be guided by four
essential values that have informed our communications laws for
decades.
First, public safety. Our networks must be available when the
unthinkable occurs and we need them most.
Second, universal access. No matter who you are or where you live
in this country, for a fair shot at 21st century prosperity you need
access to first-rate, modern communications. That means we need
policies that foster deployment and adoption in urban areas, rural
areas, and everything in between.
Third, competition. Competition increases innovation and lowers
prices.
Fourth, consumer protection. Communications services are
multiplying. We are getting more value from them than ever before. But
the marketplace is also bewildering to navigate. So we should always be
on guard for ways to help consumers make good choices.
These values derive from the law. They have informed my work at the
Commission. In light of them, I am especially proud of agency efforts
to strengthen 911 service which have been informed by my visits with
first responders across the country. I am proud of our work to increase
access to broadband in our schools and enhance opportunities for
digital age education. I believe our spectrum policies--for licensed
and unlicensed airwaves--have made our wireless markets competitive,
innovative, and strong. Moreover, our spectrum auctions have raised
billions for the United States Treasury.
I am also aware there is more work to be done--to bring
communications policy into the future. That includes supporting the
world's first spectrum incentive auctions, managing the impact of this
transition on our Nation's local broadcasters, and building on our
wireless success with the next generation of mobile service--known as
5G. It requires new ideas to spur competition, spark entrepreneurship,
incentivize the deployment of new networks, and help bring the benefits
of the communications revolution to everyone, everywhere across the
country.
If re-confirmed, I look forward to working on these tasks with my
talented colleagues and the skilled staff of the agency.
If re-confirmed, I will continue to be guided by the fundamental
values in the law.
If re-confirmed, I will continue to respect the priorities of this
Committee. I also pledge to continue to listen to you, those with
business before the Commission--and above all, the American people.
In closing, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of
the Committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I look forward to answering your questions.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Jessica
Rosenworcel.
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: May 22, 2015.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
5. Date and Place of Birth: 7/12/71; Boston, Massachusetts.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Mark Bailen, Partner at Baker Hostetler; children:
Caroline (8) and Emmett (5).
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
Wesleyan University, BA, 1993
New York University School of Law, JD, 1997
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Senior Communications Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Commissioner Michael J. Copps,
Federal Communications Commission
Attorney, Drinker Biddle & Reath
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last ten years: None.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last ten years: None.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
Federal Communications Bar Association
Chair, Cable Practice Committee (2007-2008)
Chair, Legislative Practice Committee (2009)
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt.
Not applicable.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
$1000 Donation to Barack Obama Campaign in 2008.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
White Prize for Excellence in Economics, Wesleyan University
(1993)
Special Act Award for Contributions to Common Carrier Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission (1999)
Women Who Represent Award, Alliance for Women in Media (2013)
Leadership in Advancing Communications Policy Award,
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials
International (2013)
Impact Award for Public Service, National Hispanic Media
Coalition (2013)
Federal Policymaker Award, State Education Technology Directors
Association (2013)
Award for Excellence in Public Service, Consortium for School
Networking (2014)
Award for Outstanding Achievement, Family Online Safety
Institute (2014)
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Articles
As Commissioner I authored or co-authored the following:
``Transforming Education Digitally,'' co-authored with Rep.
Anna Eshoo, Politico (June 3, 2013);
``High-Speed Internet Access a Classroom Necessity,'' co-
authored with former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, San
Antonio Express (June 25, 2013);
``A Federal Wireless Policy Built on Carrots, Not Sticks,'' The
Hill (June 27, 2013);
``Giving Our Kids a Chance to Compete in the Global Economy
Means High-Speed Broadband Capacity,'' co-authored with
Mooresville, North Carolina School Superintendent Dr. Mark
Edwards, Huffington Post (July 24, 2013);
``Bring Wireless 911 Up to Date,'' The Hill (January 14, 2014);
``Growing Unlicensed Spectrum, Growing the Economy,'' Re/code
(February 21, 2014);
``Let's Upgrade Our Schools for the Digital Age,'' co-authored
with Rep. Doris Matsui and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson,
Sacramento Bee (April 25, 2014);
``Here's How to Expand Wireless Spectrum,'' co-authored with
Marty Cooper, San Jose Mercury News (September 26, 2014);
``Sandbox Thinking,'' Democracy Journal (Fall 2014);
``The Spectrum Pipeline,'' Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Gamechangers 2015 (Fall 2014);
``The Race to 5G is On,'' Re/code (October 27, 2014);
``A New Year, a Bolder and Better E-Rate,'' Huffington Post
(December 3, 2014);
``How to Close the Homework Gap,'' Miami Herald (December 5,
2014);
``Let's Give Our Students a Chance to Compete in the Digital
Age,'' co-authored with Senator Angus King, Roll Call (December
14, 2014);
``Limited Internet Access a Challenge for Detroit Kids,''
Detroit Free Press (March 16, 2015);
``Falling through the Homework Gap,'' Providence Journal (April
25, 2015); and
``Filling in the Homework Gap,'' Daily Press (May 30, 2015).
As Legal Counsel to the Wireline Competition Bureau I co-authored
the following:
``Assessing the Effectiveness of Section 271 Five Years After
the Telecommunications Act of 1996,'' co-authored with Daniel
Shiman, Chapter 7, Communications Policy and Information
Technology: Promises, Problems, Prospects, MIT Press (2002).
Speeches
As Commissioner, I have spoken at a variety of events, including,
but not limited to the following:
August 21, 2012--Speech at Association for Public Safety
Communications Officials International 78th Annual Conference,
held in Minneapolis, MN;
November 13, 2012--Speech on The Next Ten Years of Spectrum
Policy, Silicon Flatirons Conference sponsored by the
University of Colorado, held in Washington, D.C.;
November 15, 2012--Speech at The Media Institute Awards, held
in Washington, D.C.;
December 13, 2012--Speech at Practising Law Institute, 30th
Annual Telecommunications Policy and Regulation Institute, held
in Washington, D.C.;
February 4, 2013--Speech at Rural Telecom Industry Meeting &
Expo, held in Orlando, FL;
April 11, 2013--Speech at Washington Education Technology
Policy Summit, held in Washington, D.C.;
May 14, 2013--Speech at Association for Public Safety
Communications Officials International Policy Awards Dinner,
held in Washington, D.C.;
May 22, 2013--Speech at CTIA-The Mobile Marketplace, held in
Las Vegas, NV;
July 1, 2013--Speech at American Telemedicine Association
Policy Summit, held in Washington, D.C.;
September 19, 2013--Speech at It Can Wait Campaign's Drive 4
Pledges Day to Prevent Texting While Driving, held in
Washington, D.C.;
October 25, 2013--Speech at Women in Science Awards Ceremony,
held in New York, NY;
October 29, 2013--Speech at Future of Music Summit, held in
Washington, D.C.;
November 4, 2013--Speech at State Education Technology
Directors Association Federal Policymaker Award Ceremony, held
in Washington, D.C.;
November 14, 2013--Speech at Women Who Represent Awards, held
in Washington, D.C.;
November 21, 2013--Speech at White House Champions of Change
Event, held in Washington, D.C.;
December 4, 2013--Speech at Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials International Emerging Tech
Conference, held in Boston, MA;
December 12, 2013--Speech at Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Globecom Conference, held in Atlanta, GA;
January 24, 2014--Speech on Families' Educational Media Use in
America at The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, held
in New York, NY;
March 17, 2014--Speech at Satellite Industry Association
Leadership Dinner, held in Washington, D.C.;
March 7, 2014--Speech on Wi-Fi in the 5 GHz Fast Lane at the
National Press Club, held in Washington, D.C.;
March 7, 2014--Speech at South by Southwest Education
Conference, held in Austin, TX;
March 20, 2014--Speech at Consortium for School Networking
Award for Excellence in Public Service, held in Washington,
D.C.;
May 6, 2014--Speech on Moving Wi-Fi Forward at The Newseum,
held in Washington, D.C.;
May 7, 2014--Speech at Chief Officers of State Library Agencies
Meeting, held in Washington, D.C.;
June 19, 2014--Speech at Workshop on Prevention of Mobile
Device Theft, held in Washington, D.C.;
August 6, 2014--Speech at Association .of Public Safety
Communications Officials International Conference, held in New
Orleans, LA;
September 11, 2014--Speech on The Future of Unlicensed Spectrum
at the Computer History Museum, held in Mountain View, CA;
September 16, 2014--Speech on Latino 2.0: Latinos in Tech
Innovation & Social Media, held in New York, NY;
September 22, 2014--Speech at GSMA Mobile 360, held in Atlanta,
GA;
September 30, 2014--Speech on Sandbox Thinking at the Democracy
Symposium, held in Washington, D.C.;
October 2, 2014--Speech at the Marconi Society Symposium, the
National Academy of Sciences, held in Washington, D.C.;
October 14, 2014--Speech at 4G Americas Technology Briefing,
held in Washington, D.C.;
October 29, 2014--Speech at W3C 20th Anniversary Symposium: The
Future of the Web, held in Santa Clara, CA;
November 13, 2014--Speech at Family Online Safety Institute
Award for Outstanding Achievement, held in Washington, D.C.;
January 27, 2015--Speech at State of the Net Conference, held
in Washington, D.C.;
February 4, 2015--Speech at Texas Computer Education
Association, held in Austin, TX;
March 16, 2015--Speech on Supersizing Wi-Fi at South by
Southwest Interactive, held in Austin, TX;
April 29, 2015--Speech at Hispanic Heritage Foundation, held in
Washington, D.C.; and
June 1, 2015--Speech at M-Enabling Summit, held in Arlington,
VA.
As Senior Communications Counsel at the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I spoke at panels at a variety
of events, including, but not limited to the following:
June 8, 2007--Panel on communications issues at Pike and
Fisher's Broadband Policy Summit, held in Arlington, VA;
September 17, 2007--Panel on congressional issues at Future of
Music Policy Summit, held in Washington, D.C.;
January 28, 2008--Panel on congressional issues at Alaska
Telephone Association Winter Convention, held in Lihue, HI;
March 5, 2008--Panel on emergency communications at policy
conference sponsored by the E-911 Institute, held in Arlington,
VA;
March 13, 2008--Panel on communications issues at policy
conference sponsored by Association for Maximum Service
Television, held in Washington, D.C.;
January 5, 2009--Panel on Implementing the Broadband Stimulus:
Maximizing Benefits and Monitoring Performance sponsored by
Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and Georgetown
University McDonough Business School, held in Washington, D.C.;
April 2, 2009--Panel on congressional issues at The Cable Show,
held in Washington, D.C.;
March 31, 2009--Panel on legislative issues at the National
Association of Broadcasters State Leadership Conference, held
in Washington, D.C.;
May 14, 2009--Panel on Changing Media: Thinking Across the
Issues, Part 2, James L. Knight Foundation, held in Washington,
D.C.; and
March 2, 2010--Panel on The FCC's Authority, sponsored by the
Berkman Center for Internet & Society and The Wharton School,
held in Washington, D.C..
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
November 30, 2011--Nomination Hearing, U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
May 16, 2012--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation;
July 10, 2012--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy &
Commerce;
December 12, 2012--Hearing on Keeping the New Broadband
Spectrum Law on Track, U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Energy and Commerce;
March 12, 2013--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation;
August 19, 2013--Field Hearing on the State of Rural
Communications, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation;
December 12, 2013--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce;
March 18, 2015--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation; and
March 19, 2015--Federal Communications Commission Oversight
Hearing, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
I have nearly two decades of experience in communications policy. I
have worked on communications and technology matters from a wide
variety of positions-both in the private and public sector. This
includes positions in a law firm, as a Commissioner at the Federal
Communications Commission, and as Senior Communications Counsel at the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
I believe I have used this background to make a positive
contribution to communications policy in my current position and I look
forward to continuing to do so by protecting consumers, promoting
access to new services, and fostering investment and innovation.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
All government officials operate in positions of trust and have a
duty to ensure that the organization where they work has proper
management and accounting controls.
I have experience managing my office at the agency; managing
policies involving communications at the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and managing client matters at a
private law firm.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
Protecting consumers. As technologies evolve, one thing is
paramount consumers should be the ultimate beneficiaries of policy
choices by the Federal Communications Commission.
Securing access. As technologies evolve, it is imperative that all
people in this country, no matter who they are or where they live, have
access to the communications services that are necessary for 21st
century opportunity, safety, and economic security.
Growing economy. Digital services are now a vital feature of our
economy. Providing certainty to companies is an essential part of
promoting investment, fostering innovation, and creating jobs.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
None. My financial interests are disclosed on my SF-278.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain: None.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
None. My husband is a partner at Baker Hostetler. His practice
involves commercial litigation and does not include advocacy before the
Federal Communications Commission.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy.
I presently serve as a Commissioner at the Federal Communications
Commission. In this position, from time to time, I am asked my thoughts
on legislative matters pending before the Congress.
Previously, I served as Senior Communications Counsel at the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In this capacity, I
regularly advised Senate offices on communications policy and
legislation.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
Not applicable.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics,
professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special
Counsel, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were
an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency
proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please
explain: No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination. None.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
Resume of Jessica Rosenworcel
Legal and Policy Experience
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
Commissioner 2012-Present
Develop and implement communications policy involving radio,
television, wire, satellite and cable services as a member of the
United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and
technological innovation.
United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Senior Communications Counsel 2009-2012
Developed and implemented communications policy agenda for the
Democratic members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, under the leadership of Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West
Virginia). Organized hearings regarding the National Broadband Plan,
universal service and rural communications, Children's Television Act,
future of journalism, wireless service, communications accessibility
for the disabled, retransmission consent for video programming,
satellite television, public safety spectrum and oversight of the
Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and
Information Administration. Developed and worked to secure passage of
legislation, including the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DTV Delay Act, Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act, 21st Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act and Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless
Innovation Act.
Senior Communications Counsel 2007-2008
Developed and implemented communications policy agenda for the
Democratic members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, under the leadership of Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-
Hawaii). Organized hearings regarding the digital television
transition, broadband deployment and adoption, universal service, media
ownership, media violence and indecency, network neutrality, online
privacy and oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Developed
and worked to secure passage of legislation, including the Broadband
Data Improvement Act, DTV Transition Assistance Act, Child Safe Viewing
Act, and New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act.
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.
Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael J. Copps 2006-2007
Advised Senior Democratic Commissioner on television, radio and cable
policy issues arising under the Communications Act and Cable Television
and Consumer Protection Act. Developed office positions and strategy
for advancing telecommunications, Internet, wireless and media policy
priorities. Managed office staff. Provided legal analysis and voting
recommendations for Commission decisions. Drafted speeches, editorials
and press statements. Coordinated policy decisions with Congressional
offices, state and local officials and industry representatives.
Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael J. Copps 2003-2006
Advised Senior Democratic Commissioner on competition policy and
universal service issues arising under the Telecommunications Act.
Developed policy positions on broadband deployment, Internet access,
rural communications, public safety networks, E-Rate and VoIP. Provided
legal analysis and voting recommendations for Commission decisions.
Drafted Senate testimony, speeches and press statements. Coordinated
policy decisions with Congressional offices and state regulatory
authorities.
Legal Counsel to Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau 2002-2003
Advised Bureau Chief on universal service and broadband policy.
Coordinated wireline policy with Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Cable Services Bureau and International Bureau. Taught World Bank
telecommunications workshops for the Economic Ministry of Latvia.
Attorney Advisor, Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau 1999-2002
Managed teams drafting decisions concerning broadband deployment and
competitive entry into local and long distance markets. Recipient of
Special Act Award for policy contributions to the Common Carrier Bureau
in 2000.
Drinker Biddle & Reath, Washington, D.C.
Communications Associate 1997-1999
Drafted merger documents for privatization of state-owned telephone
company. Prepared Bureau of Export Administration license application
for cable modem encryption technology.
Reboul, Macmurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol, New York, NY
Summer Associate 1996
Drafted securities purchase agreements for venture capital and buyout
firm transactions.
United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY
Summer Fellow, Criminal Division 1995
Researched and drafted motions on issues of evidence, criminal law and
criminal procedure.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, NY
Legal Assistant 1993-1994
Managed litigation documents.
Education
New York University School of Law, New York, NY JD, 1997
Honors: Annual Survey of American Law, Editor
Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT BA, Economics and English, 1993
Honors: White Prize for Excellence in Economics
Publications
``Filling in the Homework Gap,'' Daily Press, May 30, 2015.
``Falling through the Homework Gap,'' Providence Journal, April 25,
2015.
``Limited Internet Access a Challenge for Detroit Kids,'' Detroit Free
Press, March 16, 2015.
``Let's Give Our Students a Chance to Compete in the Digital Age,'' co-
authored with Senator Angus King, Roll Call, December 14, 2014.
``How to Close the Homework Gap,'' Miami Herald, December 5, 2014.
``A New Year, a Bolder and Better E-Rate,'' Huffington Post, December
3, 2014. ``The Race to 5G is On,'' Re/code, October 27, 2014.
``The Spectrum Pipeline,'' Silicon Valley Leadership Group Gamechangers
2015, Fall 2014. ``Sandbox Thinking,'' Democracy Journal, Fall 2014.
``Here's How to Expand Wireless Spectrum,'' co-authored with Marty
Cooper, San Jose Mercury News, September 26, 2014.
``Let's Upgrade Our Schools for the Digital Age,'' co-authored with
Rep. Doris Matsui and Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento Bee,
April 25, 2014.
``Growing Unlicensed Spectrum, Growing the Economy,'' Re/code, February
21, 2014. ``Bring Wireless 911 Up to Date,'' The Hill, January 14,
2014.
``Giving Our Kids a Change to Compete in the Global Economy Means High-
Speed Broadband Capacity,'' co-authored with Mooresville, North
Carolina Superintendent Dr. Mark Edwards, Huffington Post, July 24,
2013.
``A Federal Wireless Policy Built on Carrots, Not Sticks,'' The Hill,
July 27, 2013.
``High-Speed Internet Access a Classroom Necessity,'' co-authored with
San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, San Antonio Express, June 25, 2013.
``Transforming Education Digitally,'' co-authored with Rep. Anna Eshoo,
Politico, June 3, 2013.
``Assessing the Effectiveness of Section 271 Five Years After the
Telecommunications Act of 1996,'' co-authored with Daniel R. Shiman,
Chapter 7, Communications Policy and Information Technology: Promises,
Problems, Prospects, MIT Press, 2002.
The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner.
We will go with 5 minute rounds, and I will start by asking
a question, as you might expect, about Universal Service Fund
rules, which currently require a rural consumer to buy voice
service from a small rural telephone company in order for that
carrier to be eligible for USF support.
If the same rural consumer decides to buy broadband
services only without a telephone subscription, the carrier is
no longer eligible to receive USF support for that subscriber's
line. This outcome stands in direct contradiction to a
broadband-focused Universal Service Fund.
On March 18, you and all of your colleagues on the
Commission made a commitment to the Committee to solve this
growing threat to rural communications by the end of this year.
Since then, it is my understanding that Chairman Wheeler
has chosen to broaden his scope to include updates to legacy
USF models and support systems. And while I am not opposed to
this action, I do not want a solution to the standalone problem
to be subsumed by the weight of a larger effort that may not
come together.
And so my question is, do you believe the Commission will
be able to keep its commitment to the Committee that it will
fix the standalone broadband problem this year? And will you
reaffirm your commitment to work toward that goal?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. We need to fix the problem
with standalone broadband for some of our Nation's rural
carriers. Through a technical and legal quirk today, we will
only offer them universal service support if customers order
both voice telephony and broadband service. That does not
reflect modern communications, and it is absolutely time for us
to fix it.
So, if reconfirmed, I will continue to press my colleagues
to get this done. Like you, I would like this done by the end
of the year.
The Chairman. I hope that you will make that goal and make
that deadline. It is important to a lot of us here on the
Committee and to a lot of people across the country that we
represent.
You serve as Chair of the Joint Board on Universal Service.
Last year, the Commission asked the Joint Board to provide
recommendations by April 2015 to modify the way that fees are
assessed to fund universal service programs.
We are nearly 7 months now past that deadline, and the
Joint Board has yet to act. Why has the Joint Board failed to
make a recommendation to the Commission on universal service
contribution reform?
Ms. Rosenworcel. You are right that I serve, Senator, as
Chair of the Joint Board. In the February Open Internet
decision, the Commission expressly extended the referral to the
Joint Board. As you probably know, under Section 254 of the
law, assessment for universal service is on the basis of
interstate telecommunications services. And we are charged with
making sure that that fund has specific, predictable, and
sufficient support.
The Joint Board is tasked with trying to figure out how to
update that support mechanism. But the underlying terminology
associated with telecommunications service is now the subject
of litigation in the court of appeals. So the Commission
decided that it would defer decisionmaking on that until the
legal environment is more stable.
But----
The Chairman. Are--go ahead. Well, I was going to ask, are
you concerned that the Title II order is not going to withstand
litigation fully intact?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I have no crystal ball when it comes
to the decisions of the D.C. Circuit. I have some confidence in
our decision as it was made, but I think, given that we are
resource-constrained, it would not be smart or prudent for the
agency or our state colleagues to work on this matter until we
have greater legal certainty.
The Chairman. If you are comfortable that the order is
lawful, it seems ironic that you would be concerned that it
won't be upheld in court. And that is, if the order, then, is
lawful, in your opinion, it doesn't seem like the litigation
ought to be used as an excuse to delay what are important
universal service contribution reforms.
And so I guess I would ask why, if, in your judgment, the
Commission acted in a lawful way consistent with the statutes,
you wouldn't want to proceed with this process?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I think we could continue to have
conversations about it, but I would like us to produce a
decision that we have confidence will be something that the
agency can take up and vote on at some point in the future. And
so we want to be certain that the statutory terminology is not
evolving but is sufficiently stable to support our
decisionmaking.
The Chairman. Have you, given your views about the Title II
order delaying this process, considered asking Congress for
guidance or offering recommendations to Congress that might
point to a way of resolving potential questions of commission
authority regarding universal service contributions?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good
point. Obviously, the universal service program we have is in
large part a creation of this committee back in the 1996
Telecommunications Act. And I think any guidance that you would
like to offer us with respect to both contribution and
distribution would be absolutely welcome.
The Chairman. And we would welcome your looking to us for
that direction, as well, and perhaps giving us your thoughts
about that.
I want to ask one final question on call completion. It is
something that a lot of consumer groups and rural customers
continue to report problems in receiving long-distance and
wireless calls on their home telephones.
And to address a lot of these problems, as you know, the
FCC adopted new rules last year, in November, that were
designed to improve the FCC's ability to monitor the delivery
of long-distance calls to rural areas and to aid in the
prosecution of violations of the Communications Act.
We are sort of well into that now, and I am wondering, with
these call-completion rules that have been in place now for
some time, what has the FCC discovered in monitoring the
delivery of long-distance calls to rural areas?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Rural call completion has unfortunately been a big problem,
and it is distressing to know that people will reach out to
friends and family in rural areas or try to make a business
connection or, worse, reach out for a public-safety call and
find that the call does not go through.
So the agency has issued a declaratory ruling to make clear
that failure to complete these calls is a violation of the law.
We have also gone after some bad actors. But, as you
acknowledge, the most important thing we did was we updated our
data collection so that carriers have a responsibility to
report to us on these matters. Our hope is, with more data and
more reports, we will be able to track failures to complete
calls and go after bad actors more aggressively.
The first filings with that new data collection were just
made, and we are reviewing them right now. My hope is we can
identify some patterns over time, figure out where the problem
is, and that we will have the record to bring this to a stop.
The Chairman. Senator Schatz?
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
The emerging budget deal asks NTIA to identify 30 megahertz
of Federal spectrum to be made available for commercial use. By
some accounts, that is about one-tenth of what the private
sector will need.
I think this is a pretty good start, but I am interested in
your thoughts about what more the Commission can do, what more
the Congress can do to free up more spectrum and possibly
generate more revenue for the Treasury.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator.
The wireless economy is growing fast. We all know that
intuitively, given just how often we reach for our phones and
our mobile devices. We now have so much more activity in our
airwaves, and if we want that growth to continue, we are going
to have to find more spectrum for it to do so.
I think the 30 megahertz that was in the most recent budget
deal is a start, but what we really need is a steady spectrum
pipeline that continues to provide us with airwaves for
licensed and unlicensed services to make sure the wireless
economy continues to grow.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
I want to talk about the homework gap again. I know you are
passionate about it. And what I would like for you to do is
describe it in as simple terms as you possibly can, on a kind
of human level, if you wouldn't mind, and then talk about what
the FCC is doing, can be doing, and what the Committee could be
doing to address this.
Because I find it, frankly, shocking that we are, in the
public and private school systems, assigning homework that
depends on the Internet and then not providing Internet access
to enable kids to do their homework.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
So when I was growing up, when I wanted to do my homework,
it required paper, a pencil, and my brother leaving me alone.
Today, more often than not, it requires the Internet. There are
studies that suggest that 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that
now requires Internet access.
But data from the FCC suggests that one in three households
do not have that access. And the Pew Internet in American Life
Survey has found that there are 5 million households with
school-age children in this country that do not have Internet
access. So just imagine what it is like to be a kid in one of
those households. Getting your basic schoolwork done is hard;
applying for a scholarship or job is challenging.
This strikes me as the cruelest part of the new digital
divide. But it is also within our power to fix it and bridge
it. There are programs that we have that support low-income
telephony right now in households that we could update. We
could clear more of our skies for WiFi services, which is an
easy way to get more people online. And then we should support
public-and private-sector partnerships that help get broadband
access and computing power into students' hands at home.
Senator Schatz. So what is happening between the FCC and
the U.S. DOE to kind of make sure that these efforts are
coordinated?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, right now, there is a ConnectED and
ConnectHome initiative. ConnectED is designed to help support
connectivity in schools. ConnectHome is an effort that is
designed to support connectivity at home, particularly in low-
income housing developments.
So that is a start. It doesn't cover everything, and I
don't think there is one, single silver bullet that is going to
solve this problem. But it is a new element of the digital
divide we should all be on guard for ways to solve and fix.
Senator Schatz. We want you to be relentless on this, and
we will look forward to working with you on this. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
Senator Wicker?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Commissioner, I bet your brother got out of
the way when you told him to. And I hope he is doing well also.
Let's talk about the Universal Service Fund, its wireless
component, the Mobility Fund, as it relates to rural America;
specifically precision agriculture.
We had a representative from John Deere a few days ago who
testified before the Committee about precision agriculture
technology, and he said, ``Deere supports retention and even
expansion of the FCC's Mobility Fund.''
In your judgment, is existing rural wireless coverage at
risk of being stalled or even reduced without continued USF
support?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Senator Wicker. And what needs to be done in response to
that risk of this important segment of our economy?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, to date, the FCC has proceeded with
the first element of its Mobility Fund. We have made available
roughly $300 million in that fund to support deployment in
rural areas.
But we need to move on to the second phase of the fund. And
what I would like that second phase to do is focus with laser-
like accuracy on areas of the country, rural areas, that do not
have service today. Because we know that areas that have better
broadband and wireless service are better equipped to compete.
That is true for urban America and rural America alike.
Senator Wicker. And, actually, I think you used that very
term, ``laser-like focus,'' earlier this year when you appeared
before this panel to talk about spectrum and wireless
broadband.
How is that issue proceeding now among the five members of
the Commission? And what concrete steps should the commission
take in Mobility Fund II to preserve existing levels of
wireless coverage? What concrete steps should the Commission
take in areas such as remote patient monitoring, which is a
huge concern of mine, precision agriculture, and public safety?
And what should Congress do? What can Congress do?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, the examples you just gave are
examples of just how useful wireless is in every aspect of our
lives.
Remote patient monitoring, it can help with health care.
Particularly for the elderly or individuals who live in rural
areas where traveling to a hospital or health clinic takes a
long time, monitoring at home is incredibly efficient and cost-
effective.
Precision agriculture----
Senator Wicker. Do you know that we can even monitor in
ambulances now?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Senator Wicker. Go ahead.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Agriculture, too. Underappreciated just
how important wireless technology is to help support our
nation's farms. And then, of course, public safety.
So when you contemplate the breadth of what wireless
services can do, we need to make sure that our Mobility Fund,
the second phase of it, moves ahead and focuses on the benefits
that we could provide in rural America.
I think that we should make sure that we put the remainder
of our universal service work on a timeline so that we can
commit to you that we will have the second phase of the
Mobility Fund in place in short order.
Mr. Wicker. And how is that debate proceeding among the
five members of the Commission, in your judgment?
Ms. Rosenworcel. In my candid judgment, we have some
differences of opinion on that. I would like, however, us to
follow through. We committed in 2011 to having a second phase
of the Mobility Fund, and I would like to see us put it in
place as soon as we can.
Mr. Wicker. I wonder when the Commission might be moving
toward a consensus on that question.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I can tell you, Senator, if
reconfirmed, I will press my colleagues to work to a consensus
on that. I think it is important to do so.
Mr. Wicker. Do you have any recommendations as to what
Congress can do to encourage more rural broadband build-out?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I do. I think there is actually
legislation before this committee from Senator Klobuchar and
Senator Fischer, the Rural Wireless Accessibility Act.
And, in fact, it recommends that in areas of the country
where large carriers might own licenses to deploy but are not
deploying, that they make sure that they lease that out to
smaller rural carriers so they can deploy in rural communities.
And in order to make them more inclined to do that, it gives a
license extension. And I think that kind of incentive-based
system is a way to push secondary markets to work well and
better serve rural America.
Mr. Wicker. So you are endorsing the Fischer-Klobuchar
bill. Is that correct?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I think they are going to want me to say
yes. I believe the fundamental idea in there is spot-on and
could be particularly helpful for rural communities.
Mr. Wicker. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Markey?
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Big decision earlier this year at the FCC. And I appreciate
the fact that your decision on net neutrality, Title II, is in
the courts, but I also believe that the construct that we have
today under your new regulation is the correct one.
It is a good balance between the broadband companies on the
one hand, and, on the other hand, you have all these startups,
the software and Internet-specific companies all across the
country, all these smart young people who are listening to
Guster right now, who really do, you know, make the difference,
the change in our society. And right now 65 percent of all
venture capital is going to software and Internet-specific new
companies. So it is a good balance, and that is really the
change in our society.
So I wanted to compliment you on that because I do think
that there is a high probability of that decision being upheld.
I think it is on very strong legal grounds.
But I would like to turn, if I could, to your decision of
just a year ago, which was to increase the contribution that is
inside of the E-Rate, the education rate, to make sure that we
are wiring schools, that we wire the libraries, that we give
the young people in our country the access to the technology
which they need in order to compete.
And so, you know, we have WiFi in Starbucks, and people go
in there now, and that is kind of a constitutional right people
have, to go to a Starbucks and to use their WiFi, but not so
much in schools or classrooms. A kid isn't automatically, you
know, guaranteed that that is the case. And you talked about
the kids that don't have the Internet even at home.
And I guess that is kind of what I would like you to
elaborate a little bit more on.
Because when I was a kid, you know, my father was a
milkman, but if I took my books home, I could compete with the
school superintendent's son. We all knew that, people on this
panel. But in the modern era, the school superintendent's son
has access to all these incredible technologies. And the poorer
you are, the less likely you are going to have it in a way that
is going to allow you to compete in a world where businesses
and schools are going to be looking toward your familiarity,
your ability to be able to use that skill set.
So that is kind of a big divide that continues to be out
there. And you really led the charge to increase it up to $3.4
billion a year, the funding that is going into that, and WiFi
is a big part of that.
Could you elaborate a little bit more about how you see
that unfolding and what the FCC is doing to monitor that to
make sure that it gets implemented properly?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Right. Thank you, Senator.
E-Rate is the Nation's largest education technology
program, as you know. When I got to the FCC, what I found was
it was frozen in the era of dialup. And if you think about
that, that just makes no sense. We know that half the jobs
today require some level of digital skill, and by the end of
the decade it is going to be 77 percent. We need to make sure
that every student in every school in every community has the
ability to participate in the new economy.
Senator Markey. So I thank you.
And you are right. This is a program that was put in place
just as the 1996 act was passed, and it was a dialup era. Not
one home had broadband when we passed that law in 1996. And
Senator Rockefeller in the Senate and I in the House, we
created this E-Rate program back then, and it has now spent $36
billion, $38 billion making sure the kids have access to it.
But the modernization just has to continue.
And if you could just elaborate a little bit more on just
how you see WiFi specifically as a technology, you know,
unfolding in its role to give the kids the tools that they
need.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Right. Well, it is so important. It used
to be that students would march down the hall once a week to a
computer lab, where big, bulky equipment was that came and
showed up in shrink-wrapped packages. That is no longer the way
it is today. We need to create schools that are capable of one-
to-one device learning, so that requires WiFi.
And one of the best things about what we did was we updated
what is known as Category Two in the E-Rate program to make
sure that WiFi support is available for schools. And many more
schools are going to be able to get support from this program
to not only get broadband to the front door but to move it
around the school into every classroom as a result.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Well, in December, we celebrate
the first anniversary of that change in the law, and you were a
real driving force in doing that. So I want to congratulate you
on what you have done for the children of our country. It is a
great accomplishment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Blunt?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
And, Commissioner, it is great to have you here, and thanks
for your work.
On the spectrum auction that comes up next year, it now
looks like maybe as many as a thousand local broadcast stations
will have to move where they are on the spectrum to somewhere
new, and that that is going to cost substantially more than
originally estimated. I think the cost comes out of the
proceeds of the auction. You can correct me if I am wrong on
that.
But what kind of preparations are you all making at the FCC
for a thousand stations to have to find a new place to be and
for that cost to be higher than you initially thought it was
going to be?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator.
You are right; we have a very big auction coming up next
year. We have the world's first spectrum incentive auctions.
And that will put more mobile broadband into commercial
carriers' hands. It will make more unlicensed opportunities
available. And it will give broadcasters an opportunity to
participate by getting out of the business of broadcasting or
continue to stay in.
Some segment of those broadcasters will need to relocate
their stations. I can't tell you right now if the number you
have is correct, because until we are in the middle of the
auction I don't think we are actually going to know how many
stations need to relocate.
Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act,
Congress set aside $1.75 billion from the auction proceeds to
assist those stations with relocation. I think it is important
that we make sure that those funds are ample. Every station
that is being relocated should have the ability to access those
funds.
At the present time, I think the money that we have before
us, that Congress tasked us with setting aside, is adequate,
but I think we should stay on guard. Because if we find out
that it is not, we will have to come back to Congress and ask
for your assistance.
Senator Blunt. On the thousand number, do you all have an
estimate that you are looking at? Surely there is some estimate
over there as to how many stations you think will take the
relocation as opposed to the go-out-of-business option.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I don't think we have a specific estimate.
I think that is because we won't have one until closer to the
date of the auction.
We are certainly socializing these opportunities with
broadcasters all across the country. We are finding some are
interested and some are not. But we won't ultimately know until
we start the forward auction and when we have signs from each
of the broadcasters before that auction begins about whether or
not they will participate.
Senator Blunt. And at some point, if you believe you don't
have enough money to make those relocations work, what will you
do?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I believe, if we determine that we do not
have enough funds, the first thing we should do is come to this
committee and come to the Congress. Because I think
broadcasters should not be unduly charged for having to manage
this spectrum relocation.
Senator Blunt. All right.
On one other topic, you know, I think nobody has ever been
on the Commission who understands this committee better than
you do, who went to the Commission with better relationship
than you do. And then and again today, you promised to work
with the Committee, to get back to the Committee promptly.
I know there are at least two occasions where I was part of
a group that contacted the Commission, you as a member of the
Commission, not just you individually. First, five members of
the Committee, including Senator Wicker, here by my side, who
was the ranking Republican of the Communications Subcommittee,
expressed strong concerns about the FCC's upcoming vote on
retroactively changing their mind on joint sales agreements.
Second, Senator Thune and I and others contacted the Commission
on our concern that we shouldn't try to apply the monopoly-era
Title II regulations to the broadband marketplace.
Neither of those letters ever had an adequate response, not
even a response, ``We got your letter, and we are not going to
respond.''
So how does that work? Do these letters go to the
Commission and, collectively, you and the Chairman just decide
you are not going to answer? How does that work, and how do you
think it should work?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, Senator, I apologize if you did not
get an official response to those letters. Most of those
letters do, in fact, go to the Chairman's office, but I would
be perfectly happy to offer responses myself.
I think it is important we continue to work with this
committee. And you are the folks who created the law that
created the agency. So I would want to make sure that our
relationships are actually improved and we are more responsive.
Senator Blunt. Well, I think maybe in the future I will see
that you for sure are copied in----
Ms. Rosenworcel. OK.
Senator Blunt.--because if the letters go to the Chairman's
office, the Chairman is not responding adequately. And I will
look forward to talking to Chairman Wheeler about that the next
time I see him.
Though I have personally talked to him about both of these
letters, and he wasn't particularly responsive even in person
on the views that the Committee or the Congress had on these
issues.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Ayotte?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank you for being here, Commissioner.
And I wanted to ask about the E-Rate program. For a state
like New Hampshire, we have many rural areas, and we have
really been left behind on this program.
If you look at the history in New Hampshire, we have been
50th out of 50 for many years, and in 2014 I think we moved up
a little bit, but we are still toward the bottom of the list,
unfortunately.
And, of course, we are a net donor state, so my
constituents are paying into this but not getting back even the
full value of their dollar, and quite a diminished value if you
look at the overall fund.
We have had this discussion about your vote and others' to
increase the cap to $1.5 billion on E-Rate. But I would like to
know, what are we going to do to address adequate distribution
of E-Rate? Because in your role at the FCC, we can't leave
rural students behind in all of this. I would like to get your
impressions on that.
In turn with it, one of the issues that I see with it is
prioritizing instructional facilities, like schools and
libraries. Right now, administrative offices are also eligible,
but as we look at the priorities, it seems to me that direct
student services, while I don't diminish the role of
administrators, let's prioritize to get it directly to those
student interactions.
So can you give me some impressions on what are we going to
do on distribution, and what are we going to do more
efficiently with this program?
And I am going to ask my second question because I think it
is related to it. One of the big complaints I get from my
constituents about why more of them aren't applying for E-Rate
dollars is that there are six forms. We don't have an army of
people in New Hampshire to be able to put this application in.
Maybe other larger school districts can do that, but we need to
simplify this application. I think that is significant because
this is what I hear when I reach out to schools and libraries,
asking ``How can we get more of these dollars to you, get more
access to our students?''
I want to hear more about distribution, how do we direct it
better, and how can we get this down to a very simplified
application so that we don't disadvantage smaller states and
rural areas based on bureaucracy.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator. Those are good points.
You might be surprised I agree with just about all you said.
And, also, as a New Englander, I realize there are parts of New
Hampshire that are very rural and have not traditionally been
the beneficiary of most of our universal service programs.
That is why I actually think the reform of the E-Rate
program is so substantial. Because by reforming our Category
Two services, we are making WiFi more available in more
schools, and New Hampshire is among them. For the first time,
New Hampshire as a state has been eligible for that support in
several years.
So we are going to find that more funds are actually going
to flow to rural communities for WiFi support, which I think is
terrific and helpful.
I take your point that schools and libraries and student-
centered activities should be the focus. I would be happy to
follow up with you on your concern about administrative
offices.
And then finally----
Senator Ayotte. Not that I don't think they should be
eligible, but I think that if we prioritize, that should be the
lower priority as we look forward----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure.
Senator Ayotte.--to serving students.
Ms. Rosenworcel. No, that is a fair point. I don't know
enough about that today to get back to you on that.
But your point about streamlining the application, I have
gone around the country and spoken to lots of schools and
student groups and state technology directors, and they all say
the same thing.
We streamlined the application in our reforms last year,
but I will be the first to tell you it is not enough. It is a
continuous process, and we need to have our ear to the ground
and listen to the schools that apply for these services and
find out what kind of bureaucratic impediments just make it
hard for them to do so. So I think we have made improvements,
but I think we can do more.
Senator Ayotte. Good. I am glad to hear you say you will
make this a priority, because it is so critical for my state.
I wanted to follow up briefly on the issue of the Open
Internet order. One of the things that, in my view, was lacking
in it was this idea of an independent cost-benefit analysis,
even though the minority members on the decision had called for
an independent cost analysis.
Given the Commission's directive to act in the public
interest, convenience, and necessity, do you think it is
important for the Committee to include an independent cost-
benefit analysis of its rules to ensure that it does meet the
public's interest, convenience, and necessity, which is your
broader purpose?
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is right. The President had an
Executive Order back in 2011 directing, to the extent feasible,
that agencies engage in cost-benefit analysis when they make
major decisions, and I fully support that.
In 2010, when we first came up with these policies, we had
a fairly extensive cost-benefit analysis. It is, candidly, less
extensive in the most recent decision, in part because that was
a response to an opinion from the court of appeals. But I take
your point that that should be a part of our analysis going
forward, and I could commit to doing that for you.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Fischer?
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Commissioner.
You have talked about opening up more unlicensed spectrum
for WiFi, even highlighting your concerns with the way the CBO
has scored the licensed spectrum over the unlicensed. So what
are the potential implications of releasing more spectrum for
that unlicensed use?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
Unlicensed spectrum is incredibly important for our
economy. Think of it like WiFi. It democratizes Internet
access. It is the source of $140 billion of economic activity
every year. And even our licensed carriers rely on it when they
offload service onto it. So we need more of that, just like we
need more licensed spectrum that is committed to commercial
use.
The challenge is, as you know, the Congressional Budget
Office takes all of your spectrum policy and grinds it through
an analysis that sometimes produces results that are at odds
with some of the infrastructure goals of this committee and the
Congress.
And one of the challenges is that the Congressional Budget
Office prefers licensed spectrum to unlicensed spectrum, and
that is because licensed spectrum raises revenue when we
auction it off to commercial carriers. But what it misses is
that unlicensed spectrum is the source of so much economic
activity, as I mentioned, $140 billion every year.
So it is my hope that, going forward, spectrum legislation
would follow the pattern that Congress created in the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act when it set aside the
guard bands in the 600-megahertz band for unlicensed service--
in other words, every time that there is an instruction to
auction licensed airwaves, there is a cut for unlicensed or a
WiFi dividend. And I think if we get the right mix of licensed
and unlicensed services, our wireless economy is really going
to grow.
Senator Fischer. So, legislatively, you would suggest that
we be clearer in the proposals that we put forward?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Also, in March, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution
on the Internet of Things that Senator Ayotte and Booker,
Senator Schatz and I put out. And it stressed the importance of
developing a national strategy so that we can encourage the
Internet of Things.
As the resolution states, innovation is the key to the
United States remaining a world leader in technology. However,
to move forward with these creative ideas, I think we have to
have some clear rules and some clear expectations. So I am
concerned that the proposed net neutrality rule moves in less
than a market-driven direction.
So what can the FCC do to foster innovation so that the
United States continues to be a world leader in technology and
also in telecommunications?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
The Internet of Things is exciting. By the end of the
decade, we could have as many as 50 billion devices with
wireless sensors, making us more efficient and effective in
everything we do. We will have people talking to people, people
talking to machines, and machines talking to machines. The
possibilities are really big.
I think there are four fundamental policy areas in the
Internet of Things, not all of which fall under the FCC's
jurisdiction. But I think we have to be concerned about
security. We have to be concerned about privacy. We have to be
concerned about the adequacy of IP addresses for all of those
devices. And we need to be concerned about spectrum. And,
again, back to your prior question, making more unlicensed
spectrum could actually help the Internet of Things really
flourish.
Senator Fischer. Do you think that would be the main thing,
then, that the FCC can do, is to maybe step back, to offer more
encouragement in many of those areas?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. I don't think we should be overly
aggressive at this point. I believe that we should allow
experimentation with the Internet of Things. And I think that
is how we will see its possibilities grow.
Senator Fischer. Good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Daines?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you here today, Commissioner, and good to
see your family here, as well. Caroline Frances is one of my
favorite girls' names. We have a little girl named Caroline, as
well. She is now a big girl.
And, Emmett Joseph, that is a sharp-looking tie you are
wearing there today, as well.
Thanks for coming to Montana last month to participate in
the Kalispell telehealth workshop, where I am sure you saw
firsthand the opportunities that technology truly can bring to
rural America.
In your statement to the Committee, you mentioned that one
of your top priorities is securing access to communications
services for all people, no matter where they live. And I
couldn't agree more. Access to technology is allowing us to
remove geography as a constraint and allows Montanans and those
who live in rural areas to start and grow world-class
companies. But we still have a lot of work to do, a lot of
issues to overcome, to connect our unserved communities. And,
certainly, the FCC plays a very big role in that.
The Communications Act tasks the FCC with providing
services to rural consumers that are reasonably comparable to
services in urban areas. Now, some areas of the country are
about to get 5G service, and many areas in Montana don't even
know what G is right now. We would love to see G-anything. Can
we really say that this is comparable service?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And
thank you for acknowledging my family.
I think we have work to do. You can travel in rural America
and rural Montana and know that connectivity is not yet
everywhere. And we are continually adjusting, tweaking, and
evolving our universal service policies to make sure that we
reach those areas with more precision.
That is not something we can do one time. We have to
constantly be working at it, constantly identifying those areas
that do not have service, and making sure we direct our funds
toward those areas.
Senator Daines. What is the FCC doing to incentivize build-
out and bring rural states up to comparable levels? I think it
often comes down to incentives.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Senator, I agree with you. I think it is
important that we use our license terms as an incentive, that
license terms should be longer if you meet intermediate build-
out requirements. License terms should consider build-out
requirements that are specific to rural areas.
We should also think about how, during our auctions, we
auction off licenses in small enough sizes that small carriers
can compete.
And, finally, in redoing our designated entities rules
recently, we created new bidding credits for providers that
serve rural areas.
And I think, with a mix of policies like that with
incentives built into them, we have a chance of actually
providing better service.
Senator Daines. You have brought up the issue of spectrum.
And, as you know, we have plenty of spectrum in Montana. The
problem is deployment. We have companies in Montana who want to
build out infrastructure, but the spectrum they need is owned
by companies that aren't using it.
So I would like to get your thoughts on what are some ways
to encourage companies that have spectrum in rural areas, in
rural states, to build out or at least lease the spectrum to
rural providers.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you. I guess this is where I am
going to give a plug to that bill that I mentioned earlier,
which I think thoughtfully suggests that companies, large
companies, that have spectrum licenses in rural areas, to the
extent they are not deploying there, should be given an
incentive to lease it out to small companies that are willing
to do so. And that incentive could be an extension of their
underlying license.
Senator Daines. Can you explain how the FCC determines the
build-out requirements for spectrum holders? Because in a rural
state like Montana, a company could meet its build-out
requirements by only serving two or three small communities but
still leave 70 percent of the state's population unserved. So
what could the FCC do to ensure build-out in rural areas so
that everyone is served?
Ms. Rosenworcel. You are right. Traditionally, I believe
most of our build-out requirements have been on a population
basis, which means in a vast state like Montana you could
service a handful of towns and succeed in reaching that
milestone.
I think the question is, can we come up with a system that
is more geographic-based or roadmile-based so that we can make
sure service goes more places? Because people, of course,
travel through those places to do their business, to move
through the state, and to get to work.
Senator Daines. We just had a situation--in fact, a bow-
hunter was attacked by a grizzly bear. I met him last week back
home. It is an amazing story of survival. But it was his cell
phone that probably saved his life, as he was in a pretty
remote area and was able to get a signal and get help. And it
probably saved the young man's life.
Last question, universal service. Many companies in Montana
rely on universal service funds, but there are issues with the
fund, including overbuilding as well as duplication.
You mentioned the importance of universal access for all
Americans. What is the FCC doing to make sure that USF funds
are used to bring connectivity to unserved communities--kind of
back to the same drumbeat here--rather than communities who
already have access?
Ms. Rosenworcel. You are right, Senator. We have $4.5
billion that we can make available annually for high-cost areas
of this country, rural communities. We would be wasteful if we
chose to continue to allow those funds to support areas where
the private sector has already supplied broadband and wireless
services.
We are making efforts with our new Connect America Fund to
make sure that if there is a private-sector supplier we no
longer provide funding to those areas. We are going to have to
continue to work on that because we cannot afford duplication
because our funds are not infinite.
Senator Daines. I couldn't agree more. Yes. Thanks,
Commissioner.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
And a reminder to check your bars of service before going
into bear country, I would think, would be a good----
Senator Daines. And bring your bear spray.
The Chairman. And bring your bear spray, OK, and perhaps
some other firepower along with you.
Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
Commissioner, back in 2013-2014, there were announcements
made about fines being levied against those carriers who had
abused the Lifeline program. As you know, this has been an area
of great interest for me for many years, trying to get at the
waste and abuse and fraud that was inherently embedded in that
program because of a lack of planning when it began, I might
note, during the Bush administration.
So I thought it was great when more than $94 million in
fines was announced. I thought, OK, we are making progress. I
am beyond confused as to why not one dime of that has been
collected.
And I look at the list of the people that owe money on
these fines. One of them is TracFone. Well, they are getting a
big check from us every month. I believe all of these people
that owe millions of dollars are still part of the program.
And I think it is really important, and I mean, like, now,
that I get some kind of answer from the Commission why not one
dime of these--I mean, we might as well have a big flashing
sign that says, ``Doesn't matter, do whatever you want in the
Lifeline program because we are not even going to bother to
collect the money and we are going to keep paying you.''
I mean, do you have any explanation as to why none of these
fines have been collected?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Senator, I agree with you, that sounds
problematic, $100 million in fines during the last 2 years for
bad actors who have played fast and loose with this program. We
absolutely have to make sure that they are paying up. And if
they are defrauding the program, they should have absolutely no
reason to continue to participate.
So I agree with you. But on the specifics of their payment
schedule, I would need to get back to you on that.
Senator McCaskill. Well, there is no payment schedule
because there has been no payment. And there haven't been any--
I am not aware of any major fines that have been levied since
February 2014.
I would like to know specifically if you all have the tools
to cutoff their participation in the program until they pay the
fines. I see no reason why they should be allowed to
participate until they have paid.
Ms. Rosenworcel. We do have a debarment program, and we
need to make sure that we apply that. The challenge with
applying it, of course, is we don't want to cutoff the
underlying consumer, so we have to figure out a----
Senator McCaskill. Believe me, there are plenty of people
out there to pick them up. They are still out there soliciting
for folks on every street corner, I can assure you. It is not
hard to get a Lifeline phone. This is not a difficult
challenge. And believe me, everybody who has them knows how to
get them.
So I am not as worried about that, about them getting cut
off, especially if you give them notice or you direct them to a
different carrier, which should not be that hard if we are
keeping the records we should be keeping around this program.
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is exactly what I am talking about,
that we just need to give them notice, we need to find a way to
get them to a new carrier so they are not cut off from basic
service.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I am going to be paying really
close attention to see if some money comes in on that.
I was confused when I looked at the budget deal. I don't
know how this provision got in there. And if anybody knows, I
would love to find out. I just think it is a really bad idea
that we have put something in this budget deal that is going to
allow the Federal Government to participate in robocalls to
collect debt.
And the interesting thing is, when I looked at the backup
for this, for the changes in direct spending and outlays, CBO
doesn't even say we are going to get any money from it.
So I am against that provision. I will probably vote for
the deal because I can't see jettisoning this important
compromise because of that. But you are going to have the power
to issue regulations within 9 months dictating the frequency
and duration of such calls.
And, you know, I have a hard time imagining, if someone has
debt collectors coming after them, I have a hard time imagining
that robocalls are very effective. You know, I don't think
robocalls are effective for anything, including politics, but I
am pretty sure if you owe money to a bunch of people, including
the Federal Government, you are not paying much attention to
robocalls.
So I would like to see really aggressive regulations around
this, if this actually does become the law, about how frequent
these calls could be and the duration of these calls. I just
think this is a stupid idea. We should be getting rid of
robocalls, not empowering the Federal Government to make them.
So I would appreciate your feedback and the Commission's
feedback on the regulations that you would be willing to put in
place if we go down this, I think, nutty path of letting the
Federal Government----
Ms. Rosenworcel. So, like you, I detest robocalls, and I
know I am not alone. It is----
Senator McCaskill. America detests robocalls.
Ms. Rosenworcel. It is the largest single category of
complaints that the FCC gets year-in and year-out. Our friends
at the FTC get even more.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Ms. Rosenworcel. So I am proud of the work the agency has
done to try to improve the possibilities of do-not-disturb
technology and give consumers the right to revoke consent. And
when and if we have to proceed with the legislation you just
described, we would be perfectly happy to work with your office
to make sure that American consumers get a little more of that
privacy they deserve.
Senator McCaskill. Yes, I would like to see you do a rule
that they can make one robocall a year for 10 seconds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
And my understanding is, I think that provision that is in
the budget agreement is something that the administration
proposed in their budget in previous years, and I think it is
something that they put on the table in this current discussion
as well.
Senator McCaskill. Well, they are wrong.
The Chairman. I figured you would say that. Thank you,
Senator McCaskill.
Next up is Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. I strongly agree, Mr. Chairman, with
Senator McCaskill. And Commissioner Rosenworcel is well aware
of my views because she and I have discussed hers and mine at
length.
And I know that you agree that consumer complaints about
this intrusive, invasive practice are very well justified. In
fact, the Consumers Union conservatively estimates that $350
million are lost annually to phone scams, generally, a lot of
them, the result of robocalls.
And the good news is advanced technology is available and
affordable to stop these very intrusive and invasive machine-
driven calls. And telephone companies ought to make blocking
options available right away. Even in advance of a rule, the
telephone companies have the ability to offer that service.
And so I agree with Senator McCaskill about the
inadvisability of the suggestion made in the budget agreement.
But, more broadly, I would like to ask what the next steps are
that you would view as most likely and most achievable to
address this scourge of robocalls that we both have seen across
the country.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator.
Like most people, I am not a fan of Rachel from Cardmember
Services, and I would like to make sure that more people don't
hear her voice.
I know that one of the things that we did this past summer
was we made very clear that it is permissible for
telecommunications providers to offer do-not-disturb
technology--in other words, technology that helps block
robocalls. We recognize that the Do Not Call List itself is far
from foolproof, so we are looking for technological solutions.
And, to that end, every week now, the FCC will be issuing
information about its complaints under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. And it is our hope that, by putting more data
out there, we will get more innovators to create more
technologies that could be easily adopted by telecom providers
and also ultimately available to them at no cost.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to, since my time is limited,
talk a little bit about cramming. As you know, that is the
unscrupulous practice by phone companies and wireless carriers
to allow third parties to place charges on monthly bills
without the authorization, often without the knowledge, of
consumers and often without consumers receiving anything in
return for those charges.
Our report on this committee found wireline and wireless
cramming was a serious issue which caused as much as $2 billion
a year in fraud. You are well aware of our report, so I am not
going to belabor all the details.
The carriers, in my view, must provide clear and
conspicuous exposure of any third-party charges and must give
consumers the option of blocking all third-party charges and
other commitments.
My question to you is, what can we do to guarantee the
future fairness of wireless markets for consumers and prevent
harm to consumers in the future, not just after the fact?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Right. I am familiar with the report you
describe. It found that 15 million to 20 million consumers a
year find that they get saddled with fees on their wireline
bills that amount to about $2 billion. So the FCC, in the
aftermath of that, decided to put in place some rules to help
prevent them. But, no surprise, that fraud migrated to wireless
bills.
And what we saw during the last year is we saw settlements
with the four major wireless providers, settlements between
$300 million and $400 million in total. And that sent some
money back to the states, to the attorneys general that helped
us with that. It also sends some money to the Treasury for a
penalty. But the bulk of those funds are for refunds for
consumers.
And that is a good thing, but if you really think about it,
we shouldn't be fixing this problem after the fact; we should
be making sure it doesn't occur in the first place. So I think
it would be smart to have a rulemaking to take what we know
from those settlements and make sure that those kind of scams
and fees don't show up on your wireless bill from the very
start.
Senator Blumenthal. I agree.
And just one last question. Have all the refunds been
completed? And are there additional settlements that you
anticipate?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I don't know the answer to that right now,
Senator, but I would be happy to get back to you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Heller?
Oh, Senator Heller is not here?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. He has yielded his time to me, so I will--
--
The Chairman. Senator Booker. Of course he has.
Senator Booker.--take 10 minutes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It is that New Jersey-Nevada axis.
Senator Booker. It is the Pac-12 alliance, actually.
First of all, it is great to see you. It is incredible to
see your family. Your kids are--probably this ranks as the most
boring experience of their lives----
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker.--and they are the most well-behaved two
people possible. My parents have a saying, ``Behind every
successful child is an astonished parent.'' But they have
already astonished me. So it is incredible to see them.
And I just want to real quick--in January, I introduced the
Community Broadband Act, having been a former mayor, seeing
some of the things going on in my city now, the innovations and
the like. I was happy that the FCC granted petitions to North
Carolina and Tennessee.
And I am just wondering, from your opinion, do you agree
that the Community Broadband Act is necessary? And how do you
see municipal broadband playing into the larger effort to help
communities that currently struggle to find affordable,
accessible, reliable broadband?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. And thank you for
acknowledging my kids like that, but, of course, now that we
have, they might start to misbehave. That is the way it goes.
You know, our forbears used to come together in communities
and build barns together and bridges. This is how we brought
electricity to our Nation's farms. When communities found that
the marketplace wasn't delivering for them, they just got
together and they did it themselves.
So I think that is fundamentally American. I think our
democratically elected communities should have this
opportunity. I believe your legislation reflects that. And I
don't think it is always easy to deploy, but I think that they
should have that opportunity.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
And then Senator Rubio and I, supported by some others,
introduced the WiFi Innovation Act. You know, the demands on
spectrum have really increased considerably. And what we did
back in the 1990s really has tied up a considerable amount of
spectrum. And I just believe that we should be focused on
safety first and security, but I do believe that there should
be more done.
Now, I was pretty happy to read your blog, which I am sure
your children found equally boring, but it was exciting to me.
And you were sort of outlining the importance of freeing up
spectrum in the 5-gigahertz band.
What can the Commission do to safely and swiftly move,
given the demand, that every day we don't meet this demand is
days without innovation, days without access, days without
opportunity? What can we do to swiftly move this process
forward, potentially making this band available for WiFi use?
And how can the Congress help?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
I, too, think the upper portion of the 5-gigahertz band is
very exciting. Back in the late 1990s, we set aside some of
that spectrum for auto manufacturers to develop safety systems.
Of course, the world has changed a lot since then. In the late
1990s, we were not talking about driverless cars or automated
vehicles. And so work is continuing on auto safety, and that is
good and important, but we have also seen technology evolve.
And it is possible now to engage in more sharing in our
spectrum bands. So we feel like this is a prime place to
consider sharing for unlicensed, with the auto manufacturers.
And, as you know, you, Senator Rubio, and Senator Thune
wrote a letter to us recommending a framework for testing with
the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce
on the upper portion of the 5-gigahertz band. And I think that
that is a terrific start. I hope that you check in with us
regularly, because I think pressure from the Congress keeps us
on guard and keeps us on course.
Senator Booker. No, we will.
And in the remaining time, unlicensed spectrum has become
really important, and, again, lots has changed since the 1990s.
In the 1990s, I had hair.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. And so, you know, with the bipartisan
budget agreement including provisions to help free up
additional government-held spectrum for licensed commercial
purposes, I agree it is a serious need, but I really want to
see more focus on unlicensed spectrum. I am not going to waste
the remaining minute that I have on that.
I do know that you agree with me about how important
Lifeline is. There are some things that we could do to make the
program better, but I have heard you say before that it is an
essential program.
And so I would just like to ask my last question just
about, is there a need for Congress to reinstate the minority-
in-media tax credit?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I think the answer is yes. You know, who
we see on the screen says a lot about what we are as
individuals, as a community, and a nation. And media ownership
says a lot about that. We know that the ownership of major
media properties is not as diverse as the country as a whole.
But we also know that to fix that requires access to
capital. And the most effective tool we had was the minority
media tax certificate, which was in place from 1978 to 1995. It
helped to increase the number of minority-owned media
properties from roughly 40 to over 300. And I believe we should
look back to that tool and consider how we can use it in the
future.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I see that my brother from the Pac-12 is
back, so I will yield the remaining time.
The Chairman. All right.
He yields back, and we will recognize the Senator from
Nevada.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yielded for
a purpose. As usual, as friends, my job is to clean up after
Stanford grads. So I just wanted to hear what he had to say
first.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller. But thank you for the hearing. Thank you
for the hearing.
And thank you, Commissioner, for coming back and spending
some time with us. I certainly do appreciate your family being
here also--and, also, the rest of your family that is on tour.
I have a son and daughter on tour right now.
I don't know if you have any jurisdiction over tour buses,
but I still to this day do not know how 16 people can live in a
tour bus for 30 days. No hotels, this tour bus, 16 people, 30
days.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I know.
Senator Heller. So, anyway, if you have any----
Ms. Rosenworcel. No, I am with you on that.
Senator Heller. I think you have to be under the age of 25
to enjoy and appreciate something like that.
But, anyway, thank you for being here, and thanks for
taking time.
I want to talk a little bit about FCC reform. And I think
you are familiar with this. I am concerned that there has been
a lack of transparency and some openness in certain regards,
not all regards, but certain regards, with the Commission.
Several years ago, you came before the Committee for your
first nomination hearing. I think I laid out at that time some
of those concerns, and I think many of them still remain today.
You are probably aware of the FCC Process Reform Act, and
it is my push for greater transparency in the Commission. It
does five things, and you have actually spoken on some of them:
one, the appropriate comment and reply period; two, providing a
shot clock for items pending review; three, specific language
of rules before voting on them; four is commissioners' ability
to collaborate; and one that you did talk about with Senator
Ayotte, and that was the cost-benefit analysis.
We have put this together. I think it has passed the House,
has not yet passed here in the Senate. And I will urge my
chairman to continue to work on this particular piece of
legislation.
Is there anything else, any other commonsense measures that
can be addressed by this commission and yourself, personally,
that you believe would bring greater transparency to the
Commission?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator.
Obviously, transparency is important. I am not sure that
these things require congressional action. But I think it would
be valuable for the public to have a list of the decisions that
are presently before the commissioners, along with a brief
description, so that it surprises no one when a vote emerges
from the agency.
I think it would also be valuable to have a systematic way
for those who petition the agency for relief to find out
exactly where their petitions stand in the process.
Senator Heller. Yes, I think there is some concern for
that, actually, a priority that you identified, and that was
certainty to some of these companies. That is essential to
promoting investment, fostering innovation, creating jobs.
Do you believe that it would provide more certainty to
these companies if a shot clock was available? Specifically,
what are your feelings on that?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, well, I mean, this might occasionally
be a statement against interests, given where I work, but I
think shot clocks and deadlines are really important. They have
a way of motivating us toward action. So in any legislation
that emerges from this committee or oversight of the FCC, I
would certainly encourage you to pressure us to have more
deadlines in the work that we do.
Senator Heller. If I can bring up for a minute another
piece of legislation, the FCC Consolidated Report Act. Again, I
think it is something that you are familiar with, especially
with the time you were working for then-Chairman Rockefeller.
Looking at this piece of legislation, as I see here, this
report, I think the chairman did a great job in trying to meet
some of the values on both sides of the aisle here. It has
passed the House, and we are at a standstill right now, and I
think that is kind of unfortunate. I think both sides--and I am
not talking Republican/Democrats, I am talking two houses that
really need to come together and try to work this out.
Can you speak to the importance of having a single report
like this?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure, Senator. I think the greatest value
in that legislation is, candidly, we have some reports that we
have to produce annually that are a waste of commission
resources.
Senator Heller. Is this one of them? All these reports, is
that a waste of----
Ms. Rosenworcel. All the reports are not. And there are
also ways in which longitudinal data that is issued every
year----
Senator Heller. Some of us do read them, by the way.
Ms. Rosenworcel. What is that?
Senator Heller. Some of us do read them.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. I do.
Senator Heller. But having a single report, I think, would
be very advantageous for all of us here.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. Although I think it was a report
every other year. And the only point I would make is that the
Internet age moves really fast. We want to make sure our
decisions are informed by data. And perhaps doing this with a
little more frequency or maybe having an intermediate----
Senator Heller. That is a good point. That is a good point.
Ms. Rosenworcel.--effort would give us the kind of data
that would support better decisionmaking. So that would be the
only pause I would have.
Senator Heller. Yes.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Though I don't think the legislation would
preclude us, for instance, from doing those kinds of things.
Senator Heller. If I could encourage you to work with us,
you know, as we move forward and continue to grapple with this
particular issue. You do make a good point on how often these
reports should be available. But having consolidated reports, I
think, for all of us here in trying to do our jobs, would be
very, very helpful.
Ms. Rosenworcel. OK.
Senator Heller. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heller. And let me just
add, your good work on FCC reauthorization has been a good
foundation for us to build on.
And I hope that the Commission will work with us on that,
and I think it would get at some of the issues that have been
raised today. Earlier, you heard Senator Blunt talk about
responsiveness. And I just think having a more regular
reauthorization process would perhaps bring the Commission up
here and get them to be reacting and responding to us on a more
regular basis, which might address some of the concerns that
were raised earlier as well as creating the kind of
transparency for the public that they deserve and expect.
Senator Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So I hope that we can continue to move
forward with that and that the Commission will be a cooperative
partner in that.
Senator Moran was going to be up, but Senator Klobuchar has
returned. So the Senator from Viking country is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Who have a winning record so
far, as you know. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much, Commissioner, for being here. And I know
that a lot of my major bills and issues have been discussed,
and you are certainly knowledgeable about them.
The call-completion bill, I know you have talked about
that, and that continues to be a problem. I just did a forum
with Collin Peterson about that a few months ago, with the
dropped calls. So I will let your answers on that stand.
The spectrum bill that you have mentioned several times,
which I appreciate, with Senator Fischer.
The work that Senator Thune and I are doing on trying to
get more funding from the Universal Service Fund for broadband,
which I think is the number-one thing I have been hearing. It
feels like a complete resurgence of interest in this issue.
And I attribute it to a few things. Number one, the economy
is better, so people are working; they need broadband. Number
two, technology has shifted, and so this is no longer just,
``Oh, do we have broadband?'' which many of them have. It is,
``Do we have high-speed broadband?''
And I cannot tell you the number of businesses and managers
that go to the McDonald's parking lot in rural areas to do all
of their bookkeeping and their work because they don't have
high-speed enough broadband, or the kid on a reservation that
goes to one house, and you have 20 kids standing in a backyard,
because that is where they have WiFi.
So I think you understand the enormous need here and also
the great opportunities.
One thing that I don't think has been focused on as much,
Senator Daines and Gardner and I introduced the Streamlining
and Investing in Broadband Infrastructure Act to implement the
Dig Once policies on Federal highway construction projects and
streamline GSA policies.
What else do you think the FCC and Congress can do to
promote more efficient permitting procedures at the Federal
level to reduce construction costs and speed up deployment?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I think Dig Once
policies are terrific. They should be put in place all across
the country. Because when crews are repairing or building
roads, adding broadband conduit adds less than 1 percent to the
price of the project, but we get lots of rewards down the road
when we do so. Plus, it minimizes disruption for communities,
and they like that.
I think there are other things we can do. I think we have
particular problems on Federal lands in this country. About
one-third of our lands are Federal, and we should come up with
practices that make deployment on those lands easier. We should
have a shot clock for the Federal Government to respond, just
like we do for municipalities.
We should have a regular GSA schedule to make sure that
everybody knows how to deploy and gets a standard contract. And
we should have a list of Federal assets that could be used to
help with deployment on Federal lands.
And if we combine those things, I think we would wind up
having much greater state of deployment on the ground.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
Can you talk a little bit about investing in broadband
adoption? There are places that have broadband but people just
aren't educated yet on how to use it.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. You know, we have historically
focused on broadband deployment at the agency. That is an
infrastructure challenge. Broadband adoption is just as
important if you want people to take full advantage of the
civic and commercial opportunities it provides.
I have focused extensively on what I call the homework gap,
because we are finding that there are 5 million households in
this country that have school-age children that don't have
broadband at home. So kids have to go to that McDonald's
parking lot or line up where there is a WiFi signal. And that
is just an especially cruel part of the digital divide, and I
think it is something we should fix.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good.
Smartphone theft, you know I have done work on this, and
the carriers have voluntarily agreed to install kill switches.
Do you have any updates? I know the FCC has been helpful in
this area.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. Look, more than one in three thefts
in this country now involves the theft of some smartphone
device.
Carriers are now working with us to help with remote lock
and wipe capabilities, making them opt out. In other words,
they are available on new handsets. And we are starting to get
that in place.
We also have to improve the data bases for stolen phones
not just nationally but internationally so we reduce the
possibilities of thieves making money off those devices when
they are stolen.
Senator Klobuchar. Speaking of internationally, a different
issue but an international one, when it comes to wireless
service or broadcast service along our northern border. As you
know, I can see Canada from my porch. And we need to make sure
that there are no problems with interference.
This is an issue I have discussed with the FCC many times
in the past, and I was glad to see the FCC announced a
statement of intent with Industry Canada for coordination in
the upcoming incentive auction.
Are you committed to continuing to work with Canada
throughout the auction process and beyond to ensure that there
are no interference problems?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Thank you.
And, last, unlocking. The Wireless Consumer Choice Act, as
you know, asks the FCC to take action. I introduced that. And I
know the FCC took action and is committing wireless carriers to
unlock consumer phones and that they have met this commitment.
Do you think there is a further role for the FCC in
advancing unlocking, or do you think it has pretty much been
done?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we have made tremendous progress.
And, yesterday, the Library of Congress announced its most
recent set of exemptions under the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act and made clear that both tablets and cell phones are
eligible for unlocking. So it is my great hope that this
problem has passed.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you.
And, last, I just want to thank you for your extreme amount
of preparation for this hearing. Senator McCaskill and I were
amused that you just could reel off these statistics without
looking at one note. So you should be--we are all impressed by
that.
And, also, having a woman in your role is great. I know you
have been working on getting more women in technology. And
Senator Capito and Scott and I head up the Diversifying Tech
Caucus, so we will have you come to speak at one of our
meetings.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Fantastic. I would like that.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
The Chairman. There are certain advantages to knowing what
members of this committee are going to ask----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--having been up here all those years, right?
It is good preparation.
All right. Now, the gentleman who is wearing his Kansas
City Royals blue today----
[Laughter.]
Senator Moran. Thank you for noticing.
The Chairman.--is up next.
Senator Moran. I thought if Senator Klobuchar was
representing the Vikings, I was pleased to represent the
Royals, along with Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Very good.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Commissioner, thank you very much.
Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for this opportunity
to have Commissioner Rosenworcel with us again.
And let me express my gratitude to you and other members of
the Commission who have been attentive to issues that I have
raised on behalf of Kansans and Americans, and I appreciate the
relationship that we have and your responsiveness. So thank you
very much. It is valued.
Let me ask just a few questions.
First of all, while Senator Klobuchar indicated that you
had addressed the issue of call completion, I was not certain
of that. I didn't hear what you said, I guess is maybe a better
way of saying that. It seems to me that you have taken steps,
but I am not sure I have seen the evidence that call-completion
rates have improved.
Is my impression wrong?
Ms. Rosenworcel. No, you are right, Senator. I, too, am not
yet satisfied with the situation we find ourselves in. We know
this is a real problem for rural carriers and residents of
rural America. And it is just not acceptable when calls don't
go through.
Now, what we have done is we issued a declaratory ruling to
make clear that this was a violation under the law, to not
transmit and complete those calls.
We have had some enforcement actions, but what we realized
during the course of those enforcement actions was we lacked
the data to really go after bad actors. So we put in place new
reporting obligations for originating long-distance providers.
And those obligations just kicked in. We have our first set
of reports from them. We are going to comb through them, not
just look for bad actors, but look for patterns so that we can
make sure that we get rid of this problem once and for all.
Senator Moran. So there is a way to develop the evidence
necessary to determine where the problem lies?
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is exactly right.
Senator Moran. That is very encouraging.
You indicated you understand it is importance. And I would
only reiterate that, you know, one of my focuses as a member of
Congress has been trying to keep rural America alive and well.
And it is so discouraging to talk to a business owner who knows
of failures of call completion, failures of the call, there is
no completion, but they don't know how many others they are
missing--the lost opportunity.
And my guess is that if you make that call to a rural
business, the call is not completed, you are unlikely to try a
second or third or fourth time to become a customer, as we try
to keep businesses located in rural communities across our
state and the Nation.
So please keep your attentive eye to this topic.
Again on a rural issue, one of my rural telephone companies
has told me that, although they have been designated as one of
the Commission's 100-percent overlap areas, they have been
measuring the competition's signal and find it almost
nonexistent.
And my question is, what steps does the Commission take to
confirm that their determination is accurate and maintained?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. We have a defined challenge process
for our price-cap carriers at present, which allows carriers
who believe that they are deploying and the incumbent should
not be supported and also incumbents who believe that we are
wrong about our information about private-sector entities that
might have deployed.
We also have a process for our rate-of-return----
Senator Moran. Suggesting that there is a process by which
the phone company----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Senator Moran.--can make this fact known to the Commission?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely.
It is a challenge process. We are interested in that
information. We have taken some in to date on our price-cap
carriers. I think we are still doing some work on our rate-of-
return carriers. But we do have a defined challenge process
where they can voice that concern before us and we will
investigate.
Senator Moran. Is that something that is affordable to a
small rural telephone company, that process?
Ms. Rosenworcel. The goal of that process is that they can
come before us and point it out to us and then we go
investigate.
Senator Moran. OK. So they don't have to develop the case
to present to you. They present the allegation, their
statement, and then the Commission investigates?
Ms. Rosenworcel. That is right. But, obviously, more
evidence is usually helpful, because it allows us to get our
investigation underway.
Senator Moran. On a broader issue about spectrum, Senator
Udall and I and a number of members of this committee had
solicited information from the administration, particularly
from OMB, in regard to the Spectrum Relocation Fund. And OMB,
to their credit, was very specific with policy recommendations,
legislative changes.
That legislation has been introduced. I think, fortunately,
it has been included in the budget agreement and so is
potentially on the path to becoming law. I would be happy to
have any general comments you might want to make about their
recommendations.
But I wanted to specifically raise the question with you
about unlicensed spectrum. There isn't really any effort that I
can see underway to increase the chances that unlicensed
spectrum--that as we relocate Federal spectrum to someone else,
that it seems to me there is no emphasis on unlicensed
spectrum.
And I would welcome your input if there are policy
suggestions that you would have of how we enhance the chances
that that might occur.
Ms. Rosenworcel. OK.
First, I think that this committee's correspondence with
the Office of Management and Budget was terrific, and we are
already seeing benefits, in that we are rethinking the
possibilities of adding incentives to the Spectrum Relocation
Fund. I think that is exciting and is going to yield more
spectrum for commercial markets down the road.
Your point on unlicensed is well-taken. I think the
Congressional Budget Office traditionally values licensed
spectrum over unlicensed, by virtue of the fact that by
auctioning spectrum that raises funds. But what they miss in
that accounting is that unlicensed spectrum is tremendously
beneficial for our economy at large. We have over $140 billion
of economic activity every year that relies on unlicensed
spectrum.
So it would be my hope that if you did have an opportunity
to produce more spectrum legislation down the road, you would
consider doing what you have done in the past, which is making
sure in every piece of legislation that has commercial auctions
there is also a cut for unlicensed or a WiFi dividend.
Senator Moran. Well, I appreciate your reminding us of
that. I assume one of the challenges, just perhaps the
congressional nature, administration nature, is when we are
looking for an offset, you are looking for something that
raises revenue. And that would be a very shortsighted decision
to focus solely--it would be a very shortsighted economic
decision to focus solely on spectrum that is licensed.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with you completely.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
And we will turn now to Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to Commissioner Rosenworcel, thank you so much for
being here and answering all of our questions.
And, actually, I would just pick up on the comments made by
Senator Moran on the unlicensed WiFi use and how we want to
make sure that we are expanding that. But I wanted to thank you
for your work that you have done related to the 5.9 gigahertz
area, which you have been committed and said you are committed
to opening up a process to make sure that we are doing the kind
of interference testing to know that the auto industry, which
has that portion of the spectrum, can continue to operate
effectively and safely, particularly given the technological
breakthroughs that are occurring right now in that space.
And I know you were at Mcity just recently in my state, in
Michigan. And before I talk about that, I just want to mention,
you know, I just had the opportunity this last week to see the
vehicle-to-vehicle technology in real time, driving on a road
in the community.
And we were able to have automatic braking, even if you are
blinded by a car that may be in front of you that then swerves
out of the way. Because of vehicle-to-vehicle technology, you
know the car ahead of you is slowing, you are able to stop.
I mean, that is a major cause of accidents right now, if
you are following a car that then swerves out of the way, then
suddenly you find a stopped car in front of you or one slowing
down. With V-to-V, you are actually able to know that, or your
systems know that. You are able to know when cars are around
blind spots and stop.
I mean, it is incredible stuff that is happening. I know
you saw some of that in Michigan.
And I just wanted to remind everybody that these
technologies are expected to eliminate up to 80 percent of all
crashes, of unimpaired accidents in this country. In a time
when 30,000 people die on our highways, this is a big deal.
This is about safety. We are on the verge of seeing these
incredible developments now being deployed commercially.
The Mcity that you visited at the University of Michigan is
a 32-acre test track that allows us to fully test and put
together the systems in order to deploy this on a wide basis.
You are also going to see thousands of vehicles throughout
southeast Michigan that will be testing these systems, as well,
in the short term, in the months ahead and in the years ahead.
I know that FCC Chairman Wheeler was also able to visit
Mcity. I think just yesterday he was there.
But before I ask a question, a more broad question, first,
tell me about your reflection. What was your takeaway from
Mcity and what the auto industry is doing with this 5.9
gigahertz?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
The future of connected cars is big. It is really big. By
the end of the decade, I think the statistic is that 97 percent
of the cars shipped in this country are going to be Internet-
connected. They are going to be, in effect, mobile phones on
wheels.
Mcity, which I was privileged to see just before it
opened--and you probably cut the yellow ribbon.
Senator Peters. I did.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes--is the testing ground for all of that
next-generation connected car activity. It is exciting that it
is there in the backyard of the auto industry. And I think it
is going to be an incredible hub of economic activity. So I
would like to actually go back and see, as new developments
arise, testing on the Mcity grounds.
As far as 5.9 gigahertz, I think you know that I have
spoken about how it is possible for the auto industry to share
that spectrum, potentially, with unlicensed services.
But the most important thing that we are doing right now
is, at the direction of this committee, we are working with the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce to
set up testing. And it is vitally important that when we test
the use of this band by both services, that we make sure that
safety is intact.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that. And, obviously,
these are going to be issues that we are going to be dealing
with in the future, kind of the historic tensions between more
traditional companies and then all of the innovators that want
to be able to take a piece of that.
I mean, how do you see that just generally, not just for
the auto industry, but other traditional industries that are
innovating at a rapid pace, and yet they are going to be facing
new innovators that are introducing disruptive technology as
well?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I do think that connected
technologies are going to be a part of every industry going
forward, wireless technology in particular. The car industry is
one that embodies that more than any other. And while there are
challenges, I think the opportunities are enormous.
Senator Peters. One last question in my time remaining
here. And I have heard you respond to some questions related to
the work on the homework gap. And I wanted to thank you for an
op-ed that you wrote in one of the Detroit newspapers talking
about that homework gap, where it is clear that roughly 7 in 10
teachers assign homework to their students that require
Internet access, and yet in Detroit, for example, it is almost
a complete opposite, where 7 in 10 students do not have access
to the Internet. So it is a significant issue.
I know you have been very supportive of updating the FCC's
Lifeline program to allow consumers to choose between applying
the program support to broadband service rather than voice
service. Could you give us an update on the FCC's efforts on
that front? And where do you see that going?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. We have an open proceeding
on that, and I think that, moving forward, if we want to
modernize Lifeline, we have got to make sure that it is a
program that is run without any abuse, and then we have to
figure out how to make sure it reflects modern services. That
is the goal of our effort.
It is my hope, too, that if we do that correctly, we will
have another tool to help support households that do not have
Internet access and particularly those households that have
kids who simply need to do their homework.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
And the Ranking Member, Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Senator Peters, I wanted to recall, when I
went to your city, Detroit, and because of the allocation of
spectrum, I am in a car going to a blind corner that there is
another car, and, all of a sudden, this car that can't see this
car coming through that intersection stops, stops on its own.
That was impressive.
Now, I am not sure that I am ready to get into a car that
drives itself----
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson.--but that application of spectrum was very
instructive and, I think, very optimistic of how we might use
spectrum in the future.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, since I was engaged earlier in the
morning, enter into the record an opening statement?
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Good morning, and thank you to Chairman Thune for holding this
hearing to consider this important re-nomination.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, congratulations on your re-nomination.
You have served with distinction and not surprisingly, have established
yourself as a reasoned, thoughtful, and bipartisan leader on the
Commission since your confirmation.
The FCC has the critical responsibility for overseeing and
supporting our Nation's dynamic communications networks and
marketplace. Given the blistering pace at which these networks are
evolving, we must have an expert oversight agency with flexible,
forward-looking authority to protect consumers and competition. And as
we look to what's ahead, we need regulators who are not afraid to use
that authority when necessary, but also know when to exercise authority
with humility and a regulatory light touch. Your tenure on the FCC has
proven you to be just such a public servant.
The future may be uncertain, but I agree with you that, as the
Commission tackles its important work, it must be guided by the
fundamental principles that have helped U.S. communications networks
thrive and lead the world for so many decades. Consumer protection,
public safety, universal access, and competition must continue to be at
the forefront of the FCC's actions.
Thank you again, Commissioner Rosenworcel, for your commitment to
public service and your willingness to serve. This Committee should
advance your nomination expeditiously, and I hope for and expect speedy
action on the Senate floor in favor of your nomination.
Senator Nelson. And at the request of Senator Schumer, I
want to also enter into the record a letter from the general
counsel of the mayor of New York.
And I would like to just quote, speaking of Commissioner
Rosenworcel: ``Her championship of modernization and reform of
the E-Rate and Lifeline programs are two examples of her
fierce, determined commitment to expanding public access to
high-speed broadband for working families.''
And it goes on in another paragraph to say, ``Her work as
an FCC commissioner is not only helping children and families
access the Internet but also helping communities like ours to
build stronger schools, improve city services, and unleash more
entrepreneurial and creative potential.''
And that is from the City of New York. If we could enter
that into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
The City of New York--Office of the Mayor
New York, NY, October 28, 2015
Hon. John Thune,
United States Senate
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
United States Senate
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:
I write in support of the Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel 's
confirmation for a second five-year term as commissioner at the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Throughout her tenure, Commissioner
Rosenworcel has assumed a key role in shaping America's digital future
and empowering children, families, businesses, and new ideas.
In New York City, home of the second largest tech sector in the
country, we have relied on Commissioner Rosenworcel to help protect the
open Internet and prevent Internet Service Providers from
discriminating against certain content and services online. She has
been an ally and a champion for enacting the strongest possible rules
against blocking, paid prioritization, and other discriminatory
practices limiting our Internet access.
Of particular note, Commissioner Rosenworcel recognizes the primacy
of technology, especially Internet access, in children's education and
lives. Her championship of modernization and reform of the E-Rate and
Lifeline programs are two examples of her fierce, determined commitment
to expanding public access to high-speed broadband for working
families. Commissioner Rosenworcel's focus on the homework-gap has
inspired cities like New York City and others to take bold steps to
address this issue, and in tum, inform the FCC's work. The New York
City and Brooklyn Libraries' MIFI pilot is one such initiative to
expand Internet access and promote digital literacy throughout
underserved communities, by lending portable Wi-Fi hotspots.
Her work as an FCC commissioner is not only helping children and
families access the Internet, but also helping communities like ours to
build stronger schools, improve city services, and unleash more
entrepreneurial and creative potential.
Over the past five years as commissioner, she has shown a steadfast
commitment to ensuring that the Internet remains a tool for advancing
goals related to equity, education, innovation, economic growth, and
smart and responsive government. New York City strongly supports
Commissioner Rosenworcel, and I urge Congress to support her speedy
confirmation.
Very truly yours,
Maya Wiley,
Counsel to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Senator Nelson. And speaking of that, Commissioner, on E-
Rate, just talk generally again, to add to what you have
already said, about the importance of E-Rate to students,
teachers, librarians, and communities.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
Knowledge, jobs, and capital are going to flow to
communities that are more connected and communities that are
more educated. We can use the E-Rate program to update
education in our schools and give more students the skills to
participate in the digital-age economy. I think that is really
exciting.
I think it also offers other benefits, because when we
deploy service to our schools, we make it incrementally less
expensive to deploy modern services to the community that
surrounds them. So infrastructure improves writ large.
Senator Nelson. May I, on another subject, make a plea on
behalf of telephone consumers, that when they sign up for the
Do Not Call List, it is not working----
Ms. Rosenworcel. I know.
Senator Nelson.--people are still calling?
And I hear this all the time, even to the point at which I
have some friends, a former Member of Congress, that they have
taken out a hard line. They only use the cell phone, because
they were getting so many calls around dinnertime, even though
they put it on.
Anything we can do about that?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator. As I was saying
earlier, I can't stand robocalls either. I don't think there is
anyone in this entire country who likes them very much.
I would point out to you that the Do Not Call List only
works so much. We know it is not foolproof. So the FCC, this
past summer, made clear that do-not-disturb technologies are
lawful in order to help provide a technological solution to
reduce the number of calls.
But you also asked if there is anything that Congress can
do, and I will just point to this. The Telephone Consumer
Protection Act is a law from 1991. It is old, and it treats
wireless phones and wired phones differently, just as you
described. And given that about 40 percent of our households
now are wireless-only, I am not sure that that differential
treatment anymore makes sense. And it might be something that
it is worthwhile for this committee to address.
Senator Nelson. And, of course, the trend of the future is
we are going to have these tablets with us, and that is how we
are going to continue to communicate. And I see that among many
of our friends. They don't even have a wireline coming into
their house for a telephone.
Now, Do Not Call List is one thing, but spoofing is another
thing. And for the record, I just want to tell, since the
spoofing technology has evolved since the law that we passed in
2010, and now the scammers are getting more sophisticated, and
they are calling from abroad, and they are using text messaging
services.
CNN reported the story of Albert Poland, an 81-year-old who
received nonstop calls from a person claiming to be a part of a
Jamaican lottery that he had won the lottery. And this 81-year-
old ended up giving away thousands of dollars until he realized
he had been had, and that drove him to suicide.
And so a number of us have introduced a phone scam act. It
would improve that 2010 law by going after offshore spoofing
criminals and those who try to pull off these scams. But it
would also encourage the FCC to work with the private sector on
new technologies that could protect consumers.
Do you agree with all this?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, I do, Senator.
Senator Nelson. And, finally, any further comment on
spectrum, of what role Congress can play to support your
efforts and to ensure adequate spectrum availability for all
the wireless services?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator. I think two things.
First, while I recognize that in the most recent budget
deal there is opportunity for more airwaves to be pushed to the
FCC for commercial auction, I would just say that we need a
steady and strong spectrum pipeline and that you not stop with
that legislative effort. So continue your work on the spectrum
pipeline.
Second, though most of our focus is on the airwaves, the
ground also matters. Coming up with better deployment policies
for cell towers, for small cells, making sure that our
practices are modern, is also worth your time and effort.
Senator Nelson. I was encouraged when we started talking
about cell towers the other day, and I was noticing that the
technology is getting very sophisticated, where these towers
can be very small. They can go on the arms that come out for
stoplights at intersections and so forth.
And yet also reminded that, in many other foreign
countries, you can be in the middle of the desert in Somalia,
and you can get cell service, which we are continuing to lack
in many places in this country. And so we have a way to go. You
keep that in mind.
And then, finally, I want to thank the chairman publicly
for his willingness and the willingness of his staff to
continue the dialogue as we work on the issue of net
neutrality. We have come a long way, baby, since the beginning
of this Congress, since the end of the last Congress, and we
are narrowing the differences.
And so, whether it is Title X or something else, the
chairman has certainly been willing to dive in, and I want him
to know how much I appreciate that.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And if it is Title
X or we give it some sort of Florida designation in your honor,
as long as we can get to the finish line, that would be great.
We will continue to work on that, and I think providing
certainty and clarity and some clear rules for an open Internet
would be something that would be a worthwhile effort of this
Congress. So we appreciate you and your staff's continued
discussions and participation with ours in trying to reach a
solution.
Commissioner, I just wanted to ask one last question, to
bring it back to E-Rate. You have answered several questions on
that today, but when the E-Rate program was expanded, it was a
significant increase in the cap, when you go from $2.3 billion
to $3.9 billion a year, which in turn has significantly
increased the universal service fees on the American public by
more than $15 billion over the next decade.
So the question I have is, does the new E-Rate program
guarantee that those schools which currently lack adequate
communications will receive support ahead of schools that
already have adequate facilities? I mean, the goal of this
ought to be to extend that access to those schools that
currently lack it.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
The E-Rate system has prioritization built in for the
lowest-income and most rural schools to get the most benefit.
So that is in some ways a proxy for what you describe.
But I would say that our reforms generally are designed to
make sure that the benefits are available more broadly. We got
rid of some old services, some legacy services. We put new
incentives in for efficiency. And the goal behind all of that
modernization was to make sure that those benefits touched
schools that had historically not been touched by this program,
and in particular Category Two services, which in this case
involves WiFi.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I would just say that connectivity
for all the schools, particularly those that currently don't
have that, ought to be a priority. And those who are paying
these fees, I think, would certainly want to see those funds
used in a way that extends that connectivity to all the schools
across this country.
Well, with that, I think we have reached the end of the
line, I am sure as you will be glad to hear. And your 8-year-
old daughter, I am sure, when she and her classmates are
talking about unlicensed spectrum----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--will be way ahead of the game.
But we thank you again for being here today, and we will
look forward to processing your nomination.
We will keep the record open for an additional 2 weeks for
members to submit questions, and I would ask that you be as
prompt as possible in response to those questions.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Of course.
The Chairman. So thank you.
And this hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico
I want to preface my remarks by stating that I am pleased that the
budget agreement announced this week has important spectrum policy
reforms.
This agreement mirrors the Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF)
legislation introduced by Senator Moran and me. We have been working
closely with Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson on this issue
since April. SRF reform will promote innovation and fuel economic
growth by making more spectrum available for commercial use.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, let me begin by saying that I strongly
support your re-nomination. As FCC Commissioner, you have demonstrated
a deep commitment to public service. And you have consistently
supported smart policies to promote the public interest. One example is
your idea to create an ``X Prize'' for spectrum efficiency. I plan to
introduce legislation soon to make this happen.
I also look forward to continuing to work with you on efforts to
expand broadband to rural and tribal communities. Seventy-seven percent
of New Mexicans living in rural areas lack access to fast broadband
speeds. The Acoma Pueblo library keeps its WiFi running 24/7. Folks
drive to the parking lot to get Internet access, even when the library
is closed.
So I appreciate your commitment to closing the ``homework gap''
that drives children to search for public WiFi hotspots. School kids
today often need Internet access to complete assignments. But too many
cannot get online at home, either due to cost or lack of access.
Too many New Mexicans also know what it is like to be stuck in an
Internet ``slow lane.'' The FCC's Open Internet order will ensure the
Internet remains a platform for free expression, promotes innovation,
and helps online entrepreneurs compete on a level playing field with
established companies. Thank you again, Commissioner Rosenworcel for
your support for net neutrality.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. I'd like to ask you about the FCC's October
announcement that it would launch an investigation into four telecom
companies over special access tariffs. Despite this announcement, it is
my understanding that the Commission has not completed its analysis of
the extensive special access data it has already compiled.
Considering the FCC's limited resources, how is it prudent for the
FCC to launch full-scale investigations when it hasn't even completed
its own due diligence on the topic? And what happens now to the
unfinished analysis of the previously collected data?
Answer. As you note, on October 16, the Commission's Wireline
Competition Bureau initiated an investigation of the terms and
conditions of select incumbent local exchange carrier tariff pricing
plans of AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier and Verizon for business data
services. The Bureau's investigation arises out of allegations from
some parties that certain terms and conditions in business data
services tariffs are unreasonable and lock up demand for TDM-based
business services, which may harm competition and innovation. These
allegations are disputed by incumbent LECs. The Bureau's order
initiating the investigation makes clear that ``[n]othing has yet been
decided on the merits.'' Rather, the Bureau is ``seek[ing] additional
data from the incumbent LECs on which to base an objective evaluation
of the reasonableness of the tariff pricing plan terms and conditions
that are designated for investigation.'' To this end, the tariffs
remain lawfully in place during the investigation.
Meanwhile, the Commission has a separate rulemaking related to
special access services that is ongoing. That rulemaking focuses on the
current state of competition in the special access market and how best
to measure competition in the future. The Commission has undertaken a
data collection as part of that rulemaking and, in September, the data
was made available for public review subject to the terms of a
protective order to safeguard competitively sensitive information.
Public comments relating to the rulemaking are presently due on January
6, 2016 and reply comments are due on February 5, 2016.
Although the Commission's investigation into tariff terms and
conditions ``is based on the record generated'' in its rulemaking
proceeding, it ``is being initiated and will be conducted as a separate
proceeding.'' I believe both the investigation and rulemaking are
lawful under the Communications Act. However, I recognize that it is
important to harmonize our policies across proceedings, including those
involving special access.
Question 2. As you know, authorizing the FCC has been a stated
priority for me this Congress. This is an area where I believe
Republicans and Democrats of this Committee should come together to
ensure the FCC is responsive to the needs of our constituents. As a
former Senior Communications Counsel on this committee, you understand
our committee's role and jurisdiction as well as anyone.
Setting aside the debate over certain ``process reforms,'' would
you welcome legislation to reinstitute regular oversight and
authorization of the Federal Communications Commission by the Congress?
Answer. Yes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. Commissioner Rosenworcel, in June 2015 the FCC adopted
an order that imposed new requirements on businesses pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). I have heard from several
business owners in Nebraska who are concerned about the burdens that
the TCPA will impose on them, including the threat of class action
lawsuits. You actually dissented from part of the decision because it
permitted certain industries to obtain waivers of the TCPA rules.
Please address the following concerns raised by business owners
regarding the new TCPA rules:
Question 1a. Businesses need to have to have prior express consent
to contact consumers on their cell phones using an autodialer. Some
businesses, however, are concerned that the FCC has expanded the
definition of ``autodialer'' to include smartphones. Is this the case?
What certainty can you give businesses about this new definition?
Answer. The TCPA defines an ``automatic telephone dialing system''
as ``equipment which has the capacity--(A) to store or produce
telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.'' In the June 2015 Declaratory
Ruling and Order, the Commission did not ``address the exact contours
of the `autodialer' definition or seek to determine comprehensively
each type of equipment that falls within that definition that would be
administrable industry-wide.'' Rather, the 2015 Declaratory Ruling and
Order maintained the Commission's conclusion in a 2003 order that to be
considered an ``automatic telephone dialing system'' the ``equipment
need only have the `capacity to store or produce telephone numbers,' ''
as the statute dictates. In that regard, the 2015 Declaratory Ruling
and Order noted that the Commission has ``interpreted `capacity'
broadly since well before consumers' widespread use of smartphones''
and stated that ``there is no evidence in the record that individual
consumers have been sued based on typical use of smartphone
technology'' or that there are ``scenarios under which unwanted calls
are likely to result from consumers' typical use of smartphones.''
Instead, the Commission committed to ``monitor our consumer complaints
and other feedback, as well as private litigation, regarding atypical
uses of smartphones, and provide additional clarification if
necessary.''
In any event, the use of an autodialer is only prohibited when a
caller is using it to dial wireless numbers without prior express
consent from the called party. They can be used to dial residential
wireline numbers unless it is a prerecorded or artificial voice
telemarketing call which then would require prior express consent.
I recognize that this is complex and technology has changed
considerably since passage of the TCPA. If Congress chooses to revisit
the TCPA, updating the definition of autodialer could help provide
greater certainty for consumers and businesses.
Question 1b. I have also heard from companies who are concerned
that, under the new rules, they could be subject to litigation if they
attempt to contact a consumer whose phone number has been changed. One
company, for example, sent text messages to an employee, who never
informed the company that the employee's phone number had changed. The
company did not find out about the change until it was brought to
court. As an FCC commissioner, what guidance can you give to businesses
to ensure they can call and text customers--or even employees--without
fear of legal action?
Answer. In the June 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order, the
Commission identified a number of options that, over time, may permit
callers to learn of reassigned numbers. First, the Commission
recognized that there is at least one database that can help to
determine whether a number has been reassigned. Second, callers can ask
consumers to notify them when they switch from a number for which they
have given prior express consent. Third, the Declaratory Ruling and
Order made clear that there is ``[n]othing in the TCPA or our rules
[that] prevents parties from creating, through a contract or other
private agreement, an obligation for the person giving consent to
notify the caller when the number has been relinquished.'' And, fourth,
the record in the proceeding suggests that callers seeking to find
reassignments can: ``(1) include an interactive opt-out mechanism in
all artificial- or prerecorded-voice calls so that recipients may
easily report a reassigned or wrong number; (2) implement procedures
for recording wrong number reports received by customer service
representatives placing outbound calls; (3) implement processes for
allowing customer service agents to record new phone numbers when
receiving calls from customers; (4) periodically send an e-mail or mail
request to the consumer to update his or her contact information; (5)
utilize an autodialer's and/or a live caller's ability to recognize
`triple-tones' that identify and record disconnected numbers; (6)
establish policies for determining whether a number has been reassigned
if there has been no response to a `two-way' call after a period of
attempting to contact a consumer; and (7) enable customers to update
contact information by responding to any text message they receive,
which may increase a customer's likelihood of reporting phone number
changes and reduce the likelihood of a caller dialing a reassigned
number.''
In addition, the Declaratory Ruling and Order established a one-
phone call safe-haven for callers placing calls to numbers that have
been reassigned without the caller's knowledge. In sum, the Commission
concluded that ``the existence of phone number database tools combined
with other best practices, along with one additional post-reassignment
call, together make compliance [with the TCPA] feasible.''
Question 2. Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you believe that the TCPA
is in need of modernization? For example, some businesses argue that
the growth in wireless phones has made the TCPA out of date. In your
opinion, what parts of the existing law should Congress update?
Answer. Yes. Our communications technology is changing quickly. The
TCPA was passed when there were less than 10 million cellphone
subscriptions in the United States and the smartphone was a concept
straight out of science fiction. By contrast, today, Americans are
cutting the cord in increasing numbers and there are well over 350
million wireless subscriptions in the United States. As a result, I
believe it would be helpful to take a fresh look at the way the TCPA
treats wired and wireless calls differently. This distinction may have
made sense at the time of passage, but it no longer reflects the ways
consumers and businesses use communications technology. In addition, as
noted above, Congress could consider updating the Act's definition of
autodialer to account for changes in technology since the TCPA was
enacted.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. Regarding the Commission's designated 100 percent
overlap areas: You stated that the commission has a defined challenge
process for price cap carriers, and that the commission is working on a
similar process for rate-of-return carriers. Please provide more
information about the commission's plans for allowing incumbent rate-
of-return carriers to dispute their designation as a 100 percent
overlap area.
Answer. In the 2011 Universal Service/Intercarrier Compensation
Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a rule to eliminate high-
cost universal service support in incumbent local exchange carrier
(ILEC) study areas where an unsubsidized competitor or a combination of
unsubsidized competitors offers voice and broadband services that meet
the Commission's service obligations throughout the study area. The
Commission subsequently codified this rule in April 2014. In December
2014, the Commission directed its Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
to ``publish its preliminary determination of those areas subject to
100 percent overlap and then provide an opportunity for comment on
those preliminary determinations.''
On July 29, 2015, the Bureau published its preliminary list of
fifteen rate-of-return study areas that it tentatively found were
subject to 100 percent overlap by an unsubsidized competitor or
combination of unsubsidized competitors. The Bureau sought public
comment on its findings, in particular inviting feedback from affected
parties. Comments were due on August 28, 2015 and reply comments were
due on September 28, 2015.
To derive the preliminary list of areas subject to 100 percent
competitive overlap, the Bureau utilized FCC Form 477 data. Form 477
filers must truthfully certify that they offer service in a particular
census block, however, filers may not offer service to all locations in
the census block. As a result, the Bureau concluded that it ``cannot
finalize the [100 percent overlap] list . . . without knowing whether
the unsubsidized competitor is offering fixed broadband and voice
service in accordance with the Commission's service obligations for
universal to all locations within the blocks reported on Form 477 and
which overlap the study area.'' (emphasis in original)
Thus, similar to the challenge process it had used in the past, the
Bureau invited competitors to address in their comments whether they
currently offer, to all locations within the blocks reported on Form
477 and which overlap the incumbent's study area, service that meets
the Commission's service obligations for universal service (e.g.,
rates, speeds, latency, usage capacity). Significantly, the Bureau also
invited rate-of-return carriers that were identified on the preliminary
list of 100 percent overlapped study areas ``to submit evidence that an
unsubsidized competitor does not offer service to all locations in the
[relevant] census block . . . and/or that the competitor is not
offering service to all locations within those blocks.'' The Bureau
noted that ``the type of evidence that we found persuasive in the . . .
[price cap] challenge process to establish that service was not being
offered in an area was evidence that a provider's online service
availability tool showed `no service available' for particular
addresses in the relevant area.'' The Bureau stated that ``such
information would be relevant to our final determination.'' I believe
that this process provides a fair opportunity for rate-of-return
carriers to challenge the determination that they are in fact subject
to 100 percent competitive overlap, but the agency should always remain
open to ideas to improve its procedures.
Question 2. Regarding the Commission's designated 100 percent
overlap areas: Should a mere claim of service capability by an
interested competitive provider be regarded as more or less persuasive
then physical measurements showing signal strength at specific
household locations?
Answer. More information, including concrete and verifiable
evidence, is always preferable to assist the Commission in assessing
whether service is being provided to a given location.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. Commissioner Rosenwercel, I know you previously worked
with Senator Inouye, who was a friend to Senator Ted Stevens and often
advocated for Alaskans as if he was the State's third Senator. You also
come highly recommended by our Alaskan carriers. You have been to our
state, including some remote communities, a number of times. You have
come not only in the summer, but also in the winter, which tells us a
lot about your character and commitment. As you saw firsthand, Alaska
still has communities without mobile or broadband service, and in many
places trails the Lower 48 in deployment of modern telecommunications
infrastructure. At the direction of the previous Chairman, the
Commission adopted a plan that destabilized funding to Alaska,
hindering our carriers' ability to close this gap. Our rate-of-return
and wireless carriers have worked together to put forward a plan that
would stabilize funding for our rate-of-return carriers, providing them
the certainty they need to invest in their networks. Will you continue
to work with my office and our delegation to put this plan to work as
soon as possible, and no later than Commission action addressing the
national rate-of-return carrier program? I understand you, along with
the Chairman and your fellow Commissioners, are committed to addressing
the national program by the end of the year.
Answer. I have been to many communities in Alaska, including
Anchorage, Homer, Dillingham, Manokotak, Aniak, Kotzebue, Kiana, and
Nome. As a result, I know firsthand the difficulties carriers face
serving our 49th state. That is why, as the Commission contemplates
high-cost universal service reform for rate-of-return carriers, I
believe that it is important for us to account for Alaska's unique
traits and consider the merits of the plan put forward by the majority
of Alaska carriers. I commit to working with your office as we do so.
Question 2. In your testimony, you highlight universal access as
one of the four essential values that has informed our communications
laws. If re-confirmed, will you continue to support the Universal
Service Fund Program and its principals as envisioned by this Committee
in the 1996 Act?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. In your testimony, you said that, if re-confirmed, you
will ``continue to be guided by the fundamental values in the law'' and
that you will ``continue to respect the priorities of this Committee.''
Do you agree that if this Committee produces a legislative solution
regarding the Open Internet Order, it is your responsibility as
Commissioner to execute this solution as directed by Congress?
Answer. Yes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you and I share a strong
commitment to ensuring that traditionally under-represented voices have
the chance to be heard through sound telecommunications policies. While
we discussed this issue during your nomination hearing, I would like to
understand your views in greater detail.
The broadcast industry is in need of significant improvement in
this regard. Less than 3 percent of broadcast television stations are
owned by people of color and less than 7 percent are owned by women.
These numbers are particularly troubling given the rise in media
mergers and consolidation taking place across the country. Congress and
the FCC have a responsibility to help ensure that the American people
have a vibrant media marketplace.
You've previously lauded the minority media tax credits that were
in place until the mid-1990s as having been ``radically successful.''
You pointed out that, in the past, these tax credits were the single
most important tool for increasing access to capital in this industry.
Is there a need for Congress to reinstate the minority media tax
credit? Can you describe the social and economic benefits of a vibrant
and diverse media landscape, and how the wave of media mergers and
acquisitions can pose challenges to independent and minority-owned
networks?
Answer. Yes. Media ownership matters. It plays a role informing
what we see on the screen--and that, in turn, helps inform who we are
as individuals, as a community, and as a nation.
If we want a future where media ownership better reflects the full
diversity of our population, we need to consider a tool from the past--
the minority media tax credit.
The minority media tax credit began in 1978. The program encouraged
the sale of broadcast and cable properties to minority-owned buyers by
deferring the capital gains taxes of sellers. It dramatically increased
broadcast ownership diversity before its repeal by Congress seventeen
years later in 1995. In fact, when the program began, minorities owned
roughly 40 broadcast stations. By the end of the program, there were
333, including 290 radio stations and 43 television stations. The
transactions that took place during its tenure amounted to over $1
billion in economic activity.
Today, media markets have changed. But access to capital remains an
impediment for many small-and socially-disadvantaged businesses
interested in media properties. That is why I believe it is time to
take a fresh look at the minority media tax credit. While we may need
to make adjustments to this program to update it and prevent waste and
abuse, I believe it could again be an effective tool to encourage more
diverse ownership of media properties.
Question 2. As you know, there are relatively few broadcast
stations located in New Jersey. In fact, our state is one of just two
in the country that doesn't have its own in-state television market.
This can have serious implications when it comes to civic participation
and accessing local news content. I continue to have concerns about
whether my constituents have the access to the robust local programming
merited by New Jersey's high population density and incredible
diversity.
The FCC recently finalized its rules on market modifications, and
due to an initiative that Senator Fischer and I championed, a study is
being conducted by the FCC that will look at, among other things,
states that lack media markets of their own.
What other efforts can be undertaken by the FCC or Congress to
ensure that consumers in New Jersey and around the country have access
to relevant, important local television programming?
Answer. New Jersey is the eleventh largest state by population, yet
it lacks its own media market. This makes it difficult for residents to
receive local information, including up-to-date weather and traffic
reports. It makes it hard to secure news coverage. It also robs
communities of their full identity, because so many stations are
focused on the media markets in adjacent states--namely New York and
Philadelphia. Historically, there was a statutory effort to address
this shortcoming in Section 331 of the Communications Act, which
alludes to the reallocation of a very high frequency commercial
television broadcast station to New Jersey. However, going forward it
is apparent that we will need new tools. A good place to start is the
study you championed with Senator Fischer featured in section 109 of
the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization
Act. Under the law, the Commission is required to release this study
next year. I expect this study will include an extensive discussion of
policies that would increase localism in states served by out-of-state
media markets.
Question 3. The transition from traditional wire-based telephone
networks to fiber-based networks (sometimes referred to as the ``IP
transition'') is an exciting new frontier that will modernize our
communications infrastructure and provide many benefits to users.
However, I've heard concerns from my constituents about the transition
and what it means for consumers.
One area of particularly concern is how the new networks will
perform in the event of a natural disaster like Superstorm Sandy.
Unlike traditional copper networks, fiber networks require backup
battery power--and this comes at a cost. Lower income families may not
be able to make the upfront investment in backup batteries if it means
choosing between emergency preparations and putting food on the table.
What recommendations do you have for Congress on how to make the IP
transition work to the benefit of people across the economic spectrum?
Answer. This is a time of extraordinary change for communications
networks. The number of traditional telephone lines is declining, the
use of wireless is growing, and services dependent on Internet Protocol
are remaking our communications across the board. The one thing that
does not change, however, is that we want our networks to work--
especially when the unthinkable occurs.
I spent time in coastal New Jersey following Superstorm Sandy. I
will never forget what I saw--a storm surge that had propelled rocks,
wreckage, and sand blocks beyond beachfront neighborhoods, with cruel
disregard for the cars and houses in the way. Many residents had their
communications knocked out for days. It was a striking reminder that we
need to be prepared in new ways because our new networks provide
service using commercial power. When the power goes out--so does so
much of our basic communications. That means consumers need to be aware
of the limitations of new services--and they need to prepare.
In August, the Commission adopted rules that require providers of
line-powered replacement telephone services to offer new subscribers
the option of purchasing a backup power solution that provides at least
8 hours of standby power in the event of a commercial power outage so
that consumers can reach 911 when it counts. In addition, within 3
years, providers must offer at least one option that provides a minimum
of 24 hours of backup power service. This, however, should only be the
start. Going forward, we need to ensure that consumers have clear
expectations about the capabilities of their services during the IP
transition. We also can do more to push the marketplace to provide
robust backup power as a basic part of consumer service packages.
Question 4. Do you believe there should be a voucher system for
emergency backup power similar to the system used during the transition
to digital television in 2009?
Answer. The coupon system developed for the digital television
transition was a long and complex undertaking. However, the transition
itself occurred on a nationwide basis over a very short period of time.
Here, the transition to IP networks is also long and multi-faceted. But
in contrast, the IP transition is happening in different communities at
different times--and not necessarily in every household at the same
time. In light of this difference, I think it would be smart to have
the Government Accountability Office study the feasibility of a voucher
system for backup power before pursuing this course.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
Question 1. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I was very disappointed when
Windstream declined almost $28 million in Connect America funding for
rural broadband in New Mexico. Windstream and other companies will be
able to bid in a ``reverse auction'' process to bring broadband service
to these customers. But I am very concerned that the most costly areas
to deploy service will still be left behind. It seems to me that if
Facebook and Google can bring Internet service to developing countries,
it should be within our means to make sure all New Mexicans have access
to broadband. Could you share your thoughts on how the FCC could use
pilot projects or encourage new technologies to bring broadband service
to remote rural areas?
Answer. I share your concerns and agree that we need to think
creatively about how to foster broadband access in hard-to-reach areas
of the country, New Mexico included.
Last year, the Commission began to use pilot projects to experiment
with new ways to deploy broadband in our rural communities. The
Commission established a $100 million budget for its rural broadband
experiments, which attracted nearly 600 project bids from over 180
applicants. These projects are just getting started, but they have
already yielded instructive lessons for the agency as it considers how
to update and modernize its high-cost universal service support
programs.
It is my hope that we will take what we have learned from these
pilot projects and use it to inform the reverse auction that will take
place for areas of the country, like New Mexico, where incumbent
providers declined our initial offer of Connect America support.
I also believe we need to explore new technologies and new ways of
delivering service in rural communities. I think the best way to do
this is to develop a more robust framework for the Remote Areas Fund,
which was designed for bringing modern communications to the hardest-
to-reach and highest-cost areas of the country. Following completion of
the reverse auction, I believe the Commission should turn back to this
effort and creatively work to reach even more remote and rural areas.
Question 2. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I want to thank you for your
steadfast support for ending the digital divide impacting Tribal
communities. This is a communications crisis that affects all of Indian
Country. In my home state of New Mexico, about ninety percent of those
living on Tribal lands lack access to high speed broadband. May I have
your commitment to continue to support the FCC Office of Native Affairs
and Policy and other FCC efforts to tackle the digital divide facing
Indian Country?
Answer. Yes, absolutely.
Question 3. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you have been a champion for
the E-Rate initiative. Last year, about $26 million in E-Rate funding
helped bring broadband to New Mexico schools and libraries. Can you
describe where you see recent E-Rate reforms building on the success of
the E-Rate program? What digital learning and other broadband
opportunities are you most excited about for schools and libraries?
Answer. The E-Rate program is designed to connect all of our
schools and libraries to the Internet. But until recently, this program
was stuck in the age of dial-up. Speeds were slow, bureaucracy was
significant, and funding was too hard for too many schools to secure.
Last year, however, the Commission rebooted E-Rate and created E-
Rate 2.0. We set goals for capacity of 100 megabits in the near term
and 1 Gigabit in the long term to all our schools and libraries. As a
result, we are on course to have high-capacity broadband and Wi-Fi in
all schools over the next five years. We also streamlined the
application process. This is important--because a digital age program
should not be weighed down by a mountain of analog-era paperwork.
Finally, we updated the budget to reflect the importance of broadband
connections in modern schools and libraries.
These steps are exciting. But as you suggest, what will follow in
their wake is even more exciting. Having better broadband in more of
our schools will help students everywhere develop the digital skills
they need to compete in the information economy. It also will lead to
new nationwide markets for educational content, devices, and innovative
teaching tools. In time, it could mean that school districts could
customize more content and move beyond textbooks and the slow and
costly process of selecting them every seven to ten years. In addition,
as a result of our changes, more libraries will be able to accommodate
more digital age activity and become modern hubs for research,
homework, job-seeking, and community education.
Of course, for all of these good things to occur, we need to be
vigilant. We need to work out any kinks in our new service categories.
We also need to continually assess the complexity of the application
process and look for new ways to streamline our systems. Finally, we
must always be on guard for waste and abuse to ensure that this program
can continue to provide the connectivity modern schools and libraries
need.
Question 4. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I am working in a very
bipartisan manner with Senator Moran on Federal I.T. reforms. Last
year, we were successful in passing the Federal Information Technology
Acquisition Reform Act or ``FITARA.'' The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report recently stating that these I.T. reforms
such as Federal data center consolidation are already saving $3.6
billion in annual spending. The FCC has a very active Chief Information
Officer who I know is working hard to improve IT at the Commission. The
newly revamped FCC Consumer Complaints Database is one example of this.
I would like to see more of this type of smart I.T. acquisition and
management. Could you share with me your perspective on what IT reforms
might help the FCC better meet its mission?
Answer. Every year the Federal Government invests more than $80
billion annually in IT. With the passage of Federal Information
Technology Reform Act, the Commission and other Federal agencies are
now making smarter, lower risk investments and continuously looking for
opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce waste. As you
mentioned, the Commission's CIO David Bray has taken many steps to
modernize the Commission and reduce IT costs along the way.
One example of this is the updated FCC Consumer Help Center, where
consumers can file complaints with the Commission online.
Traditionally, the FCC would hire one contractor to build this new
website from scratch. That would have taken 18 months and cost the
Commission $3.2 million. However, at the direction of the CIO, the
Commission opted to hire a web developer to build the new Consumer Help
Center with ``on-the-shelf'' technology. It was completed in 6 months
and cost the Commission $450,000. Not only did this project save the
Commission money, but it has also enhanced the way American consumers
engage with us. It allows consumers to easily navigate FCC forms and
check the status of any complaints they have filed. It provides
granular, real-time data to support analysis by the agency as well as
outside groups. And because of its flexible platform, the Commission
can continue to modify and upgrade the Center as consumer needs
dictate.
As the FCC continues to update its website, I look forward to
seeing what other cost-saving opportunities our CIO identifies and
putting more information in the hands of American consumers.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
?
?
?