[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-48
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-002 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
_____
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Witnesses
Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Additional information submitted for the record \1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 117
Mignon L. Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 133
Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 137
Submitted Material
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, regarding FCC reauthorization........ 74
Flier, ``In Their Own Words: ISP Statements to Investors About
Title II's Lack of Harmful Impacts,'' Free Press, submitted by
Mr. Doyle...................................................... 116
Report by Free Press, ``It's Working: How the Internet Access and
Online Video Markets Are Thriving in the Title II Era,'' May
2017, by S. Derek Turner, \2\ submitted by Mr. Doyle
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/
20170725/106312/HHRG-115-IF16-20170725-SD005-U76141.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/
20170725/106312/HHRG-115-IF16-20170725-SD002-U2.pdf.
OVERSIGHT AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long,
Flores, Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Walden (ex officio),
Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Rush, Eshoo,
Engel, Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Cardenas.
Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist,
Deputy Staff Director; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly
Collins, Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Jordan Davis, Director of Policy
and External Affairs; Blair Ellis, Press Secretary/Digital
Coordinator; Charles Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications
and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection/Communications and Technology;
Zach Hunter, Communications Director; Peter Kielty, Deputy
General Counsel; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff,
Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor for
External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Alex
Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; Evan Gilbert, Minority
Press Assistant; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority
Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; Jessica
Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator;
Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Tim Robinson, Minority
Chief Counsel; Matt Schumacher, Minority Deputy Press Secretary
and Digital Director; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
Communications, Member Services, and Outreach.
Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
And I want to welcome you all to the subcommittee's hearing
titled ``Oversight and Reauthorization of the Federal
Communications Commission.'' I appreciate the Commissioners
appearing to offer their testimony today, and we appreciate
that we have been able to hear from you in advance of this
hearing. The FCC has not been reauthorized since 1990, and its
current appropriation is over $430 million. It is charged with
the administration of the Communications Act and other statutes
vital to the functioning of our communications policy. We must
reexamine the core functions of the Commission and restore a
culture of humility that was lacking under the regulatory cloud
left by Chairman Wheeler.
The FCC plays a vital role in our increasing lead
technology dependent society. The subcommittee has, therefore,
released a discussion draft for consideration.
I would be remiss by not discussing net neutrality. The
Commission's decision in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a
public utility was a power grab laced with the irony of
suffocating the most innovative part of our economy with a
1930's era law. This gave new meaning to the term
``progressive.'' Reply comments to the Commission's NPRM are
due August 18. Chairman Pai, we hope you are keeping that
``weed whacker'' handy, because it has a lot of work to do.
Title II reclassification has created a 5.6 percent
reduction in ISP network investment, will lead to rate
regulation, and has generated tremendous uncertainty.
However, I know there is disagreement. And while my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle had nothing to do
with this, internet giants Amazon, Facebook, and Google
recently joined with Web sites such as PornHub and dark money
groups fight for the future, demand progress, and free press
for a day of action to claim Republicans will break the net.
Let me be clear: Republicans have always supported a free and
open internet. Let's not have any misunderstanding on that
issue. We must move past the partisan rhetoric. Ranking Member
Pallone said in 2010 that this is a job for Congress in
referring to the net neutrality rules, and I agree.
Other issues confronting the Commission include
administration of the Lifeline program, media ownership rules,
and process reform. The GAO released another report critical of
the Lifeline program on June 29. It found that 36 percent of
the program participants could not be verified for eligibility.
Over 6,000 deceased individuals were enrolled after their
death, and numerous carriers approved eligibility for the
program based on fictitious documentation. Lifeline continues
to be plagued by significant deficiencies, including the need
for a hard cap.
Outdated media ownership rules and process reform issues
also concern the committee. Commissioner O'Rielly astutely
noted that the FCC's quadrennial review of broadcast-to-
ownership rules released last August was, and I am quoting,
``divorced from the realities of today's media marketplace,''
end quote.
Finally, process reform has been an issue of bipartisan
concern for some time. Bipartisan bills have passed the House 5
of the last 6 years.
Chairman Pai, you have taken positive steps, including the
release of a fact sheet for any proposal to be considered at an
open meeting in releasing the text of documents to the public
in advance of a vote at an open meeting. However, more must be
done to promote and sustain a culture of transparency at the
Commission on several other issues noted in the majority
memorandum.
I look forward to today's hearing. And at this time, I
yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to the Communications and Technology Subcommittee's
hearing titled ``Oversight and Reauthorization of The Federal
Communications Commission''. I appreciate the Commissioners
appearing here to offer their testimony.
The FCC has not been reauthorized since 1990 and its
current appropriation is over $430 million. It is charged with
administration of the Communications Act and other statutes
vital to the functioning of our communications policy. We must
reexamine the core functions of the Commission and restore a
culture of humility that was lacking under the regulatory cloud
left by Chairman Wheeler. The FCC plays a vital role in our
increasingly technology dependent society. The subcommittee has
therefore released a discussion draft for consideration.
I would be remiss by not discussing net neutrality. The
Commission's decision in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a
public utility was a power grab laced with the irony of
suffocating the most innovative part of our economy with a
1930s-era law. This gave new meaning to the term
``progressive.'' Reply comments to the Commission's NPRM are
due August 18th. Chairman Pai, we hope you're keeping that
``weed whacker'' handy because it has a lot of work to do.
Title II reclassification has created a 5.6 percent
reduction in ISP network investment, will lead to rate
regulation and has generated tremendous uncertainty. However, I
know there is disagreement. While my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle had nothing to do with this, internet giants
such as Amazon and Google recently joined with Web sites like
Pornhub, and dark money groups Fight for the Future, Demand
Progress, and Free Press for a ``Day of Action'' to claim
Republicans will ``break the Net.'' Let me be clear:
Republicans have always supported a free and open internet. We
must move past the partisan rhetoric. Ranking Member Pallone
said in 2010 that this is a job for Congress. I agree.
Other issues confronting the Commission include
administration of the Lifeline program, media ownership rules,
and process reform. The GAO released another report critical of
the Lifeline program on June 29th. It found that 36 percent of
program participants could not be verified for eligibility,
over 6,000 deceased individuals were enrolled after their
death, and numerous carriers approved eligibility for the
program based on fictitious documentation. Lifeline continues
to be plagued by significant deficiencies--including the need
for a hard cap.
Outdated media ownership rules and process reform issues
also concern the subcommittee. Commissioner O'Rielly astutely
noted that the FCC's Quadrennial Review of broadcast ownership
rules released last August was ``divorced from the realities of
today's media marketplace.'' Finally, process reform has been
an issue of bipartisan concern for some time. Bipartisan bills
have passed the House five of the last 6 years. Chairman Pai,
you have taken positive steps; including the release of a fact
sheet for any proposal to be considered at an open meeting and
releasing the text of documents to the public in advance of a
vote at an open meeting. However, more must be done to promote
and sustain a culture of transparency at the Commission on
several other issues noted in the majority memorandum.
I look forward to today's hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chair Blackburn, and welcome to the
FCC Commissioners.
The internet is a great equalizer. It provides an open
platform to empower innovation, expression, and free speech, as
well as other inventions in history. By reclassifying internet
services under the depression era Title II, common carrier
rules, in 2015, the FCC needlessly risked this great economic
engine. Title II opens the door to burdensome regulations that
harm competition, threaten the investment and broadband needed
to close the digital divide and hold back innovation such as
5G.
I applaud Chairman Pai for initiating a proceeding to
review this misguided reclassification. It is important for
consumers not to conflate the harmful Title II reclassification
with the net neutrality principles as some would suggest. There
is strong support among the American people for a light touch
approach to internet regulation, and a strong consensus on both
sides of the aisle for net neutrality principles. These ideas
do not need to be mutually exclusive.
It is my hope that the Commission and Congress can finally
resolve the open internet issues, and that we can work together
in a bipartisan capacity.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Doyle, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for holding this
long overdue hearing today, and thank you to the witnesses for
appearing before us. It is my sincere hope we can make this a
far more regular occurrence.
I have spent my time in Congress and on this committee as a
strong advocate of competition, innovation, and opportunity.
These are the pillars of a successful marketplace and the
driving force of our economy. When we act to weaken them, we
weaken our own economy and our country.
Chairman Pai, in the time that you have been head of this
agency, we have seen an agenda that is anti-consumer, anti-
small business, anti-competition, anti-innovation, and anti-
opportunity. Right out of the gate, the Commission took a range
of actions, including pulling back an investigation of anti-
competitive zero rating practices, and a mere progress report
on updates to a program to bring broadband to schools and
libraries.
The Commission reinstated the UHF discount for what seems
to be no other reason than to enable an unprecedented merger
between Sinclair and Tribune that would give the combined
entity a foothold in nearly 80 percent of American households.
The Commission eviscerated competition for business data
services in this country. Your order concluded that a market is
competitive if it is served by one provider with the
possibility of another one might enter at some point. I don't
even see how this makes sense.
The Commission ended a program that enabled poor people to
get access to broadband, literally pulling service away from
people who had already signed up. The Commission is in the
process of eliminating the FCC's open internet order, which, as
of this morning, 12.3 million have written to you in
overwhelming opposition.
These rules are working, they have been upheld in Federal
court, and they have promoted a virtuous cycle of investment
and innovation online. And I don't think this point can be
stressed enough. Publicly traded companies are required by law
to tell their investors the risk to their company. No publicly
traded ISP has made such a claim. However, many online
companies, including Netflix and SNAP, have claimed that
eroding or eliminating these rules will, in fact, pose a threat
to their businesses.
You know, when I read your statements and you talk about
investment and your concerns, you only seem to talk about it in
relation to ISP investment. I am concerned that maybe you just
don't get it. The internet isn't just an ISP's connection to
the consumer. It is a vast array of networks, services, and
applications. Ignoring the rest of the ecosystem is to ignore
the part of the internet that is the most vibrant and
innovative.
I am deeply concerned that the FCC is on a wrong path, a
path that will hurt small businesses, regular people, and some
of the most innovative sectors of our economy.
And on that cheery note, I will yield of balance of my time
to Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the ranking member. And what a superb
opening statement you just made.
One of the most important issues currently before the FCC
is obviously net neutrality. We have heard a lot from net
neutrality opponents about the impact of Title II on broadband
investment. And while large ISPs tell the FCC that Title II has
chilled investment, their executives tell their shareholders a
different story. The benefits of Title II protections to every
other sector of our economy are enormous. A free and open
internet supported the creation of 10.4 million U.S. jobs in
all 50 States in 2016. 86 percent of these jobs came outside of
major tech hubs.
Despite the broad impact of the open internet on our
economy, the FCC is barreling down the road of eliminating
these critical protections, and making it clear to the American
people, startups, and small businesses that their input is not
valued nearly as much as that of Washington's special
interests.
So I look forward to discussing this issue further, and ask
that my full statement be inserted in the record. I also plan
to discuss very directly with you, Mr. Chairman, the whole
issue of RT in the intelligence communities public record
statement. It is replete with references to RT. And I think
that we need to pay a great deal of attention to that.
I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back his time. And I
will say to my colleagues, we agree with you that the issues of
the health of the internet ecosystem, the issue of net
neutrality, the issue of Title II deserve additional attention
from this committee, and we look forward to carrying forward
with this.
At this time, I recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes for an opening.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Madam Chair, and to all of our
witnesses, the Commissioners and the chairman, to our guests.
American innovation in the internet space has literally
revolutionized the world and everything we do and how we do it.
From research and communications to shopping and entertainment,
the internet is an essential part of our everyday lives. Given
the debate over the rules for internet operations and consumer
privacy, it is our responsibility on the Energy and Commerce
Committee to fully understand all sides of the internet
governance issue. Therefore, I am announcing this morning that
I am convening a full Energy and Commerce Committee hearing
entitled ``Ground Rules for the Internet Ecosystem'' for
Thursday, September 7, 2017.
Today I am sending formal invitations to the top executives
of the leading tech companies, including Facebook, Alphabet,
Amazon, and Netflix, as well as broadband providers including
Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter Communications, inviting
each of them to come and testify before our full Energy and
Commerce Committee.
It is time for Congress to legislate the rules of the
internet, and stop the Ping-Pong game of regulations and
litigation. And make no mistake, given the importance of this
public policy debate, and the work we need to do as a
committee, it is essential that we hear directly from the
country's top internet and edge provider leaders who frequently
speak out publicly about rules of the internet. It is time they
came before us, and directly shared their positions and
answered our questions.
And with more than a month's advance notice, I am sure they
can arrange their schedules to accommodate our invitations.
Now, with regard to today's panel. Chairman Pai, welcome
and congratulations on taking over the helm at the FCC.
Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioner O'Rielly, we are glad to
have you back before us as well. Thank for the work you do.
We begin a new chapter in the history of the FCC, one that
will shape some of the most important parts of our national
economy: The telecommunications industry, the video
distribution industries, and the internet.
In today's hearing, we begin to examine reauthorizing the
FCC, and that is the first time since 1990 the FCC has come up
for reauthorization. By any estimation, this discussion is long
overdue, and today, we continue conversations to make the FCC a
model agency with proposals for a number of process reforms,
many of which will sound very familiar because we have taken
them up before in this committee.
When we first took up these open Government reforms, I said
it was not about who headed the FCC at the time; it was about
improving transparency and public involvement in a public
process. I believe that under Chairman Wheeler, and I believe
that just as much now under Chairman Pai.
I was pleased to see Chairman Pai demonstrated his
commitment to making the FCC operations more transparent
through action by initiating a pilot program to publicly
release the text of Commission agenda items at the same time
they are presented to the other Commissioners for a vote, a
measure his predecessor opposed. There are a number of matters
pending at the Commission, many of which we will discuss today.
With the forward portion of the incentive auction concluded
the next phase, the broadcaster repack is underway. The
Commission has set forth an aggressive schedule to move all the
broadcasters impacted by this auction. While I have every
confidence that Chairman Pai will work to ensure consumers
continue to have access to over-the-air television, concerns
remain about the sufficiency of the 39-month time line and the
$1.75 billion budget.
I take these concerns seriously, and will continue to work
closely with the Commission and my colleagues to make sure that
over-the-air broadcasting and the viewers they reach on their
main channel and on their translators are not adversely
affected. And, of course, Chairman Pai has commenced a
proceeding to examine returning regulation of the internet to
the bipartisan framework that made it the economic engine that
it is today.
As we wait for this process to take its course, the future
of the greatest economic engine of modern times is clouded with
uncertainty with a growing recognition that the time is now for
legislative action. We offered a way forward on net neutrality
in 2015. I believe now, as I did then, that we should work
together to write bipartisan legislation to protect the
internet from bad actors who want to use their unfair advantage
to block, throttle, or, in other ways, engage in bad behavior.
The American people deserve no less. We stand ready to act.
Chairman Pai, Commission Clyburn, Commissioner O'Rielly,
thank you all again.
If there are others who want to use the last 15 seconds, I
would happily yield. And if not, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning everyone.
American innovation in the internet space has literally
revolutionized the world and everything we do and how we do it.
From research and communications to shopping and entertainment,
the internet is an essential part of our everyday lives. Given
the debate over the rules for internet operations and consumer
privacy, it is our responsibility on the Energy and Commerce
Committee to fully understand all sides of internet governance.
Therefore, I am announcing this morning that I am convening a
full Energy and Commerce Committee hearing entitled ``Ground
Rules for the Internet Ecosystem'' on Thursday, September 7,
2017. Today I am sending formal invitations to the top
executives of leading tech companies, including Facebook,
Alphabet, Amazon, and Netflix, as well as broadband providers
including Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter Communications
inviting them to testify. It's time for Congress to legislate
the rules of the internet, and stop the ping-pong game of
regulations and litigation. And make no mistake, given the
importance of this public policy debate and the work we need to
do as a committee, it is essential that we hear directly from
the country's top internet and edge provider leaders who
frequently speak out publicly about the rules of the internet.
It's time they came before us and directly shared their
positions and answered our questions. With more than a month's
advance notice, I'm sure they can arrange their schedules to
accommodate our invitation.
Now, with regard to today's panel: Chairman Pai--welcome
and congratulations again on taking over the helm of the
Federal Communications Commission. Commissioner Clyburn,
Commissioner O'Rielly welcome. Thank you all for joining us.
We have begun a new chapter in the history of the FCC; one
that will shape some of the most important parts of our
national economy--the telecommunications industry, the video
distribution industries, and the internet.
In today's hearing, we begin to examine reauthorizing the
FCC for the first time since 1990. By any estimation, this
discussion is long overdue and today we continue conversations
to make the FCC a model agency with proposals for a number of
process reforms. When we first took up these open Government
reforms, I said it wasn't about who headed the FCC at the time,
it was about improving transparency and public involvement in a
public process. I believed that when Chairman Wheeler ran the
FCC just as much as I believe it now with Chairman Pai at the
helm.
I was pleased to see that Chairman Pai demonstrated his
commitment to making the FCC's operations more transparent
through action by initiating a pilot program to publicly
release the text of Commission agenda items at the same time
they are presented to other Commissioners for vote--a measure
his predecessor opposed.
There are a number of matters pending at the Commission,
many of which we will talk about today. With the forward
portion of the incentive auction concluded, the next phase--the
broadcaster repack--is underway. The Commission has set forth
an aggressive schedule to move all of the broadcasters impacted
by the auction. While I have every confidence that Chairman Pai
will work to ensure consumers continue to have access to over-
the-air television, concerns remain about the sufficiency of
the 39-month timeline and the $1.75 billion budget. I take
these concerns seriously and will continue to work closely with
the Commission to make sure that over the air broadcasting and
the viewers they reach on their main channel and on their
translators are not adversely affected.
And of course, Chairman Pai has commenced a proceeding to
examine returning the regulation of the internet to the
bipartisan framework that made it the economic engine that it
is. As we wait for this process to take its course, the future
of the greatest economic engine of modern times is clouded by
uncertainty, with a growing recognition that the time is now
for legislative action. We offered a way forward on net
neutrality in 2015. I believe now, as I did then, that we
should work together to write bipartisan legislation to protect
the internet from bad actors who want to use their unfair
advantage to block, throttle or in other ways engage in bad
behavior. The American people deserve no less.
Chairman Pai, Commissioner Clyburn, and Commissioner
O'Rielly thank you all again.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would like to thank the FCC Commissioners for joining us
this morning, our first FCC oversight hearing of this Congress.
While I am glad you are here, this hearing should have occurred
months ago. The Republican majority had no problem conducting
oversight of the previous Obama administration holding
quarterly oversight hearings. But now that their own party
controls the majority of the Commission, we are six months into
the administration, and this is our first hearing with the new
Commission. I hope this is not a sign of things to come,
because the Commission's own actions have shown the critical
need for congressional oversight.
To date, most of the FCC's actions have ignored the needs
of consumers. Too often, when given the chance, this FCC has
sided with large corporations to the detriment of hardworking
Americans. The Commission started this year by making it more
difficult for competitors to offer broadband to low-income
people through the Lifeline program. It continued with a scheme
to encourage more consolidation in the media industry, which
would eliminate voices from the air.
Last week, Chairman Pai refused to commit to protecting the
funds necessary to close the homework gap as part of the
popular E-Rate program in our schools. And then there is the
alarming outright refusal by the FCC to protect the security of
our broadband networks at a time when the Russians and others
are looking for new ways to break in.
But the highest profile example of the FCC siding with
large corporations over small businesses and hardworking
Americans is its attempt to eliminate net neutrality. A free
and open internet is crucial for our democracy by giving
everyone an equal voice online, especially those communities
too often overlooked by traditional media. Each of us gets to
decide which videos we watch, which sites we read, and which
services we use. Nobody gets to influence that choice. Not the
Government and not the companies that run the networks.
A free and open internet also allows small businesses to
flourish. These small businesses, many of which are owned by
minorities and women, are responsible for more than half of the
jobs in the country today. If the FCC moves ahead with its net
neutrality repeal, the consequences will be severe. Their plan
will have a chilling influence on our democracy, cut away at
our connections with each other, and limit economic
opportunities for the future. The FCC claims that net
neutrality repeal is necessary because consumer protections
might deter investment in network infrastructure. But this
narrow-minded view of the public interest can lead to cruel
results. I hope that the Commissioners really listen to the
millions of comments that are coming in from around the Nation
and reconsider their dangerous plan to eliminate net
neutrality.
This is not only an oversight hearing today. The Republican
majority recently surprised us all with a 42-page
reauthorization bill that had absolutely no Democratic input.
And this bill is flawed. It slashes $18 million from the FCC's
budget, the same agency that is having issues keeping its Web
site up and running. This is not serious legislation, and it
does not bode well for any serious legislation being developed
by the majority of this subcommittee on any major communication
issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I'd like to thank the FCC Commissioners for joining us this
morning--our first FCC oversight hearing of this Congress.
While I'm glad that you are all here today, this hearing should
have occurred months ago. The Republican majority had no
problem conducting oversight of the previous Obama
administration, holding quarterly oversight hearings. But now
that their own party controls the Commission, we're six months
into the administration and this is our first hearing with the
new Commission. I hope that this is not a sign of things to
come, because the Commission's own actions have shown the
critical need for Congressional oversight.
To date, most of the FCC's actions have ignored the needs
of consumers. Too often, when given the choice, this FCC has
sided with large corporations to the detriment of hardworking
Americans.
The Commission started the year by making it more difficult
for competitors to offer broadband to low-income people through
the Lifeline program.
It continued with a scheme to encourage more consolidation
in the media industry, which would eliminate voices from the
air.
Last week Chairman Pai refused to commit to protecting the
funds necessary to close the homework gap as part of the
popular E-Rate program in our schools.
And then there is the alarming outright refusal by the FCC
to protect the security of our broadband networks at a time
when the Russians and others are looking for new ways to break
in.
But the highest profile example of the FCC siding with
large corporations over small businesses and hardworking
Americans is its attempt to eliminate net neutrality.
Net neutrality is crucial for our democracy by giving
everyone an equal voice online-especially those communities too
often overlooked by traditional media. Each of us gets to
decide which videos we watch, which sites we read and which
services we use. Nobody gets to influence that choice--not the
Government and not the companies that run the networks.
Net neutrality also allows small businesses to flourish.
These small businesses-many of which are owned by minorities
and women-are responsible for more than half of the jobs in the
country today.
If the FCC moves ahead with its net neutrality plan the
consequences will be severe. Their plan will have a chilling
influence on our democracy, cut away at our connections with
each other, and limit economic opportunities for the future.
The FCC claims its plan is necessary because consumer
protections might deter investment in network infrastructure.
But this narrow-minded view of the public interest can lead to
cruel results. I hope that the Commissioners really listen to
the millions of comments that are coming in from around the
Nation, and reconsider their dangerous plan to eliminate net
neutrality.
This is not only an oversight hearing today--the Republican
Majority recently surprised us all with a 42-page
reauthorization bill that had absolutely no Democratic input.
This bill is flawed. It slashes $18 million from the FCC's
budget--the same agency that is having issues keeping its Web
site up and running. This is not serious legislation, and it
does not bode well for any serious legislation being developed
by the majority of this subcommittee on any major
communications issues.
Mr. Pallone. And with that, I would like to yield such time
as she wants to Ms. Matsui that I have left.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Pallone,
for yielding me time, and welcome to our FCC Commissioners. I
represent Sacramento, the capital of the State of California,
where innovation is central to the way we do business. My
constituents are extremely concerned about vast and fair access
to the internet, which is essential for the innovation economy
to thrive. In fact, I have gotten myself so many comments on my
phones and emails in Sacramento and here in Washington, DC.
Everyone from small business owners to educators and
librarians in my district have told me that they are counting
on the FCC's net neutrality rules. And it is not just my
constituents; it is Americans across this country. Almost 11
million people have contacted the FCC about why net neutrality
is so important. And these are not just business people. These
are students; these are seniors; these are librarians, as I
said before. These are people who use the internet every single
day, and want it to be there. And I have to say this: Chairman
Pai, I urge you to listen to these voices, millions of voices,
and not roll back the progress that we have made. It is really
important for the future of our country here. It is important
for the future of our young people. And I truly believe that,
in this way, if we stopped this progress, we will, in essence,
stop the progress of our country. So I urge you to listen.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
I will remind my colleagues, we had this hearing scheduled
in March and gave up our day for the markup of the healthcare
bill. And we would have liked to have had this hearing earlier
in the year.
That concludes Member opening statements. The Chair would
remind all Members that, pursuant to the committee rules, they
have an opportunity to make their opening statement a part of
this record. We want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening
statements followed by questions from the Members.
Our witness panel for today's hearing will include the
Honorable Ajit Pai, who is Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission; the Honorable Mignon Clyburn, who is
a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission; and
the Honorable Michael O'Rielly, who is also a Commissioner at
the Federal Communications Commission. We appreciate each of
you being here today and for preparing your testimony for the
committee. We will begin the panel with you, Chairman Pai. You
are now recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; MIGNON L. CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify today.
Since 2012, it has been an honor to work with you on many
issues. And now, as Chairman, I look forward to striving
together to bring digital opportunity to all Americans. I also
want to pay tribute to a distinguished member of this
subcommittee, Representative Steve Scalise. I have had the
chance to work with him over the past few years. And I have
learned a truth known to many of you: To know him is to like
him. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and his
family during his recovery.
The agency has been busy during the past few months. July
marked Consumer Protection Month at the FCC. At our open
meeting, we targeted a triad of consumer scourges: unlawful
robocalls, slamming and cramming, and rural call completion,
all on the heels of taking down the largest spoofer in our
agency's history.
August will be Rural Broadband Month. On August 3rd, we
will consider the next steps towards implementing the Connect
America Fund and Mobility Fund reverse auctions. We will also
explore how to ensure that our ongoing collection of broadband
deployment data is as accurate and efficient as possible. There
is, of course, much more that the agency is doing and much more
to be done.
I look forward to continuing working together on a
bipartisan basis to close the digital divide, promote
innovation, protect consumers and public safety, and improve
the FCC's processes and procedures.
My testimony today will focus on two issues that I believe
are ripe for legislative action. First, I applaud the
subcommittee for promoting legislation to reauthorize the FCC
for 5 years. I am eager to work with the subcommittee to
advance it. I want to highlight one particular provision
entitled ``Deposits of Bidders to be Deposited in Treasury.''
That provision is absolutely critical if our Nation is going to
lead the world in 5G, because without it, the FCC won't be able
to launch large-spectrum auctions in the foreseeable future.
Here is why: The Communications Act requires that up-front
payments made by bidders in spectrum auctions be deposited in,
and I quote, ``an interest-bearing account at a financial
institution.''
But recent regulatory requirements have dissuaded private
institutions from holding these up-front payments. Public
institutions, too, have indicated that, going forward, they
have no interest in establishing these special purpose accounts
that would be necessary to offer such services. As a result,
despite repeated efforts by FCC and Treasury staff, no
financial institution is now willing to hold up-front payments
in an interest-bearing account for a large spectrum auction.
Thus, the FCC currently has no way to comply with the law and
no way to move forward with any such auction. That is why I
appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to address this
situation. With the simple fix contained in the draft
legislation, the FCC would, again, be able to schedule large-
spectrum auctions by allowing up-front payments to be deposited
at the Treasury.
Second, I would like to update the subcommittee on the
post-incentive auction transition process. July 12 was the
deadline for television broadcasters that are going to be
repacked to submit cost estimates to the Commission. And two
days later, the FCC announced that the aggregate amount of the
estimated costs reported by broadcast television stations and
multichannel video programming distributors, or MVPDs, that are
eligible for reimbursement, was $2.115 billion. However, we
cautioned that we expected to receive additional estimates from
MVPD's and a smaller number of stations.
In recent days, the FCC has received several additional
estimates. And the aggregate total of estimated costs has
increased to $2.139 billion. Given the estimates that we have
received to date, we are confident that, once all initial
estimates are received, the total will be below $2.2 billion.
Now, looking beyond the initial round of estimates, the
aggregate total of estimated repacking costs will continue to
change through amendment and independent review during the
transition process for these reasons: The FCC cannot
definitively report today exactly how much the repack will
cost. The final number could be lower or higher than the
current $2.139 billion. But we do expect the final number to be
above the $1.75 billion that Congress has provided the
Commission to reimburse affected broadcast stations and MVPDs.
As a result, unless Congress acts to raise the $1.75 billion
cap, the substantial likelihood is that local broadcasters will
be required to pay some portion of the repacking cost out of
their own pockets. I would be happy to work with the
subcommittee to address this important issue.
Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the
subcommittee, thank you once again for holding this hearing. I
look forward to answering your questions and to continuing to
work with you and your staffs in the time to come.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. And he yields back right on time.
Commissioner Clyburn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Ms. Clyburn. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to again appear before you to share my priorities
for advancing competition, strengthening viewpoint diversity,
and ensuring that consumers are always put first.
Last week, I had the privilege of traveling to Marietta,
Ohio. It was there I heard countless stories from individuals,
businesses, and local government leaders who, but for no other
reason than their geographic location, and maybe a slight
income gap, find themselves on the wrong side of the digital
and opportunity's divide in Appalachia. Too many families in
rural America, and even many urban communities, are suffering
from poor to no connectivity and substandard service that, to
add insult to injury is simply unaffordable.
I believe, however, that if we commit as an agency to put
the interest of consumers and small businesses first, we will
be able to truly say that we are fulfilling our statutory
mandate to serve the public interest. Allow me to spend the
majority of my testimony today further explaining how the
Commission can achieve this goal.
Among my top priorities is preserving the Commission's 2015
open internet rules. But just what is this administration's
response to the more than now 12 million commenters who
expressed their views with the Commission? To propose a
dismantling of the bright line rules of the road we adopted in
2015 and were upheld by the D.C. Circuit last year.
We need to hit the pause button and begin serious
discussions about the broader implications of undoing our
classification of broadband as a Title II service. Take, for
example, consumer privacy. In a world without Title II, not
only will the FCC be forever barred from addressing consumer
privacy in a broadband world, it is unclear that any agency
will ever hold that authority. Similarly, when it comes to our
efforts to expand the deployment of broadband, including in
rural America, taking away Title II for broadband undercuts our
ability to ensure universal service support for broadband by
taking away our clearest choice of authority to make sure all
Americans are connected.
Undoing our classification of broadband as a Title II
service also harms the FCC's ability to enable competition.
Without Title II, it will be far more difficult for the
Commission to enact policies to promote competition.
Second, I have been a tireless leader and defender of the
FCC Lifeline program and the need for there to be affordable
connectivity for all American consumers. The reality is that an
$80-to-$100-a-month broadband bill is simply out of reach for
Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.
Moving forward, we have a choice to make as a Commission.
Will we be shortsighted and weaken a program designed to assist
our Nation's most vulnerable, or will we commit to
constructively address and fix any remaining issues?
Third, I remain committed to delivering just and reasonable
rates for the 2.7 million children who have been hampered in
their quest to communicate with an incarcerated parent. I am
thankful for the leadership of Congressman Bobby Rush and
others on this subcommittee who, for years, have fought for
real reform. Rest assured, I will continue fighting to ensure
that inmates and their loved ones do not have to pay several
thousand percent of what a nonincarcerated person pays just to
stay in touch.
Fourth, I am a strong believer in the need for greater
viewpoint diversity across our public airwaves. However, the
Commission has taken several highly concerning steps this year
to derail that goal, including reinstating that technologically
obsolete UHF discount. By reinstituting and maintaining this
loophole that belongs in a regulatory trash heap, the
Commission has signaled its willingness to allow a single
broadcast station group to reach nearly 80 percent of the U.S.
households in a way that is nontransparent to the public, and
enables a nearly doubling of the ownership threshold set by
this body in 2004.
Finally, I would like to share some views about the
Commission's work around broadband-enabled healthcare, if you
would. Last month, the Commission's Connect2Health task force
released an update of our popular broadband mapping tool. Our
latest data shows that there are 214 counties, 175 of which are
majority rural, where broadband access is below 50 percent, and
diabetes and obesity rates are above the national average. And
in a late-breaking update, I am pleased to report that as of
Friday, the FCC has reopened its broadband health proceeding
for additional comments. Equipped with this information and
working with our Federal partners at HHS, the VA, and the NTIA,
the FCC will be better positioned to target those double-burden
counties.
In conclusion, let me say that I always stand ready to work
with my colleagues, this subcommittee, State and local
partners, and business leaders to advance policies that put
consumers first, and ensure our communications landscape
remains the envy of the world.
I thank you very much for allowing me more time. I am very
enthusiastic about being here, as you can tell by my statement,
and I look forward to answering any questions you may have in
the remaining time I don't have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you Commissioner Clyburn. And we are
enthusiastic about having you here, and we thank you for your
dedication on those issues.
Commissioner O'Rielly, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you, Ms. Chairman, Ranking Member
Doyle, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to
discuss the important topic before you today. I commend the
subcommittee for its continued focus on the Federal
Communications Commission, and I recommit to making myself
available as a resource if I can be any assistance to the
subcommittee in any manner in the future.
I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to
examine issues relevant to the re-authorizing of the
Commission. I believe that it is incredibly valuable and
important any time Congress articulates its views via
legislation on the Commission's work, including its funding
levels, procedures, and substantive issues.
On that note, let me lend my strong support for the draft
reauthorization bill before you today. As an aid to the
subcommittee's examination of pertinent issues, I humbly
suggest 15 additional process improvements in my written
testimony that could be included in any reauthorization
legislation. Many of these ideas, some of which I have
discussed before while others are new, would benefit from being
included in the statute so that future Commissions continue
Chairman Pai's process reform direction.
Additionally, I would be remiss if I didn't include a
request for modifications to our enforcement authority to
address the consistent problem of pirate radio broadcasting.
Switching to the issue of broadband deployment, there appears
to be great interest by many policymakers, including members of
this subcommittee, to provide additional Federal funding for
purposes of expanding broadband capabilities to more Americans.
One option that has been discussed is to include such funding
within a potential larger infrastructure bill. If this were to
occur, I hope the subcommittee would adopt or look to the
Commission's high cost program as a mechanism to distribute
such funding as opposed to using other existing Federal
programs or creating a new program.
Additionally, to succeed at the next technological
challenge, wireless providers are going to need two important
ingredients: Access to sufficient mix of spectrum bands
andreduced barriers to the installation of wireless equipment.
While the Commission has been actively reallocating existing
bands for mobile purposes with hopefully more no come, there
remains obstacles imposed by State, local, and tribal
governments that are hampering the ability of providers to
serve Americans.
On another topic, as Chairman Pai noted, the Commission is
in the early stages of repacking broadcasters that either
didn't participate, or weren't selected as part of our
generally successful process to reallocate broadcaster spectrum
for new wireless services. While the Commission will need to
review and scrub the broadcaster cost estimates to ensure that
only legitimate charges are reimbursed, it does appear that
there may be a need for additional financial resources from
Congress.
Accordingly, the subcommittee should keep a close eye on
the repacking cost estimates as our process continues, and may
want to initiate a related legislative drafting process soon.
Certainly, if it is determined that additional limited funding
is needed to complete a successful repack, I would fully
support such action, and would gladly help the subcommittee and
Congress in any way.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
This concludes; the testimony portion, and we will now move to
the questions. And I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes.
As many of you have said, and we have seen in these opening
statements, there is an ongoing dispute about the impact of
Title II reclassification on investment. We hear it doesn't
hurt; we hear it does hurt. In a lot of ways, this is a key
metric of the debate, as the one thing we can all agree on is
that investment is the key to massive broadband deployment that
we need to connect to all Americans to the economic engine of
the internet. And it affects education, it affects healthcare.
As Ms. Clyburn, mentioned, it affects economic development and
the creation of jobs. An analysis by Deloitte Consulting
estimated that we need an investment of $130-to-$150 billion in
fiber infrastructure over the next 5 to 7 years in order to
meet our needs. So private investment is critical, but I fear
we have put a kink in that investment pipeline with Title II.
As I noted in my opening, we are seeing decreasing capital
expenditures by our largest broadband providers. But some of my
colleagues contend otherwise based on different studies
measuring different parameters.
Senator Markey contended at the Senate hearing last week
that no publicly traded ISP has reported to its investors that
Title II has negatively impacted investment and their net
worths.
But, Chairman Pai, have you seen other information
regarding the impact Title II is having on broadband providers?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Chairman Blackburn. We
have seen evidence raised that suggests concerns that these
rules have impacted infrastructure investment. And, for
example, with respect to the 12 largest facilities-based
internet service providers in the United States, we have called
the 10Ks of those 12 ISPs, each of which is required under law
to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, any
significant risks to the business going forward. Each of them
has suggested these Title II regulations do, in fact, represent
a significant risk to their businesses. And with the indulgence
of the Chair, I would like to enter those into the record to be
a part of this proceeding.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20170725/
106312/HHRG-115-IF16-20170725-SD005-U76141.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pai. Additionally, I have heard for myself, among
smaller providers, that these rules have impacted
infrastructure investment. I visited for myself a municipal
broadband provider in small-town Iowa. I held a roundtable just
a couple weeks ago in Hagerstown, Maryland, where Antietam
Cable told me that they explicitly pulled back on one phase of
their gigabit broadband deployment precisely because of these
rules. Now, we want to test the veracity of those propositions,
which is precisely why we have opened a notice of proposed
rulemaking so we can figure out what the facts are. Again, make
the appropriate judgment.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you for that. You know, I was--kind
of chuckled a little bit. New York Times had an article in--I
think it was this weekend--saying that infrastructure is fast
becoming an afterthought. But we hear from our local and State
electeds, it is the number one infrastructure issue. They want
to talk about broadband more than anything else. And they don't
care how they get it, whether it is wireline or fiber or fixed
wireless, or whatever.
And, Mr. Chairman, you were kind enough to come to my
district. And this was something we had planned last fall and
executed in February and did a broadband seminar. And you
talked about some of the things the Commission is doing to make
it easier for providers to deploy wired and wireless broadband.
And just touch on some of those components, things that you all
can do that will help ease the way to achieving the goal we all
want, which is to have the country served by broadband.
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question. Two big buckets of
reforms. One involves the Federal subsidy programs that we
oversee, and the other involves regulatory reforms.
With respect to Federal subsidies, the FCC, in my first
full month as Chairman, adopted reforms through our Connect
American fund, and to our Mobility Fund to ensure that both
fixed and 4G LTE broadband is pushed out to unserved parts of
America, places where people are on the wrong side of the
digital divide.
On August 3rd, we are going to be taking, as I mentioned in
my testimony, next steps to ensure that those auctions happen
in a timely way.
With respect to regulatory reforms, I set up a broadband
deployment advisory committee that is focusing on ways that the
FCC, in cooperation with other agencies, Federal, State, and
local, can cooperate to promote broadband deployment. We have
taken steps to remote things like the great--easier siting of
wireless infrastructure, the towers and small cells and the
like. Make it easier to deploy the fiber through things like
Dig Once policies to the extent we can and pole attachment
reform.
These might not be the highest profile issues that the
agency works on. But in terms of your constituents, and I
daresay, constituents around the country, this is the number
one thing that will impact their ability to get on the right
side of that divide in the years to come.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank you for that.
Now, I will just note, the repack we think is also
important as we look at the broadband deployment. And the
estimates have been filed, and the audit process is started.
And we need to give some time for that to play out. But we are
going to be watching the repack to be sure it is conducted
efficiently and on time so the spectrum is put to work.
At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr.
Doyle, for questions.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Clyburn, let me ask you, with regards to the
open internet and the comments that are coming in. When you
talk to people and review comments about the open internet
order, what gives you pause in repealing the rule?
Ms. Clyburn. What gives me pause is hearing what they say
they need and what the internet enables. In the conversations,
a lot of times we only talk about one part of the equation. But
if you are really talking about an equation, you are talking
about at least two parts. What is the investment? What do
people need? And what they can afford? So we really, really
have to talk about what this investment means in the
communities, what expectations they have when they are starting
their businesses and the like. And what I am hearing from
people is they want options, they want access, they want
opportunities, and they want to be protected by an agency that
I am afraid right now is turning their back on.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Commissioner O'Rielly, what kind of comment would cause you
to oppose the Commission's open internet order, current
proposal?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, as I have said, I previously expressed
my thoughts on the issue at length. And I am looking to the
record to determine if anything changes my mind. I am looking
for substantive comments over----
Mr. Doyle. So give me an example of a substantive comment
that would cause you----
Mr. O'Rielly. Economic analysis and real evidence of harm
to consumers, versus some of the material that I have been
getting on the comments so far. I mean, people talk about 12
million comments. But many of those comments are empty and
devoid of any value, in my opinion.
Mr. Doyle. I am sure there are a few empty and devoid in
there. But amongst the 12.3 million, I would imagine there are
some that address some of the concerns you have just mentioned
too. And I hope you do go through those comments. And we will
hold you to that kind of analysis.
Chairman Pai, the same question for you. What kind of
comment would cause you to change your mind and not go forward?
Mr. Pai. I think, Congressman, as Commissioner O'Rielly
pointed out, if there is an economic analysis that shows
credibly that infrastructure investment is increased
dramatically, if--in response to some of our inquiries that we
hear from people in the internet, I guess from startups to
consumers, that there is credible evidence of these evidence,
or the sine qua non of an open internet, and that, without
them, there is no way that they would be able to thrive, that
the America's overall internet economy would suffer. That is
some of the evidence that we take seriously. And that is part
of the reason, as I had said last week at my confirmation
hearing, that we did not want to issue a declaratory ruling, as
some urged the FCC to do, to simply decree, by administrative
fiat, that these rules would be null and void. We wanted to
have a full and fair notice and comment process to ensure that
we heard those voices.
Mr. Doyle. Well, I hope you are looking at that. I will
hold you to that analysis. And I hope that as these comments
are coming in--and 12.3 million comments, at least in the time
I have been in this Congress, is more public comment than I
have seen on an any other issue before the FCC. I am certain
amongst them are that type of analysis, and I hope you pay
attention to it.
Let me ask you another question, Mr. Chairman. The context
of the Open Internet Order, it seems to me that the analysis
that you have cited about ISP investment seems to be one-sided.
You talk about broadband investment by ISPs alone as an
indication of the health of the marketplace, but you discount
investments that are being made by edge providers. You know, if
the thesis of an Open Internet Order was to promote this
virtuous cycle of investment and innovation online, why aren't
you talking about edge providers, the investments that they are
making and the jobs that they are creating?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. Obviously,
everyone, as Chairman Blackburn pointed out, favors a free and
open internet. The great challenge, however, is that there are
millions of Americans--and I visited them--from Wardensville,
West Virginia, to Mission, South Dakota, are on the wrong side
of the divide. They are not getting the access they need to be
able to participate in the digital economy. And to the extent
that these rules are impacting infrastructure investment, my
fear is that those folks are going to be left out of some of
the benefits that we get in terms of better education and
healthcare, and the like.
And so we want to understand how are these rules impacting
infrastructure investment, and, along with that, what are the
concomitant effects of greater infrastructure investment on
those types of companies?
You know, I visited, as I pointed out in testimony before
in another committee, I have been to feedlots in Allen, Kansas.
And I have seen the power that broadband can bring in terms of
greater agricultural productivity.
Two weeks ago, I was in Augusta Health in Fishersville,
Virginia. And I saw the power that a broadband connection can
have to treating an emergency room patient before the patient
even arrives at the hospital. I mean, these are critical
applications. And so, obviously, going forward, there are
greater dimensions than just infrastructure investment. But
those core investments in the network are critical if every
American is going to be able to thrive in the 21 century.
Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair, I see my time has expired. But I
hope we have a chance to submit more questions to the FCC for
response.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's request is noted.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. I now recognize the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that. And,
again, to all our Commissioners, thank you for enlightening us
with your comments and your testimony.
Chairman Pai, there has been talk of uncertainty, continued
uncertainty, around future of net neutrality. Are you opposed
to net neutrality?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I have consistently said I favor free
and open internet, as I think many members of this committee
and most Americans do.
Mr. Walden. All right. Commissioner Clyburn, are you
opposed to net neutrality?
Ms. Clyburn. I am not opposed to net neutrality. I am in
favor, but using the strongest legal tools at our disposal to
uphold it.
Mr. Walden. Commissioner O'Rielly, are you opposed to net
neutrality?
Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with the Chairman. I support an open
internet. I determined net neutrality means so many different
things these days than it once did, so I can't--having signed
up for net neutrality is--currently, the definition means that
every packet has to be treated identically. And that, to me, is
not supporting by the current activities of the internet. So I
don't support that definition of net neutrality, no.
Mr. Walden. Well, I know you have to make some decisions
based on the comments, but I guess--one of my questions is, the
reply comments are due fairly soon. And, Chairman Pai, do you
expect to act quickly once the record closes?
Mr. Pai. Congressman----
Mr. Walden. What are your thoughts in terms of time lines,
not in terms of your decision?
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, we are going to move promptly as we
can. But, obviously, there is a voluminous record, as Ranking
Member Doyle pointed out. And we are bound by the
Administrative Procedure Act, in section 706 thereof, to find
substantial evidence for whatever conclusion we reach. And we
are going to review the record fully and fairly to make sure we
make the appropriate judgement. And we are more concerned with
getting it right than getting it done quickly.
Mr. Walden. As you know, part of what we are working on
today is a continuation from the last Congress in terms of
getting more transparency in the process at the FCC, making
more of what you do more public sooner, so more people can
participate in the process that we all value.
Are there issues in this draft that we are looking at? It
is a discussion draft, too, for all my colleagues. We put it
out there well in advance so we can get input and make it
bipartisan, hopefully. And I think there are bipartisan
positions in it.
Would you care to comment about what we are putting forward
and your thoughts on it, and how the Commission might be
affected by implementation of the exchanges?
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the process
reforms suggested in the draft bill are largely improvements
upon the way the FCC does business. And I find myself broadly
in support, for example. I think there is bipartisan agreement
on relaxing the Sunshine Act restriction. I love seeing my
fellow Commissioners here at the witness table. I would love to
see them together at the Commission more often so that we can
collaborate in ways that benefit the public interest and the
FCC's decision making.
Mr. Walden. That has been a bipartisan piece of this
discussion draft, I think, all along.
Commissioner Clyburn, do you wish to comment on some of
this? I know things have shifted at the committee since we last
took this matter--or at the Commission.
Ms. Clyburn. I noticed.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Are you more in favor of more of the transparency
provisions in our bill now or----
Ms. Clyburn. Well, I will just broadly say, I am more in
favor of transparency. I am more in favor----
Mr. Walden. I know you are.
Ms. Clyburn [continuing]. Of us being able to do,
especially the last--you know, I have been talking about that
for a number of years. If there is not a final decisionmaking
process, you know, before us, us being able to talk about
things building up to. And so I think that would, with the
proper notice and proper protections, you know, that enhances
transparency and decision making. I will be for any platform
that will allow that to happen.
Mr. Walden. And then making the draft text public ahead of
time, more of that, that we propose, do you support that?
Ms. Clyburn. Meaning our internal draft--we are still in an
evaluation mode. So far, I haven't heard any major complaints.
Mr. Walden. OK. Good.
Commissioner O'Rielly, what about what we are putting
forward here for consideration? Anything from----
Mr. O'Rielly. I support the legislation--draft legislation
that has been put before us. I think--I put 15 new ideas in my
testimony that could be included, if you were so inclined to do
so. I think that the text itself, you know, on Sunshine reform
is valuable. I probably would go a little further, but--I am
not trying to criticize the provision. I just know how often we
would use it if it is drafted. But I really appreciate the
things on, like, cost-benefit analysis, which has been so
lacking in our decision making for so long. So I think it is a
very important step for the committee.
Mr. Walden. OK. Chairman Pai, do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Pai. If I could just add one observation in addition to
what I said previously. One caveat I would add for the
committee's consideration is that in enforcement matters, for
due process notice and other reasons, it is sometimes maybe
impracticable for us to publish those decisions in advance of a
Commission vote. And so that is the one note of caution I would
add.
We are obviously, as Commissioner Clyburn pointed out, in
favor of transparency. But there are different considerations
when it comes to law enforcement matters.
Mr. Walden. All right. That is a good point.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I realize my time has expired.
Again, thanks to all of you. We appreciate your suggestions. We
appreciate your counsel and how we might get this right,
because, indeed, that is what we want to do is make the FCC the
role model for good transparent public process.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I wanted to ask at least two questions, one to you,
Chairman, and one to Commissioner Clyburn. So my question to
the Chairman is: Numerous press accounts have detailed how your
policies have benefited Sinclair Broadcast Group. There has
also been speculation that the Trump administration has been in
touch with your office about a number of these policies. So I
wanted to give you a chance to respond to those allegations.
And specifically, can you tell us what the administration has
said, either to you or to anyone in your office about Sinclair
or the UHF discount?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. No one in
the White House, or the administration generally, has made any
representations to me about any FCC proceeding relating to that
company. They have not asked me to take any particular action
or expressed the views on the merits, and certainly not with
respect to the UHF discount.
Mr. Pallone. Now, what about the press accounts that have
detailed how your policies have benefited Sinclair Broadcast
Group. Did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I would be happy to do so. If you
look at any of regulatory actions, they are not designed to
benefit any particular company or segment of the industry. They
are simply meant to take a view of the marketplace as it
stands, and the law as it has been written by Congress. And
with respect to the UHF discount, it is a pretty simple matter.
As I pointed out in my dissent a year and a half ago, that to
the extent the agency considers the UHF discount reforms, it
also has to consider the national cap. Now, I am not
presupposing what the UHF discount policy should be or what the
national cap should be. But the point was simply made then, and
I make to you today, is that the two go together; one cannot
consider A without considering B.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Let me ask Commissioner Clyburn. I plan to file comments at
the FCC in the next few weeks that explain how maintaining net
neutrality protections at the FCC is essential to protecting
free speech online and to creating jobs across the country.
Now, the GOP members of the Commission focus on the legal
authority of the FCC but, in my opinion, ignore the benefits of
net neutrality that would be lost if it is repealed. I think
the GOP plan details potential cost of regulations without
mentioning these benefits. So I just wanted to ask you if you
could tell me what, in your opinion, benefits exist with strong
net neutrality protections at the FCC and what will be lost
with the repeal?
Ms. Clyburn. In terms of the benefits, particularly, I
mentioned to you that I was in Appalachia. When you have a
small business owner that might be worried whether her Web site
or her experience would be throttled or negatively impacted,
that is the type of uncertainty that no small business should
worry about when it comes to the most enabling platform of our
time.
You know, when it comes to people being able to access, you
know, a healthcare Web site or their professional--healthcare
professional, for anybody to wonder whether or not some traffic
would be favored one or the other, that is a very unsettling.
So when we talk about strong, open internet rules, what we are
talking about is the capacity for all of our communities, all
of our businesses, all of our individuals to have access, to be
better them, thems, to be better business owners, to have the
access to content that will enable, educate, and inspire.
So it is very important for the rules of the road to be
clear for people to know that they are protected, for this
platform to be open and free and transparent. If not, you are
going to have bottlenecks that will throttle experiences and
throttle economic and other opportunities.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
Let me go back to the Chairman, since I have time for a
third question.
Last week, I introduced the Viewer Protection Act, and this
bill would provide extra funds for the incentive auction
repacking process to ensure that consumers don't lose access to
the local stations that they can rely on. And I wanted to thank
you for your prior commitment to making sure that the stations
will not be forced off the air during this process. And I also
appreciate your statements that you believe that Congress needs
to act to provide additional to funds to this effort.
Now, one issue in my bill that I think has been overlooked
is making sure the consumers are properly educated about the
process and what they need to do to keep their signal. And I am
particularly concerned about minority communities that may rely
on foreign language stations.
Can you, Chairman, walk us through how much funding the FCC
put aside for consumer education and explain your plans to make
sure consumers know how to keep their signal? I guess you have
20 seconds, but we will see.
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
And first and foremost, I commend you for that legislation.
I think you have tackled one of the issues that is first and
foremost in the needs of viewers around the country. The FCC
has not been allocated funding by Congress specifically for
that function. To the extent that we can, we obviously want to
do as much outreach as possible to let people know if there is
going to be a channel reassignment or other regulatory decision
that might impact their ability to view the stations of their
choice. And so I would be happy to work with you and your staff
on your bill and going forward.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Vice Chairman Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Regardless of your opinion on the 2015 internet rules, I
think there is at least one matter on which we should be able
to agree, that a legislative fix is preferable to the ping-
ponging we have seen play out recently at the FCC. Anything the
FCC has done in this policy space has proven to be temporary.
And I don't think that is good public policy. I believe a vast
amount of the agency's scarce resources have gone into this
issue for the last 10 years or so. And so to the Chair and the
distinguished members of the Commission, I ask each of you the
following question:
What would provide greater certainty for broadband internet
providers, online innovators, and internet users, continually
changing regulatory regimes or legislation to establish clear
authority and bright-line rules of the road that protect
consumers and innovators and encourage investment?
And I will start with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman. I believe that legislation
would provide greater certainty to consumers and companies
alike.
Mr. Lance. Madam Commissioner?
Ms. Clyburn. I believe we already have certainty. I believe
we have already followed your guidelines with Title II. Title
II is a part of a congressional creation. And Title II has been
upheld by the courts.
Mr. Lance. And if I might follow up, you don't favor any
amendment of Title II in this area?
Ms. Clyburn. I will reserve judgment on that. I will favor
anything that will improve and enhance our ability to connect
America.
Mr. Lance. And was Title II initiated, as I understand it,
in the 1930s? Is that right?
Ms. Clyburn. You are probably right. Subject to check. So I
get a D-minus for not knowing the answer to that precisely. I
will get that back to you.
Mr. Lance. If you get a D-minus, I am probably at the level
of F. So we will work together on that.
Commissioner O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. I fully support legislation. It is the only
way we are going to get lasting peace on the issue. My
colleague highlighted, I think in her comments, rules of the
road need to be clear. But there cannot be clear rules of the
road when you have a general conduct standard that roves about
and does whatever it wants at any time done by the bureau
staff. So I think that legislation is the only way to address
this issue.
Mr. Lance. And Commissioner O'Rielly, has there ever been a
definitive ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on
this issue?
Mr. O'Rielly. No, there has not.
Mr. Lance. Is that the consensus of the Commission, that
this has not been fully addressed by the Supreme Court?
Commissioner Pai? Chairman Pai?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, when you say--with respect to this,
the Supreme Court in the Brand X case in 2005 blessed the FCC's
application of Title I regulation to broadband.
Mr. Lance. Brand X, roughly 10 years ago, a little more
than 10 years ago. Yes.
Given the response of the members of the FCC, and, of
course, I hope there will be a full complement of
Commissioners, I think that we should continue to pursue this
question. Because I think the public deserves certainty in this
area, as do those in the community, but certainly, in my
judgment, this is paramount for the American people.
Another issue, Chairman Pai, it is critically important
that the United States win the race to 5G as it means
significant investment in job creation here. A recent report
has suggested that 5G will bring 3 million new jobs and a half
a trillion dollars in increased GDP. I am concerned that other
countries may get there first, including China, Japan, and even
the EU, a series of countries. In your opinion, how important
is it to make sure that the United States wins the race
regarding 5G?
Mr. Pai. It is absolutely critical, Congressman. And I say
that not just out of parochial concerns, but I do think that
America's internet economy has demonstrated itself over the
years to be one of the most innovative. And 5G heralds a
special promise, I think, when it comes to the ability of high
bandwidth applications like virtual reality, and augmented
reality, and low bandwidth applications like the internet of
things. We want those companies, those technologies, to develop
in the United States. Those are high-quality jobs that could
create a huge amount of opportunity across the country. And
speaking for the FCC, at least, I think that we are focused on
securing that prize as best we can for the United States.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Commissioner Clyburn, your thoughts?
Ms. Clyburn. I am looking forward to working and to
continue to do things in an expedited manner. But we need to
make sure that it is ubiquitous. No part of this country should
be without the opportunities for what 5G has to offer, and only
with local and Federal engagement will we be able to win that
race.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time has expired.
And I will follow up with you, Commissioner O'Rielly,
later.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. And, Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. I have 5
minutes, and I want to have 3 points. One, about the open
internet. Number two, rural broadband. And, number three, the
mobility fund.
Just to comment on the open internet, everybody says they
are for an open internet. The question I have is why change the
existing regime where everyone agrees there is an open
internet? And what I understand is the ISPs are afraid of,
quote, ``heavy regulation,'' but say they won't do anything
different. But a lot of folks in the public are concerned that
that won't be the case. So that is a question, I think, the
proponents of change have to answer: Why change it?
Second, on rural broadband. Chairman Pai, as you know, it
is incredibly important to those of us in Vermont, working with
Mr. Cramer, as well, to have open internet. Rural America is
being left behind. And the promise of the 1996 act has been
broken. Rural internet is not the same speeds and the same
capacity as we have in urban areas. There is now a potential
opportunity with the repacking in the white space, as you are
aware. And there is a challenge. Because we want to make sure
that our broadcasters have signals that are strong and they
don't suffer interference.
But there are many now who are seeing that this white space
is a technological development that provides an opportunity for
inexpensive build out, in effect, of broadband. And the
question I have for you is where you are on that and where the
FCC is on that. Anything we can do to get that broadband out,
and the deployment is a financial issue, I want to do.
So can you address that?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. I share your ethos. As
you just put it anything we can do to get the broadband out
there.
Mr. Welch. I am talking white space now though.
Mr. Pai. Right. And with respect to white spaces, we are
still in the early stages of study. Just a couple of weeks ago,
I visited Microsoft's project in South Boston, Virginia, and I
talked to some of the affected students about that issue. We
are actively studying it and trying to figure out ways to work
with all stakeholders to figure out the right way for it.
Mr. Welch. All right. So if we can find this technological
sweet spot where we are able to protect the signal of our
broadcasters. That is important in rural America too. We want
to get our TV stations, our local news. But we have that white
space where there is a promising opportunity, affordably, to
build out, you are going to be aggressive?
Mr. Pai. If the facts warrant it and the law permits it,
this FCC will not stand idly by.
Mr. Welch. Ms. Clyburn? Commissioner Clyburn?
Ms. Clyburn. I have long since talked about the promises of
unlicensed and white spaces providing opportunities,
particularly in rural communities and communities where the
business case cannot be made. The promise is there, and I will
definitely be a wind beneath that, to push that along.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
And Mr. O'Rielly? Commissioner O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I support white spaces and have for a long
time. I will say I don't support them setting aside full power
broadcast stations. So if it becomes a fight between the two in
the broadcast band, I think----
Mr. Welch. Let me just say, as a rural person, I am urging
you and the industry to find a way to protect that broadband
signal but to get broadband into rural areas. It has got to
happen.
Mobility fund, a second issue that is really important to
us in rural America. There is going to be action on that. And
the question I have, Chairman Pai, some--depending on how the
project is--the information is provided, there will be an
opportunity for challenge from some of the rural providers who
can test how the decisions are made. And they have got to be
given an opportunity to do that.
Can you assure us that the Commission is moving forward
with the rule next week that will ensure that the data
collection process will lead to a coverage map that accurately,
accurately, reflects the current mobile broadband makeup and
that it allows for smaller carriers--and this is really
important to us--to have adequate time to potentially challenge
data that they believe on their own work is inaccurate?
Chairman.
Mr. Pai. That is certainly my aspiration, Congressman. And
working with my colleagues in the next 9 days, we hope to get
across the finish line with a work product that does that.
Mr. Welch. You are going to let them have a seat at the
table to challenge?
Mr. Pai. The carriers or my colleagues?
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Pai. Absolutely. That is the goal. We want to have a
robust open challenge process----
Mr. Welch. Commissioner Clyburn?
Ms. Clyburn. You heard that last thing on the record.
You know, one of the things that I have been pushing--and
the Chair will affirm this. I have been pushing, you know, for
a robust, open challenge process. That is important. And it is
important for that information to be granular and Form 477. We
have been pushing for that.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Madam Chair, my last 4 seconds I want to say thank you to
Commissioner Clyburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. I would concur with that. But why don't we
give Commissioner O'Rielly the opportunity to answer the
question?
Mr. Welch. If you are giving me the time, I give it to him.
Mrs. Blackburn. I am giving you the question to allow him
to answer.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rielly. That is OK. I am fine. I am good.
Mrs. Blackburn. So the gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chair. As Peter Welch has
shown, there are so many questions and just so little time to
deal with what you all deal with on a day-to-day basis. So I am
going to pick a few.
First of all, it is no surprise--just to Chairman Pai, on
Next Generation 911. You know, we passed that Advancement Act
of 2012. Anna and I have talked about this between ourselves
the last couple of weeks. There was a grant program designed
but was never initiated by the FCC. We all know money is
needed. But what else can be done to help move Next Generation
911 forward?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I appreciate the question.
We certainly are grateful for the promise of NG 911. But
that promise has yet to be realized in great swaths of the
country. And as Chairman Blackburn pointed out, I was in
Tennessee with her earlier this year. And I visited a 911 call
center that is using next gen 911 to deliver functionality that
traditional 911 call centers simply don't have. And so we at
the FCC are broadly supportive of any efforts that we can take
to promote NG 911. It is an IP-based technology, as you know.
So promoting the IP-based transition, encouraging the
transition away from the old, fading TDM networks towards IP-
based networks is absolutely vital.
Without it, some of these public safety answering points
which don't have the money themselves to fund that transition
are going to be left in the lurge. And that is the number one
thing we can do. We would be happy to work with members of the
committee to figure out if there are legislative tools as well
that we can support.
Mr. Shimkus. Because we know there was a grant program
authorized but never initiated. So we need to find out.
Obviously, that is an issue. But then what else can we do? I do
think the community is struggling to try to get to where they
want to be, and time is of an essence in the 911 world as we
all know.
Let me go to Commissioner O'Rielly and just talk--we have
had other subcommittee hearings. And, you know, the buzz is
that there may or may not be an infrastructure bill. And we
would always say--I think members on this subcommittee, both
sides, would say if there is an infrastructure bill, then
obviously broadband deployment areas that are identified
appropriately through a good mapping system should be aided and
assisted.
So if there was direct funding to help deployment, what
would be your vision on how that could best occur?
Mr. O'Rielly. My argument to the subcommittee in my
testimony is that the committee should look to our high cost
program and run a universal service as a mechanism to
distribute the funding.
In the previous demos under the last administration, we had
an NTIA program and some at the Department of Agriculture. I
think those programs were suspect and had a lot of
difficulties. We have difficulties in our universal service
programs no doubt. But high cost has been something we spend a
considerable amount of time in trying to minimize the amount of
subsidy needed and to target the funding to stretch as far as
possible, and I think that is a valuable way to go.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And then, last but not least,
Commissioner Clyburn, of course, appreciate your passion, which
has always been there. But I think your voice is a little bit
louder now, which is great.
There is really a two-part question. Can mobile broadband
now fill some of the gaps in unserved areas? And, if not,
because could you guys follow what is coming next sooner than a
lot of us do. If not, is that coming around soon?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, I mentioned that I was in Representative
Johnson's district. And mobile broadband is definitely
necessary, especially on those roads where I did not have
service, especially in those households where they can only
afford one connection.
So mobile broadband is definitely--you know, has to be
front and center, which is why we are moving to the next phase
of a mobility fund. But we cannot, you know, drop the ball when
it comes to legacy. Because there are certain things you cannot
do on a mobile.
So it is a complement to the entire telecommunications and
communications ecosystem. But we need to go where the people
are. Over 300 million of us have mobile connectivity, but it is
not all created equal.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And my colleague, Peter Welch,
mentioned the white space issue, so I am not going to talk
about that. But I do want to address a bill that we passed
through here, H.R. 460, which addresses the call completion
problem that occurs. It really is addressing more
accountability than just advisory or--what is you all's
position on that bill?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I haven't had a chance to study all
the particulars about the bill. But I can say that I do support
efforts to give the Commission ample authority to tackle all
parts of the problem, not just the carriers but the
intermediate providers, and others who are in the chain, so to
speak, who might affect the call to a rural area.
Mr. Shimkus. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Ms. Clyburn. We have taken a proactive position in terms of
holding people accountable all along, you know, from the time
you dial a phone until that expectation on the other end. There
are a lot of variables there and a couple of players there.
When you have two, and three, and four players between that
call, making that call and completing that call, that is a
problem that we are identifying and need to fix.
Mr. O'Rielly. One of the reasons that it exists is because
some of our old, antiquated rules favor arbitrage. And so that
is something we have to get to the fundamental issue going
forward.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all of you
for being here today. This is, as always, pretty fascinating
talking about a lot of these different issues.
A lot of us on this committee, on both sides of the aisle,
are obviously very concerned about wireless in rural areas,
rural broadband, all those issues. I usually go through a
litany of reasons why that is so important. But I am not going
to do that. I just want to say one thing, though, before I ask
some questions.
This isn't just a rural/urban issue, as you all know. These
things are tied together. So in Iowa, for example, like in
Vermont or North Dakota, or whatever, if we have an urban
hospital that wants to do telemedicine with rural areas, it is
great that that urban hospital has sufficient bandwidth to be
able to do that. But, obviously, if a critical access hospital
or a skilled nursing facility, whatever the case may be, and
rural areas doesn't, then that urban area is going to be
affected as well, because that hospital cannot connect
sufficiently with those folks.
So it is not just rural/urban. Those areas are tied
together. And I think we often forget about that, and we just
think in rural terms or in urban terms. Everybody is in this
together. That is my speech for today. Now I will ask some
questions.
Chairman Pai, as you know, I was the original drafter of
the Rural Wireless Access Act. We have a lot of issues, as I
like to say, with garbage-in/garbage-out kinds of issues when
it comes to mapping and how we are trying to figure out what
areas are covered and which areas are not. And that legislation
would require the FCC to establish standard service
definitions, collect its data on wireless coverage in a
reliable and efficient way. Because I think we can all agree
that that hasn't necessarily been the case in the past. And I
understand that the FCC has recognized the problems with the
data.
Where are we on that now with creating a new data set? And
will it meet the requirements of my bill for the data to be
robust, and to be reliable and standardized? Chairman?
Mr. Pai. It is certainly our hope, Congressman, that it is
worthy of the legislation that I commend you, too, for
advancing. Next week we are going to be voting on some of those
steps. And it has been a difficult process, in all candor. We
had a decision to make at the get-go, do we rely on the Form's
477data that we got with respect to the mobility fund or do we
create essentially a Bespoke data collection? We decided to go
down the latter road, because we recognized that some of the
data we had wasn't sufficient.
And so going forward we want to make sure that if the map
says that there is coverage, there is, in fact, coverage. And
if the map says there isn't coverage, then we direct the
funding from the mobility fund to those areas.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, can we get a commitment from you today
that whatever you come up with will, in fact, meet the
requirements of my bill?
Mr. Pai. Again, I haven't seen the particulars of your bill
recently, but certainly the spirit of it we will do our best to
achieve. And we would be happy to take a look at the
legislation and get back to you.
Mr. Loebsack. I mean, it is pretty simple. It is making
sure, to the best of our ability, obviously, that the data will
be robust, reliable, and standardized. That is all we are
looking for.
Mr. Pai. That is certainly what is in the draft item that
is public, and we will be voting on on August 3rd.
Mr. Loebsack. Commissioner Clyburn?
Ms. Clyburn. One of the challenges there is how do you get
different providers to compress and conform in a uniform
manner?
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Ms. Clyburn. And that is the challenge here. But the
objective is there. How do we mine, meld, and mesh that? That
is the challenge that we are working to fix.
Mr. Loebsack. And, Chairman Pai, you were in northwest Iowa
not that long ago, actually. That is where I grew up, in Sioux
City, up in that area, although I represent the southeast part
of the State now. I have no doubt that when you were traveling
between Sioux City and southwest Minnesota, you probably ran
into some issues.
Mr. Pai. It was incredible. Driving from Madelia down to
Spencer, and Laurens, and then Sioux City, I mean, how many
times I had to mention to my colleague in the car, you know, we
are just going to have to talk now. Because, you know, we have
the inability to check emails or make phone calls and the like.
And it is really a gap. And that was just for our own
convenience.
Imagine if you are a patient who needs to make a 911 call,
or imagine if you are a farmer whose productivity depends on
having precision agriculture which, in turn, relies on
connectivity. Those are the connections that really do matter.
And so it is not just a professional interest for me, and I
dare say for my colleagues, it is a personal interest to me as
a rural American to make sure that your constituents, and all
rural Americans, get that connectivity.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. O'Rielly, do you want to mention
anything?
Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with the work we are going to do. I
have been pushing for greater data. There is a cost as to how
granular you can get, but I think it is very important.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, I want to get this bill passed. I want
to get it out of this committee. I want to get it on the floor.
And I want to get it passed and signed into law by the
President. Because I just think there is very, very significant
bipartisan support for this.
And, again, mentioning that it is not just the rural areas
but their connection to the urban areas as well. It is
absolutely critical. So thanks to all of you.
And thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time I recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, Mr. Latta, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, very much, Madam Chair. And
thank you, very much, to our distinguished panel. It is always
great to have you before us, and we appreciate your testimony
today.
If I can start my question with you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
And, again, I want to thank you again, you know, for showing
interest and coming out to my district to speak to our folks
just this past year. Because I think it is important that folks
back home understand that the folks at the FCC are truly
listening to their concerns.
And I recently introduced a bill, H.R. 3289, that would
require the FCC to list and describe all items to be adopted on
delegated authority 48 hours prior to action being taken if
those items are given a delegated authority identification
number. This will ensure that the Commission is appropriately
delegating items and not passing decisionmaking to others in
cases where items pose new and novel questions of policy. I am
pleased to see that my bill has been included in the discussion
draft that is before us today.
And based on your statement of support of my bill in the
last Congress, I believe you agree with this policy. However,
in your testimony you mention that this provision could go
further. Would you mind expanding on the ways in which we could
improve the language in the draft?
Mr. O'Rielly. Sure. So the bill is identification and
notification. The Commission is required to tell people when it
is delegating authority, which is a step--improvement than we
have today.
But I think I should get to the second of the part
question, is well, what do you do with the notification? Today,
you know, it is to the Chairman's request on whether we, as a
Commission, get an opportunity to vote on those items. In the
last Commission I was voting about one out of every nine items.
So eight out of nine items were being delegated and addressed
by staff. We should have the ability to pull up some items that
we think should be voted on by the full Commission. But we have
to do that in a way, in my opinion, that doesn't delay the
items.
And so I put forward a plan that I thought would be a way
to meld both parts of the equation so we can get better
accountability but also do it in a timely manner. And I think
that would help frame the issue better.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
Chairman Pai, if I could turn to you. I also want to thank
you for coming out to my district a couple years ago to meet
with my smaller telecoms. And I really appreciate it. Because,
also, from your rural roots, where you came from, you
understand the issues that we all have out in our rural section
of the country.
Under Section 161 of the communications act directs the FCC
to review its regulations every 2 years and to repeal or modify
those rules it determines have been made unnecessary due to
economic competition.
Does the FCC specifically and separately consider, on a
regular basis, the impact of its rules on the smaller providers
and wouldn't the public's interests benefit from a regular
review of whether there is a good cause to exempt small
entities from these FCC regulations?
Mr. Pai. Great question, Congressman. I do think that as a
part of our biannual review, or simply as a standalone project,
it would be worthwhile for the FCC to think about specifically
the impact that our regulations have on small businesses. These
are the companies that simply don't have the wherewithal to
hire the lawyers, the accountants, and others who are filling
out the paperwork and otherwise helping them comply with the
agency's rules. And I think we need to be sensitive to that
going forward.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with another question to you,
Chairman.
Are there other infrastructure deployment issues that the
FCC currently lacks the authority to address? And, if so, could
you highlight some of the areas additional authority from
Congress to the FCC may be needed?
Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question. There are several of
them.
First it would be the Gigabit Opportunity Act which I
understand has been introduced by Representative Collins, Doug
Collins, from the House side, and Senators Capito and Coons on
the Senate side. That would go a long way, I think, to
providing not just the FCC but the country with the blueprints
for greater broadband deployment in low income, urban, and
rural areas.
Secondly, it would be helpful to have additional authority
with respect to pole attachments. Right now, we don't have
authority over all of the poles that are used by broadband
providers to attach the infrastructure necessary for high speed
internet access. It would be helpful to have that.
Third, it doesn't necessarily effect the FCC directly, but
making Dig Once the law of the land would be extremely helpful.
I know there is bipartisan support for it, and it would be
great to see that advanced into law as well.
Fourth, and finally, I don't know if it necessarily
requires congressional action, but we are trying to take
whatever steps we can to facilitate greater coordination among
Federal agencies so that if you are looking to site
infrastructure on Federal lands, you have, for example, a
single point of contact at various agencies. And if there are
ways that Congress could urge that effort forward, that would
be extremely helpful.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. My time is
about to expire, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentleman yields back.
And at this time we go to the author of Dig Once, Ms.
Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Commission. I hope that the next
time we meet that we will have a full Commission. It is
wonderful to see you, and it is important that you are here.
I have an observation first. And it is with some curiosity
that I raise this. The chairman of the full committee asked
each one of the Commissioners if they supported net neutrality.
And each one said yes with some additional comments.
Now, Chairman Pai, your chairmanship rests on the altar of
unraveling net neutrality as we know it. So, with all due
respect to you, I don't think it is a credible statement for
you to say that you support it. Because everything that I have
read about what you have said is the promise to unravel net
neutrality with its protections. And so it is easy to say, ``I
am against blocking, I am against throttling, I am against''
whatever. Who is going to enforce that? Who? How? And so it is
an observation. But I think it is an important one to place on
the record.
I have raised this before in previous hearings with
previous witnesses when they bring up the whole economic case
and the chilling of investment in our country because of the
handful of sections that are part of Title II that were applied
to net neutrality. And we know that publicly held companies and
their CEOs, when they make a statement to their shareholders,
under penalty of law, have to be truthful.
And I can't find anything in any record that States where a
CEO has said because of Title II there is a chill on the
investments of the company that I represent. Now, you say you
are studying it. Are you going to compare the statements made
by executives to their shareholders, which are said, under
penalty of law have to be truthful, to the comments that are
filed by those same companies in the proceeding that you are
undertaking?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, we are going to test all the facts
in the record.
Ms. Eshoo. No. I am asking you a specific question.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Are you going to take the comments of the CEOs
to their shareholders and compare and contrast them with the
comments that they place to the FCC on this matter?
Mr. Pai. If those facts are in the record, absolutely.
Ms. Eshoo. You are going to compare and contrast them?
Mr. Pai. We will look at all relevant facts in the record.
Ms. Eshoo. Are you going to compare and contrast them?
Mr. Pai. Well, I mean, depends on what facts are in the
record. Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Eshoo. All right. That is fine.
Mr. Pai.. Including the 10K's that I cited, and the
statements that are in the record.
Ms. Eshoo. I think what is important to note here is that a
recent poll found that 70 percent of voters and 71 percent of
Republicans across the country think the internet has improved
over the last few years. So this is not just the big ISPs. We
are talking about everyone, everyone that is a part of this
ecosystem. And I really think that that is being overlooked. I
think it is disturbing that you have refused to comply, fully
comply, with the FOIA request asking for the text of more than
47,000 informal net neutrality complaints filed with the FCC.
I think that you are being selective about what you want to
read and what you want to hear. If it fits with the position
that you stated before you became Chairman and since you have
became Chairman, then it doesn't count. And I--so I don't--you
know, you are not a level playing field. And that is your
prerogative. But I don't think, you know, coming here today and
saying ``I am for net neutrality'' is really a credible
statement.
I want to raise RT, which is Russian television, but they
changed the name so that people wouldn't know who they were.
They are operating in our country. And I would like to know--
and I didn't understand your response. You stated what you can
do at the Commission. Can you tell us what your commitment is
to do from the Commission? Because in a classified setting the
Congress heard the intelligence community speak to it.
In the declassified public document, it is replete with
references to RT. They are operating in our country. And I
would like to know what role you believe that the FCC should
play in this. They are spreading propaganda in our country.
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congresswoman. The question here is
with respect to the FCC's sponsorship identification.
Ms. Eshoo. I understand.
Mr. Pai. Those rules apply to broadcasters.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Pai. So to the extent that RT or any entity is paying
broadcasters for the----
Ms. Eshoo. I want to know what you believe the FCC can do
about this.
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I was answering the question. It is
with respect to the sponsorship ID rules, enforcing those
rules. To the extent that RT or any entity has paid a
broadcaster----
Ms. Eshoo. Are you prepared to do that?
Mr. Pai. We will always enforce our sponsorship ID rules,
yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, why haven't you begun to?
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo. This is a public realm now.
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I am not aware that there are----
Ms. Eshoo. Have you read the declassified report?
Mr. Pai. I have not, Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. I would like you to read that, and then I will
follow up with you.
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to do that.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
And now we go to Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairman for yielding for the
time. And as you have all heard me say before, and this is for
Chairman Pai, I have worked with my friend, and enjoy working
with my friend, Doris Matsui over the years on Spectrum issues.
And just last week we had the opportunity to host a Spectrum
Caucus panel on 5G.
So I wanted to start by following up on some things we
learned through the panel discussion and open by asking you
about what is in the Spectrum pipeline.
So, in addition to your work on millimeter wave and recent
midband, the notice of inquiry, is the Commission also looking
at reallocating other bands that the industry may be able to
aggregate with existing licenses to create similarly large
bandwidths, or are there additional bands in general that you
are looking for future auction?
Mr. Pai. Well, thank you, Congressman, and for your
bipartisan work with Congresswoman Matsui. I think it goes to
show that when it comes to Spectrum there are no Republicans,
there are no Democrats. There are simply people who are
interested in the future of wireless innovation.
We at the FCC, too, have spoken with a bipartisan voice
when it comes to Spectrum policy. In the Spectrum Frontiers
Proceeding we teed up a number of bands above 24 gigahertz, as
you are aware. We are actively studying that issue, including
bands like 60 and 70 gigahertz to figure out if there are ways
that we can allocate high or large swaths of Spectrum for high
bandwidth applications.
We are not content to rest on our laurels, however, and
that is why we teed up for consideration next Thursday a
midband NOI. This is the bands between 3.7 and 24 gigahertz. We
focused, in particular, on 3.7, 5.9, and 6.4 gigahertz. But we
have opened it up largely, as you will see in the Notice of
Inquiry, for the public to tell us that there are other bands
we should be thinking about.
Our goal here is obviously to be as holistic as we can be
to ensure that as much Spectrum, licensed and unlicensed, gets
pushed into the commercial marketplace. That is the best way, I
think, to give innovators they need to deliver wireless
services.
Mr. Guthrie. Can you lay out any timeframes, absence of
statutory deadlines?
Mr. Pai. There is no particular timeframe since this is a
Notice of Inquiry. We anticipate a longer time period because
we can't proceed, typically, from a Notice of Inquiry directly
to final rules. But we are hopeful that given that this is an
urgent issue, of course, that for the wireless consumers and
innovators, we can move with relative dispatch to identify
areas where there is consensus, move forward on those, and if
there are trickier issues, bracket those for further
discussion.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And, Commissioner O'Rielly, you
have been vocal about potential deficiencies in the draft rules
with a 3.5 gigahertz band. What steps should the Commission
take to make such Spectrum more attractive for licensed mobile
use, including to better support 5G service?
Mr. O'Rielly. My apologies. So the Commission is looking at
whether to change the rules regarding licensing for the one
tier, the license tier, of the 3.5 gigahertz band. Renewability
is an important issue that was ignored under the last
Commission, and the lengths of the licenses themselves, the
terms of the licenses are important.
So both those functions, in my opinion, need to be changed.
And we are looking at doing that. The Chairman has asked me to
focus some of my time on this, and I am. And hopefully we will
be able to look at that and a couple other issues. And my goal
is to have that completed by the end of the year.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. For all Commissioners, what lessons
should we in Congress learn from the most recent auctions such
as H block, AWS-3, 600 megahertz, that can be applied as we
look to the future? We want to create the clearest possible
rules of the road. So what can we build on? And what should we
avoid?
And I will start with the Chairman and move down.
Mr. Pai. Boy, that is a good question. I think, first and
foremost, is to give the FCC the flexibility that it needs to
identify its Spectrum bands that are ripe for auction.
Secondly, to urge the FCC to set up an auction process that
allows all participants to compete fully and fairly for that
Spectrum.
And, third, to ensure, to the extent possible, that the FCC
has the tools that it needs to ensure that that Spectrum is, in
fact, used for the public benefit. So last September I outlined
my proposal to increase the build-out requirements,
particularly in rural areas, to ensure that if this public
resource is being allocated through the auction process to a
private entity, that private entity does, in fact, use it to
benefit the public.
Mr. Guthrie. Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. I have to build on that and ensure that we
have efficiencies and the expectations are being met by those
who win the right to build. Also, I have been pushing for
smaller--you know, partial and smaller economic areas where it
will indeed give persons regardless--entities, regardless of
size, not just the big players, being able to bid in this
space. That is important. Because those in your communities,
those who have the capacity in your communities, who want to
service a smaller footprint, they should be able to do so. And
I think that lesson should continue in subsequent auctions.
Mr. Guthrie. So in 10 seconds, can I kind of change it a
little bit? Do you consider, Commissioner O'Rielly, the
Spectrum Act a success?
Mr. O'Rielly. I consider it a general success, allowing
Spectrum to be made available, the amount of Spectrum available
is beneficial. But I do believe--and this gets to the heart of
your previous question--is that we imposed a number of policies
that probably were problematic, restricted the number of
bidders, restricted the licenses. That shouldn't have been
included in the first place.
We should have had a more open structure. And if you
compare that to previous auctions, I think you will see that
there is a differential between the two.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you for the answer. My time has expired.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I am a
strong supporter of the FCC's Universal Service Programs,
especially Lifeline and E-Rate programs which help families,
schools, and libraries get connected. Chairman Pai, I have
taken issue with many of the actions you have taken as
Chairman.
But one of the areas that is most troubling to me is the
attack on Lifeline, a program that struggling Americans across
the country count on. This small amount of support can make a
huge difference in whether a family has phone and internet
access. Lifeline means a parent can stay in touch with their
child's school or has a phone number to put in a job
application.
Under the last administration, the FCC made a lot of
progress to start the process of Lifeline reforms. As part of
the FCC's 2015 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC began the
process of creating a national verifier for eligibility. This
is an important check on a system that would make huge progress
in making sure Lifeline funding only goes where it is needed
the most.
Chairman Pai, could you provide us with a status update on
where the FCC is with regards to implementing the national
verifier?
Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congresswoman. The national verifier is
still not scheduled to be up and running until later this year,
and it is not scheduled to be fully operational in all States
until 2019. We are working actively with USAC to accelerate
that timeframe to the maximum extent possible. Because as
identified in the GAO report, many millions of dollars are
being wasted in part because we cannot certify that every
person getting a Lifeline subsidy is eligible for the program.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I just really think that that is not very
much progress at this point in time.
Mr. Pai. This is the hand we were dealt, Congresswoman.
Ms. Matsui. Well, can you commit to providing this
committee with quarterly reports on what the Commission staff
is doing to speed the implementation of the verifier?
Mr. Pai. I would be more than happy to do that.
Ms. Matsui. I think this is critically important. Because,
you know, we should be implementing this reform so we know that
we can implement against waste, fraud, and abuse instead of
continuing to attacking Lifeline.
I know that Commissioner Clyburn has really been a champion
of this also. What can we do to strengthen E-Rate and Lifeline
programs?
Ms. Clyburn. We can ensure that we have the reports needed
for us to better evaluate. What the Chairman did not say is
some of the reports were put on the back burner. They were
rescinded or, you know, they weren't released. And so it is
hard for us, particularly when it relates to E-Rate to see how
we are doing, what we should be doing, and what are the next
steps.
And Lifeline, uncertainty is abound when it comes to that.
Because we told nine providers who spent millions of dollars to
take part that we approved, that no need to apply, you know. We
just rescinded those applications. So what is happening is a
lot of uncertainty and a program that can provide the most for
the least is in a state of flux. And it was very unnecessary.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. And I just hope the Commission puts
a lot more energy behind this program.
Commissioner Clyburn, I share your belief that we need to
be strengthening localism and viewpoint diversity in our media.
We have a strong tradition of local broadcasting in Sacramento.
And it is essential to keeping my constituents engaged and
informed. I know that you have concerns about some of the FCC's
recent decisions on media, specifically rolling back the UHF
discount. How is reinstating the UHF discount opening the door
for greater consolidation and local broadcast markets?
Ms. Clyburn. It will allow for a potential licensee to,
under the cloak of darkness, to account for 50 percent of a
certain license. It would only show up as 50 percent. And that
means that you would make the assumption that they are under
your cap when they actually are not. It is technologically
obsolete, and anything that is technologically obsolete will
negatively impact the entire ecosystem.
Ms. Matsui. So you believe that this is really under the
cloak of darkness?
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely.
Ms. Matsui. OK. OK. At this point, I would like to give a
few minutes here, or seconds, to Congressman Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Congresswoman Matsui. And thank
you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing.
I just wanted to submit my questions for the record. And I
appreciate this opportunity to hear from the Commission. And I
just want to register some questions that I have, and concerns,
to the merger between Sinclair and Tribune, and the massive
reach that they would have and the must-run content that they
seem to be pushing on the local media.
So thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Matsui. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. And welcome Commissioner
Clyburn, Commissioner O'Rielly, and Chairman Pai.
Chairman Pai, my questions concern Spectrum for commercial
uses. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015 called for the
identification and auction of 30 megahertz of Spectrum by 2024.
Is that 30 megahertz adequate to meet industry's future needs?
And, if it is not, what can Congress, NTIA, and the FCC, do to
identify additional bands that could be made available for
commercial use?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think
the only constant in the wireless world is change. And that if
we anticipate the 300 megahertz that might have been sufficient
in 2015, then innovators will find applications that require us
to think even more broadly. And so we certainly want to pursue
as many of those 300 megahertz as possible. But, as I stated in
my response to Congressman Guthrie, we are thinking as broadly
as possible. We want to tee up as many bands as possible.
And to the extent that congressional authority might be
helpful in identifying further bands or giving the FCC the
authority to clear more bands, we would be happy to exercise
that authority.
Mr. Olson. In your opinion, what are the repercussions of
not meeting Spectrum needs over the next decade? What is going
to happen if we blow it?
Mr. Pai. I think the opportunity cost could be extremely
significant. As Congressman Loebsack pointed out, if you are a
healthcare provider in a rural area, and that wireless
connection might be necessary for you to be able to assess and
stabilize a patient, that requires Spectrum. For agriculture,
for education, all these other things depend on wireless
Spectrum.
And as the world goes wireless, the demands on the network
go up, and we have to have enough Spectrum to meet those needs
both unlicensed and licensed.
Mr. Olson. Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioner O'Rielly,
something to add to those questions about the Spectrum?
Ms. Clyburn. Well, one of the things is we are working with
our Federal partners. You know, with, you know, NTIH, to ensure
that we are on the right track. We are being flexible. We are
talking about an all-of-the-above approach, you know,
unlicensed, licensed, and shared Spectrum. So I really think
the momentum--I know the momentum is there. We just need to
shore up, I think, the public-public partnership side of the
equation to make sure that we keep pace.
Mr. O'Rielly. I would say that I have been pushing hard on
millimeter wave band and midband to make more Spectrum
available for those purposes.
One idea that I put forward was agency Spectrum fees, is
putting opportunity costs for Federal agencies that hold
Spectrum to try and make a mechanism that they would realize it
in their budgets in terms of holding Spectrum. Because right
now there is no cost for the hold licenses, and that keeps that
bottled up in the Federal agencies.
So that would be one mechanism I would recommend to the
committee for consideration.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Chairman Pai, the FCC Authorization draft legislation we
are reviewing today would establish a, quote, ``Office of
Economics and Data,'' end quote, within the FCC. Do you support
this office in the statute? How can this office help the
Commission do a better job with its rulemakings? Is this
necessary?
Mr. Pai. I strongly support the creation of this office,
having proposed it in April. It has struck me over the years
that for the legal function there is a dedicated office, the
Office of General Counsel.
For the engineering function, there is an Office of
Engineering Technology. But when it comes to economics, which
arguably should guide a lot of our thinking, in terms of cost
benefit analysis and the like, the economists are sprinkled
throughout the agency. And that impairs our decisionmaking. It
gives the economists at the agency less of a feeling that they
are incorporated into the culture of that decision making. It
also makes it difficult for us to recruit the best and
brightest, and when we are competing with the FTC and SEC.
So we are hopeful that with the Congress' support, we are
able to create this office in a way that inspires great big-
picture thinking from the terrific economists that we have on
staff.
Mr. Olson. Sounds like we should keep it in the bill.
Mr. Pai. I would be supportive of that.
Mr. Olson. Final question for you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
We can all agree on the benefits of the next generation of
wireless, 5G. Unfortunately, we also hear about delay of sites
for new wireless facilities which in some cases can take years.
Mr. Pai mentioned sites on Federal lands. What is the FCC
doing, and what more can it do in this regard? As a formal Navy
aviator, how can Congress help the FCC feel the need for speed?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I appreciate your comments. The Chairman
outlined a number of things that we are already doing at the
Commission, including the BDAC, and including three proceedings
that we have before us. So, hopefully, we will conclude those
in the near term.
But, in addition, anything that Congress can do to clarify
the current statute in terms of our authority is very welcome.
I think we have broad authority in this space, but anything
that Congress is willing to clarify would be very helpful.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. My time, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Right on time he yields back.
Mr. Ruiz, 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to thank the
Chairman and Commissioners for being here. The FCC is
responsible for a vast array of issues, and I welcome the
opportunity to discuss a couple of them today.
Diving right in. I want to talk about broadband deployment.
One of the most important tools the FCC uses to encourage
broadband deployment is through the Connect America Fund which
helps make deploying and maintaining broadband internet
possible in remote, and rural, and underserved areas across the
Nation.
These are areas like Mecca, Thermal, Coachella, in my
district, where I grew up, where it is a rural area, farm
worker area, where we also have some tribes, or a tribe, that
also exists in that area. And we know that there are some
classrooms in the Coachella Valley Unified School District that
doesn't have access to good internet where teachers have to
print out a YouTube video and show them as slides so that the
kids can get information.
But, also, the CV Unified School District and the community
work together to provide every student, K through 12, an iPad
or a tablet to boost achievement and narrow that digital
divide, where oftentimes when I grew up there we had
dilapidated books, and we didn't have the most recent
copyrighted book as well.
Unfortunately, however, broadband deployment across the
region remains spotty, at best, limiting the ability for
students to take full advantage of this technology. In December
of 2015 I wrote to the FCC in favor of Frontier Communications
proposal to acquire Verizon's Wireless Networks and supporting
their commitment in working together with my office to utilize
the Connect America Fund to deploy high speed internet in those
underserved areas in my district. And I urge the FCC to support
Frontier's efforts to deploy broadband in my communities and to
hold Frontier accountable to their commitments to closing the
digital divide through their acceptance of Connect America
Funding.
So my first question to Chairman Pai, are you committed to
ensuring all Connect America funds recipients are fulfilling
their responsibilities under the program?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz. And how are you going to monitor that progress?
Mr. Pai. Two different ways. Upfront, we have required the
recipients of that funding to build out to 40 percent of their
territory by the end of this year, 20 percent by the end of
2018, 20 percent by 2019, and the final 20 percent by the end
of 2020.
We require reporting obligations throughout. And on the
back end there is accountability. If they do not build what
they said they would build out, then we will require the
accelerating----
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Mr. Pai [continuing]. Back.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. This is obviously a critical program
not only for the people and families I represent but millions
of Americas who still lack access to broadband.
Now switching gears. My next question is about addressing
the challenge of--and in some cases the other lack of diversity
in media programming, ownership, and viewpoints. For me, this
isn't about some statistic. It is about the children in our
communities who deserve to see their stories, their
communities, their experiences, their role models, their
culture, portrayed on the screen in a positive light.
It is about giving our young people more inspiration and
more role models to look up to on the screen and behind the
screens. And when they believe that they can dream big and
fight to make those dreams come true, our Nation as a whole
reaps the benefits. I firmly believe that we need to see real
progress, real change, and we are going to need to improve the
diversity of those decision makers at the top.
As we have seen, several mergers over the years in the
evolution of how people consume media content, we must ensure
that diversity in programming and content is not diminishing.
As the agency who has overseen numerous mergers over the years,
the FCC has a responsibility to take public interest into
account and in determining whether to approve a particular
proposal.
Chairman Pai, very briefly, if you don't mind--because I do
have another question--does the FCC consider diversity when
reviewing proposed mergers under the public interest lens?
Mr. Pai. That is one of the factors that goes into our
analysis.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
And Commissioner Clyburn, you have been a champion for this
issue in the past. How do you think the FCC and Congress can
work to improve diversity on and off the camera?
Ms. Clyburn. I think one reason--one way is through
ownership. Just stamping every merger that comes our way is not
going to help in terms of diversifying the ecosystem, a tax
certificate program. That works extremely well.
An incubator program, that I think would work extremely
well where we could possibly relax some of our ownership
obligations.
Those are two proven ways, I believe, that we could further
infuse and diversify the marketplace.
Mr. Ruiz. Good. I look forward to working with you both on
this particular issue in the future. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner O'Rielly, a long time ago, in a galaxy far,
far away, during the proceedings to establish rules for the
incentive auction there was fierce debate about the bidding
restrictions set aside in the Spectrum screens. Now that the
incentive auction is over, can you say with confidence whether
the restrictions to set aside the screen applied increased
better participation?
Mr. O'Rielly. I cannot, with all honesty, say that they
increased participation. I would say just the opposite, they
decreased participation.
Mr. Long. You what?
Mr. O'Rielly. I would say they decreased participation. The
restrictions decreased participation. They set aside a Spectrum
for particular bands, for particular licenses, for particular
winners.
I think that those rules were harmful to the free market
and the free auction, and I think that the auction didn't
generate as much as it possibly could have.
Mr. Long. I think I can maybe delete the second part of my
question. I was going to say were they necessary and
beneficial. But I think you have answered that.
This is for everyone. I will start with Chairman Pai and go
down the line. Netflix is the largest paid TV service in
America in terms of subscribers and has a content budget of $6
billion including to produce its own exclusive content.
Amazon Prime, which offers a premium and exclusive video
programming will soon see its subscriber numbers pass that of
all the so-called traditional pay TV services, such as cable
and satellite combined.
Alphabet's YouTube now offers a paid TV service with
programming no different than traditional cable and satellite
to 35 percent of American households.
My question is this: Do our communication laws and FCC
regulations recognize and account for these new and competitive
services?
Mr. Pai. Good question, Congressman. I don't think they do,
and part of the reason is that the law has been frozen in place
for a while. And that is why I think it would be helpful to
have additional authority, for example, with respect to
forbearance.
It would allow the agency to modernize our rules to
recognize some of those revolutionary changes you identified.
Mr. Long. I will repeat the last part of the question for
Commissioner Clyburn. Do our communications laws and FCC
regulations recognize and account for these new and competitive
services?
Ms. Clyburn. I say yes and no. You know, we recognize part
of the reason why you can mention all of those, you know,
companies, is the fact that we have an open internet, an open
and a vibrant ecosystem.
So I don't think we should discount that. That is very
important. You would not have been able to say those alphabets,
literally, you know, several years ago.
So I think we need to concentrate on that as much, you
know, recognizing that maybe we need to retool and continue to
evaluate rules that are on the books.
Mr. Long. OK. And, Commissioner O'Rielly, again, do you--
excuse me--do our communications laws and FCC regulations
recognize and account for these new and competitive services?
Mr. O'Rielly. I would agree with my colleagues. It is a yes
and no in terms of--sorry, sir.
Mr. Long. That is all right. Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain.
Mr. O'Rielly. In terms of Title VI, I don't think it
reflects the current marketplace. That is what generally
governs our video services. So I think the law is out of sorts
with that. I think in our media ownership we are required to
look at those things and required to look at the broad
ecosphere and what is happening in the marketplace. And so that
does, I believe.
And we didn't do that in the last go-round in our media
ownership, the quadrennial review. So the law does in some
places and other places it doesn't. It should be modernized.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And, with that, Chairman, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair.
Chairman Pai, within 2 weeks of becoming Chairman, you
rescinded the FCC White Paper on cybersecurity risk reduction,
as well as the Notice of Inquiry on the 5G wireless network and
device security. You then moved to stay the data security
provisions of the Broadband Privacy Rules. Meanwhile, we have
seen more unsecured devices come to market, and an increase in
the attack surface and the largest online ransomware attack in
history.
I am puzzled that you aren't taking the agency's
responsibility in the area of cybersecurity more aggressively,
given that your own agency was attacked--was a victim of attack
of--denial of service attack.
Please answer with a yes or no. Will you commit to working
with the committee to using your authorities to protect
consumers against the growing cybersecurity threats?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Chairman Pai, on May 7, after airing of John
Oliver's program that outlined the FCC's efforts to roll back
net neutrality, the Commission's electronic comment filing
system went down. The FCC's chief information officer alleged
that the agency's internal analysis found the Web site was hit
by multiple DDoS attacks. I find it troubling that the FCC
could not produce any documentation on these attacks when asked
to do so.
Please answer with a simple yes or no. Will you commit to
turning over to this committee any reports, requests,
memoranda, and server logs related to this incident so that we
can get to the bottom of what happened here?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I hope to consult with the IT staff
and the attorneys to see if there are any applicable,
technical, or legal prohibitions or restrictions on doing so.
But to the extent I can share information with you and the
committee, I would be happy to do so.
Mr. McNerney. You will commit to that?
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. What is the agency's protocol going forward
for documenting DDoS attacks?
Mr. Pai. We consistently work with the career IT staff to
monitor the situation, and they work, in turn, with the cloud
providers to ensure that they are able to scale up as necessary
to address some of the challenges that our system might have.
And I am happy to say that they have been able to do so very
successfully, judging from the voluminous comments we have
received to date.
Mr. McNerney. So we will have better visibility, then, in
future potential attacks?
Mr. Pai. Sorry. In terms of----
Mr. McNerney. Of what happened. Of what was the attack
consisted of.
Mr. Pai. Yes. As pointed out in the letter to Senators
Wyden and Schatz, and the attachment from our chief information
officer, the career chief information officer, we outlined some
of those facts, and we would be happy to produce that to the
committee as well.
Mr. McNerney. Well, after passing the privacy CRA, the
Republican members of this committee sent you a letter asking
that the FCC protect consumers' privacy by using its authority
under sections 201 and section 202 of the Communication Act.
Please answer with a simple yes or no. Since receiving this
letter, has the Commission taken any enforcement action or
issued any guidance for using sections 201 and sections 202 to
protect consumer privacy and broadband privacy.
Mr. Pai. Not to my knowledge. We are still studying that
issue, the letter that was sent over.
Mr. McNerney. Does the Commission have any plans to take
enforcement under--action under 201 and 202 to protect
broadband privacy?
Mr. Pai. The Enforcement Bureau Guidance that was issued in
2015 is still in force, and so, we are happy to provide further
detail if requested.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Commissioner Clyburn, what broadband privacy protections
can consumers rely on today?
Ms. Clyburn. To my knowledge and my interpretation, though
I am not a lawyer, none. We have basically gotten out of the
business of protecting those online. We have made it clear that
if you have--in terms of voice, we are there for you when it
comes to broadband. That is up in the air. And to say that the
FTC will be your savior, I think is shortsighted in terms of
looking at what their authority is.
Mr. McNerney. Well, startups are the key drivers to job
creation, innovation, and economic growth. I want to make sure
that my startups in my community can continue to expand.
How will the current proposals to roll back net neutrality
protections affect the ability of startups to thrive and
compete?
Ms. Clyburn. I think in terms of the FCC's ability to do
its job in terms of ensuring that there is a way for us to
ensure that there is broadband and investment oppose
attachments and other types of conduits. It is questionable
right now whether or not we have the authority or the ability
to do anything to enable all of that.
Moving in the direction which is proposed is going to
cause--is going to short-circuit our ability to the things that
America expects, and that is to connect them in an expedited,
legally sustainable way.
Mr. McNerney. Sure.
If I understand, you feel that Title II rules inhibit
investments. How can you test, in an unbiased way, the veracity
and universality of your opinion since the rulemaking is
lacking comments on the benefits of the existing rules?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, to the contrary. We welcome those
comments, and we want to test the veracity of the statements
that are made in the 10Ks, the studies that are entered into
the record. And that is why--precisely why, as I suggested to
Congressman Doyle, that we aren't proceeding by a declaratory
ruling, simply fiating a particular result. We want to hear all
the conflicting facts, sort through those facts, and then make
the judgment based on those facts and the applicable law.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. And, Mr.
Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it so
much, and I thank the Commissioners for their testimony today.
Chairman Pai, in past hearings, I questioned your
predecessor on his proposal to close various FCC field offices,
and the impact it could have on the radio frequency
interference complaint response times. At the time, you were
also concerned that these closures could erode the FCC's
enforcement abilities. In the closing days of the last
administration, the FCC closed 11 field offices, including one
in Tampa. I represent part of the Tampa Bay area. I think you
know that.
In light of these closures, what actions has the FCC taken
to ensure that interference complaints continue to be timely
addressed?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And it is
no secret that I had substantial disagreements with the
original reorganization plan that was proposed, because it
would have impacted the field, including places like Tampa.
Going forward, we have tried, to the best of our ability,
to use those resources in the field offices to aggressively
attack issues, like pirate radio, that are a problem all across
the eastern seaboard. And working with our enforcement Bureau
staff, during my tenure, we have issued two notices of apparent
liability, four forfeiture orders, 39 notices of unlicensed
operations. That is just on the enforcement side. In terms of
our rules, going forward, we want to make sure that we take
every step we can to put pirates on notice that both the staff
at the FCC headquarters and the field office enforcement staff
are cops on the beat to guard against that problem.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Next question. The Commission has done a great job in the
last few months bringing cases against scammers who violate the
TCPA by making millions of unwanted robocalls to innocent
consumers. I think we all agree that robocalls are a
substantial consumer protection problem. As a matter of fact,
you know, I hear about it all the time from my constituents and
even family members.
So, Chairman Pai, could you tell us more about the FCC's
robocall enforcement efforts? And what makes it so difficult to
identify these bad actors?
Mr. Pai. Terrific question. This is the number one consumer
protection issue, judging from the complaints that we get from
consumers across the country. We took that to heart. And so out
of the box, in the first 6 months, we have already taken the--
proposed the largest fine ever proposed by the FCC to go after
a robocaller in Florida who imposed 100 million robocalls in
just 3 months on America consumers. That is $120 million
proposed fine.
Two weeks ago, rather, we proposed an additional fine to
tackle another scammer who was essentially enabling others to
make similar robocalls. We also set up, on the rule's side, a
reassignment--we are proposing to set up a reassign numbers
database so that those legitimate callers who want to stay in
touch with their customers are able to do so free from
liability.
We have also empowered carriers, rather, to take steps to
block spoofed calls. These are calls that appear to be coming
from your area code or even the first three numbers of your
prefix, but they could be coming from another country. It is
somebody masking their identity in order to get you to answer
that phone.
We are using every tool in the toolbox that we can, but is
very difficult. There are a lot of technical challenges. And
that is why, going forward, we have encouraged what is called a
call authentication anchor. This would enable you to know that,
if you see a number on your phone, you can be assured that it
is from the person who is assigned that telephone number. For a
variety of reasons that we don't have time to get into, it is
very technically complex to do that, but we have the best and
brightest folks at the agency and in the industry working
together to try to figure out this problem.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you. Thanks for taking that
action. Again, it is so important to our constituents.
Ensuring that our elderly and disabled populations retain
full access to technology is very important to me. And, again,
we don't want our elderly or any constituents being bothered
with these unwanted robocalls, as you know.
But on another issue, just this month, the FCC adopted
rules to provide more video-described programming to blind and
visually impaired Americans.
Chairman Pai, can you describe what this will do for
visually impaired population, and explain the timeline for
implementation of the new standard.
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I am very
proud of our work in this area. So many of the things that we
talk about when we are with our families involve movies or TV
shows that we have seen. But imagine if the core scenes in a
movie or a TV show required you to understand the nonverbal
cues. Those are things that blind and--people simply can't take
advantage of unless they have an audio description of what is
going on. And so that is why, working together, we advanced
more video description capability. That is somebody narrating,
essentially, the critical elements of a movie or a film. This
is something that Congress gave us the ability to do, and we
have exercised that authority in order to give those with
disabilities the maximum chance to participate.
We have done that across a number of different areas, by
the way, not just on the video side, but with respect to those
who are deaf or hard of hearing. We have taken a number of
steps to ensure that they have the ability to enjoy
communication services as well. And so using the tools that
Congress has very generously given us, we want all of these
communities to be digitally empowered, especially those with
disabilities.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
Commission for making it a priority.
Mr. Pai. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. So very important that our constituents have
access.
Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Dingell for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and thank you,
again, to all the witnesses. I know you probably like being
here as much as you like going to the dentist.
I want to start with the issue of cybersecurity and build
on my colleague, Mr. McNerney's questions. And I know it is
very important to all the Members on both sides of the aisle.
It is really a nonpartisan issue, and it is something we have
got to get right.
The distributed denial-of-service attack that the FCC
suffered on May 7 is concerning to all of us, especially
because the Commission has not been very forthright concerning
what actually happened.
Chairman Pai, I do appreciate your response to some of
Senator Wyden's questions on this issue, and to Mr. McNerney's.
But I want to follow up on that.
You have presented your plan to mitigate bottlenecks in the
electronic comment filing system, API. Could you talk about
this plan in greater detail, and would you be willing to update
members of this committee when the plan has been implemented?
Mr. Pai. ``Yes'' is the answer to the second question,
Congresswoman. With respect to the first, we have worked to
ascertain what the necessities are in terms of scaling up our
ECFS system to accommodate a large amount of traffic. And that
is why I think we now see 12.3 million comments in the system,
is that our career IT staff working with our commercial cloud
providers have the ability now to make sure that, if we
anticipate a great surge in interest in a particular
proceeding, we are able to scale accordingly. And so that
process has worked pretty well, as far as I know, over the last
several weeks, and hopefully, going forward it will as well.
But we would be happy to keep you briefed on----
Mrs. Dingell. And let us know if there are problems again
as they occur?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
Mrs. Dingell. Chairman Pai, in October of last year, the
DNS provider Dyn fell victim to a massive distributed denial-
of-service attack. Without diving too deep into the woods, can
you give us a quick overview of some steps you are taking to
mitigate the risk of this happening again? The threat is only
going to grow more and more if more and more devices are
connected to the internet.
Mr. Pai. I couldn't agree more, Congresswoman.
Cybersecurity is a critical issue. And it seems like we hear
about a new story like that every month or--if not every week.
The problem as we see it is the FCC's authority here is
relatively circumscribed. If Congress would give us additional
authority, we would be more than happy to administer it. But as
we read the Act, we don't have the ability to directly issue,
for example, cybersecurity regulations of the type that would
address issues like that.
We are in a consultative role with the Department of
Homeland Security and other agencies. And I personally have
been in briefings at the where FCC's secure facility where I
have been briefed about some of the cyber threats that we see.
And I obviously can't discuss those in open setting. But I can
tell you that we are focused on this issue, and we would
welcome any additional authority.
Mrs. Dingell. So I think it is great to hear that you are,
because I have been worried that it has all been shunted off to
Homeland. And maybe in a session, we can work with what you
think you need to have more authorization, because I think the
FCC has a critical role as more goes on. So thank you.
Switching gears to another top priority of mine, the
Lifeline program. It is critical to so many hardworking
Americans across the country. Americans are living paycheck to
paycheck and struggling to get by in the new economy. All of us
have constituents like this, and we see them every weekend when
we go home. We can't afford to leave Americans behind. So I am
going to ask all of the Commissioners this. To each of you:
Will you commit that you won't take Lifeline away from these
hardworking Americans by artificially limiting the Lifeline
program?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I am not sure what you mean by
artificially limiting the program. But I have said consistently
that Lifeline is a critical part of the equation to addressing
the digital divide. And so long as I am Chairman, broadband
will remain a part of the Lifeline program.
Mrs. Dingell. Chairman Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. I am absolutely concerned about the program. I
am concerned about the posture. I am concerned about the
rhetoric. And if we do not fix it as opposed to criticizing it,
then this program will be in jeopardy.
Mr. O'Rielly. I have no interest in dismantling Lifeline. I
am not sure exactly what you mean by your question. But, you
know, I am happy to work with my colleagues. There are a number
of improvements needed to be made in this area, including
having a budget for the program.
Mrs. Dingell. I will expand more on that in questions
after. I am going to do a really fast one.
Commissioner Clyburn, do you think rolling back net
neutrality would undermine free speech online? Why or why not?
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. I think if any outside force is
able to influence a limit where you can travel or where you can
access online, that is very limiting not only, you know, to
free speech but other enabling opportunities that you may have.
Mrs. Dingell. One more. If someone with a vibrant small
business community in my district, I have heard many of them
that rolling back net neutrality can undermine their growth in
jobs, small business.
Commissioner Clyburn, why would small businesses be so
uniquely affected by the rollback of net neutrality?
Ms. Clyburn. Because they don't have the power of being
able to buy more expanded, robust service offerings or faster
speeds. We heard from a lady in the--Congressman Johnson's
district that said she lost 300 or $400 a month because fraud
rolling and her inability to enhance--to promote her artwork.
These are very real problems that are happening to very real
people. And if they don't have a level playing field, it will
continue.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Kinzinger, 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
holding the hearing. And to the Commissioners, thank you for
being here today. I am pleased to see the FCC reauthorization
discussion draft includes provisions from legislation I
introduced last Congress that would require the FCC to publish
the draft of any item that is circulated on vote at the
Commission. And I am also pleased to see the FCC Process Reform
Act included in the bill that I cosponsored with Chairman
Walden in the past few Congresses to improve transparency and
fairness.
Mr. Chairman, you stated you are going to make transparency
a priority, and I am very encouraged, actually, by the efforts
you have already made. While it has only been a few months,
what benefits have you seen from some of the reforms that you
have implemented?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It has
been tremendous. The first and foremost reform is the pretty
simple one: Letting the American people know what we are going
to do at our public meetings at least three weeks before we do
it. And that is something that we had been told for legal
reasons we couldn't do, or for policy reasons we shouldn't do.
But in my second week, I instituted that reform, adopted
Commissioner Clyburn's suggestion to accompany those items, the
one-page fact sheet that explains in plain English what we are
doing. And the results speak for themselves. People, including
Members of Congress, are able to see the specific details of
what the agency is proposing to do.
I would say for myself, that it has made the meetings we
have about--internally, about those proposed items much more
productive. Instead of this game of telephone where one party
says, ``Well, we hear that X, Y, and Z is in the item. Can you
confirm?'' And the Commissioner, or the Commissioner's staff,
``Well, we can't disclose nonpublic information, but you might
be on the right track.'' Those meetings simply don't happen
anymore, because everyone can see what is in it. Or if there is
a meeting, we focus on the meat of an issue. You know,
``Chairman, you are wrong for this reason. Chairman, you are
right for that reason.'' So it has been much more productive.
Other process reforms we have instituted have been
similarly helpful, and we certainly look forward to more of
those going across the finish line in the time to come.
Mr. Kinzinger. Good.
And we have draft legislation that seeks to advance that
even farther.
I will start by asking you, and then turn to your
colleagues briefly: What do you see in the legislation that
will be helpful and what tools might we be considering as this
legislation advances?
Mr. Pai. A lot of good ideas in the process reform section
of the bill. Obviously, the creation of the Office of Economics
and Data is something I am very supportive of. I think it would
be helpful to create a culture of big picture economic thinking
at the agency, and having Congress' support would aid that
mission. Making sure that we institute more--deadlines for
Commission action is something that would certainly come into
the committee's attention. That is one of the things that we
talked about before is that the agency can accept all these
petitions and applications, but there is no accountability on
the back end, because we have no deadline for acting. So having
those deadlines, having sunset clauses and the like would help
our work.
As I mentioned earlier, and I am not sure if you were in
the room, but the one caveat I would add is that for
enforcement actions, it is often important for us not to
disclose the content of those actions until after the
Commission has voted. That is one area where transparency is,
as important as it is, is counterweighed, I think, by
considerations of due process and notice and the like.
Mr. Kinzinger. Understood. Commissioner Clyburn.
Ms. Clyburn. I will be a one-hit wonder on here and talk
about the Sunshine rules. I was a chair of the universal
service joint boards, and that was definitely a barrier to
communications. So, you know, that--pushing that ahead is a
positive, and to the now current Chair.
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, thank you.
I support the bill. I think there is many good improvements
to our process. I think the Sunshine, as I mentioned, to the
chairman of the full committee, that the Sunshine changes
probably could be broader, in my opinion. I think they are a
little limited, but they are improvements, so I will take them.
But I am not sure they will be used all that often.
But I have put forward 15 ideas in my testimony that I
think could be added to the bill to make it a little stronger.
There are things I was pushing when I was a minority
Commissioner, and have advocated since. And, you know, it
doesn't matter from the minority or majority. I am worried now
about this Commission. I think Chairman Pai has been a great
leader in improving the accountability and transparency. But it
is two, three, four failed Chairmen from now I am worried
about.
Mr. Kinzinger. There are benefits to codifying.
And, Chairman Pai, last question. You updated us on the
post-incentive auction transition process. And you mentioned
that the $1.75 billion we provided is insufficient to cover the
total cost of repack, likely.
You didn't mention whether the 39-month deadline will be
enough time to complete the process. Is it too early to tell
whether there will be enough time to move it all within 39
months?
Mr. Pai. It is a little too early to tell. We have
allocated the broadcasters who need to be repacked into
different phases. And thus far, we haven't yet commenced full
analysis of whether those phases will be sufficient. But I can
commit to this committee that we will keep you apprised
promptly of any developments on that front if we get the sense
the 39 months will not be able to be met.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I will give you
29 seconds back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Sounds great.
Ms. Clarke, 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank our ranking
member. I also thank our Commissioners. And it is great to have
you here before us to answer questions today.
My first question is actually to you, Mr. Chairman. It is
good to see you.
Mr. Pai. You too.
Ms. Clarke. Since the close of the FCC's broadcast
incentive auction in April, you have begun granting license
applications. I believe 25 have been granted, including two
applications to incumbent nationwide wireless carriers, and the
country's largest cable and direct broadcast satellite
providers.
Of the 24 remaining applications that have not been placed
on public notice, 13 seek bidding credits as small businesses,
and 10 seek bidding credits as rural service providers, and you
have announced in July that you are prepared to pay the winning
bidders in the reverse auction.
So now that these payments are ready to go out, and now
that the FCC has largely processed applications for winning
bidders it has previously put on notice, I believe that the FCC
should now move to be ready to process remaining license
applications, many of which are for small businesses. So can
you tell me what the timeline is for putting the remaining
license applications on public notice, and how are you
prioritizing these applications to ensure that there is timely
deployment of these valuable spectrum to consumers?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate your concern, Congresswoman, because,
obviously, that is a great limiting step for those winning
bidders to be able to deploy that spectrum to benefit
consumers.
We are moving as quickly as we can. Obviously, we want to
process those applications quickly. With respect to designated
entities, there are particular procedures that the FCC is
required to follow in addition to the standard procedures we
have to follow for winning bidders to ensure that those
designated entities are, in fact, entitled to bidding credits
under our rules and the applicable law. We will move as quickly
as we can working through those procedures to ensure that they
get the spectrum that they have bid for. And we would be happy
to keep you apprised as things go forward.
Ms. Clarke. I am just concerned, because the little guys
always get short shrift, and the rules always get short shrift.
Mr. Pai. Right.
Ms. Clarke. And it would be great to flip the script this
time and make them a priority, because the big guys--you know,
they have got all the wherewithal to do what needs to be done;
the little guys that we are trying to elevate.
Mr. Pai. Exactly. And you have got my commitment on that
front, Congresswoman.
Ms. Clarke. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.
This question is for Commissioner O'Rielly.
The FCC is currently considering whether to approve a new
broadband standard, the ATC 3.0. And I am interested in the new
services that this standard could bring to consumers, including
access to more in-depth news on topics, interactive educational
programs, and a robust emergency alert system. What is the time
frame for the FCC action on this new standard and, also, its
deployment by broadcasters?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I think the Chairman may be better to
answer timelines on that point. I would hope to be expeditious
on this. I would like to do it this year, if possible. But he
may be better able----
Ms. Clarke. This year?
Mr. O'Rielly. The Chairman can answer your timeline
probably----
Ms. Clarke. OK.
Mr. Pai. Well done, Commissioner O'Rielly.
So we do hope to be able to conclude the--to approve the
new standard, if possible, by the end of the year. But
obviously, we want to follow the facts where they take us. And
so we are studying the record actively. And hereto, we hope to
work collaboratively to figure out whether we can--we can, in
fact, approve that standard by the end of----
Ms. Clarke. Well, we are moving down that track. And having
said that, I was just wondering whether you would all make a
commitment to make sure that no consumer will lose service, no
consumer will have to spend any money to keep viewing broadcast
channels.
Mr. Pai. Yes, Congresswoman. As I am recall the NPRM, it
has been a few months now, but I specifically remember that
most consumers have ATSC 1.0 enabled television sets and
devices in their homes. And so we obviously don't want to make
a flash cut to ATSC 3.0 and leave those viewers in the lurch.
So that is part of the reason the way we structured it was that
you could experiment with ATSC 3.0 so long as that 1.0 signal
was also still out there and able to be viewed.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Wonderful.
And then recently, two licensees, FiberTower and Straight
Path, sought FCC authority to sell spectrum after doing little
or nothing with those licenses for many years.
If auction consistent with FCC rules, this spectrum would
fetch billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury. Why should the
FCC reward FiberTower and Straight Path with private riches for
not deploying service to the public? And why should FiberTower
and Straight Path collect billions of dollars in payments
instead of having to give that money to the U.S. Treasury for
the benefit of all Americans? Can you guys give me a sense of,
you know, what is the deal here?
Mr. Pai. Good question, Congresswoman. So there is some
tricky legal issues that we are trying to sort out, and policy
issues as well.
Ms. Clarke. Tricky.
Mr. Pai. But, obviously, as I have said in response to, I
believe, Congressman Olson, that this is a public resource, and
we want to make sure that it is allocated in a way that
benefits the American public.
Ms. Clarke. Awesome.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
OK. I yield back. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and to our
witnesses for being here today.
The siting of wireless infrastructure is a key component of
expanding broadband throughout our Nation while creating jobs.
In fact, investment in 5G deployment has the potential to
create over 2,300 jobs in my district. However, Accenture,
Deloitte, and CTIA recently found that barriers remain to the
deployment of broadband infrastructure. These reports have
identified a number of impediments, including a lengthy and
indefinite permitting process, or an unwillingness to grant
reasonable access to poles or right-of-ways.
In my home State of California, several cities require
wireless providers to show gaps in service just to access the
right-of-way, while one city is asking for excessive annual
fees to access the right-of-ways.
Chairman Pai, do these issues constitute obstacles to the
broadband deployment?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. You
know, many cases they do. And if you are looking to build a new
wireless network, especially if you are a smaller competitor,
you need to be able to deploy that infrastructure in a timely
and cost-effective way. And if you face barriers like that, it
can, indeed, be an obstacle to you getting into the
marketplace.
Mr. Walden. Well, what can the Commission do to address
these issues?
Mr. Pai. A part of it involves the authority that has been
granted to us by--under the Communications Act, sections 253,
332, and to the--and possible 6409 of the Spectrum Act. So we
are looking at different areas like that.
Also, I have set up, as I mentioned earlier, the broadband
deployment advisory committee, part of which is setting up
model State and model local codes for deployment that could
address these issues. They will also tee up different barriers
to entry like that to see if there are ways to work
collaboratively. I have also supported legislation in Congress
that could help address some of these issues in areas where the
Commission does not currently have the authority.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
Along those same lines, wireless infrastructure sitings is
necessary to expand broadband deployment. And I am hopeful
Congress and the FCC can work together to find ways to
streamline siting procedures.
Commissioner O'Rielly, does the Commission have plans to
review its procedures to ensure that siting applications do not
face unnecessary obstacles?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, as the Chairman mentioned, we have
three proceedings that we are looking at in this front: one on
wireline and two on wireless; one of small cells particularly.
So we are working on these things aggressively. And as he
mentioned, he has the new task force. The Commission is looking
at these issues as well. I just spoke in front of them and
participated in their activities. So we are aggressively
looking to solutions. Anything that Congress wants to add or
clarify in our authority would be welcome, but I think we have
authority and we should move forward aggressively.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thanks.
And specifically, how does the Commission plan to address
siting issues, like deemed granted and environmental
assessments?
Mr. O'Rielly. So those things are a part of the items that
I spoke of, and are before us, and we are taking comments and
making some decisions, so hopefully later this year.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Are there immediate actions the FCC can
take to begin laying the groundwork for 5G?
Mr. O'Rielly. I think there is the two parts, as I have
mentioned in my testimony. One is making sure there is spectrum
available. And the second is this piece you and I just spoke
about. And we are working aggressively on both fronts as hard
as possible, I think.
Mrs. Walters. OK. And, Commissioner Clyburn, would you
share your thoughts?
Ms. Clyburn. A couple of things that you made me think
about in asking that question. I am wondering, in a world
without Title II, how would you know that 253 apply? And so
that is a concern of mine and should be a concern of yours.
And another thing, we need to make sure that our local
communities do what we can to ensure that local communities
have the tools they need to sift through these applications. If
you go into Montgomery County right across the border, they
have had hundreds of applications and maybe just one or two
people to sift through them. So not everyone is trying to stand
in the way. And so we need to make sure, as a collective
infrastructure family, that we make sure that everyone, you
know, has the oxygen they need to move forward.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you. And thank you again for being
here. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Engel, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And welcome to
everyone here today.
You know, just as a consumer, when I am running around, I
notice my phone rings much more now than ever before in terms
of all these annoying robocalls and--you know, they even have
the nerve to be stern with you. ``We called you last week, and
you didn't respond.'' So the average person would think, gee, I
did something wrong and maybe go along with it.
When I was first in Congress a while ago, we passed a bill
which developed a no-call zone where people weren't allowed to
call. Why can we not exchange that? Are there technical
obstacles to developing new standards for call certification?
Why can't we have a do-not-call list like we once had several
years ago for regular telephones? Anyone who cares to answer?
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to start that, Congressman. Part
of the problem is that we have a lot of unscrupulous actors,
some of whom are beyond our borders who find it profitable,
frankly, to prey on American consumers with these robocalls
despite the fact that they are on the do-not-call list. And I
can tell you that I have raised this with some of my
counterparts in foreign countries to emphasize that this is a
major consumer protection issue for the United States, and we
need their cooperation in terms of cracking down on some of
those call centers that are just disobeying our do-not-call
rules. And we also wanted to use the authorities we have, and
that is part of the reason why we set up what is called a do-
not-originate database--or functionality. Essentially, if a
consumer does not want his or her number used for any purposes
other than his or her own, they can tell the carrier, Do not
place a call if it does not come from me, essentially. And that
is one complement to the do-not-call list that we hope bears
fruit in the time to come.
Ms. Clyburn. And I agree. Any proposed rules going forward,
they don't apply to people who are unwilling to abide by them.
And so that is the big challenge. And that is why we created
this task force, to make--because we know we can't do it alone
at the FCC. We don't have the tools. And so we are attempting
to enable the providers, you know, to have more teeth, so to
speak, to make sure that they can be a part of fixing this
problem. It will be ongoing. And I wish I could tell you next
year we would have a different conversation. We might not, but
hopefully we will be able to move forward.
Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. Because just as a consumer, I
am running from meeting to meeting. All of a sudden, I answer
something, and it is just so annoying. And it is increasing
every single day. Well, thank you.
Commissioner Clyburn, let me ask you this: Privacy and data
security, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, last
year, U.S. companies and Government agencies suffered over
1,000 data breaches, which is a 40 percent rise from 2015. And
they exposed everything from Social Security numbers to log-in
names and passwords.
Congress gave the FCC a clear role and responsibility in
overseeing our Nation's commercial communication networks, but
there is a growing consensus that we are falling behind.
So our privacy protections seem to be frozen. Provisions
were gutted requiring ASPs to notify consumers of data
breaches. And we might never know the full scope of these
breaches, because many are undiscovered and underreported.
So let me first start with Commissioner Clyburn.
Do you think the FCC should issue rules on this issue?
Ms. Clyburn. Do I think we should issue rules? I'm sorry?
Mr. Engel. Yes, on the issue of privacy.
Ms. Clyburn. I think we should. I am not sure we can. I
don't know what the impact of the Congressional Review Act is.
I am trying to, you know, figure out what our next steps are.
Particularly, you know, when it comes to voice, I think it is
clear. But when it comes to broadband, we are increasingly
moving to IP. I don't know what direction which we are headed.
Mr. Engel. What role should the FTC play?
Ms. Clyburn. I think it is a complementary role. When it
comes--they don't have any type of authority, as my
interpretation is, as it stands now, when it comes to common
carriers. And so if--so as it stands right now, the FTC--I
don't see what role they could play in terms of broadband
protection.
Mr. Engel. If we leave regulation up to the States, what
happens?
Ms. Clyburn. I think there are some States that are looking
at this that were responsive after the CRA. But we will have a
patchwork of regulation. I don't think that works well for
businesses who have a nationwide footprint.
Mr. Engel. What are the consequences of leaving data
security up to the ISPs?
Ms. Clyburn. I think uncertainty. I think, again, that
hodgepodge. I don't think the American public would be very
comforted to know that, depending on who they call or who their
provider is and where they go online, that they might have
different levels of expectations or protections.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Chairman Pai,
Commissioner Clyburn, and Commissioner O'Rielly, thank you all
three for being here today to talk about such an important
issue.
Chairman Pai, a lot of questions have already been asked,
but I am going to give you an opportunity here to talk more in
a broad context.
What has the FCC done during your time as Commissioner in
the Commission to facilitate the deployment of broadband
networks?
Mr. Pai. Boy, a lot. So we have been pretty busy on this
front. Number one, in February, we kicked off the process for
the Connect America Fund, phase two, as well as Mobility Fund,
phase two. Next week we are going to be voting on some of the
next steps to make sure those auctions happen in a timely and
effective way.
Number two, we have taken a very aggressive stand in terms
of modernizing our rules to recognize that broadband deployment
is our top priority. We kicked off, for instance, a wireless
infrastructure item, voted on unanimously, I would add, that
would enable the deployment of some of the nuts and bolts of
these wireless networks in an easier and timely way.
On the wireline side too, we teed up a number of different
ideas for promoting the deployment of fiber and the other guts
of a network that go into the ground and on poles to make it
easier for broadband providers to deploy.
Additionally, using the discretion that is granted the
Chairman, I set up early on a broadband deployment advisory
committee to help us create model codes for States, model codes
for localities and other issues--tee up other issues that are
for the Commission's consideration, for us to think broadly
about ways to promote broadband deployment.
I would also add that I am working cooperatively with my
counterparts at other agencies. Just this morning, as a matter
of fact, at the most recent meeting of the rural prosperity
working group convened by the Secretary of Agriculture, I had a
chance to meet with him, Secretary Chao, Secretary Price, and
others to figure out ways to synthesize our efforts across all
these different agencies to make sure that we are delivering
rural broadband connectivity, because broadband is not simply
good in and of itself. It delivers high quality healthcare,
high quality education, precision in agriculture, job creation.
So many of these verticals that are lacking currently in places
like in your district, as Commissioner Clyburn has seen.
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Pai. We have been really active, but there is a lot
more to do. That is why closing the digital divide is our
number one priority. And I hope to work with Congress to make
that divide a thing of the past by the time we are done.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I appreciate it. And I applaud the work
that you and the Commission are doing now. And I am happy to be
leading in this effort.
Commissioner Clyburn, thank you for your testimony on
affordable, reliable broadband, specifically as it relates to
rural areas, especially those like Ohio and my district. I
share your goal in that regard. My only regret is that I wish I
had known that you were coming to my district with enough
advanced notice that we could have participated with you and
your summits and your meetings there, because----
Ms. Clyburn. I was told we called your office. I am sorry
if you do not----
Mr. Johnson. No. I didn't know anything about it until I
read about it in the newspaper afterwards.
Ms. Clyburn. OK.
Mr. Johnson. But if you want to come back again, I would
certainly encourage that, because people in my district know
what a struggle it is in our areas without broadband
connectivity. Is this an obstacle----
Ms. Clyburn. Yes.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. You can identify for us that
prevents a tech company from deploying their own fiber network
so that this becomes less of an issue in rural America and
places like----
Ms. Clyburn. As it stands now, making a business case. You
know, it could be a very beautiful country and beautiful
people. But, you know, it is not necessarily the most densely
populated region.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Ms. Clyburn. There are some economic challenges in some of
the pockets. And so money is not--investment is not going to
organically flow without a universal service construct. And,
you know, you know what I know. There are some basic things
that some of your constituents were talking about in terms of
landline service. When it rains, it literally pours, and they
don't have connectivity. We have got a job to do. We are
talking about 5G. They are talking about legacy service that
there are issues with. So I look forward to continuing to
talk----
Mr. Johnson. Sure.
Ms. Clyburn [continuing]. Trying to work on that cell
coverage on 69 and 70, you know, the highways. But looking
forward to return, because we have got some very fundamental
problems that we need to address.
Mr. Johnson. I can actually personally relate to some of
what you just said, because I--living right there in Marietta,
I mean, I live in town, and we have got broadband connectivity.
But every time it storms, it goes down.
Ms. Clyburn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. The internet goes out. And it is a problem. I
can only imagine the frustration that the unserved areas of my
district face. So I look forward to working with you.
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you all three very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to request
unanimous consent to introduce into the record a document with
quotes from a number of ISP executives claiming that the Open
Internet Order will not affect broadband investment, as well as
a report by the public interest group Free Press on broadband
investment and online video markets that shows investment is
thriving under the current rules.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The document appears at the conclusion of the hearing. The
report has been retained in committee files and also is available at
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20170725/106312/HHRG-115-IF16-
20170725-SD002-U2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Blackburn. And Mike and I have been sitting up here
discussing privacy and data security and solving all of those
problems. Aren't you all thrilled? And I am glad--we just are
so appreciative of you all taking your time.
There are no other Members in the queue to ask questions of
the panel. So, pursuant to committee rules, I remind all
Members that they have 10 business days in which to submit
questions for the record. And we do know that there are
additional questions that are going to be submitted to you all,
as we did miss the hearing we had planned for the first
quarter. And then we will ask for your responses within 10 days
of receipt of those questions.
So there being no further business, committee adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]