    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 25, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-159

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-951                      WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, po@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                          MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     Chairman
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              RAUL RUIZ, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee           JERRY McNERNEY, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota               officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of New Jersey, prepared statement..............................     3
    Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Indiana, prepared statement.................................    84
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, prepared statement..............................    85

                                   Witnesses

    Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   122
    Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   152
    Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission....    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   156
    Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   158

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of the Credit Union National Association, submitted by
      Mrs. Blackburn.................................................    86
    Statement of the Utilities Technology Council, submitted by Mrs.
      Blackburn......................................................    88
    Letter of July 23, 2018, from the the Committeee to the Federal
      Communications Commission, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.........    90
    Statement of USTelecom, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn..............    93
    Letter of July 10, 2018, from Mr. McKinley to the Federal
      Communications Commission, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.........    95
    Statement of Anthem, Inc., submitted by Mrs. Blackburn...........    96
    GAO report \1\, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn
    Letter of July 23, 2018, from wireless ISPs to the Federal
      Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle..............    99
    Tweet from Chairman Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................   108
    Article entitled, ``Ajit Pai gets message from his hometown ISP:
      Don't hurt us small ISPs,'' Ars Technica , submitted by Mr.
      Doyle..........................................................   109
    Letter of July 18, 2018, from the United States Department of
      Commerce to the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by
      Mr. Doyle......................................................   116
    Letter of May 8, 2018, from Senator Wyden to the Federal
      Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle..............   120

    ----------
    \1\ The information can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
      meetings/IF/IF16/20180725/108599/HHRG-115-IF16-20180725-SD010-
      U10.pdf.

               OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta,
    Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores,
    Brooks, Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle,
    Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Matsui,
    McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff Present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator, C&T; Samantha
    Bopp, Staff Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly
    Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Kristine
    Fargotstein, Detailee, C&T; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff
    Member, C&T; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam
    Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Brighton Haslett,
    Counsel, O&I; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson,
    Professional Staff, DCCP; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, DCCP; Tim
    Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, C&T; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, C&T;
    Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; Brannon Rains, Staff
    Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, C&T; Greg Zerzan,
    Counsel, DCCP; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jennifer
    Epperson, Minority FCC Detailee; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich,
    Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan
    Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief
    Counsel; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will now come to order. I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here. We appreciate having you before us
    today. And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening.
        And welcome to this hearing on Oversight of the Federal
    Communications Commission. Today's hearing marks the first time
    in 28 years that the FCC has appeared before this subcommittee
    having been reauthorized by Congress. So I am delighted to
    welcome the recently reauthorized Commission here today. This
    reauthorization effort reflects bipartisan, bicameral support
    of the FCC and the important work it carries out each day to
    enhance public safety, technologies and alerts, strengthen our
    national security, increase broadband deployment, and protect
    consumers while fostering competition and innovation in the
    communications marketplace.
        I hope today also demonstrates the importance of being
    reauthorized as each of the commissioners articulates how that
    action benefits the organization. I know we can deliver the
    same bipartisan accomplishment for your colleagues at the NTIA.
        While the FCC is charged with many important tasks, one of
    the most critical roles it plays revolves around public safety,
    from working to ensure it that alerting technologies warn the
    public of impending emergencies to aiding in the restoration of
    communication networks and services following emergencies, the
    FCC is responsible for making sure our communication systems
    are there when Americans are most in need of lifesaving
    information. This work is furthered through the Nation's 9-1-1
    service platform. With this year being the 50th anniversary of
    the first 9-1-1 call, we here in Congress have been actively
    working with both the FCC and the NTIA to improve the country's
    9-1-1 systems and facilitate the transition to Next Gen 9-1-1
    services. I am looking forward to hearing more today about the
    FCC's work to advance public safety before, during, and after
    emergencies the FCC has also worked closely with this
    subcommittee in our shared goal of promoting broadband access
    and closing the digital divide. We all agree on the importance
    of bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans, and
    this is especially true in rural America. RAY BAUM'S Act
    included a number of bipartisan provisions for members of this
    subcommittee and members of the full Energy and Commerce
    Committee that will help the FCC in removing Federal barriers
    to broadband deployment, increasing the amount of available
    spectrum in funding broadband. And just last week on a hearing
    on rural broadband, we heard from a variety of stakeholders on
    the impact of that legislation. I look forward to hearing more
    today on how the FCC has begun to implement the legislation.
        I also look forward to hearing the Commission's
    recommendations on how we can improve connectivity for
    communities that are in desperate need of improvements to their
    education and healthcare services. It is this committee's
    primary role to conduct oversight of all the programs and
    policies overseen by the FCC, and I remain focused on our key
    priorities so we can focus the work of this commission.
        And at this time, I yield the balance of my time to Mr.
    Lance for an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn

        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on oversight of
    the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Today's hearing
    marks the first time in 28 years that the FCC has appeared
    before this Subcommittee having been reauthorized by Congress.
    So, I am delighted to welcome the recently reauthorized
    Commission here today.
        This reauthorization effort reflects bipartisan, bicameral
    support of the FCC and the important work it carries out each
    day to enhance public safety technologies and alerts,
    strengthen our national security, increase broadband
    deployment, and protect consumers while fostering competition
    and innovation in the communications marketplace. I hope today
    also demonstrates the importance of being reauthorized, as each
    of the Commissioners articulates how that action benefits an
    organization. I know we can deliver the same bipartisan
    accomplishment for your colleagues at the NTIA.
        While the FCC is charged with many important tasks, one of
    the most critical roles it plays revolves around public safety.
    From working to ensure that alerting technologies warn the
    public of impending emergencies, to aiding in the restoration
    of communications networks and services following emergencies,
    the FCC is responsible for making sure our communications
    systems are there when Americans are most in need of life-
    saving information. This work is furthered through the Nations'
    9-1-1 service platform. With this year being the 50th
    anniversary of the first call to 9-1-1, we here in Congress
    have been actively working with both the FCC and the NTIA to
    improve the country's 9-1-1 systems, and facilitate the
    transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 services. I am looking
    forward to hearing more today about the FCC's work to advance
    public safety before, during, and after emergencies.
        The FCC has also worked closely with this Subcommittee in
    our shared goal of promoting broadband access and closing the
    digital divide. We all agree on the importance of bringing the
    benefits of broadband to all Americans, and this is especially
    true in rural America. RAY BAUM'S Act included a number of
    bipartisan provisions from members of this subcommittee and
    members from the full Energy and Commerce committee that will
    help the FCC in removing federal barriers to broadband
    deployment, increasing the amount of available spectrum, and
    funding broadband. And, just last week in a hearing on Rural
    Broadband, we heard from a variety of stakeholders on the
    impact of that legislation. I look forward to hearing more
    today on how the FCC has begun to implement this legislation. I
    also look forward to hearing the Commission's recommendations
    on how we can improve connectivity for communities that are in
    desperate need of improvements to their education and health
    care services.
        It is this Subcommittee's primary role to conduct oversight
    of all the programs and policies overseen by the FCC and I
    remain focused on our key priorities so we can focus the work
    of the Commission.
        At this time, I will yield to the remainder of my time to
    Mr. Lance for an opening statement.

        Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Chairman. This is the most
    important responsibility we have on this subcommittee, and
    certainly we believe that it is incredibly important that the
    Commission, which does such fine work, is responsive to our
    concerns. I commend all of the Commissioners for your work. It
    has been my honor to work with every member of the Commission.
    I want to continue to do so in as strong a capacity as
    possible. And moving forward, we have to make sure that we work
    in bipartisan cooperation on the issues so important to the
    American Nation.
        Thank you, Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Leonard Lance

        Thank you Chairman Blackburn and thank you to Chairman Pai
    and the rest of the Commissioners for appearing before us
    today.
        I commend the Commission and the members of the
    subcommittee for the good, bipartisan work that has occurred
    over the past year and a half. Much of the coverage on telecom
    issues focuses on a few politically divisive issues; however, I
    believe these are the exception not the rule. From closing the
    digital divide, to ensuring public safety, there is much we can
    agree on.
        Just last night we secured passage of four bipartisan
    public safety and broadband access bills including two I worked
    on with Congressman Tonko, the PIRATE Act and ACCESS BROADBAND.
    Our greatest bipartisan achievement this congress was RAY
    BAUM'S Act, which finally reauthorized the FCC and included an
    array of other bipartisan legislation.
        Another thing we agree on is the importance of the US
    winning the race to 5G, which is why Ranking Member Doyle and I
    introduced the AIRWAVES Act early this year and have secured
    over fifty bipartisan cosponsors, a majority of which are on
    this Committee.
        I look forward to discussing important issues such as these
    with the Commissioners today, and hope to continue to work with
    all of you on ways to serve best the public, despite our
    differences.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the subcommittee's 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, Madam Chair, for holding this very,
    very long overdue hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for,
    finally, after 9 long months, coming before this committee once
    again.
        In the 9 months since our last hearing, the FCC has
    continued to expand its track record of anti-consumer, anti-
    small business, anti-innovation policies. It seems that at
    almost every opportunity, the Commission has chosen
    corporations over consumers and failed in its duty to uphold
    the public interest. In December of last year, the Commission
    voted to eliminate net neutrality protections that are
    supported by the vast majority of Americans from all sides of
    the political spectrum. Chairman Pai's comments regarding the
    quote/unquote, chicken littles who were concerned about the
    repeal should take a look at the public opinion polls that show
    the vast majority of his own party is opposed to the
    Commission's action. These rules protected consumers and small
    businesses, as well as entrepreneurs and innovators. I am happy
    to say that the Senate has already passed a resolution
    restoring these rules. And we hope that we have a vote on our
    own bipartisan resolution here in the House.
        The rest of the Commission's agenda has been no better.
    They have proposed gutting Lifeline Program, which is an
    essential communications tool for millions of Americans,
    including veterans and seniors. The Commission has made a
    series of decisions to encourage consolidation among
    broadcasters, from eliminating the main studio rule to
    reinstating the UHF discount, weakening the kid vid rules, and
    proposing to change the congressionally established National
    Ownership Cap. It seems that each of these actions benefit
    broadcast corporations, and it leaves the public worse off.
        The Chairman has claimed that he cares about rural
    broadband deployment, but the Commission in its zeal not to
    burden major wireless carriers with reporting where they have
    wireless service deployed imposed as part of Mobility Fund II a
    bizarre and onerous challenge process that requires rural
    providers to hire people to walk through cornfields and
    backyards trying to prove that communities don't have wireless
    service. And if those companies can't afford to send people up,
    the Commission will assume these communities are connected. Now
    tell me, how does that help the 24 million Americans without
    access to high-speed broadband?
        In the same vein, how does making changes to the CBRS ban
    to make it less accessible to rural wireless providers who are
    deploying broadband in hard-to-reach communities enhance the
    Commission and this committee's shared goal of closing the
    digital divide? Well, it doesn't. This Commission's reckless
    actions are on broadband data services and copper retirement
    were so corporate friendly that NTIA, the White House's adviser
    for telecommunications policy, recently said that they remain
    ``concerned, however, that streamlined regulatory requirements
    may place on Federal departments and agencies that rely on
    services subject to discontinuance in the untenable position of
    losing access to critical national security and public safety
    communications functionality.''
        How is the Commission putting the convenience of carriers
    above our Nation's national security and public safety needs?
    And that is besides the impact that these policies have on
    schools, libraries, hospitals, small businesses, and
    competitors that also rely on these services. What about
    Americans' privacy? Senator Wyden's office recently found that
    wireless carriers had been sharing the real-time location data
    of hundreds of millions of cell phones with third parties
    without consent from their users. That included sharing
    information with law enforcement agencies that used this data
    to illicitly look up Americans' location data without a warrant
    or due process. And we don't even know the scope of this
    problem because the Commission was asleep at the wheel. I
    understand that the Commission is now investigating, but how
    are you so in the dark on an abuse that was a widespread
    industry practice? And what confidence can this committee have
    that the Commission will take appropriate enforcement action
    against carriers who have so recklessly shared our location
    data without our consent? Again and again, the Commission has
    failed in its obligations to uphold the public interest and has
    instead repeatedly sided with corporations over consumers. And
    in waiting 9 months to do this oversight hearing, this
    committee has been complicit in the Commission's action by
    turning a blind eye and being derelict in our responsibilities
    to provide oversight for this agency.
        I would just add that, while I am pleased the Commission
    issued a hearing designation order for the Sinclair merger and
    in doing so acknowledged the near universal concerns about
    Sinclair's honesty and candor, I am extremely concerned that
    the President has weighted into this issue. I hope, Chairman
    Pai, that you can assure us the President's tweet last night
    will not cause the Commission to change course or affect the
    proceedings of an administrative law judge.
        Thank you. And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Michael F. Doyle

        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this very, very
    long-overdue hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for
    finally--after 9 long months--coming before this Committee once
    again.
        In the 9 months since our last hearing the FCC has
    continued to expand its track record of anti-consumer, anti-
    small business, and anti-innovation policies. It seems that at
    almost every opportunity the Commission has chosen corporations
    over consumers--and failed in its duty to uphold the public
    interest.
        In December of last year, the Commission voted to eliminate
    Net Neutrality protections that are supported by the vast
    majority of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum.
        Chairman Pai's comments regarding the ``chicken littles''
    who were concerned about the repeal should take a look at
    public opinion polls that show that the vast majority of his
    own party is opposed to the Commission's actions.
        These rules protected consumers and small businesses as
    well as entrepreneurs and innovators. I'm happy to say that the
    Senate has already passed a resolution restoring these rules,
    and we hope to vote on our own bipartisan resolution here in
    the House.
        The rest of the Commission's agenda has been no better.
    They have proposed gutting the Lifeline program, which is an
    essential communications tool for millions of Americans,
    including veterans and seniors.
        The Commission has made a series of decisions to encourage
    consolidation among broadcasters--from eliminating the main
    studio rule to reinstating the UHF discount, weakening the Kid-
    Vid rules, and proposing to change the Congressionally
    established National Ownership Cap.
        It seems that each of these actions benefits broadcast
    corporations and will leave the public worse off.
        The Chairman has claimed that he cares about rural
    broadband deployment. But the Commission--in its zeal to not
    burden major wireless carriers with reporting where they have
    wireless service deployed--imposed, as part of Mobility Fund 2,
    a bizarre and onerous challenge process that requires rural
    providers to hire people to walk through cornfields and
    backyards trying to prove that communities don't have wireless
    service. And if those companies can't afford to send people
    out, the Commission will assume these communities are
    connected. How does this help the 24 million Americans without
    access to high speed broadband?
        In the same vein, how does making changes to the CBRS band
    to make it less accessible to rural wireless providers--who are
    deploying broadband in hard-to-reach communities--enhance the
    Commission and this Committee's shared goal of closing the
    digital divide? It doesn't.
        This Commission's reckless actions on Broadband Data
    Services and copper retirement were so corporate-friendly that
    NTIA, the White House's Adviser for Telecommunications policy,
    recently said that they remain quote--``concerned, however,
    that streamlined regulatory requirements may place federal
    departments and agencies that rely on services subject to
    discontinuance in the untenable position of losing access to
    critical national security and public safety communications
    functionality''--unquote. Why is the Commission putting the
    convenience of carriers above our nation's national security
    and public safety needs? That's besides the impact these
    policies have on schools, libraries, hospitals, small
    businesses, and competitors that also rely on these services?
        What about Americans' privacy? Senator Wyden's office
    recently found that wireless carriers had been sharing the
    real-time location data of hundreds of millions of cell phones
    with third parties without consent from their users. That
    included sharing information with law enforcement agencies that
    used this data to illicitly look up Americans' location data
    without a warrant or due process.
        We don't even know the scope of this problem, because the
    Commission was asleep at the wheel. I understand that the
    Commission is now investigating, but how were you so in-the-
    dark on an abuse that was a widespread industry practice? And
    what confidence can this Committee have that the Commission
    will take appropriate enforcement action against carriers who
    have so recklessly shared our location data without our
    consent?
        Again and again the Commission has failed in its
    obligations to uphold the public interest--and has instead
    repeatedly sided with corporations over consumers. And in
    waiting 9 months to do this oversight hearing, this Committee
    has been complicit in the Commission's actions by turning a
    blind eye and being derelict in our responsibility to provide
    oversight for this agency.
        I will just add, that while I am pleased the Commission
    issued its hearing designation order for the Sinclair merger--
    and in doing so acknowledged the near universal concerns about
    Sinclair's honesty and candor--I am extremely concerned that
    the President has waded into this issue. I hope, Chairman Pai,
    that you can assure us the President's tweet last night will
    not cause the Commission to change course or affect the
    proceedings of the Administrative Law Judge?
        Thank you.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Walden, the chairman of the full committee, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
    you for your leadership on these topics. Specifically, I want
    to thank you for highlighting the improving emergency alert and
    9-1-1 services, as well as your outreach to the minority on the
    NTIA reauthorization. We have reauthorized the FCC for the
    first time in what 28 years on the RAY BAUM'S Act. In fact, I
    think that is the last time you were here to testify before us,
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Commission's efforts in wildfire and hurricane
    response, its focus on emergency alerts and implementing
    improved call routing, location accuracy are key priorities for
    all of us. When we reauthorized the FCC for the first time in
    two decades, we appreciated the Commission's input on our work.
    And thanks to the hard work of everyone on the Committee, we
    were able to incorporate provisions from 18 bipartisan bills
    that now form RAY BAUM'S Act that is law. So here we do try to
    work together whenever we can on these issues, 18 bipartisan
    bills, the RAY BAUM'S Act, and I think we did 57 bills on
    opioids, virtually all of which were bipartisan.
        So I look forward to hearing about the FCC's progress in
    implementing this important law, such as the broadcast repack.
    The Commission has been very busy doing good work on the
    repack. We provided an extra billion dollars and fixed some of
    the issues that were there to make sure that translators and FM
    radio stations could get their antennas moved, their equipment
    moved, so we can free up that spectrum.
        And I know the Commission, under your leadership and
    others, successfully pulled off the biggest reverse auction in
    history. You brought to our attention, Mr. Chairman, the issue
    involving the illegality of the funds that came to the
    Commission. You couldn't put them anywhere legally, even though
    your predecessor did. And so we fixed that, and I think that
    was important to take care of.
        I want to thank you for coming out to my district last
    month, and we traveled around, we saw a health clinic and what
    telehealth means. I want to commend the Commission for the
    decision to lift the cap on the rural health telemedicine
    piece. That made a huge and positive difference for our rural
    clinics, when you added $171 million over the $400 million cap.
    You heard it firsthand when you were out there meeting with the
    clinic, and I appreciated the discussion we had with the
    broadcasters, the small ISPs. I think you got a taste for what
    the seventh or eighth largest congressional district in the
    country is, even though we never got out of one county, but we
    were there all day.
        Commissioner O'Rielly and I have recently had conversations
    about the uphill challenge facing our radio industry, which I
    have some experience. My colleagues say I have a great voice
    for radio and a face for it too. They are not very nice people.
    Radio, as you know, was my original story, and my father's as
    well. And I think it is a really important part of our
    country's framework and fabric of sharing information and
    entertainment. That fraternity of voices is sharing the same
    fate as newspapers unfortunately, which never gained the
    benefits of cross-ownership relief under the Commission for
    some 15 years. Entities captured once again by regulations from
    another time. We seem trapped in this constant time warp that
    regulations of the seventies or the 1930s for that matter
    somehow work for the present day or beyond. And some obviously
    want to take us back to the regime of the 1930s.
        We will discuss the changing media landscape today as well.
    Another sector that edge providers are disrupting, which is
    great news. It is yet another example of why I put the call out
    a year ago and then a few months ago inviting the CEOs of some
    of America's greatest innovative technology companies to please
    come here and share with us before this committee their
    concerns and recommendations on a wide range of topics.
        The rhetoric around these issues has become like watching
    the opening of an old television show, waiting to get to the
    main programming. We sit here and listen to the same old
    falsehoods, that we ripped away privacy and net neutrality
    protections, while the reality is all we have done is restore
    bipartisan equilibrium and regulatory framework that existed
    just 3 years ago. Little mom-and-pop startups kind of found
    their way through a light-touch regulatory framework. Though we
    now know those as old Facebook, Google, Netflix--you name it--
    all grew up in a light-touch framework, not with the 1930s way
    we regulated telephones.
        In this committee room, we do have the benefit of hearing
    our critics speak out loud, though unlike other corrosive
    voices that seek to destroy our daily discourse.
        As Chairman Pai knows all too well, be fearful if you are
    conservative and let your views be known. I am sorry for what
    you and your family have gone through. Whether you are on the
    right or the left, somewhere here we have to get back our
    humanity where we are not shouting at each other and
    threatening each other, but instead trying to work out our
    differences. We do that a lot in this committee. And we will
    continue to.
        So, with that, Madam Chair, thank you for this hearing.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you, Madame Chair,
        I want to thank you for your leadership on these topics.
    Specifically, I want to thank you for highlighting the
    improving emergency alert and 9-1-1 services as well as your
    outreach to the minority on the NTIA reauthorization. We've
    reauthorized the FCC for the first time in 28 years under the
    RAY BAUM'S Act, in fact, I think that's the last time you were
    here to testify before us Mr. Chairman.
        The commission's efforts in wildfire and hurricane
    response, its focus on emergency alerts and implementing
    improved call routing, location accuracy, are key priorities
    for all of us. We reauthorized the FCC for the first time in
    two decades. We appreciated the commissions' input on our work,
    and thanks to the hard work of everyone on the committee, we
    were able to incorporate provisions from 18 bipartisan bills
    that now form RAY BAUM'S Act. That is law. So, here we do try
    to work together whenever we can, on these issues -18
    bipartisan bills, the RAY BAUM'S Act, and I think we did 57
    bills on opioids- virtually all of which were bipartisan.
        I look forward to hearing about the FCC's progress in
    implementing this important law, such as the broadcast repack.
    The commission's been very busy doing good work on the repack.
    We provided an extra billion dollars and fixed some of the
    issues that were there to make sure that translators and FM
    radio stations could get their antennas moved or equipment
    moved so that we can free up that spectrum. I know that the
    commission under your leadership and others successfully pulled
    off the biggest reverse auction in history.
        You brought to our attention, Mr. Chairman, the issue
    involving the illegality of the funds that came to the
    commission--you couldn't put them anywhere legally--even though
    your predecessor did, and so we fixed that. I think that was
    important to take care of. I want to thank you for coming out
    to my district last month, we traveled around, we saw health
    clinics and what telehealth means.
        I want to commend the commission for the decision to lift
    the cap on the rural health telemedicine piece. That made a
    huge and positive difference for our rural clinics, when you
    added $171 million over the $400 million cap. You heard it
    firsthand when you were out there meeting with the clinic, and
    I appreciated the discussion that we had with the broadcasters,
    the small ISPs, and I think you got a taste for what the 7th or
    8th largest congressional district in the country is even
    though we never got out of one county, but we were there all
    day.
        Commissioner O'Rielly and I have recently had conversations
    about the uphill challenge facing our radio industry, which I
    have some experience. Radio, as you know, was my original story
    and my father's as well and I think it's a really important
    part of our country's framework and fabric of sharing
    information and entertainment. That fraternity of voices is
    sharing in the same fate as newspapers, unfortunately, which
    never gained the benefits of cross ownership relief under the
    Commission for some fifteen years--entities captured once again
    by regulations from another time. We seem trapped in this
    constant time warp that regulations of the 1970s, or the 1930s
    for that matter, somehow work for the present day or beyond.
    And some, obviously, wanted to take us back to the regime of
    the 1930s.
        We'll discuss the changing media landscape today as well,
    another sector that `edge providers' are disrupting, which is
    great news. It's yet another example of why I put the call out
    a year ago, and then a few months ago, inviting the CEOs of
    some of America's greatest innovative technology companies to
    please come here and share with us, before this committee,
    their concerns and recommendations on a wide range of topics.
        The rhetoric around these issues have become like watching
    the opening of an old television show, waiting to get to the
    main programming. We sit here and listen to the same old
    falsehoods that we ripped away privacy and net neutrality
    protections, while the reality is, all we have done is restore
    a bipartisan equilibrium and regulatory framework that existed
    just three years ago.
        Old ``Mom and Pop'' startups kind of found their way
    through a lighttouch regulatory framework. We would now know
    those as, oh, Facebook, Google, Netflix--you name it--all grew
    up in a light touch framework, not with the 1930s way we
    regulated telephones. In this committee room, we do have the
    benefit of hearing our critics speak out loud, though, unlike
    other corrosive voices that seek to destroy our daily
    discourse. As Chairman Pai knows all too well, be fearful if
    you are a conservative and let your views be known.
        I'm sorry for what you and your family's gone through.
    Whether you're on the right or the left, somewhere here we have
    to get back our humanity where we're not shouting at each other
    and threatening each other, but instead trying to work out our
    differences. We do that a lot in this committee and we will
    continue to.
        So, with that, Madame Chair, thank you for this hearing,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Federal Communications Commission is an independent
    agency created by and accountable to Congress. Congress gave
    the agency broad powers and the responsibility to protect
    consumers, advance competition, promote universal service at
    reasonable rates, and enhance public safety. In other words, to
    work in the public interest. As the FCC's oversight committee,
    it is our duty to ensure the Commission's actions advance those
    goals and hold the Chairman and Commissioners accountable when
    the agency does not.
        Unfortunately, the Republican majority of this committee
    has been unwilling to follow through on its promise to hold
    quarterly oversight hearings with the FCC. This is the first
    oversight hearing in 9 months and only the third this Congress.
        During that time, the Commission has repeatedly acted
    contrary to its core mission. In a series of partisan votes,
    the agency dismantled protections for consumers and initiated
    numerous proceedings designed to benefit big corporations to
    the detriment of working class Americans and local communities.
        By far the most high-profile and controversial decision was
    the elimination of the FCC's net neutrality rules. Those
    safeguards protected consumers, protected small businesses, and
    protected free speech. Chairman Pai ignored the vast majority
    of the 24 million comments from individuals and businesses
    supporting net neutrality.
        It is not surprising that Chairman Pai's order faces
    massive consumer opposition. Public outrage from startup
    companies, working families, educators, healthcare
    professionals, veterans and so many others at townhalls and
    community centers have driven congressional action. In May, the
    Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation that would
    reinstate net neutrality. Ranking Member Doyle is now
    championing that legislation here in the House. And it is not
    too late to stand with the American people and restore net
    neutrality. And I urge Speaker Ryan to bring this legislation
    up for a vote and stand with the bipartisan Members that have
    signed the petition to force one.
        Sadly, the FCC's disregard for consumers does not end
    there. At a time when other agencies are separating children
    from their families at our borders and violence in schools is
    far too commonplace, the Trump FCC wants to roll back rules
    that limit advertising to children and requires stations to air
    educational programming for kids. And this doesn't make sense.
    If the agency was serious about focusing on consumers, it would
    want to help parents searching for quality educational
    programming and shield children, not make them easier targets
    for big business.
        In another example of siding with corporations over
    consumers, Chairman Pai's changes of the FCC's media ownership
    protections undermine competition, localism, and diverse
    viewpoints in favor of corporate consolidation. While the
    Commission rightfully acknowledged that Sinclair's proposed
    merger and related divestitures may violate the law, the
    rollback of the media ownership rules opens the door for the
    next Sinclair.
        Universal service, critical to the most vulnerable
    populations, also has been undermined under Chairman Pai's
    leadership. The FCC's proposal to revise the Lifeline Program
    is a particularly egregious example. If adopted, this proposal
    could cut phone or internet service for approximately 8.3
    million people. These are single mothers struggling to get by,
    veterans searching for jobs, and seniors on fixed incomes. They
    are at risk of being left behind. The FCC should be looking for
    ways to help these struggling participants in our economy and
    community and not just cut them off.
        And, finally, while the Commission has worked to update the
    Emergency Alert System, advance Next Generation 9-1-1, and
    implement the SANDy Act, it has fallen short in making
    cybersecurity a priority. The agency has retreated from the
    efforts of previous administrations at a time when cyber
    criminals, foreign and domestic, are becoming more aggressive.
        Today's communications networks connect businesses,
    consumers, and government agencies. And these networks drive a
    modern economy. But those same networks provide a target for
    cyber attacks by criminal gangs and nation-states. As the
    agency charged with promoting public safety, the FCC should
    work with and encourage companies to develop best practices,
    address vulnerabilities, and prepare for cybersecurity attacks.
        Since the FCC is shirking its responsibility, Congress
    should be conducting more oversight in the future.
        So I want to thank the Chairman and Commissioners for
    appearing before us today and look forward to your testimony.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        The Federal Communications Commission is an independent
    agency created by and accountable to Congress. Congress gave
    the agency broad powers and a responsibility to protect
    consumers, advance competition, promote universal service at
    reasonable rates, and enhance public safety. In other words, to
    work in the public interest. As the FCC's oversight committee,
    it is our duty to ensure the Commission's actions advance those
    goals and hold the Chairman and Commissioners accountable when
    the agency does not.
        Unfortunately, the Republican majority of this committee
    has been unwilling to follow through on its promise to hold
    quarterly oversight hearings with the FCC. This is the first
    oversight hearing in nine months, and only the third this
    Congress. That is an embarrassment.
        During that time, the Commission has repeatedly acted
    contrary to its core mission. In a series of partisan votes,
    the agency dismantled protections for consumers and initiated
    numerous proceedings designed to benefit big corporations to
    the detriment of working-class Americans and local communities.
        By far the most high profile and controversial decision was
    the elimination of the FCC's net neutrality rules. Those
    safeguards protected consumers, protected small businesses, and
    protected free speech. Chairman Pai ignored the vast majority
    of the 24 million comments from individuals and businesses
    supporting net neutrality.
        It's not surprising that Chairman Pai's order faces massive
    consumer opposition. Public outrage from start-up companies,
    working families, educators, health care professionals,
    veterans, and so many others at townhalls and community centers
    have driven Congressional action. In May, the Republican-
    controlled Senate passed legislation that would reinstate net
    neutrality. Ranking Member Doyle is now championing that
    legislation here in the House. It is not too late to stand with
    the American people and restore net neutrality. I urge Speaker
    Ryan to bring this legislation up for a vote and stand with the
    bipartisan Members that have signed a petition to force one.
        Sadly, the FCC's disregard for consumers does not end
    there. At a time when other agencies are separating children
    from their families at our borders and violence at schools is
    far too commonplace, the Trump FCC wants to roll back rules
    that limit advertising to children and require stations to air
    educational programming for kids. This does not make sense. If
    the agency was serious about focusing on consumers, it would
    want to help parents searching for quality educational
    programming and shield children, not make them easier targets
    for big business.
        In another example of siding with corporations over
    consumers, Chairman Pai's changes to the FCC's media ownership
    protections undermine competition, localism, and diverse
    viewpoints in favor of corporate consolidation.
        While the Commission rightfully acknowledged that
    Sinclair's proposed merger and related divestures may violate
    the law, the rollback of the media ownership rules opens the
    door for the next Sinclair.
        Universal service-critical to the most vulnerable
    populations-also has been undermined under Chairman Pai's
    leadership. The FCC's proposal to revise the Lifeline program
    is a particularly egregious example. If adopted, this proposal
    could cut phone or internet service for approximately 8.3
    million people. These are single mothers struggling to get by,
    veterans searching for jobs, and seniors on fixed-incomes. They
    are at risk of being left behind. The FCC should be looking for
    ways to help those struggling participate in our economy and
    community--not cut them off.
        Finally, while the Commission has worked to update the
    emergency alert system, advance next generation 9-1-1, and
    implement the SANDy Act, it has fallen short in making
    cybersecurity a priority. The agency has retreated from the
    efforts of previous Administrations at a time when cyber
    criminals--foreign and domestic--are becoming more aggressive.
        Today's communications networks connect businesses,
    consumers, and government agencies. These networks drive the
    modern economy. But those same networks provide a target for
    cyber-attacks by criminal gangs and nation states. As the
    agency charged with promoting public safety, the FCC should
    work with and encourage companies to develop best practices,
    address vulnerabilities, and prepare for cybersecurity attacks.
        Since the FCC is shirking its responsibilities, Congress
    should be conducting more oversight in the future.
        I thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before
    us today and look forward to your testimony, and I yield back.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        And that concludes the member opening statements.
        I remind all members that, pursuant to committee rules, all
    member's opening statements will be made a part of the record.
        And we are going to try to get through our opening
    statements before votes are called around 1:40. So I want to
    thank all of you for being here today. Today's witnesses will
    have the opportunity to give their opening statements. It will
    be followed by a round of questions from members. Our panel
    today includes Chairman Pai, Commissioner O'Rielly,
    Commissioner Carr, and Commissioner Rosenworcel. We appreciate
    that you are here and that your testimony was prepared and
    submitted on time. We will go in order of seniority, which is
    the tradition in this subcommittee, and I begin with you today,
    Chairman Pai. You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

       STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
          COMMISSION; MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
    COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
          COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND JESSICA ROSENWORCEL,
            COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI

        Mr. Pai. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
    Doyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding
    this hearing. I appreciate this chance to update you on the
    FCC's work. But before I do, I would like to thank this
    subcommittee for its vital assistance. The RAY BAUM'S Act of
    2018, which originated in this subcommittee, contained a host
    of provisions that are already having a positive impact on the
    FCC's work. Perhaps most importantly, it corrected a technical
    problem involving deposits for spectrum auctions. With this fix
    in place, the FCC is moving forward aggressively to hold
    auctions and move a substantial amount of high band spectrum
    into the commercial marketplace.
        This year, we are commencing the 28 gigahertz band option,
    followed immediately by an option of the 24 gigahertz band. In
    the second half of 2019, we intend to hold an auction of
    spectrum at 37, 39, and 47 gigahertz bands. Combined, these
    options will make almost 5 gigahertz of spectrum available and
    advanced America's global leadership in 5G, the next generation
    of wireless connectivity. None of this would have been possible
    without the subcommittee's leadership.
        The FCC has also benefited from the subcommittee's support
    in carrying out our top priority, closing the digital divide.
    Yesterday, the FCC kicked off its Connect America Fund Phase II
    reverse auction, which will provide up to $2 billion over the
    next decade to bring fixed broadband to unserved areas across
    rural America.
        Earlier this year, we dedicated $500 million in additional
    funding to assist small carriers deploying rural broadband. We
    proposed over $1 billion to restore and improve communications
    networks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands following the
    devastating 2017 hurricane season. And we boosted
    telemedicine's promise by extending funding in our rural
    healthcare program by 43 percent, or $171 million.
        Funding aside, we are also modernizing our rules, cutting
    through the regulatory red tape and making it easier for
    broadband providers to invest in next generation networks. We
    have exempted small cells from the Federal historic
    preservation and environmental review processes that were
    designed for traditional cell towers. We have updated our
    Business Data Services regulations. We have reformed our
    network transition rules to make it easier for companies to
    upgrade from the fading networks of yesterday toward the
    resilient networks of tomorrow. We are making it easier and
    cheaper for providers, including competitive entrants, to get
    access to utility poles with One Touch Make Ready rules as
    proposed by our Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. And we
    have returned to the successful light-touch regulatory
    framework under which the internet flourished in the United
    States from 1996 until 2015.
        I am pleased to report that our policies to promote
    broadband deployment are working. According to a recent study
    in 2017, more commercial buildings in the United States added
    fiber connections than in any year since at least 2004. And
    according to figures released just today, it appears that
    broadband network investment in the United States increased by
    between $1.5 billion and $3 billion in 2017, reversing the
    declines that occurred during the last 2 years of the prior
    Administration. This increased investment is having a tangible
    and positive impact on American consumers.
        I will give you just one example. VTel is a small internet
    service provider based in Springfield, Vermont. The company
    reported recently that because of recent FCC policies it
    ``committed $4 million to purchase equipment and services to
    upgrade its LTE core to enable voice roaming and remedy Wi-Fi
    calling to all of Vermont rural subscribers and to
    simultaneously begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that
    will start our transition to 5G.'' VTel concludes, and I quote
    again, ``it is quite optimistic about the future, and the
    current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.''
        In short, we are on the right track, and I am confident
    that we will continue to see more positive results in the
    months ahead as more of our policies take hold.
        I am also pleased by the amount of bipartisan cooperation
    we have seen at the FCC. This year, for example, fewer than 6
    percent, or 1 in 16, of our over 100 votes have been party
    line. Of course, there will be times when we disagree. But my
    hope is the debate will be based on facts, consistent with law,
    and grounded in reality.
        I will close on a personal note. I love this agency. I have
    worked at the FCC for most of the past 11 years, first as a
    staffer and then as an appointee. It has been a tremendous
    honor to lead this commission over the last 18 months. A major
    reason why is because I get to work alongside and have gotten
    to know the FCC's fantastic staff, those who race toward
    hurricane-hit areas to help, those who strive to make
    technologies available to Americans with disabilities, those
    who devote countless hours to representing our country abroad,
    and more.
        As for me, the issues I have faced are challenging. The
    decisions I have made haven't always been easy, but so long as
    I have the privilege of serving as the Chairman of the FCC, I
    am going to find the facts, I am going to follow the law, and I
    am going to call 'em like I see 'em.
        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.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. O'Rielly, you are recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY

        Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you. My thanks to Chairman Blackburn,
    Ranking Member Doyle, and the members of the subcommittee for
    the honor to engage with you on so many important
    communications issues. At the outset, I would like to thank
    Representatives Lance, Tonko, and Collins and their cosponsors,
    many on the subcommittee, and the chairman and ranking member
    for their leadership on the PIRATE Act.
        Under Chairman Pai's leadership, the Commission has made
    great strides in terminating unlawful pirate radioactivity, but
    without additional tools provided by Congress, we can only go
    so far to eliminate this harmful practice.
        Today, I would like to highlight a few critical issues that
    have been a focus of mine. First, I firmly believe that the
    ongoing problem of 9-1-1 feed diversion by certain States and
    territories must end once and for all. Such diversion, beyond
    deceiving ratepayers, has real consequences for the public
    safety community and the American people in need of critical
    emergency assistance at some of the darkest moments in their
    lives.
        The Commission's ninth annual report to this committee,
    which relied on self-reporting by States and territories,
    showed five States diverted almost $130 million away from 9-1-1
    enhancements and towards other unrelated purposes. Moreover,
    seven States and territories figured out that, instead of being
    labeled a diverter, they would rather just not submit the
    necessary paperwork. Take New York, a previously self-admitted
    diverter, which failed to respond to the Commission's data
    collection inquiries, but sufficient public record information
    supported a finding that it is a substantial diverter of funds
    for non-public safety purposes.
        There is some good news to report in that several States
    and territories have clarified their reported diversion or made
    commitments to prevent a reoccurrence. These include Illinois,
    New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Puerto Rico. However, not every State
    or territory has been a success story. Accordingly, I suggest
    additional Federal action, such as legislation proposed by
    Representatives Collins, Eshoo, and Lance, is necessary to
    address recalcitrant States and territories, like New York, New
    Jersey, Rhode Island and Guam. Identifying and shaming these
    States has not adequately worked.
        Second, the Commission is focused on taking every necessary
    and appropriate step to provide all Americans the opportunity
    to access broadband services. At the same time, the
    Commission's efforts should be examined in parallel with
    programs by other Federal agencies. Congress recently allocated
    as part of last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act 2018 an
    additional $600 million for a new broadband pilot program to be
    administered by the Rural Utility Service, or RUS, and
    additional broadband funding is being considered as part of the
    Senate and House farm bills.
        While efforts to provide RUS with new Federal money are
    commendable, there is a potential for certain problems to
    arise. In particular, there is a significant possibility that
    RUS funding could be used to subsidize areas that already have
    broadband or support providers in competition with those that
    currently receive FCC subsidies or may have build-out plans
    that require them to provide service in the future.
    Additionally, the RUS program could be used to allow providers
    to serve favored institutions without serving more costly
    nearby areas.
        Fundamentally, Federal funding should be targeted to
    addressing the $14 million plus Americans without any broadband
    today. I would humbly suggest that only the proper direction
    from the right leadership such as this subcommittee can prevent
    a bad outcome. As Congress concludes the farm bill this fall, I
    hope you will consider additional safeguards, including strict
    prohibitions on duplication with other existing programs,
    alignment of speed requirements, and a focus on the truly
    unserved.
        Lastly, turning to spectrum policy, the Commission has been
    hard at work ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available for
    next generation wireless services. I recognized years ago that
    there was a need for a solid mid-band play for wireless
    carriers to offer 5G services both domestically and
    internationally. The 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band, or C-band
    downlink, is an attractive option for this purpose, as it
    provides significant continuous spectrum, and the largest
    satellite operators are receptive to reducing their spectrum
    footprint using a market-based spectrum reallocation approach.
    I also agree with Representatives Guthrie and Matsui, who
    recently noted to the Commission that the 6 gigahertz band is a
    necessary ingredient to address the need for more unlicensed
    spectrum and must be part of our final rules.
        With that, I want to thank the subcommittee for holding
    this hearing. And I look forward to answering any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Carr, you are recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR

        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to
    testify. I have had the honor of working with you and your
    staffs as a commissioner for nearly a year. It has been a
    tremendously rewarding and productive time. I am proud of the
    work that the agency has accomplished. And I want to commend
    this subcommittee on its own notable achievements, from
    identifying additional spectrum in the RAY BAUM'S Act,
    enhancing public safety through the SANDy Act, to encouraging
    broadband deployment, including through the Precision Ag Act.
        At the FCC, I focused on work we can do to help bring more
    broadband to more Americans. This has meant working closely
    with my colleagues at the Commission, but it has also meant
    spending time outside of D.C. to see firsthand how our policies
    impact communities across the country.
        Over the past 11 months, I have visited 17 States. I have
    benefited from perspectives gained on the road, whether at a
    townhall in Chelsea, Michigan; a roundtable in Stanton,
    Nebraska; or at the kitchen table of family that wanted better,
    faster broadband. I've also spent time with the construction
    crews that are doing the hard, often gritty, work that goes
    into deploying broadband networks. In fact, in Arcadia,
    Indiana, Congresswoman Susan Brooks introduced me to two
    Hoosiers, Mark and Scott; they are brothers. They run a small
    fixed wireless provider. They are a scrappy bunch, having
    climbed everything from barns to grain elevators to attach the
    antennas needed to bring broadband to Indiana's farmlands.
        I have seen similar efforts in communities across the
    country. And it only underscores why the work of this
    subcommittee and the FCC is so important. We want every
    community to get a fair shot at next generation connectivity.
    One year ago, I noted the challenge we faced in extending
    American leadership in wireless as we moved from 4G to 5G
    networks. I testified about the need for the FCC to focus on
    two things: spectrum and infrastructure. The Commission has
    made substantial progress on both.
        I want to focus this afternoon on the second part, on
    infrastructure. I appreciate that Chairman Pai asked me to lead
    the FCC's efforts on wireless infrastructure. We have already
    taken several steps to ensure our regulatory structures are 5G
    ready. As you know, 5G networks are going to look very
    different than the 3G and 4G deployments of the past. And the
    regulatory framework that worked for 100-foot towers won't work
    for new small cell deployments.
        So we are working to modernize our approach. In March, we
    exempted small cells from certain Federal review procedures
    designed for those large 100-foot towers. This one step is
    expected to cut about 30 percent of the total cost of deploying
    small cells. This reform can help flip the business case for
    thousands of communities, particularly in rural areas that
    might otherwise miss out on next gen connectivity.
        And one place where increased deployment will pay off is in
    healthcare. For years, the FCC has been supporting broadband
    deployment to healthcare facilities, but there is a new trend
    in telehealth, a trend toward connected care everywhere. The
    delivery of high-tech, high-quality care is no longer limited
    to the confines of connected brick-and-mortar facilities. With
    remote patient monitoring and mobile health applications, we
    now have the technology to deliver healthcare directly to
    patients, regardless of where they are located.
        I saw this 2 weeks ago in the Mississippi Delta, which is
    ground zero for the country's diabetes epidemic. The delta is
    also a place where connected care is already making a
    difference. It is where I met Ms. Annie. She noticed the first
    signs of diabetes when she woke up one morning with blurred
    vision. After seeing a little progress with traditional care
    options, Ms. Annie signed up for a remote patient monitoring
    program. She showed me the iPad and the Bluetooth-enabled blood
    glucose monitor that she uses to track her care on a daily
    basis. She can check her blood sugar levels, and an app gives
    her instant feedback, including the steps she can take that day
    to stay healthy. With this technology, Ms. Annie's A1C levels
    have gone down, and she says she has never felt better. And
    research backs up Ms. Annie's results, showing significant cost
    savings and improved outcomes with connected care. So we should
    align public policy in support of this movement in telehealth.
        That is why I am glad Chairman Pai asked me to lead the
    FCC's new telehealth initiative, which we will consider at our
    August meeting. The connected care pilot program aims to
    provide up to $100 million to support connected care
    deployments for low-income patients.
        I look forward to working with all stakeholders as we seek
    comment on establishing the program. Chairman Blackburn,
    Ranking Member Doyle, members of this committee, thank you
    again for holding this hearing. I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Rosenworcel, you are recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

        Ms. Rosenworcel. Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn,
    Ranking Member Doyle, and the other members of this
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today. I believe the future belongs to the connected. No
    matter who you are or where you live in this country, you need
    access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st
    century success. Clearing the way for this connected future
    should be at the heart of everything we do at the Federal
    Communications Commission.
        It has been 9 months to the day since we last appeared
    before you for an oversight hearing. Nine months is a long
    time. It is the equivalent of a school year so let me offer the
    equivalent of a quick year-end report. Too many Americans still
    lack access to broadband. Let me put a number on it. Right now,
    24 million Americans do not have access to high-speed service.
    That is not acceptable. We need to do better. Too often during
    the last 9 months, the agency acted at the behest of corporate
    forces that surround it, shortchanging the American people. You
    can see that clearly with our rollback of net neutrality. You
    see it too with our efforts to foster the deployment of new
    networks but failure to fully engage those who need a voice in
    our policies, the cities and towns that should be our partner
    in the process, the Tribal communities that are entitled to
    government-to-government consultation, and the Department of
    Commerce, which just last week expressed concern about how our
    rushed reform could harm national security and public safety
    services.
        Likewise, you see it in proposed reforms that undermine our
    lifeline program and the populations that rely on it, including
    those served by domestic violence shelters, military veterans,
    homeless youth, and the residents of Puerto Rico, who are still
    recovering from a harrowing storm and a grave humanitarian
    crisis.
        Too often our procedures fall short of what good governance
    requires. Our mapping practices for broadband do not accurately
    reflect the state of connectivity on the ground. Our claim that
    the agency suffered a distributed denial of service attack
    following John Oliver's report on our net neutrality plan is
    just not credible.
        In the meantime, the agency has ignored the fact that this
    public docket is flooded with fraud, including half a million
    comments from Russia and 2 million individuals with stolen
    identities. I believe these things need to be fixed.
        So many people think that Washington is rigged against
    them. It saddens me when, on too many occasions during the last
    9 months, this agency proved them right. But good report cards
    do not only look to the past; they also offer an eye to the
    future and take on what is possible.
        I believe at this table, there is a desire to extend the
    reach of broadband service, lead the world in 5G wireless
    deployment, and bring the opportunities of the digital age to
    more people and more places. I see this same desire everywhere
    I go. In the last few weeks, I have been in rural New Mexico
    and urban New York. In both places, I have visited schools with
    students who lack broadband at home and, as a result, struggle
    with nightly school work. There are 12 million children in
    every State across the country with this problem. They fall
    into a homework gap that is the cruelest part of our digital
    divide.
        But I also saw that these communities are trying to address
    their gap so that every student has a decent chance at digital
    age success. They are experimenting with connective school
    busses. They are looking at loaning out hotspots in library,
    and they are exploring public Wi-Fi in their communities. They
    deserve our support and a plan to address the homework gap so
    that know child is left offline. I still believe it is within
    our capability to produce one.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
    agency's recent decision regarding Sinclair broadcasting. When
    I last appeared before you 9 months ago, I alone expressed
    concern about how the agency had bent and twisted so many of
    its media policies to serve the business plans of this one
    company. This changed last week when the agency adopted an
    order designating the proposed Sinclair Tribune transaction for
    hearing. I want to thank my colleagues and the chairman in
    particular for the effort to reach consensus on this matter.
        Let me close by saying thank you for having me at this
    hearing, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. I thank each of you for your testimony, and
    we are now going to move into our questions. And I am going to
    begin and recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        And, Chairman Pai, I am going to come to you. Public safety
    is something that we are focused on in the emergency alerts and
    our 9-1-1 systems. As you know, our Ranking Member Pallone's
    SANDy Act was included in the RAY BAUM'S Act, and it is a good
    solid bipartisan initiative to help with Wi-Fi resources,
    bringing those to bear during an emergency. And while the EAS
    system is typically the primary tool, we saw the resiliency of
    cellular infrastructure in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey
    and the widespread use of the WEA alerts. And how will the
    addition of opening up Wi-Fi access points in times of
    emergency in addition to carrier location information and other
    inputs help a device create more precise location information
    to better enable our first responders to reach those that are
    in need of that emergency help?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for the question,
    and to you and to Ranking Member Pallone for your leadership on
    that legislation. One of the most critical elements of
    information that a first responder needs when a 9-1-1 call is
    placed is where is the caller. And I think that the addition of
    more Wi-Fi access points could help introduce even more
    detailed granular information about where that caller is. In
    combination with GPS information and cellular information, Wi-
    Fi access points can give a more textured view to 9-1-1 call
    centers and help them pinpoint exactly where somebody is to be
    able dispatch help quicker.
        Additionally, I think it is interesting that a lot of
    companies are thinking very forward, as is this subcommittee.
    For example, Apple recently announced in iOS 12 that it would
    incorporate the technology from a small startup called
    RapidSOS. One of my predecessors, Chairman Dennis Patrick, has
    talked about the fact that this technology could use things
    like Wi-Fi access points and other information to more
    accurately and quickly target people who are in a situation of
    need.
        Mrs. Blackburn. And then looking at States and localities
    using the WEA system, you think this is going to help----
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. Encourage that? When you think
    about needing that help that quickly and responders who are
    working so diligently to get resources to people, one of the
    things is we have worked on this issue--and Ms. Brooks has
    worked on it some too with the Next Gen 9-1-1--is making
    certain that it is more reliable and more widely used. So----
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely. I will give one quick example of why
    that is so. Recently, I visited the D.C. Office of
    Communications that handles 9-1-1 calls that are common to the
    District. And Karima Holmes, the director, told me that, every
    year, the District of Columbia gets approximately 10,000
    emergency calls that are more properly routed to Maryland, and
    vice versa, Maryland gets 10,000 calls or more properly routed
    to the District because the caller is very near that border.
        Imagine ubiquitous Wi-Fi access points that could allow
    emergency responders to know when they have received that call
    in the 9-1-1 call center: OK, we are getting a call from the
    District. We don't waste precious seconds trying to figure out
    exactly which jurisdiction needs to get that call. That could
    really save lives in a pinch.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I want to come to
    you on something. As you know, I have worked for years on the
    privacy issue, and I assume that you saw the letters that we
    sent to LocationSmart and Securus and 3C Interactive inquiring
    about the reports of the unauthorized disclosure of wireless
    subscribers' real-time location information. And I am pleased
    that you all are investigating this as well as we all are
    concerned about protecting consumer privacy. And on this
    broader topic, last night, I received a letter from our friends
    at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and to quote from
    the letter, it says: It is clear that the FCC has the ability
    to enact internet privacy rules. The FCC has the authority to
    regulate companies such as Facebook and Google through
    ancillary jurisdiction.
        Do you agree with that assertion?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. No, I don't agree with that assertion.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Do you believe that section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act, or any other provision, gives the
    authority to the FCC to also regulate edge providers?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I don't believe it clearly gives us that
    authority, no.
        Mrs. Blackburn. You do not. Thank you.
        The gentlelady yields back, and I yield back, and I
    recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minute.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome back. It is good to see all of you.
        I want to talk a little bit about rural broadband. The
    Commission received a letter on July 23rd from a group of 182
    fixed wireless providers regarding the CBRS band. And they
    noted that, ``Without census track sized licenses, we will have
    virtually no ability to acquire protected spectrum in this
    band.'' That would be an intolerable outcome that would harm
    our rural broadband businesses and inhibit our ability to grow.
    But worse, it would harm the millions of consumers for whom
    mid-band spectrum is the key to high-speed fixed broadband
    access.
        I would note that, Chairman Pai, you tweeted that your
    parents are served by Wave Wireless, and, Commissioner Carr, in
    your testimony you referred to the good work of On-Ramp Indiana
    that serves Ms. Brooks' district. Both of these companies were
    part of the 182 companies that sent you that letter. So I would
    like to ask each of the Commissioners--and this is just a
    simple yes-or-no question--will you commit to maintaining
    census track licenses in this band?
        Mr. Pai. Ranking Member Doyle, I have delegated this issue
    to Commissioner O'Rielly. He has recently provided a lot of
    analysis on this question so I don't want to presuppose what
    direction he wants to recommend for the full commission.
        Mr. Doyle. As chair of the Commission, would you commit to
    having census track size license?
        Mr. Pai. Frankly, Member Doyle, we don't want to presuppose
    the results. We are still studying the issue. And I am looking
    at the issue along with Commissioner O'Rielly.
        Mr. Doyle. OK. Commissioner O'Rielly, he has dumped it on
    you, so what do you say?
        Mr. O'Rielly. No.
        Mr. Doyle. You do not support doing--I like that direct
    answer. I don't agree with it, but I like it.
        Yes, Commissioner Carr?
        Mr. Carr. I haven't made my decision up yet on how to cast
    a vote in this proceeding.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, we are going to need smaller license
    sizes if we want wireless providers to serve rural America with
    this band.
        Mr. Doyle. So one yes, one undecided, one no, and one
    abstention or----
        Mr. Pai. I am still looking at the issue, Congressman.
        Mr. Doyle. Undecided.
        Mr. Pai. We haven't reached the end points. We are still in
    the sixth or seventh inning.
        Mr. Doyle. OK. Chairman Pai, I mentioned in my opening
    statement that many stakeholders, including the Federal
    Government, are very concerned about your plans regarding the
    discontinuance of service and changes to the BDS market could
    place our national security and public safety operations in an
    untenable position. Are you concerned that, in addition to the
    potential loss of service, that some BDS customers are telling
    us that they have had their bills increase by 175 percent? I am
    kind of concerned that it is not only putting the carriers
    interest over the public's, but it is endangering our public
    safety, our national security, and leading to the huge rate
    increases for people to have this service. How do you respond
    to that?
        Mr. Pai. Sorry, Congressman, I was thrown off there.
        Mr. Doyle. That was strange; is that a phone ring?
        Voice. It is a rattlesnake.
        Mrs. Blackburn. It is Mr. Olson trying to play with new
    technology in the Communications and Technology Committee.
        Mr. Olson. Guilty as charged.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman apologizes. It is accepted.
        And, Mr. Doyle, you are reclaiming your time.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Would you address some of the concerns that we are hearing
    about the BDS market?
        Mr. Pai. Sure, and I will try to address those in turn. So,
    with respect to NTIA, we certainly welcome the submission. That
    is part of the reason why we have an open notice and comment
    process to take public input. If you look at the overall tenor
    of the NTIA letter, it is quite supportive of our approach,
    unless we do want to take those concerns into account.
        Secondly, with respect to BDS overall, the price increases
    you described are precisely the reason why it was important to
    us in the BDS order last year to preserve FCC authority under
    section 201 and 202, as well as the ability of private
    companies to complain directly to the FCC under section 208. We
    will adjudicate any complaints we get about price
    discrimination that might be in violation of our rules.
        Thirdly, if you look at the overall gist of our BDS
    approach, the notion is that price regulation deters fiber
    deployment. It does that for two different reasons. Number one,
    if you are an owner of that infrastructure and there is heavy
    privacy regulation, you would have less incentive to build out
    additional infrastructure. Why would you? It is price
    regulated. Similarly, if you are a competitive entrant relying
    on that infrastructure, you would be less likely to build that
    infrastructure of your own. Why would you? The FCC has put a
    finger on the scale in terms of price regulation.
        Our goal is to preserve that ability of competitive
    entrants--people have complained to the FCC about unreasonable
    charges--while also promoting an incentive to get more fiber
    out. And the results speak for themselves. If you looked at my
    opening statement, for the first time, over 50 percent of mid
    and large size commercial buildings in the United States are
    connected with fiber. We want every one of those buildings to
    be connected with fiber. We think this light-touch, market-
    based approach that started with Chairman Kennard back in the
    late 1990s is the right way to go.
        Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you one last question, Chairman Pai,
    you are aware of Senator Wyden's letter to the FCC regarding
    the real-time location data and the company Securus
    Technologies.
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. On May 18th, Senator Wyden called on you to
    recuse yourself from the investigation based on your past work
    representing Securus. Have you recused yourself?
        Mr. Pai. I have not, in consultation with the Office of
    General Counsel.
        Mr. Doyle. And that was my next question, did you get an
    opinion from the FCC ethics office as to whether or not you
    should recuse yourself?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, I did.
        Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Walden, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I appreciate again the Commissioners being here. And I
    believe we have sent a letter as well to companies regarding
    the same issue. Obviously, we all care about privacy and about
    data location issues, something we have been pursuing for some
    time.
        Chairman Pai, let's switch to the C-band. It is our
    understanding the National Public Radio, commercial
    broadcasters, and cable companies depend on it for content
    distribution to about 100 million households. That is obviously
    a lot of people in every State, probably every congressional
    district. But one of the challenges to ensure noninterference
    with C-band downlinks is to know the exact location of hundreds
    and potentially thousands of unregistered receive-only Earth
    stations. What is the Commission doing to identify the location
    of these Earth stations and ensure they are protected from
    potential harmful interference? And what steps is the
    Commission taking to balance these two goals of ensuring we win
    the race to 5G, which requires for mid-band spectrum, and the
    protection of the downlink the broadcasters and cable companies
    depend upon?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Chairman Walden. And I
    think you have put your finger on the two goals that we need to
    pair in this proceeding. And we tried to address the concern
    you have identified about the need to figure out where the
    stations are in a few different ways. For example, we have
    reduced the fees that are required to file some of these
    reports. Additionally, we have extended the timeframe by 90
    days. So I believe October 17th now is when the deadline is for
    reporting.
        In addition to that, we recognize that some of these
    entities are smaller; they might not have the resources to
    compile a full study that is required traditionally under FCC
    rules. And so it is important to me to streamline that process
    to allow them to get as much information as they can into the
    record.
        At the end of day, we are confident that steps like these
    will enable us to get a robust level of participation from
    those entities and enable us thereafter to make a fully
    informed decision about the appropriate disposition of the C-
    band.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. As you have heard from
    many members on both sides of the aisle up here, we need to do
    more as a country to connect each other with high-speed data
    and broadband connections. So what can you tell us, Chairman,
    about the work the FCC is doing today to close this digital
    divide? What should we look forward to going forward? And what
    do you need from us?
        Mr. Pai. Chairman Walden, I appreciate the question. We are
    doing a lot. And I don't want to use the remainder of your
    time, but what I will say is with the two critical tools in the
    toolbox that we have--that is, modernization of our regulations
    and the wiser distribution of universal service funding--we are
    making major steps towards closing the digital divide: The $2
    billion fixed broadband program that just started yesterday,
    the reverse auction for Connect America and Fund Phase II, the
    $4.5 billion Mobility Fund Phase II that will start next year,
    and some of the initiatives that may appear smaller, but I can
    tell you, when I am on the ground in places like Pendleton,
    Oregon, and Oldsmar, Florida, and McClure, Ohio, they are not
    small. Telemedicine, this is one of things that American people
    just understand, especially in rural communities where it is
    hard to attract a specialist, like my parents--who formerly
    were customers of Wave Wireless--it is very difficult in some
    cases to get specialists. The only way that some of these folks
    in rural communities will get adequate healthcare is through
    telemedicine. And you saw the response for yourself, as did I,
    at Mirasol health clinic in Oregon when the heard the news that
    we are proposing to increase by 40 percent the budget for the
    rural healthcare. If you remember, they broke out into
    applause----
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Pai [continuing]. Because they recognize that this is a
    lifeline, quite literally, for some of these communities.
    Pendleton and Hermiston are big cities in your district. There
    are a lot of smaller towns that will never see a specialist. I
    am really proud of the steps we have taken on the funding side
    to close the digital divide.
        In terms of modernization, too, we have done a lot to
    promote more infrastructure in rural areas, making it easier to
    build the towers, for example, in rural areas or lay fiber in
    cases where there might be not be a business case for
    deployment. And I think often about some of the visits I have
    had, including your district. I popped into Baker City, Oregon,
    where GeoNet told me that some of the steps we are taking, in
    terms of making it easier to gain access to poles or get more
    spectrum, those are the tools that are necessary for the
    smaller companies in particular, the ones that don't make the
    headlines, that nobody knows about; those are the things that
    will help them close the digital divide.
        Mr. Walden. And 5G, as it rolls out, what do we need to be
    doing there?
        Mr. Pai. I think for us that spectrum and infrastructure
    are the critical inputs. With respect to spectrum, I outlined
    some of the steps we are taking to move very quickly. And
    having just come from a couple of conferences, where I can tell
    you that my counterparts abroad are both envious and interested
    about how quickly we are moving on the 5G, the United States is
    in the lead in terms of spectrum leadership.
        As far as infrastructure goes, Commissioner Carr has done
    an able job in leading our wireless infrastructure efforts. We
    need to think nimbly and progressively about how to modernize
    our regulations. The world of a few very sparsely populated
    cell towers is fading away. The era of the small cell, hundreds
    of thousands of small cells being deployed, is almost here. And
    so our regulatory approach needs to be as nimble as the
    industry that we are seeking to regulate.
        Mr. Walden. My time has expired.
        Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing.
        And to all the Commissioners, thank you for your
    participation and counsel.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        For everyone's awareness, votes have been called. Mr.
    Pallone is going to ask his questions. Then I will move to
    recess the subcommittee until we return from votes.
        Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairman Pai, I was glad to see the Commission vote to send
    the Sinclair-Tribune transaction to an Administrative Law Judge
    for review, despite the wishes of the President. And I have
    long had serious concerns about this merger, including the sham
    agreements Sinclair used to try and hide the scope of this
    transaction. That is why Ranking Member Doyle and I wrote to
    the GAO 2 weeks ago, asking them to review how these sham
    agreements affect localism, diversity, and competition.
    However, last night, President Trump tweeted ``So sad and
    unfair that the FCC wouldn't approve the Sinclair Broadcast
    merger with Tribune. This would have been a great and much
    needed conservative voice for and of the People. Liberal Fake
    News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not
    Sinclair. Disgraceful!''
        The only thing that I find disgraceful is that the
    President is still trying to undermine the integrity of
    dedicated journalists by blatantly trying to enrich his friends
    and amplify his message at the expense of local news across the
    country.
        So let me just ask you, yes or no--we are running out of
    time--if I can ask each of the panel, do you agree with the
    President's tweet? Yes or no? We will start with the Chairman.
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I stand by our decision.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Congressman, that issue has been referred. I
    have to not answer that question.
        Mr. Pallone. You don't want to answer. OK.
        Mr. Carr.
        Mr. Carr. Congressman, thank you. I think the hearing
    designation order lays out the facts and the law as applied, in
    our view.
        Mr. Pallone. All right.
        And, Commissioner Rosenworcel.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I do not agree with that.
        Mr. Pallone. All right.
        Now, let me ask those questions of Chairman Pai. I know we
    only have 3 minutes or so.
        Given the President's politicalization of the Sinclair
    merger, will you commit to ensuring that a comprehensive and
    thorough review is conducted by the ALJ, insulated from the
    President or anyone purporting to speak on his behalf, yes or
    no?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, we have already issued the hearing
    designation order, and my understanding is that it is now
    within the purview of the administrative law judge under our
    rules.
        Mr. Pallone. But, you are going to ensure that a
    comprehensive and thorough review is conducted by ALJ?
        Mr. Pai. Consistent with the HDO. Those are the issues that
    have been referred to the ALJ, yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. If the President or anyone in the White
    House discusses or has discussed the Sinclair-Tribune merger
    with you or anyone at the FCC, will you commit to disclosing
    that in the public docket, yes or no?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, except, Congressman, we have ex parte rules,
    because this is now a restricted proceeding. We are limited in
    what information we can receive and what we can put on the
    record. But consistent with our restricted ex parte rules, we
    would be happy to accommodate to the extent we can.
        Mr. Pallone. Yes, basically. All right.
        The President cites the need for a conservative voice. That
    is the thing that is most disconcerting to me, because I don't
    believe the FCC is supposed to make decisions based on what is
    conservative or liberal or Democrat or Republican or just be
    independent of the President.
        So does the FCC consider conservative or liberal viewpoints
    as part of its merger review? In other words, do you care
    whether it is a conservative voice or not?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I stick with the answer I gave on
    November 30, 2011, when I testified as a nominee. For every
    transaction that is before me, I will look at the facts, I will
    apply the law, and I will reach the judgment that is in the
    public interest. Nothing more, nothing less.
        Mr. Pallone. I would just hope that we are not looking at
    this from an ideological point of view, which the President is
    trying to achieve.
        The hearing designation order that the FCC unanimously
    voted to approve notes that Sinclair may have engaged in
    misrepresentations or a lack of candor in its statements to the
    Commission about the merger. Whether a licensee is lying to the
    Commission is a serious allegation and stations have had their
    license revoked for making misrepresentations to the FCC.
        So again to you, Chairman Pai, without commenting on the
    current proceeding, I am not asking you to do that, will the
    Commission conduct a factual inquiry into Sinclair's lack of
    candor regarding the licenses it currently holds either now or
    at the time of the renewal, yes or no?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, we have referred certain issues to
    the ALJ in the HDO. I can't comment, under advice of our
    General Counsel, on anything having to do with that. And I view
    your question as being inextricably linked to some of the
    issues that we have referred to the ALJ.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. So the answer is no.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, would you like to add anything to
    that?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I would point out that we have
    raised issues about the candor of this company before the FCC,
    the misrepresentations they made in the context of this
    transaction. And I think those are serious issues of character
    qualification under Title III of our statute. And to the extent
    that they have been identified as a problem here, we should be
    open to investigation in other contexts as well.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        The committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. The committee will come to order.
        Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, in order to be the first in the
    world to deploy 5G, we need to set an aggressive schedule of
    auctions to make more low- and mid- and high-band spectrum
    commercially available. That is why Ranking Member Doyle and I
    have introduced the AIRWAVES Act, which does just that.
        However, it is my understanding that no matter how
    ambitious we are in setting a schedule, there may be certain
    technological impediments to auctioning off spectrum in a
    timely fashion.
        Is the FCC's auction IT out of date? And, if so, what
    effect does that have on the Commission's ability to keep up
    with the rest of the world in bringing more spectrum to market?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you for the question.
        I don't know if I would use the word out of date or just
    not as advanced as it should be. It has limitations.
        And to the question that Congressman Doyle raised regarding
    3.5, part of the reason why I had to answer no in terms of
    census tracts is because there was not going to be an actual
    auction that we were supposedly going to conduct on the census
    tracts. It was actually going to be a sealed bid for 74,000
    licenses times 7, or half a million licenses, which we were not
    capable of running with our auction software.
        And it gets to the question, to your point, number of
    bands, people have asked for 24, 28, 37, 39, 47 all at once. We
    weren't and don't have the capability to run all of those at
    once.
        The Chairman has done a yeoman's job of scheduling spectrum
    auctions, and I appreciate the work he has done. We will
    auction two bands this fall and three next fall. That is great.
    But in terms of what we are capable of doing with auction
    software, it should be much more advanced for the money that we
    are spending on it.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Do other members of the Commission have thoughts on this?
        Commissioner Rosenworcel.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. We all know that we want to lead the world
    in the wireless economy and in 5G, and I think it is a shame if
    our bureaucratic auction software doesn't allow us to do that.
    If that is a problem, we need to commit time, energy, and
    resources to fixing it. We shouldn't allow that to be an
    impediment.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pai. I couldn't agree more with Commissioner
    Rosenworcel. That is why a few months ago I testified before
    the House and the Senate and asked for resources specifically
    devoted, in part, toward upgrading our IT infrastructure to
    allow us to do much more, much more quickly, with this
    software.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Chairman Pai, the Commission has had a petition from a New
    Jersey-based company, pdvWireless, and Enterprise Wireless
    Alliance before the Commission since the fall of 2014. The
    petition asks the Commission to update the rules around the
    lower 900-megahertz band to support broadband.
        To your credit, you put the item out as an NOI last August.
    I, of course, take no position on the merits of that, that is
    for the Commission to decide. But as we approach the 1-year
    mark since the NOI, can you, Mr. Chairman, commit to moving the
    item to notice of proposed rulemaking soon?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        I can say that I am working with our staff, and we are
    drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking to follow up on the
    NOI that you have inquired about.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, from a global competitiveness perspective, we
    need to ensure that the U.S. wins the race to 5G. We can all
    agree on that. However, at the same time, we need to ensure we
    are bringing connectivity to rural America as well. We have
    made great strides, but clearly more needs to be done.
        The AIRWAVES Act includes a rural dividend, setting aside
    10 percent of proceeds from future spectrum auctions to deploy
    wireless in unserved and underserved, often rural areas. If
    this rural dividend were in place for the last two auctions,
    over $6 billion would be used to fund rural deployment. And
    this funding would not come from taxpayers or be added to
    consumers' telephone bills.
        Do you agree that this provides a creative solution to the
    challenges of deploying rural broadband?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I commend you for your leadership on
    that issue. I agree with you 100 percent, so much so that in
    September of 2016, I gave a speech in which I outlined my
    agreement with the rural dividend proposal. Redirecting that
    money to rural broadband could have a major impact on closing
    that digital divide.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. I want to continue to work with all
    members of the Commission. I commend you for your public
    service.
        I apologize for leaving. Congresswoman Brooks and I are on
    the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee is meeting now.
    Not about you, Congressman Shimkus, and not about me either.
        But I want you to know that I commend the work of this very
    fine Commission, one of the most important agencies of the
    Federal Government.
        Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Welch is not here.
        So, Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It is great to be here today with all these folks.
        It is good to see you back on the Commission, Commissioner
    Rosenworcel. I really appreciate the time when you came into
    Iowa, to Newton and Baxter, Iowa, to talk about rural
    broadband. That was really a great opportunity for me to have
    you there.
        I am happy to have the opportunity to have all of you here
    to testify, because I am always eager to discuss, of course,
    how we can build out rural broadband in Iowa and across the
    country and how we can improve mapping data--that is my big
    topic today--to ensure we are getting resources to the right
    places.
        I am sure you know my bill that I worked on with
    Representative Costello over here. The Rural Wireless Access
    Act passed into law earlier this year and it directs you folks
    to improve and standardize the way the FCC collects wireless
    coverage data so that maps will accurately reflect wireless
    coverage.
        We talked about this before when you were in northwest Iowa
    and some of the problems you had when you were losing coverage
    traveling to northwest Iowa.
        I always like to say that better data means better maps and
    better resources and policies for the areas that are truly in
    need. And this isn't only about cell phones. Mobile broadband
    is particularly important in areas that lack fixed broadband
    services. With the passage of the Rural Wireless Access Act,
    Congress is speaking, I think, and we are saying that we need
    to get better maps and better data.
        So I am sure you all know that the FCC will have 180 days
    after the conclusion of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction to
    promulgate regulations in accordance with the Rural Wireless
    Access Act. But nothing really is stopping you from doing that
    now, I would argue, or at least sooner. And that is important,
    because the Mobility II auction will send more than $4 billion,
    I think it is about $4.5 billion out the door, and primarily to
    rural areas.
        So to me, this seems like a real missed opportunity. We
    have got to act now, it seems to me. The FCC has heard from
    industry that we need better maps. They heard from Congress
    that we need better maps. But the work to create better maps
    hasn't happened yet, and I think there is some frustration out
    there about that.
        I understand that the Commission has agreed--I think this
    was back a couple months back maybe--to push back the Mobility
    Fund II auction by 90 days to allow the current data challenge
    process to continue. But I am concerned that because of the
    incredible burdens with that process, the FCC's data still may
    not be fixed.
        And I can tell you, rural America needs this broadband
    funding as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree with
    that.
        Rather, I think the Commission could take this time to make
    the important fundamental reforms called for by my Rural
    Wireless Access Act ahead of schedule.
        And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, you say in your testimony
    that, ``Too often our procedures fall short of what good
    governance requires. Our mapping practices for broadband do not
    accurately reflect the state of connectivity on the ground.''
    And I think that is absolutely right.
        So my question is to you, really, Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    When working to advance good governance and best practices, do
    you think it makes sense for the FCC to move forward with a
    challenge process that isn't working, or should we be making
    the real overhaul necessary to fix this problem in a more
    expedited way?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. We have a problem with wireless service in
    rural America, and you cannot manage problems that you do not
    measure.
        Right now, the FCC's mapping process for wireless service
    is basically asking the largest carriers whether or not they
    provide service in an area. And then we have invited local
    officials and small wireless carriers to contest that data.
        But the process of contesting that data is cumbersome, it
    is difficult, it is long. It entails setting up an account,
    downloading 50 pages of information, getting multiple handsets,
    walking around in cornfields and elsewhere every half a
    kilometer and taking down information about signal strength and
    latency, then uploading that with the certification of an
    engineer and returning it to the FCC for our assessment.
        I am going to argue that that process is too burdensome for
    most wireless communities to undertake. And as a result, I am
    worried about our Mobility Fund mapping as it stands today.
        Mr. Loebsack. And, Chairman Pai, I would like you to
    respond as well, give you that opportunity, if you would like
    to respond to that.
        Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman.
        The system we inherited when I came into office in January
    2017 was a free-for-all, frankly. Any carrier could use
    whatever technical standards it wanted to supply whatever
    information it wanted.
        That wasn't good enough for me. If we were going to
    distribute $4.5 billion of funding, I wanted to close the
    digital divide to serve unserved areas.
        That is why, under my leadership, we started, on a
    unanimous basis, a bespoke one-time data collection for
    mobility to see exactly where coverage was and where it wasn't,
    with a standardized set of rules. And that is why I appreciate
    the concept behind your legislation.
        We have extended the deadline, as you pointed out, for the
    challenge process, to give all types of entities the ability to
    challenge. We have broadened the categories that can challenge.
    It is not just rural carriers, but State and local governments.
        We have also extended waivers to everyone from Senator Joe
    Manchin of West Virginia to the Kansas Farm Bureau to be able
    to participate. Our own staff has done a lot of road shows, and
    I believe it is nine States currently and a number of webinars.
        We have also created a map with just one unsubsidized
    competitor to allow companies, anybody, an easier way to
    pinpoint those areas that are ripe for challenge.
        All of these steps, I agree, are complex. Nonetheless,
    something is better than nothing, and nothing is what we
    started with.
        We are making progress slowly but surely, and I am
    confident when we hold that Mobility Fund auction, folks in
    Woden, folks in my home State, everyone will be able to get
    coverage ultimately because we did the very hard and dirty work
    collecting this data as best we could.
        Mr. Loebsack. Well, thanks to all of you. And we will be
    staying in touch, I can promise. Thanks very much. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. And Broadband Loebsack, as we have come to
    know him at this committee, does yield back his time.
        Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Welcome, everybody. It is great to have you back.
        I want to start with Commissioner O'Rielly. I want to just
    thank you for raising and addressing the 9-1-1 fee diversion
    issue. It is hard to talk about that when your State--my State
    was good. Then it was bad. Now I think it is good again.
        But as Congresswoman Eshoo and I have worked on 9-1-1, as
    many of you know, for a long time, States diverting that money
    is, in essence, stealing from the fund in which they were
    paying into. So I just want to publicly thank you for that.
        But sticking with you, I have been named to the farm bill
    as a conferee.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Congratulations.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Get my pitchforks out.
        But one of the things that we want to--one of the reasons
    why we are on there is the broadband deployment, and there are
    U.S. issues.
        So how can we get the FCC, the RUS, and NTIA to work
    together so we are not duplicating functions or are actually
    working together to address--everyone is talking about, right,
    rural broadband, connectivity. And so every member has
    mentioned that as part of their discussion. So I am looking for
    some advice and some consultation so that when I go in I can be
    an impact.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I would be more than pleased to provide more
    technical advice to you. There are extensive provisions in both
    the House and Senate farm bill. There is also the pilot program
    that was created as part of last year's budget bill. And they
    all have the potential, as I read them now, to provide
    duplication with existing programs we have at the FCC.
        The chairman has done a wonderful job in working with
    different agencies. I was looking at language in terms of
    consultation. It requires consultation. So basically they will
    talk to us before the--RUS, for instance, would talk to the FCC
    before a decision is made. But that doesn't get you a
    prohibition on duplication. It just requires a consultation.
        Mr. Shimkus. So we then know about the duplication instead
    of being surprised about it.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, we know where the limitations are.
        And if you look at the House bill, for instance, it has
    different speed thresholds. It wants 25/3 compared to where we
    are trying to fund. And I recognize our speeds in the funding
    that we do are less than what people would like, but we are
    trying to stretch our dollars as far as we possibly can with 14
    million people--or 24 million, depending if you count satellite
    or not--unserved households today. That has been my primary
    concern.
        So I would be more than pleased to work with you to try and
    figure out how to tighten the language to make sure we have
    duplication, that we do not have coordination throughout,
    rather than consultation.
        Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate that.
        And let me go to Commissioner Carr. And then if I have time
    I can open it up for other folks.
        You have done some work already doing what we are trying to
    do in the SPEED Act, which is address on the deployment
    rightsizing historic and environmental rules, not reinventing
    the wheel if the siting tower is the same siting tower, but
    then you are going to put a 5G system on there.
        Can you talk about what you have done in the Commission so
    far on that aspect?
        Mr. Carr. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership
    on these issues.
        Some of the legislation that you have mentioned contains a
    lot of really great ideas. There is this global race that is
    ongoing to 5G. And winning that race isn't just about getting
    next-gen connectivity in New York or San Francisco. There are
    thousands of other communities that need their fair shot at 5G.
        A big portion of 5G is going to be small cells. One of the
    challenges there is how do we make the economic case to get
    small cells everywhere? So by removing regulations that were
    really designed for 200-foot macro towers, having them continue
    to apply to those towers, but putting an updated approach for
    these small cells can make a big difference in extending 5G
    everywhere.
        Mr. Shimkus. So then let's just finish with this part of
    the debate. In our language, we are directed to Federal
    property, parklands and issues, because there is a perceived
    concern by smaller municipalities and stuff that you are going
    to--we could, in the guise of rolling out 5G, that we are going
    to take away their rights to help in the local decisions.
        Have you had any of those debates and discussions? And what
    are your thoughts about that?
        Mr. Carr. We have had a lot of really good, really
    productive meetings with local elected officials, whether it is
    county commissioners. As I have been on the road, I was in
    Boston at the U.S. Conference of Mayors conference.
        These local officials deal with issues that we at the FCC
    will never deal with. If there is an ugly small cell that goes
    up somewhere, those local officials are the ones that are going
    to get the call about it, not us.
        So I think at the end of the day, we can look to try to
    find some common ground because we share the same goal of
    getting more broadband deployed.
        Mr. Shimkus. Again, my time has expired. I wish I would
    have had more time to talk to everybody.
        And I yield back. Thanks.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Welch, you are recognized.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        I want to make three comments and then discuss two topics,
    rural broadband and the homework gap.
        The comments are, number one, thank you for your help on
    the passage of the RAY BAUM'S Act.
        Number two, I do commend you for your decision on Sinclair.
    Number one, you did it together. It is so, so important for us
    to find ways we can do things together. Number two, if we are
    going to have strong rural communities, we have to have local
    institutions, and there is no institution more important
    locally than local news.
        And then three, Commissioner Carr, telehealth, that is a
    big opportunity for us and really, really essential.
        The two topics I want to speak about are the rural
    buildout, and I am going to talk to you, Chairman Pai, a little
    bit about this. Commissioner Rosenworcel said you can't assess
    something if you can't measure it. You can't challenge rural
    broadband or make it universal unless we acknowledge that there
    is a real problem.
        And what Congress said in 1996, it required the FCC to
    report annually on whether advanced telecommunication
    capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable
    and timely fashion. In 2016, the Broadband Deployment Report,
    and you were serving on the Commission then, said, and you
    concurred with it, where it was critical of the buildout.
        You said: I agree, ``This administration's policies have
    failed to deliver 'advanced telecommunications capability'--
    broadband--to the American people in a reasonable and timely
    fashion.'' And you were explicit: ``The standard set forth by
    Congress is not being met. Rural America is being left
    behind.''
        Fast forward to 2018. In the Broadband Deployment Report,
    this is under your leadership, there was a determination that
    ``broadband services are now being deployed to all Americans on
    a reasonable and timely basis.'' And what you said in your
    statement is the current FCC is now meeting its statutory
    mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a
    reasonable and timely basis.
        That is not what Congress is requiring. It is not to
    encourage; it is to get the job done.
        I want to spell out some of the facts that I understand to
    be the case, and you can tell me whether you agree or disagree.
        Twenty-four million Americans lack access to fixed
    broadband at speeds of 25/3, the FCC standard. Do you agree
    with that or not?
        Mr. Pai. I do.
        Mr. Welch. Great.
        Thirty-one percent of Americans in rural areas lack access
    to the broadband service. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Pai. I do.
        Mr. Welch. All right.
        Forty-four million Americans lack access to both fixed
    broadband at 25/3 speeds and mobile LTE broadband at 10/3
    speeds.
        Mr. Pai. I would have to double-check that number, but I
    don't have any reason to suspect it is incorrect.
        Mr. Welch. OK. So we are in agreement that there is a
    problem.
        Mr. Pai. Correct.
        Mr. Welch. And I hope we are in agreement that your job,
    FCC, all of you, is not to encourage, it is to get it done.
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
        Mr. Welch. Great. That is good.
        Now, in listening to you--not just today, but other times--
    I have heard you talk about what you see as the benefits of
    deregulation, including the elimination of net neutrality,
    correct?
        Mr. Pai. Correct.
        Mr. Welch. Let me be explicit. We could give you a pen and
    you could write a revocation of every single regulation that
    exists. Will that provide the financial incentive for broadband
    carriers to build out on dirt roads in Vermont and Iowa and
    Kansas where there is one house every half mile?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, this is the central problem. In too
    many parts of this country there is no private business case
    for deployment. That is why our job----
        Mr. Welch. That is my point. Deregulation won't get it done
    where there is no market opportunity.
        Mr. Pai. That is not correct, Congressman. Look at the
    letter from VTel, which I appended to my testimony. VTel stated
    specifically that they are spending millions of dollars more
    because of these regulatory modifications.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you. And thank you for bringing up VTel.
    And, in fact, I happen to be a VTel customer. And what they
    said in that letter is they are going to invest $4 million
    more. We have got 100,000 people underserved in Vermont.
        What you didn't indicate was that VTel was the recipient of
    a $130 million ARRA grant. So that is kind of relevant. There
    was actual public money that went into helping the broadband
    buildout.
        So the fundamental question here, OK, because we have got
    agreement that we have got to get rural America wired, and
    every single day it is more important that we do that, but it
    is not going to happen just with deregulation. There has got to
    be some mapping. There has got to be a bolstered Universal
    Fund. There has got to be promotion of local competition. We
    had some people in here from rural communities that were having
    local companies that were doing really hard things and getting
    it done, because their investment was in the community.
        So I see my time is up and I didn't even get to the
    homework gap, Commissioner, which I applaud you for your work
    on. But this is a real ongoing problem.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Latta, you are recognized.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you very much, FCC Commissioners, for being with
    us today.
        Chairman Pai, technology such as the Internet of Things,
    artificial intelligence, blockchain are disrupting the markets
    and even changing our everyday lives. We need widespread
    broadband connectivity to drive these technologies to their
    potential.
        Is the Commission focusing resources on learning more about
    these emerging technologies and how critical broadband access
    is to this discussion?
        Mr. Pai. We are, Congressman. And thank you for that
    thoughtful question. I have personally spent, both because of
    professional obligations and personal interest, a lot of time
    thinking about these issues starting in the fall of 2017.
        And that is part of the reason why recently I announced
    that the FCC would be hosting a forum later this year on the
    impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning, in
    particular on the communications sector, because I think we are
    simply scratching the surface in terms of the potential of some
    of these technologies. They have obviously disrupted a number
    of industries, and I think there is a useful focus for the FCC
    in thinking about how it could disrupt communications.
        Similarly, I have been looking at a number of other
    technologies, virtual reality and augmented reality,
    blockchain, connected vehicles, and the like. I think we need
    to make sure that we are always keeping track of some of these
    technologies. It is hard, because of both the depth and the
    breadth of some of these innovations.
        But nonetheless, I have been talking to a number of
    experts, including our own chief technology officer, companies
    in Silicon Valley, and the like, about how to make sure that we
    are aware of some of these changes. And the transformation thus
    far has been tremendous, but I think over the next 5 to 10
    years, it is going to be even more mind-blowing.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, the RAY BAUM'S Act calls for the FCC
    and the NTIA to identify 100 megahertz of new unlicensed
    spectrum under 8 gigahertz by the end of 2022. What steps will
    the Commission take to free up much-needed unlicensed spectrum
    to support growing consumer demand for existing technologies
    and to provide innovation space for the technologies of the
    future?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.
        I would only answer your previous question to Chairman Pai,
    I would say also don't forget about narrow band. Narrow Band-
    IoT, very important. But I don't want to get sidetracked.
        To your point on unlicensed, the Commission, and with the
    Chairman's great leadership, is going to move forward on a
    number of things, including in 6 gigahertz, where we are going
    to hopefully, assuming that an NPRM is adopted later this fall
    and moved to order sometime next year, provide additional
    spectrum for unlicensed purposes.
        We have also been working, Commissioner Rosenworcel and I
    have been working extensively on 5.9. And I have also raised
    the question of whether 4.9 may be a place that we can work
    with to have unlicensed bands and services, because we have
    reached a maximum capacity. Five gigahertz is getting rather
    full in terms of services; 2.4 is already full.
        So unlicensed is going to have to be a very big portion of
    our consideration going forward.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Commissioner Carr, earlier this week the House passed the
    Precision Connectivity Act, and you have all been hearing a lot
    of questions coming from us, and especially when we are talking
    about rural broadband and getting that access out there.
        This is a bipartisan bill that I authored with my friend,
    the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, which directs the
    Commission to set up a task force in collaboration with the
    Secretary of Agriculture, identify and measure gaps in
    broadband availability, and develop policy recommendations to
    promote rapid broadband expansion on agricultural land.
        Do you believe the Commission can execute the requirements
    of the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman.
        Yes, I do. I think it is an important issue, as you point
    out. The intensive amount of data and broadband that is used in
    agriculture today is quite mind-blowing. When you get outside
    of D.C.--I was in Moline, Michigan--you see the high bandwidth
    uses, from connected combines to drones that are taking
    detailed images down to the tiny dots of a leaf on a crop.
        We need to find ways to get high-speed broadband for
    farmers and ranchers. I think this bill is one way that is
    going to do it.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with that. To what degree will
    it require a combination of the technologies in the wireline
    and wireless to meet that broadband challenge for the precision
    agriculture?
        Mr. Carr. Ultimately, it is going to require a mix of
    technologies. Fiber is going to work in some places, fixed
    wireless in other places. We are seeing a new generation of
    satellite technologies that can also help. So we are going to
    have a lot of different technologies that are making that last
    mile work.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, all of you, for being here this afternoon.
        Chairman Pai, I want to begin with you and ask about your
    response--or lack thereof--to a letter that Mr. McNerney and
    myself sent regarding the DDoS attack that crashed the FCC's
    website during the net neutrality comment period, or what you
    told us had crashed it.
        Last year, during a hearing that we were having, you
    indicated that you would follow up with the committee to
    provide information on what had actually happened. Then, in
    another hearing in October, you said--and this is directly from
    the transcript--you had provided a detailed response to the
    committee and, ``I would be happy to provide that to you with
    some of the particulars in that regard.''
        The committee has never received it. We have not received
    it. And then you responded to a question for the record by
    saying you couldn't release the information to the committee.
    Now, since then, we have learned some information from the
    press about this, but we still have a lot more questions than
    answers and are still waiting for a response.
        Would you agree, Chairman Pai, that there is something
    wrong when members of the committee tasked with oversight of
    the FCC learn about issues from the press when we have been
    asking about them for more than a year?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        In consultation with the Office of General Counsel
    following that particular hearing that you referenced, the
    General Counsel opined that we require a letter from the
    Committee in order to share certain information because of some
    of the sensitivity of that information. Should the Committee
    issue such a letter, again, we would be happy to accommodate.
        Additionally, I want you to know that we have been working
    with both the General Accountability Office--of course,
    Congress' investigative arm--as well as the Office of Inspector
    General at the FCC on these issues. And that has been ongoing
    for a number of different months. And so the fact that you
    might not have heard a lot of news from the FCC does not mean
    we haven't been working with these independent bodies to
    investigate these particular issues.
        Mrs. Dingell. Well, I think this committee would think that
    we should have some information on this. And so you are saying
    from the subcommittee chair, the full committee? Who do you
    need to receive that letter from, since you haven't been asked
    enough by enough of us?
        Mr. Pai. My understanding from the General Counsel is that
    the Committee----
        Mrs. Dingell. What is your definition of committee? Does
    that mean Mr. Walden and Mr. Pallone need to send you a letter?
        Mr. Pai. I believe that is correct.
        Mrs. Dingell. OK.
        Madam Chair, can we talk to the full chair about this?
    Thank you.
        All right. So then I would like to continue. Since there is
    already some public information about the attack, will you
    commit to finally following up with the committee if we get
    this letter, to provide us with reports, requests, memoranda,
    service logs related to the DDoS attack, the FCC's protocol for
    documenting it, and what steps you are taking to mitigate
    events like this going forward?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, what I can tell you is that, again,
    we have been working cooperatively with the Office of Inspector
    General. The Inspector General has done a fantastic job
    investigating this issue. And I don't want to speak for him,
    but what I can say is that I would expect him to issue more
    information on this in the very near future.
        Mrs. Dingell. Hopefully, to the committee that has
    jurisdiction.
        Chairman Pai, let me also ask you about a letter that you
    were sent asking for an investigation into whether companies
    improperly sold TV viewer data to Cambridge Analytica. You
    punted this matter to the FTC, which I disagree with. But we
    did a followup letter asking further questions about this
    decision. It is critical that the FCC enforce privacy
    protections of the communications sector to the fullest extent.
        When can we expect a response to this letter? And why did
    the FCC decline to conduct an investigation into this?
        Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congresswoman.
        The agency is a creature of Congress. We can only exercise
    authority that Congress has delegated to the agency.
        In this particular case, there are two specific
    authorities: Section 338 and Section 631. Those authorities
    extend to cable operators and satellite systems. Neither TiVo
    nor comScore is a satellite operator or a cable system. So we
    cannot exercise jurisdiction under them in the manner in which
    you requested.
        Additionally, to the extent that you were asking about the
    company DISH and its provision of aggregate data, that is a
    specific exception from the statutory authority that does not
    allow us to exercise jurisdiction.
        And so it wasn't simply a punt, but a recognition of
    reality under the current law that the Federal Trade Commission
    can be and is expressly authorized under Section 5 of the FTC
    Act and other authorities to investigate this particular
    matter, and that is why we referred it to them. They are the
    primary privacy cop on the beat, and we want them to be able to
    look at this issue, consistent with your request.
        Mrs. Dingell. I am out of time, so I can't keep asking. I
    had more.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Commissioner Carr, first, I want to talk to--this isn't
    necessarily directly FCC, but it is something you have been
    working on I am very interested in here, and it is the skills
    gap and apprenticeships. I work with Susan Davis from
    California on another committee.
        And I had the Wireless Infrastructure Association come to
    see me. And I don't know if you were with them or somebody
    else--that you actually climbed a tower recently. And they were
    trying to figure out how 5G deployment could be held up just by
    not having the skills of people able, men and women, to be able
    to go out and deploy 5G.
        And I know I have like 6,500 open jobs in my community. If
    you show up with some skill it is easy to do a living wage. If
    you show up with skills, you have a career.
        And so I know that is an interest of you, in terms of this
    area. Could you talk about things that you have worked in, in
    this area, what the skills gap is, and some things you think we
    should be able to do to help close that?
        Mr. Carr. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
    your leadership on this issue. You mentioned I climbed a cell
    tower in Sioux Falls, California, and I demonstrated my own
    skills gap attempting to keep up with the people doing that.
        But to your point, the skills gap, in my view, comes in two
    places. One, when you look at the deployment of next-generation
    network, 5G, these thousands of small cells, right now we
    potentially don't have the workforce in place that can do that
    work, the deployment of it, the consideration of the RF
    implications, in terms of where you set an antenna up to get
    coverage.
        And then we also see it in communities being able to have
    the skills, take advantage once those connections are in place.
    I was in Detroit at a school that is trying to give either low-
    income people, people recently released from prison, the
    training and the job skills they need to take advantage of the
    digital economy.
        To your point, I think there is more we can do on the
    apprenticeship side with streamlining those efforts to make it
    easier for people to move into this space. I have done some
    events with the Department of Labor geared towards that.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. And as I said, that moves
    toward careers instead of just jobs, and that is what we really
    want to reach out to help people with.
        Also, Chairman Pai, in the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congresswoman
    Matsui and myself had the auction deposits bill that was
    included into that area.
        My question is for you and Commissioner O'Rielly, I think
    Commissioner O'Rielly, you both brought that to our attention.
    Are you seeing any other barriers in the auction mechanics that
    may need statutory fix to streamline to make the auctions go
    smoother or better, both of you or either of you?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Before I
    do that, I want to assure the subcommittee that we consulted
    with the General Counsel, and had something happened to
    Commissioner Carr on that tower climb, the FCC still would have
    had a quorum sufficient to discharge its duties as prescribed
    by Congress.
        But more seriously, we are so grateful to you, to
    Congresswoman Matsui, and to the entire subcommittee for your
    leadership in fixing that problem.
        As I look at the lay of the land in terms of our legal
    authority, we have sufficient authority at this point, with the
    exception of the budgeting, the issues that I talked about
    earlier, to make sure that we can conduct auctions in an
    expeditious and productive way.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Mr. O'Rielly, I have another question for you if you want
    to answer that.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I was going to answer to the point. I don't
    think it is a question of authority. I think it is a question
    of what this committee does very well, which is oversight and
    following up to make sure that the auction software is advanced
    to meet the goals for the future.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
        And also for you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
        Thank you for your support on the 6 gigahertz proceeding
    and your testimony. As you know, this is an important issue for
    the Spectrum Caucus.
        Would you like to elaborate on the need for this spectrum
    and what timeframe you expect to see for the expected NPRM? If
    you could be more specific than maybe the fall or something
    like that.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely.
        So the predominant bands that I mentioned before, 2.4 and 5
    gigahertz, are congested. And so we need to add more unlicensed
    spectrum to the portfolio, for all the benefits that they bring
    that I have talked about in the past. Commissioner Rosenworcel
    and I have worked together on this issue.
        Six gigahertz is what I consider the second best option for
    additional unlicensed spectrum next to 5.9. We are working hard
    on that. It has been a very difficult slog to try and come to
    resolution.
        But 6 gigahertz may be something we can move forward
    quicker. It is the uplink to C-band. C-band has the other
    component that the subcommittee has talked about a little bit
    earlier.
        In terms of the point on the timing, that is something that
    the Chairman--I don't want to get ahead of him, but I think
    that the goal is to have an NPRM this fall timeframe.
        Mr. Guthrie. Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you have any
    comments on that?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. No. I agree with much of what my colleague
    Commissioner O'Rielly said.
        Unlicensed spectrum has historically been scraps in our
    airwaves. We have got to be intentional about it. We need more
    Wi-Fi in our skies, and we have got opportunities in the 5.9
    gigahertz span and 6 gigahertz span, and it is time to pursue
    them.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you very much.
        And my time is almost expired, so I will stop there. I
    yield back 15 seconds.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McNerney, you are recognized.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair.
        And I thank the Commissioners for your work. It can't be
    that easy, but hopefully rewarding.
        Chairman Pai, it has been 2 months since we learned about
    the VPNFilter, the Russian-linked malware that can be used to
    steal users' information, exploit devices, and block network
    traffic. Hundreds of thousands or more routers have been
    compromised. Yet consumers either know nothing about it or they
    have been left wondering if their router is affected and how to
    take action. And these are routers that are being rented from
    their ISPs.
        Do you agree that the ISPs have a responsibility to inform
    consumers they lease routers to about known vulnerabilities?
    Can you answer yes or no?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, we do want to ensure that consumers
    get the information they need about the security of their
    equipment.
        Mr. McNerney. Do the ISPs have a responsibility here?
        Mr. Pai. Legally, I would have to look into it. But
    certainly, as a general business matter, I would hope that they
    would inform consumers about any risks to that equipment.
        Mr. McNerney. Is the FCC doing anything to encourage ISPs
    to inform customers about this malware and how to update their
    routers or if their routers have been compromised?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I have to be a little bit circumspect
    on this issue. I can't comment on things that might have some
    classification to them. But we would be happy to work with you
    to provide what information we can on the subject.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, is the FCC doing anything at all to
    help protect customers against malware from their routers?
        Mr. Pai. Again, there are certain issues I can't discuss.
    But generally speaking, yes, we do monitor any potential
    threats to equipment, and we work with the industry to make
    sure that they apprise customers about it.
        Mr. McNerney. Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think the
    FCC has a role in protecting consumers from cybersecurity
    threats?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, I think the FCC has a role in
    protecting consumers from cybersecurity threats.
        I also think our equipment authorization process is of note
    here. Those routers have to be authorized by the agency,
    because they use radio frequency. We could certainly look into
    using our Part 15 process to certify that they will notify
    consumers of any malware or cyber risks associated with their
    use.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that answer.
        The GAO has committed to investigating fake comments
    submitted to the FCC in the net neutrality repeal proceeding,
    and I understand that the New York attorney general is
    investigating as well. As it stands, we know that at least 2
    million of these comments are fake, some even coming from
    Russian email addresses.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, is it your view that the FCC has
    been cooperating with law enforcement agencies?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I do not believe we have been cooperating
    with law enforcement agencies. I think that is a problem. Two
    million peoples' identities were stolen in our record. That is
    a Federal crime under Title 18. It is also a crime in many
    States. We should be referring these matters to State attorneys
    general and the Department of Justice.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Chairman Pai, can you commit to ensuring that your office
    and the FCC as a whole will cooperate with these
    investigations?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, we have been cooperating with the
    General Accountability Office. As I said, the Office of
    Inspector General is looking into this issue.
        In addition, I proactively have announced recently in a
    letter in response to Senators Merkley and Toomey that we would
    be changing our process to ensure that some of the issues that
    arose last time, for example, 7.5 million comments in support
    of Title II using fakemailgenerator.com, 400,000 pro-Title II
    comments from a single address in Chelyabinsk, Russia, that
    those things don't happen.
        As we are exploring the use of CAPTCHA and other potential
    solutions, assuming we get authorization from our
    appropriations committees, we are reprogramming of certain
    funds.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I am still waiting for a response for
    the report's--and this is following up on Mrs. Dingell's
    comments--request memoranda related to the alleged DDoS attack
    on the comment system, requesting these documents multiple
    times now, and hope that you will provide them sometime soon.
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, again, to follow up on my response to
    Congresswoman Dingell, we have been working with the Inspector
    General. He has done a fantastic job on this. And stay tuned,
    they will be issuing information.
        In the meantime, additionally, as I said, in consultation
    with the General Counsel, we require a letter from the
    Committee in order to supply certain types of information that
    you are seeking.
        Mr. McNerney. Are there any steps you are taking now to
    prevent comments from being filed in a manner that would impact
    your proceedings?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, sir. So we are, as I said, exploring, in
    consultation with our career staff and the Office of Managing
    Director and others, solutions like CAPTCHA or other similar
    mechanisms to ensure the integrity of our proceedings.
        The system we inherited in January 2017 was designed to be
    a fully open process that anyone can participate in, but we
    want to make sure that it is one that, again, respects the
    integrity of the FCC's processes and confirms the seriousness
    of our work.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, last question. I am concerned
    about the proposed changes to the Lifeline Program. I am
    worried that, if adopted, it will only further widen the
    digital divide and be a major setback for vulnerable
    populations like veterans.
        The proposed changes, could you give me an idea how that
    might affect veterans?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I appreciate the question. I am, in fact,
    the daughter of an Air Force veteran.
        There are 1.3 million veterans in this country that rely on
    the Lifeline Program today. And, in fact, at the behest of
    Senator McCain and Senator Blumenthal, we expanded the program
    to include the Veterans Pension program so that more veterans
    could apply and participate, so that when they finish their
    service they can reacclimate to civilian life and have
    communications necessary to do so. I think it would be
    offensive if this agency decided to cut them off from
    communication service.
        Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Olson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
        And welcome to our four leaders of the FCC.
        Chairman Pai, Texans back home in Texas 22 want me to thank
    you for standing up for a thriving internet. They are grateful
    for your actions to stop the false net neutrality rules of the
    previous administration.
        You found out firsthand what my former boss, Texas Senator
    Phil Gramm, found out about killing a bad government program or
    rule: It is easier to kill a vampire than a bad government
    program. Yet you persevered. And now again to channel Phil
    Gramm: The previous rule is deader than Elvis.
        It is again hurricane season. I would like to also thank
    you for coming down within days after Harvey hit Houston to
    help us on the ground recover with our telecommunication
    systems. I am hopeful this year is not like last year: Harvey,
    Irma, Maria, fires. We have to make sure we are prepared.
        Can you update us on what the FCC has done to prepare for
    hurricanes and other disasters this year?
        Mr. Pai. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman, and
    thank you and the folks in your district for hosting me when I
    was in Houston after Hurricane Harvey.
        We are doing a number of things to make sure that our
    networks are as resilient as possible and that restoration is
    as quick as possible.
        In terms of funding, we have extended funding to make sure
    in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, for instance, that we
    can restore those networks as quickly as possible. And we have
    also extended a number of different waivers and streamlining
    orders to make sure that carriers can focus on rebuilding
    networks instead of paperwork to the FCC.
        Additionally, we have engaged in a number of different
    experiments, for example, granting an experimental license to
    Google to use Project Loon to beam internet access from
    balloons. In a situation like that, we don't care what
    technology is used to get people back on the grid, we want them
    to get back on.
        Additionally, we have been working to make sure that our
    wireless emergency system is much more resilient. I would be
    happy to talk about some of the different steps there, but the
    bottom line is we are making sure that these alerts are more
    targeted, are more informational, and the consumers don't tune
    them out.
        An additional one that is specific to you that I thought I
    would mention, because a lot of people don't think about this,
    some 33 trillion gallons of water were dumped on your part of
    Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. That had a huge impact
    on those parts of the area that only had copper lines in the
    ground.
        Copper degrades when it is under severe water pressure, and
    if it is exposed to water it is utterly useless. And those
    areas of Houston that had fiber were much more resilient.
    Either the cell towers didn't go down or the networks stayed up
    altogether.
        And so I think that it is important when we talk about some
    of our copper retirement rules and other nitty-gritty wireline
    reforms that we have got is that there is a huge public safety
    benefit to doing this, NG9-1-1 and the rest. I think it is very
    important to keep that in mind.
        All of these issues that we have been talking about
    previously have a public safety dimension that I think we
    should all recognize.
        Mr. Olson. By the way, thank you for all those emergency
    messages that came over, warning tornado, warning floods,
    warnings swamped the whole system. With your work, it is
    targeted now to where it actually is. As opposed to hitting a
    whole county, it is hitting a city. And that is a big deal,
    because we were bombed. We got spammed by all these. It just
    became nothing after days of these buzzers going off. So thank
    you for acting quickly to make that happen.
        Commissioner Carr, you have been leading the FCC in finding
    new ways to reduce government red tape that slows 5G
    deployment. Verizon has just announced it plans to launch 5G in
    Houston, Texas, later this year.
        Can you tell me how your work will help expedite this
    rollout quickly in Houston?
        Mr. Carr. Thanks very much, Congressman, for the question.
    I am glad to see that Houston is going to be on the leading
    edge of getting 5G.
        That is something that we want to replicate across the
    country. So we have a number of reforms that we have already
    taken. That is going to reduce the cost of deployment. That is
    going to make a big difference, particularly in costly,
    difficult-to-serve areas. We have a number of ideas that we are
    continuing to look at, at the Commission.
        I also wanted to follow up on your earlier question. I was
    also in Houston at the Harris County 9-1-1 Center and saw the
    great work that they were able to do there in response to
    Hurricane Harvey.
        Mr. Olson. And one last question. I am running out of time
    here, but this is for you, Chairman Pai.
        As you probably know from my biography, I spent 9 years in
    the Navy, lieutenant commander, a leader in the Navy. You are
    the leader of this FCC, this Commission. You have a member who
    has climbed up a cell tower. As leader, don't you think you
    should follow his lead and climb up a cell tower as well,
    somewhere in South Dakota maybe?
        Mr. Pai. That was a curve ball I had not prepared for,
    Congressman. Although Commissioner Carr is far younger and more
    nimble than I am, nonetheless, I will put my own life at risk
    to ascend perhaps a 10-foot tower to inspect a small cell
    somewhere in Houston once the deployment is ready.
        Mr. Olson. I will go with you.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. And the gentleman will not only go with
    you, he will climb the tower.
        Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And welcome to all the panelists. I don't have a climb-the-
    tower question here.
        So but anyway, I want to follow up on my Spectrum Caucus
    co-chair, who is Brett Guthrie, talking about 6 gigahertz. I
    understand the Commission is planning to move forward with NPRM
    to explore the possibility of opening the bands known as
    collectively 6-gigahertz band for unlicensed use in the fall.
        Commissioner O'Rielly and Commissioner Rosenworcel, what
    interference protection to mitigation techniques, such as
    frequency coordination, could protect incumbents and allow
    unlicensed operations in this band?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, thank you.
        So those that have been interested in making 6 gigahertz
    available for unlicensed use have put forward engineering
    studies to show that the interference, harmful interference,
    would be minimal, and they have recommended a number of
    mitigation efforts. They will all have to be explored as part
    of the NPRM this fall.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. We do have before us some engineering
    studies like my colleague referenced. The most important thing
    we can do is put this out for a rulemaking so that we make it
    possible for the 6-gigahertz band to be used for unlicensed
    service in the near future.
        Ms. Matsui. Right. Great. Thank you.
        Last week, I announced that I am working on legislation to
    direct the Department of Commerce to convene a working group of
    Federal and industry stakeholders to develop a consensus-based
    definition of blockchain.
        Distributed ledger systems such as blockchain have
    particularly interesting potential applications in
    communication networks, including in IoT deployments and
    spectrum sharing. Next-generation networks, including 5G-
    capable radios, have the opportunity to ensure spectrum is
    being used as efficiently as possible.
        But there currently is no common definition of blockchain,
    which could potentially hinder it in its deployment, especially
    in those cases where sharing may be the only viable option.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, so what potential could
    blockchain have in increasing spectrum efficiency?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question and being so
    forward-thinking about this.
        I have written some pieces for Wired and elsewhere where I
    have pointed out that spectrum is a scarce resource. We need to
    come up with more efficient ways to distribute it other than
    just traditional licensed and unlicensed regimes.
        And using distributed ledger technology like blockchain
    could make that possible. We could see dynamic leasing. We
    could see lightweight leasing. We could see a lot more
    innovative uses of this scarce resource.
        So I think what you are describing is the right way to go.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
        I want to move on to the C-band. I commend the FCC's work
    to identify the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band as a potential core
    midrange band for next-generation networks. This band has
    propagation characteristics that make it ideal for reliable
    satellite distribution and particularly valuable for IG mobile
    networks.
        The NPRM that you unanimously approved earlier this month
    appropriately recognized that the Commission has insufficient
    information on incumbent operations that may need to be
    protected in the band. I appreciate the NPRM sought additional
    information on existing Earth station uses of C-band satellites
    as well as the previous application filing freeze.
        Chairman Pai, how is the work to gather additional
    information on incumbent users going?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        It is going well, in part because we have extended the time
    and the latitude that some of these folks have to register with
    us. We have extended the timeframe by 90 days, until October
    17. We have streamlined the fees and the reports that are
    required for them to be able to report.
        And so at the end of the day, this fall we hope to be able
    to come to you just to let you know that we have a much more
    robust picture of where these stations are in order to allow us
    to proceed to a fully informed decision about the fate of the
    C-band.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, fine. Thank you.
        Mindful that clearing federally held spectrum is both
    critical in our effort to facilitate deployment of next-
    generation networks and a congressionally mandated preference,
    I am interested in new ways to ensure we are using spectrum
    more efficiently and innovatively.
        Back in 2004, for instance, the FCC considered the role
    that opportunistic technologies and access systems could play
    in promoting leasing arrangements between commercial users and
    license holders.
        Specifically, I am interested in a legislative framework
    that would further facilitate the opportunity for NTIA to
    coordinate with the FCC and allow Federal agencies to lease
    spectrum to commercial users.
        Commissioner Carr, I know there is not much time, but how
    do you believe additional spectrum-sharing arrangements could
    balance the certainty and deployment needs of both commercial
    providers and government users?
        Mr. Carr. Congresswoman, thank you for the question and
    thank you for your longstanding leadership on spectrum issues.
        I think you are right. I think we need to put even more
    tools on the table, even more options on the table, and we
    should be exploring all ways to get more spectrum out there for
    consumer use.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        And I just want to make a comment. In my work on this
    committee I have been focused on expanding access to telehealth
    services. So I thank you, Commissioner Carr, for your focus on
    them.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And to our Commissioners, thank you all very much for being
    here.
        Chairman Pai, earlier this year Congress provided funding
    to NTIA. We have talked a little bit about the mapping issue.
    We provided that funding to NTIA to update the national
    broadband map in coordination with the FCC.
        How is that coordination effort going? And do you believe
    that a process that uses State and commercial data in addition
    to the material the Commission collects from the Form 477
    process will render a more accurate and useful map?
        Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your
    leadership on this issue.
        I have personally spoken to the Administrator of NTIA about
    this issue. In addition to that, our staffs have been in touch
    to share expertise to make sure that they aren't reinventing
    any wheels and that we are all on the same page in terms of the
    need for mapping.
        In terms of the second part of your question, which of
    course now I have forgotten. Sorry.
        Mr. Johnson. It was, do you believe the process that uses
    State and commercial data in addition to the material from the
    477 process will render a more accurate and useful map?
        Mr. Pai. Our hope is that it will. And in the meantime,
    what we have done under my leadership over the last year and a
    half is to start a comprehensive review of the Form 477
    process, to make sure that the information that we get is as
    granular, is as feasible, and is as usable as possible for all
    of the folks who need it, including NTIA, Congress, the FCC,
    and others.
        Mr. Johnson. I know you know, and I think the other
    Commissioners agree, too, that an accurate map is important,
    and I appreciate what you said about not reinventing the wheel.
        This is not rocket science. We ought to be able to produce
    a map and we ought to be able to produce a map very, very
    quickly. An accurate map is the starting point for solving this
    problem. And it has been an issue that has just been dragging
    and dragging and dragging.
        So whatever you folks can do to encourage and push that
    along, it really is important to rural areas where we are
    suffering with intellectual capital loss, the rural-urban
    divide being very real. You guys know that. I appreciate that.
        Chairman Pai, cybersecurity is obviously a very important
    issue as well for our country, and there continues to be debate
    over which agency or which commission should take the lead on
    cybersecurity.
        I know that the telecommunications industry works routinely
    with the Department of Homeland Security, and conversations
    that occur with DHS are held in confidence, and that is
    required by statute.
        Obviously, that kind of protection of information
    encourages sharing of critical and confidential information,
    which we all agree is the best way to safeguard our
    communication systems. I understand.
        However, those same statutory protections do not exist at
    the FCC. So are you concerned that the FCC and DHS could work
    at cross-purposes, which may undermine cybersecurity?
        Mr. Pai. Great question, Congressman. Cybersecurity is a
    critical issue, and it seems like every week there is a new
    story that draws our attention to that fact.
        I am happy to report that over the last year and a half, we
    have had a very close and productive working relationship with
    the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, this very morning
    I spoke with DHS about some cybersecurity issues that have
    popped up.
        And so we certainly want to make sure we are on the same
    page there. Our role under current law is to act in more of a
    consultative fashion with DHS, which has the lead in terms of
    cybersecurity.
        Should Congress see fit to change the law--currently, the
    only arguable source of authority would be Section 1 of the
    Communications Act, which is a very high-level, broad
    statement, which doesn't give us operative authority there, as
    well as arguably Section 222, which is more consumer
    proprietary network information. But should Congress change the
    law, we would dutifully administer it to make sure that our
    networks are secure.
        And in the meantime, I will continue to work
    collaboratively with DHS and other Federal partners, including
    the intelligence community, to make sure that cybersecurity is
    reinforced as an important issue.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. And I can't get two questions in here, but
    I am going to try.
        5G. The United States won the race to 4G, increased our
    economy, according to some reports, by nearly $100 billion and
    drove an 84 percent increase in wireless-related jobs.
        Because of that leadership, the wireless industry now
    supports over 4.7 million jobs and contributes $475 billion
    annually to the U.S. economy, according to that Accenture
    report.
        What should the FCC do to ensure that we maintain our
    global lead in 5G so that all of those economic and job
    benefits continue to occur here in the U.S.?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, exactly what we are doing. Being very
    aggressive on spectrum, holding the 28 and 24 gigahertz
    auctions this fall, 37, 39, and 47 gigahertz next year, in
    addition to looking at other bands, 3.7, 6 gigahertz, and
    others.
        In terms of infrastructure, we need to make sure that we
    continue to modernize our regulations to incentivize the
    construction and use of the small cells and distributed antenna
    systems and other guts of the future 5G networks.
        And I can tell you our work is having an impact not just on
    my own word, but I recently came from two conferences, one in
    Switzerland, one in Panama. And to hear from regulators
    everywhere around the world, from Algeria to Guyana, to even
    Trinidad and Tobago to Fiji, tell us they are looking to the
    United States for leadership because, as one regulator put it
    to me: You guys are doing it right and we follow your lead on
    this 5G issue.
        That is something that I think reinforces the fact that we
    are doing the right thing.
        Mr. Johnson. Let us know how we can help.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And welcome to the entire Commission.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel said 9 months is a school year. It
    is also the length of time that it takes for a child to come
    into this world. So it has been a while. It has been a while.
    Welcome back.
        I want to set the record straight on a couple of things
    first. It has been said that people are entitled to their
    opinions, but not their own facts. It has been cast about here
    today that it is somehow a fiction that my Republican friends
    destroyed net neutrality and wiped out privacy on the internet.
    That is not fiction; it is a fact.
        On December 14, 2017, the Commission voted to upend the net
    neutrality rules that were in place and that had been tested in
    court. Nonetheless, that was rescinded.
        On March 28, 2017, a CRA went sweeping through this
    committee. It was authored by our chairwoman, went through the
    full committee, went like a prairie fire through the House of
    Representatives, and removed all privacy protections from the
    internet. I know what I voted on. Obviously, I voted no. Others
    voted yes.
        But to say that these things somehow are a rumor where
    people are referring to them and they are not so is simply not
    a fact. So I want to really set that down, because I think it
    is important too.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly follow up on Congressman
    McNerney's question where he specifically asked whether the FCC
    is cooperating with law enforcement agencies, et cetera, et
    cetera. Is that referred to the Bureau or to the Commission?
        Mr. Pai. Sorry, Congresswoman, is what referred?
        Ms. Eshoo. The investigations, referring the violations.
    Does the Bureau act on that or does the full Commission act on
    that?
        Mr. Pai. If we are talking about the same thing, the letter
    was referred to our Office of General Counsel.
        Ms. Eshoo. So what does that mean? What I want to know is,
    has there been a referral to a law enforcement agency? That is
    what I think Congressman McNerney was asking you, but you
    talked about the GAO, I think the FTC, the I don't know
    whatnot, the IG, the FC.
        So have you referred these violations to a law enforcement
    agency? That is what I would like to know. Yes or no?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, we have consulted with the
    Department of Justice.
        Ms. Eshoo. No, no, no, no, no.
        Mr. Pai. We don't have jurisdiction----
        Mr. Eshoo. Has it been referred to? Has it been referred to
    for examination? Have you asked for an investigation of it?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, it is not our role to administer
    Title 18. That is a Department of Justice issue.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, I think you don't want to answer the
    question. I don't want to litigate it with you. I just want a
    yes or no.
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, it is very simple. To the extent
    that we have jurisdiction here, we have worked with the Office
    of Inspector General. We have worked with the General
    Accountability Office.
        Ms. Eshoo. I think I know what your ``answer'' is.
        I want to get to something, and I don't have much time. It
    probably is going to be more of a statement than anything else.
        It has been said that we have 24 million Americans that
    either have no broadband service or very slow broadband service
    in the country. Shame on all of us.
        Is there a 5-year plan at the FCC on this? Some of it may
    belong in the private sector. Some of it you need authority
    from the Congress and our subcommittee. Other actions the
    Commission can take. But when that is stitched together, we
    have solved this issue.
        Every time the Commission comes here, all of our
    subcommittee hearings, we go over and over and over and over
    this issue, and it is not getting any better.
        So can someone enlighten me on this?
        Yes, Commissioner.
        Mr. O'Rielly. So, in fairness, the Commission has spent an
    incredible amount of work on this.
        Ms. Eshoo. I think we all have, but I don't sense we are
    making progress.
        Mr. O'Rielly. We have done the easy stuff, the easy
    locations. We are working on what I would consider the medium
    locations. We have an ongoing auction right now for the CAF
    Phase II auction.
        What is left over from that and what is left over from our
    remote area--or from our rate of return areas that don't get
    served under our program--that is what is going to be the
    hardest----
        Ms. Eshoo. So what will that knock out of the park, what
    you just described, of the 24 million?
        Mr. O'Rielly. It is 14 million if you don't--it is 24
    million only if you don't count satellite that is serving 10
    million people today with 25/3.
        But it is important. I don't mean to say that 14 million
    should be ignored. But we are working on the really hard area.
    The Remote Areas Fund needs to be set up, and we are going to
    need additional funding that we don't have today.
        And it will either require contributions from Congress in
    Federal dollars, which I have testified in favor of and the
    dollars went to other Federal agencies----
        Ms. Eshoo. I backed you up on it.
        Mr. O'Rielly [continuing]. Or it is going to require
    additional contributions from ratepayers to the likes we
    haven't seen before.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate it so
    very much. And I welcome the Commission and the Chairman.
        And, Chairman, thank you very much for coming to my area
    and speaking to my constituents. I really appreciate it very
    much.
        Chairman Pai, again, while you were in the Tampa Bay area,
    you were able to review the testing that Charter Communications
    was doing in and around the district. In particular, they are
    conducting trials in the 3.5 band, which is showing promise for
    better and faster rural coverage. At the same time, the 3.5
    band is utilized by Federal radar systems, which is used by the
    Navy and Coast Guard on the Gulf Coast of Florida as well as
    other areas.
        The Environmental Sensing Capability, ESC, has been created
    to ensure these Federal uses are not interfered with, while
    also allowing shared spectrum with industry in preparing the
    5G-enabled technology. This band provides a great opportunity
    for industry and competition as long as we ensure Federal
    systems remain secure.
        What is the status of ESC implementation and interference
    sensitivity standards, please?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And first
    and foremost, thank you for the hospitality you showed me, both
    in Tampa and in Oldsmar. It was a terrific visit to the
    district.
        I am very excited about the possibilities of 3.5 gigahertz
    spectrum, in part because of that trial you showed. To be able
    to see how Charter is using and how others potentially could
    use the spectrum to provide a seamless high-definition video
    experience as you are driving down the road. Very simple
    application, but a very powerful one nonetheless for consumers.
        The ESC is a critical part of that, and so I am happy to
    report that we are actively working with both NTIA and the
    Department of Defense on the testing. The testing is very
    complex, and so I can't give you a definitive timeframe on when
    it is going to be completed or what the results might show. But
    do know that we are working as quickly as possible to wrap that
    testing up to enable ESC to allow shared use of this valuable
    resource.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, I know you are leading the charge on
    the 3.5. Do you have anything to add to that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I would agree with the Chairman on this, but
    I would say there are two parts. There is the SAS, which deals
    with the commercial users, and the ESC, which deals with the
    Federal users, and how we make sure we don't cause
    interference.
        Those things, a couple months ago we thought we might
    separate them time-wise. I was briefed yesterday that it looks
    like things are lining up nicely. And I don't want to get ahead
    of myself, but I think Q1 of next year is not irrational, if
    not earlier.
        We are hoping to do some things that I can't speak of, but
    hopefully will be able to announce some things regarding the
    SAS later this year and then the ESCs really soon after. So I
    think things are lining up pretty nicely along those decisions.
        But can I go back to your earlier question? And I don't
    want to use your time.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Please.
        Mr. O'Rielly. But you mentioned the point regarding
    Charter. To get back to Congressman Doyle's point regarding
    census tracts, Charter has advocated a different position, in
    terms of they haven't favored census tracts, they have favored
    county-sized licenses. And so there are different positions
    than just census tracts, and I am trying to work out and try
    and find a commonality of the different entities that are
    seeking this.
        I will tell you, those that have favored census tracts have
    not moved or advocated 1 inch from where they have been for the
    last number of years. They will not yield anything to where
    they have been. So it has been hard to try and find commonality
    among all these different positions. And you mentioned Charter,
    so I thought I would bring that up.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Thanks for the update.
        Back in March, after a very long wait, the D.C. Circuit
    Court issued its opinion on the Telephone Consumer Protection
    Act. In particular, this ruling invalidated the definition of
    an auto dialer and also did away with the Commission's
    reassigned number and safe harbor rules.
        In light of this opinion, what action is the FCC taking to
    establish valid TCPA definitions and rules that target bad
    actors, but do not put everyday Americans at risk to lawsuits?
        Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, can you address that?
        Mr. Pai. I would be happy to, Congressman.
        We are still actively studying the results of the opinion
    in ACA International, and we are working with our staff on the
    way forward on some of the key issues they identified: the
    definition of auto dialer, the reassigned number database,
    revocation of consent, and the like.
        So, again, I can't give you a specific timeframe, but we
    are actively looking at a variety of TCPA issues as a result of
    the D.C. Circuit's opinion.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Well, Madam Chair, I have got one more
    question, but I will go ahead and yield back my time and I will
    submit it for the record. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
    back.
        And, Mr. Flores, you are recognized.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Also, I want to thank all the members of the Commission for
    being with us today.
        Let me compliment you on something. I think that the
    Commission has done an excellent job of taking the statutory
    authorities that you have gotten from Congress and to
    effectuate the rollout of 5G.
        Based on what I have seen from the stakeholders in this
    space, we are moving much more quickly than I would have
    envisioned. We are going to have fixed wireless 5G in Houston
    as a test case at the end of this year.
        That is amazing when you can talk about speeds up to 3 to
    10 gigabits. That is amazing. So good work on getting that
    done. And that also, I think, sets the stage for a cost-
    effective way to roll out rural broadband eventually. And I
    appreciate the work on that, to take care of the 24 million
    people that have been widely talked about during this hearing.
        Commissioners Pai and O'Rielly, you both touched in your
    testimony about what you are doing in terms of making spectrum
    available for 5G, and part of that entails dealing with the FM
    radio stations that were left out during the original
    legislation.
        My bill that deals with that was addressed in the RAY
    BAUM'S Act, and also we set aside the appropriations for you to
    do that. You have moved quickly to have an NPRM at your next
    hearing on August the 2nd. Can you give us a preview of what we
    can expect in that regard, just in a few seconds?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I certainly hope we will see a
    unanimous vote next week on my proposal, but I don't want to
    speak for my colleagues. But it is important for us to take
    that authority you gave us and run with it as quickly as
    possible, get public input on what the right procedures should
    be to protect full power/Class A TV stations, FM radio
    stations, and others as a result of the incentive auction.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
        Moving on to another subject, believe it or not, one of the
    biggest complaints that I am receiving from my constituency,
    which is generally happy, is that they are upset about
    robocalls. And I don't think that has come up today. And I know
    you all are taking steps in terms of stopping the spoofing of
    phone numbers and so forth.
        Can you give us an update on where we stand in that regard?
    I guess who owns that among this group? Chairman Pai?
        Mr. Pai. I drew the short straw.
        Mr. Flores. You get all the big ones, don't you?
        Mr. Pai. We are doing a lot, Congressman. Thanks for the
    question. This is an issue that frustrates me. Even last week
    when I was on vacation, I spent several minutes on a phone with
    several robocallers, trying to figure out who they were, how
    they got my information, and the like.
        We are doing a lot. So over the last year and a half since
    I have been in office we have adopted a Notice of Inquiry on
    call authentication, essentially digital fingerprints for every
    single phone call. We have also in that regard blessed the
    private sector group called the NANC, which is looking at call
    authentication.
        Mr. Flores. Good.
        Mr. Pai. Secondly, we are taking steps to allow carriers to
    block spoofed calls, that is, calls that obviously aren't from
    your area code but nonetheless appear to be.
        Additionally, we are taking very aggressive action in terms
    of enforcement. Oh, sorry, I should mention also the reassigned
    number database, to allow those legitimate callers to know
    whether or not a number has been reassigned to somebody who
    doesn't want to be called.
        Additionally, on the back end, so to speak, taking very
    aggressive enforcement action. The largest fine ever imposed in
    the FCC's entire history was against a robocaller in Florida,
    about $120 million. Additional multimillion dollar fines there,
    too.
        I personally have spoken with some of my counterparts
    abroad, because a lot of these robocaller operations come from
    other countries and our jurisdiction only stops at the water's
    edge. And largely, they have been very willing to cooperate
    with us on that.
        Mr. Flores. Good.
        Do you need additional statutory authority at this stage of
    the game to be able to fight this epidemic?
        Mr. Pai. I think we have a fairly broad authority, but to
    the extent that Congress is willing to give us more tools in
    terms of statutes of limitations or the like, we would love to
    work with you on that.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Let us know what you think you need.
        I want to move to the mid-band spectrum in just the
    remaining minute that I have. Part of the mid-band spectrum of
    5.9 gigahertz was set aside for what was called dedicated
    short-range communications, or DSRC. That is a part of the
    spectrum that could be used for autonomous trucking, autonomous
    vehicles. You can have vehicle-to-vehicle communications,
    vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.
        Let me say this. Other people want to use that for
    unlicensed Wi-Fi and things like that to try to offload some
    data transmission from the SDR bands. This section seems to be
    congested or subject to future congestion. What do you see for
    the future of the 5.9 gigahertz part of the spectrum?
        Mr. Pai. It is a good question, Congressman. And
    Commissioners O'Rielly and Rosenworcel have long been
    advocating for this, as have Congresswoman Eshoo and I, in an
    op-ed we did a few years ago.
        We are working actively with our Office of Engineering and
    Technology at the FCC, along with the NTIA and NHTSA, the
    Department of Transportation and others, to figure out the way
    forward. So right now we are in phase I of testing. There has
    been a report that is in draft mode that we have shared with
    our Federal partners. We hope to be able to move forward on
    that soon.
        Ultimately, this has to be a collaborative effort. There
    are a lot of different agencies with different equities here.
    But ultimately, we want to make the highest-valued use of this
    spectrum.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        I have some more stakeholders at home that are working on
    this. The Texas Transportation Institute is trying to design
    the trucking system of the future, and so they are pretty
    worried about what happens in this band. So we will send some
    supplemental questions for you.
        Mr. Pai. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Collins, you are recognized.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, I will maybe spend my time talking
    about the, what do we want to call it, the 9-1-1 diversion, the
    Fee Integrity Act that we are putting forward. You were kind
    enough to come visit.
        In my area, we went to a PSAP in Niagara County, which does
    not have the latest technology. They are quite frustrated. They
    don't have the moneys to get there. And because of your visit,
    we got a lot of press on this, we shined the light on New York
    State's diversion.
        So maybe just for the record to get this out there, New
    York has about 13 million cell phones. With 20 million people,
    that kind of makes sense. Little kids may not have them. The
    States set their own fee, which in this case New York set the
    highest fee in the Nation at $1.20 per month for the cell
    phones, raising $185 million for the 9-1-1, what is supposed to
    be for the 9-1-1 service.
        But, as our bill would forbid, New York State is diverting
    about 40 percent of that money to the general fund to be wasted
    in Albany. And that is about $75 million a year that should be
    going to upgrade PSAPs, like we have in Niagara County that are
    in woeful need of it. Instead, the money is just being
    frittered away in Albany.
        So our bill would put that $75 million back on the table,
    not only for New York, New Jersey, Guam and a few others that
    seem to have no interest short of some laws that would forbid
    this.
        And I will tell you, most of the folks in our district were
    astounded to know that the 9-1-1 service charge that is on
    their cell phone bill every day was not all going for 9-1-1
    service. They did not have a subtraction for New York State
    diversion, a 9-1-1 fee and then New York State diversion.
        So your visit was well-received in a bipartisan way.
    Certainly, all of the counties which are struggling for funds
    and want to update, they want to know when a call comes in who
    is calling, where they are instantly so they can dispatch the
    people, that everything is moving together.
        And some of these PSAPs are decades old. And in some cases,
    Erie County where I live, there are literally a dozen or more
    PSAPs. They aren't even consolidated within a county, because
    this sheriff's department wants theirs, this city police wants
    theirs, some fire issues. Even though all the cell phone calls
    go to one place and there are not too many land lines, people
    are somewhat protective of it.
        So, again, I want to thank you for helping us shine a light
    on this. And to further put this forward, Niagara County, where
    we were, we have done some research since then, over the last 5
    years they have paid $10 million--this is not a large county--
    $10 million have gone into Albany as part of the $1.20 per
    phone.
        And while New York State diverted 40 percent, that still
    should have left $6 million to come back to Niagara County. But
    since each State makes its own rules--New York State I think
    tends to favor the downstate areas--only $2 million came back
    to Niagara County.
        So they paid in $10 million, with their residents thinking
    this $10 million is supposed to help our PSAP in Niagara
    County. Lo and behold, only $2 million came in.
        I can assure you, if that other $8 million, or even if the
    State diverted, if the remaining $4 million had come in, they
    would have upgraded that PSAP. Residents would be safer. Those
    working in those PSAPs, which is a very hard, frustrating job,
    would feel better when they go home at night.
        So with your input, I just want to point out again one of
    the things that this bill would do is to have the States not
    only stop diverting, but we would have the FCC better define
    what would be a use, because the minute they stop diverting
    they may say: Well, for public safety we are going to fix that
    pothole over here. Well, no, this is in need of some Federal
    oversight.
        And, again, if you want to make a couple of comments. I
    know I burned up most of the clock, but I wanted to get this
    all on the record.
        So Commissioner O'Rielly.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I can't thank you enough for your leadership
    on this issue. It was great to be home in Niagara County.
        Your point is well-taken in terms of the $10 million and
    only receiving back $2 million. So the consumers in my hometown
    are paying for it twice. Not only are they paying the 9-1-1
    fees that are being diverted, but then they are having to pay
    higher local residential taxes where the budgets are coming
    from. And so Niagara County, property taxes went up to fund the
    extra $8 million shortfall. And so they are being hit twice on
    this.
        And the New York government has made clear that they have
    no intention of changing this. Rhode Island has no interest
    right now in terms of solving their problem. New Jersey has the
    same problem. I was just talking to some folks from Guam with
    the same issues. We have some work to do on this front. I would
    love to continue to work with you under your leadershipon this.
        Mr. Collins. You shined a light on it. You were very
    helpful in that. Thank you all for your time today. This is
    also not a partisan issue whatsoever.
        So, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Public safety issue.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Costello, you are recognized.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to first just say, since I have been on this
    committee, I have done my best to delve into these issues, and
    they are very sophisticated, the things that each of you deal
    with on a day-to-day basis. And I just want to commend each of
    you for your expertise and the time that you dedicate to our
    country and to the FCC and to the industry for trying to get it
    right.
        With that, I want to ask Commissioner O'Rielly a question.
    Some of my colleagues on the other side of the dais today have
    articulated their interest in giving the FCC more of a presence
    on cybersecurity issues. While the concern over cybersecurity
    and supply chain vulnerability is certainly well-founded, it is
    my understanding that the FCC is not and should not play a lead
    role--I emphasize lead role--on identifying and mitigating
    these vulnerabilities. The FCC has a long tradition of
    deferring to expert agencies in the executive branch with the
    relevant intelligence and national security expertise. For
    example, the FCC routinely refers applications for transfers of
    certain licenses to an informal working group in the executive
    branch known as Team Telecom to review the national security
    implications of each such transaction.
        Do you believe the FCC has anything new or unique to add to
    our nation's cybersecurity work, or do the intelligence and
    national security agencies currently have a good handle on
    these issues?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So I have to be careful in terms of what I
    can say in the public, but I do believe that the authority has
    been provided by Congress--so it is not my opinion; it is in
    the statute, who the Congress gave authority to was to other
    agencies besides the FCC on the issue of cybersecurity. And so
    that is not something that I believe we have great authority to
    act on. If Congress changes that authority, that is one thing.
    But I do believe that we work well with what you reference Team
    Telecom. There is a need to reform Team Telecom, and I have
    advocated some reforms to that. But I do believe that we do not
    have the primary role. We do have functions that we can add to
    that conversation.
        Mr. Costello. And that is why I direct the question. The
    reforms that you have advocated, does that contemplate that you
    do have existing expertise that could be lent if the statute
    was broadened to enable you to do that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. The changes that I am seeking is a more
    formal structure for Team Telecom and addressing the timing of
    the decisions that are made by them and making sure that
    interaction between the FCC and Team Telecom actually is
    beneficial. We had applications that sat at Team Telecom under
    the last administration for quite a long time period. That is
    problematic for those that have applied. It doesn't mean we are
    undermining our national security one iota; it means we have a
    better, more efficient government.
        Mr. Costello. So, if I were to characterize while you agree
    that cybersecurity is a deeply serious issue, you do not feel
    that placing more jurisdiction within the FCC or having the FCC
    exercise additional jurisdiction, be it within the statute or
    broadening the statute, would be well placed because we have
    existing intelligence agencies that are already fully capable
    of doing that, and the FCC does not have anything additional to
    add. Is that correct? Did I just, like, say too much?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I would agree with an awful lot of what you
    said. We will continue to have conversations with those
    entities, but I think that they have a great deal of authority
    and are capable of providing us the information as it relates
    to applications that are submitted for our consideration.
        Mr. Costello. OK. I do have a question for Commissioner
    Carr, but does anyone have anything to add to that real
    briefly?
        OK. Telehealth, as you are aware, the prospect of
    telehealth holds exponential benefits for patients, families,
    and the healthcare system at large. But on the issue of access
    for rural America, Commissioner Carr, what can we expect to
    come out of the 3-year pilot program? What sort of job creation
    can rural communities expect from increased investment of the
    development of telehealth technologies?
        Mr. Carr. Thanks so much for the question.
        These are some of the things that we want to tee up in this
    notice of inquiry that is up for a vote. We have seen some
    great examples of telehealth, remote patient monitoring
    technologies, and a significantly improved outcome for low-
    income patients, including in rural America, as I mentioned in
    my testimony, in the Mississippi Delta.
        We have also seen significant cost savings. One program I
    mentioned in the Mississippi Delta, if just 20 percent of the
    diabetic population in the Magnolia State enrolled in that type
    of a program, we would be projected to save about $189 million
    in terms of the State's Medicaid expenses.
        Mr. Costello. Very good. Anyone else to add on that? Yes.
        Mr. Pai. I will simply add that I agree with everything
    Commissioner Carr said. A few months ago, President Kennedy's
    first FCC chairman, Newt Minow, and I wrote an op-ed, a
    bipartisan op-ed that emphasized the importance of
    telemedicine. And Commissioner Carr has expounded these
    principles very well. And if you look at some of the cases we
    identified--schools in Scottsville, Kentucky, that for the
    first time are able to treat students because there is no
    pediatrician in all of Allen County, Kentucky; if you look at
    the Veterans Affairs facilities in Lecanto, Florida, and Boise,
    Idaho, where they are providing veterans mental health
    consultations and experts around the country--if you look at
    all of these great things that the FCC is doing in
    collaboration with the public and private sectors, we could
    really dramatically improve health outcomes for millions of
    Americans. And here too I think we are only scratching the
    surface of its potential.
        And that has a direct impact on you as well. Instead of
    spending a lot of money on an emergency room visit, if we do
    proactive health treatments for some of these folks, we can
    save a lot of money for the system but, more importantly, save
    lives and improve health outcomes.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Seeing that there are no further--oh, Kinzinger came in.
    Oh, hi.
        Mr. Kinzinger. I bought you guys another 5 minutes. You are
    welcome.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. There you go. You are recognized.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you all for being here and all your service to
    the country and what you do. And I really appreciate it.
        I recently reintroduced the FCC Transparency Act, which
    would require the Commission to publish on its website any
    documents to be considered and voted upon at least 21 days in
    advance. In reality, it is simply a codification of the most
    importation aspects of the transparency process currently in
    place at the FCC.
        I realize that most of the Commission has weighed in
    publicly on my bill. But just to have your opinions as part of
    the record for this, I want to ask each of you, do you support
    the current transparency processes in place at the FCC, and by
    extension, do you support the FCC Transparency Act?
        We will start with you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for your
    leadership.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes. I concur. I agree wholeheartedly with
    your bill.
        Mr. Carr. Yes and yes. I think it codifies good government,
    and it is a step in the right direction.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, for items that are placed on our
    monthly agenda meeting.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, your actions to roll back the so
    called kid vid rules is born out of recognition that there is
    so much choice today in terms of children's programming.
    Whether it is on a tablet, an Apple TV, a Roku, or traditional
    broadcast TV service, you argue that the government need not
    mandate specific programing to any one outlet. And to be clear,
    I support families and children having access to good
    educational programing, but I do watch some TV, and I would
    argue that competition and consumer choice have never been
    greater, not only for children's programming but for all
    audiences.
        If you don't mind, briefly summarize your assessment of the
    video marketplace and choices available to consumers.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, thank you. I will say I only take issue
    with your use of the word rollback. We are trying to provide
    greater flexibility on the kid vid issue. As you highlighted,
    the marketplace has changed incredibly since 1990 when the
    statute, the Children's Television Act, was enacted, in 1996,
    when the rules by the FCC were put in place, and 2004, when
    they were modified extensively. So the world has changed, and
    we have a much broader marketplace. It is not just your three
    broadcast channels on Saturday morning. It is a plethora of
    cable options, and it is a ton of options for those over the
    top.
        Now there has been concern, what happens for the family
    that doesn't have any of that except broadcast television? And
    we have tried to address that in the NPRM and are going to take
    comments on giving the opportunity and the flexibility for
    broadcasters to move that signal that they have on a primary
    channel today to a multicast channel so programming will still
    be available to those over-the-air-only households. So I would
    argue it is to provide flexibility without harming children
    that we are seeking to do hopefully later this year.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Also, as a co-chair of the bipartisan Rural Broadband
    Caucus, my colleagues and I have worked diligently to close the
    digital divide between urban and rural. In the 21st century,
    broadband access is vital for employers, and employees,
    educators, and students, doctors, and patients and ag.
    Broadband access also allows people to participate in digital
    commerce, which provides a convenience to our rural
    constituents while bolstering both their local economy and the
    national economy.
        I am proud that my provisions and others I supported,
    including the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act and the
    Improving Broadband Access for Veterans Act, were included in
    the RAY BAUM'S Act and signed into law in March. And I am also
    proud that my fellow caucus co-chairs and I asked for and
    received robust resources for rural broadband infrastructure in
    the fiscal year 2018 omni, to the tune of $600 million in new
    money.
        While broadband and telecom work continues, we are taking
    big steps toward ensuring rural Americans have the tools that
    they need to flourish. So, Commissioner O'Rielly, you focused
    in your testimony on the various funding streams being
    allocated toward rural broadband. We all want to bridge the
    digital divide, but I share your concern about the coordination
    of funding between agencies. We have to ensure that we are not
    being redundant resources by pouring money into the same areas
    from different agencies.
        Do you have ideas on how these agencies can better
    coordinate and how best to prevent the government from
    subsidizing the overbuilding of areas that are currently
    served?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I do, and I would love to provide technical
    advice to your team to help. I really appreciate the
    commendable efforts in terms of the pilot program that was
    created as part of the consolidated appropriations and efforts
    that are ongoing in the farm bills today, very beneficial. We
    want to get to exactly what you highlighted--there is not the
    duplication, make sure the speeds do not become a mechanism to
    overbuild--and I think there are ways to draft that and include
    helpful language. It hasn't been adopted. In past efforts,
    people have asked for language to be provided; didn't quite get
    there. And I think there is that opportunity to correct that
    going forward.
        Mr. Kinzinger. In the last 30 seconds, I will just make a
    point, versus ask a question, which is, on the issue of
    stingrays or IMSI: There has been a lot of ink lately about the
    fact that some of these devices have been located around
    sensitive areas. We made multiple requests to multiple agencies
    about how do we deal with this issue.
        I would like to make the point that, whether it is FCC or
    other agencies, we will encourage everybody to work together to
    figure out how to address this situation because I think it is
    a concern from a national security perspective and something
    that ought to be addressed.
        So, with that, Madam Chair, I thank you. And I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. And now there
    are no further members, and we thank you all very much.
        Before we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
    following documents into the record: A letter from the Credit
    Union National Association; a letter from the Utilities
    Technology Council; a letter to the FCC on 9-1-1 fee diversion;
    a U.S. Telecom blog post; a letter to the FCC on TCPA; a letter
    from Anthem and its affiliated health plans; a GAO report on
    Lifeline \*\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ The information has been retained in committee files and can be
    found at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20180725/108599/HHRG-
    115-IF16-20180725-SD010-U10.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without objection so ordered and Mr. Doyle.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to make unanimous consent to add to the record
    the letter from wireless ISPs to the FCC regarding the CBRS
    band; Chairman Pai's tweet with the CEO of Wave Wireless; an
    article from Ars Technica regarding a letter and tweet made
    part of record; NTIA's letter to the FCC regarding copper
    retirement; and a letter from Senator Wyden to the FCC
    regarding Securus.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, members are
    reminded that they have 10 business days in which to submit
    additional questions.
        And we remind you that you have 10 business days in which
    to respond.
        Seeing no further business to come before the committee,
    the committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Susan W. Brooks

        I'd like to thank Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
    and all of the FCC Commissioners for being here today. Over the
    course of this year, this subcommittee has examined several
    areas that play a large role in the FCC's work to empower
    broadband and 5G deployment, streamline regulatory approaches,
    and ultimately reach our shared goal of closing the digital
    divide.
        I've been fortunate to have both Chairman Pai and
    Commissioner Carr visit my district. Chairman Pai and I visited
    a PSAP in Noblesville, Indiana, just outside of Indianapolis,
    last fall and discussed challenges and opportunities around
    NG9-1-1. I'm proud that Indiana is a leader in public safety
    communications. We already have text-to-9-1-1 statewide and our
    PSAPs are very engaged on NG9-1-1 efforts. Chairman Pai and I
    participated in a roundtable with 9-1-1 telecommunicators,
    public safety officials, first responders, and local elected
    officials where we discussed how Indiana can continue to
    enhance 9-1-1 systems and serve as a model for other states as
    we work to realize true Next Generation 9-1-1.
        Additionally, Commissioner Carr visited this past May and
    we visited Beck's Hybrids in small rural town in northern
    Hamilton County called Atlanta, Indiana. Becks' is the largest
    family-owned retail seed company in the Nation and are doing
    great work to deploy and pilot 5G in rural Indiana. 5G will
    start in more urban areas, but it has huge potential to help
    with rural broadband as well. We learned about how Beck's is
    collaborating with On-Ramp Indiana, a WISP based out of
    Noblesville, to bring 5G to rural areas and research exactly
    how 5G might work to help bridge the digital divide. Beck's
    built a precision ag management platform called Farm Server and
    worked with On-Ramp Indiana to build a wireless network from
    the ground up to power the Farm Server. It was a cool
    opportunity to see work like this being done! So again, thanks
    to both of you for coming to Indiana's Fifth District.
        I'd also like to thank Commissioner O'Rielly and his staff
    for working with me and my staff on the introduction of H.R.
    5700, the National Non-Emergency Mobile Number Act. A small,
    but important, provision that moves us one step closer to
    better interoperability between states with regard to public
    safety communications. I hope to see this commonsense,
    bipartisan bill pass into law.
        From 5G to NG9-1-1 to rural broadband, at the heart of
    innovation is the need for sound telecommunications policy. I'd
    like to thank Chairman Pai and the Commission for the steps you
    have already taken to modernize the FCC, increase transparency
    and accountability at the agency, free up spectrum, and all
    that you do. I look forward to our continued work together.

                                  ----------

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo

        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing
    today, and welcome to the full Commission.
        As Commissioner Rosenworcel pointed out in her testimony,
    it's been 9 months to the day since the FCC last testified
    before this Committee. A lot can happen in nine months,
    especially in the critically important and rapidly evolving
    tech sector.
        I want to set the record straight on a few things. It was
    stated today by the Chairman of the full Committee that it's
    fiction that the Republican majority has done great harm to the
    Internet and the consumers who rely on it. Each of us can hold
    an opinion, but we're not entitled to our own facts.
        Here are the facts: the FCC's majority spent the last year
    gutting communications consumer protections across the board.
    On December 14, 2017, the Commission voted to upend the net
    neutrality rules that had been tested in the Court twice. Those
    rules were supported on a bipartisan basis by the American
    people and businesses, but they were rescinded by the FCC.
        Similarly, in March 2017, a CRA swept through this
    Committee, authored by Chairwoman Blackburn, and then spread
    like a prairie fire through the rest of Congress, which removed
    all privacy protections on the Internet.
        The majority has done this harm not only by revoking high-
    profile policies like net neutrality, but also through quieter
    actions such as roll-backs of multiple media ownership rules
    and reducing eligibility for Lifeline beneficiaries at the
    behest of incumbent corporate interests.
        With each rollback of consumer protections, we've seen
    providers announce more mergers, increased price hikes, and
    more limited choices. Where choice does exist, consumers must
    rely on increasingly consolidated incumbent companies. And
    ultimately, consumers will pay the price.
        I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that recent actions
    by the FCC have prioritized corporations over consumers,
    undermining the fundamental public interest mission of the FCC.
        Congress has oversight jurisdiction of the Federal
    Communications Commission, pursuant to the Communications Act,
    which is an Act of Congress. This is an FCC oversight hearing
    which means that as Members of Congress, we must ensure that
    the Commission is doing its job--and that job first and
    foremost is to advance the public interest.
        Is Chairman Pai's FCC advancing the public interest of the
    United States of America? I believe that is the question that
    should be at the forefront of today's hearing.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]