[Senate Hearing 115-722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 115-722

                            OVERSIGHT OF THE
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            AUGUST 16, 2018
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-147 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024                   
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  JON TESTER, Montana
                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on August 16, 2018..................................     1
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     3
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................    26
Statement of Senator Blunt.......................................    28
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    31
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    34
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    36
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    38
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    40
Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    42
    Article dated March 5, 2018 from the Washington Post 
      entitled, ``Will the FCC's net neutrality repeal grind the 
      Internet to a halt?'' by Salvador Rizzo....................    43
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    48
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    51
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................    53
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    56
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    57
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    60
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    61
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    64
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    65
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    67
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    69

                               Witnesses

Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission.......     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    22

                                Appendix

Letter dated July 9, 2018 to Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice 
  President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH Network L.L.C. from 
  Donald K. Stockdale, Jr., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications 
  Bureau, Federal Communications Commission......................    73
Letter dated August 15, 2018 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill 
  Nelson from Samuel J. Marchio, Regional Vice President, Federal 
  Affairs, Head of Congressional Affairs, Athen, Inc.; Paul 
  Miller, LCP, PPC, Miller/Wenhold Capitol Strategies, American 
  Association of Healthcare Administrative Management; Justine 
  Handelman, Senior Vice President, Office of Policy and 
  Representation, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; and 
  Michelle Turano, VIce President, Public Policy and Government 
  Affairs, WellCare Health Plans, Inc............................    75
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Ajit Pai by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    77
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    77
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................    78
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    78
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    79
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    81
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    81
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    86
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    87
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    90
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    90
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................    92
    Hon. Maggie Hassan...........................................    95
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................    95
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    99
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Michael O'Rielly 
  by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    99
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................   100
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   100
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   101
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   101
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   105
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   105
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   106
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   106
    Hon. Maggie Hassan...........................................   106
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   107
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   110
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Brendan Carr by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   110
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................   110
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   111
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   111
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   112
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   114
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   115
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   115
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   116
    Hon. Maggie Hassan...........................................   116
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   116
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   119
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jessica 
  Rosenworcel by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   119
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   120
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   120
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   121
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   124
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   125
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   126
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................   126
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   126
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   128

 
                            OVERSIGHT OF THE
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2018

                                       U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Cruz, 
Moran, Sullivan, Capito, Gardner, Young, Nelson, Cantwell, 
Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Udall, Baldwin, 
Duckworth, Hassan, Cortez Masto, and Tester.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    The Chairman. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing 
on Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.
    At prior oversight hearings, I've stressed the importance 
of reauthorizing the FCC, something that hadn't been done in 
nearly 30 years. Reversing more than a quarter century of 
legislative action took time and effort, but I'm glad to say 
that with bipartisan, bicameral support, we've now accomplished 
this goal. Signed into law in March as part of the spending 
bill, the RAY BAUM's Act not only reauthorized the FCC, but it 
also included important spectrum, infrastructure, and broadband 
deployment provisions, including the MOBILE NOW Act, that will 
help pave the way for American leadership in the race for 5G.
    Under Chairman Pai's leadership, the FCC has also taken 
action in a number of areas to help free up more spectrum for 
wireless use, streamline broadband deployment, and bridge the 
digital divide, particularly in rural states like my home state 
of South Dakota. I commend the Commission for these reforms and 
look forward to discussing your vision for building on these 
important steps. Yet, as we all recognize, work remains to 
bring service to those areas that lack access to a viable 
broadband option.
    Among other challenges, rural areas of the country face 
continuing uncertainty and reductions in Universal Service 
Funding. I appreciate that under Chairman Pai, the Commission 
has finally undertaken the long overdue task of trying to 
ensure adequate support for the deployment of broadband in such 
areas.
    Nevertheless, providers need certainty as they plan for the 
deployments that will bring service to rural America now and in 
the decades to come. Put simply, the Commission needs to act 
this year to address funding for legacy and model-based, high-
cost support. Looking ahead, providers also need access to 
additional spectrum in the global race to deploy next-
generation wireless technology.
    As this Committee heard just a few weeks ago, the United 
States is engaged in a high-stakes race with China, South 
Korea, and others for leadership in 5G. It's critical that the 
United States win this race and the jobs and investment that 
will come with victory. The Commission has made real progress 
with high-band spectrum, and we look forward to related 
auctions beginning this year.
    At the same time, the Commission must act quickly to make 
more mid-band spectrum available for 5G before we fall further 
behind. And, as important as additional spectrum allocations 
will be for the next-generation broadband networks such as 5G, 
streamlining deployment processes is also critical.
    I applaud the Commission and, particularly, Commissioner 
Carr's efforts to remove barriers to broadband deployment. A 
number of states have adopted legislation to streamline the 
deployment of small wireless facilities, but the inherently 
borderless nature of broadband internet access warrants 
discussion of a national framework.
    The bipartisan Streamline Act that I introduced in June 
with Senator Schatz is meant to stimulate the discussion. 
Striking the right balance between accelerating broadband 
deployment and preserving local authority will be an ongoing 
focus of this committee. I look forward to hearing about the 
Commission's complementary efforts to accelerate deployment and 
how uniform national processes can help bring the benefits of 
5G to all areas and not just those where the cost equation 
makes deployment easier.
    In the end, American consumers will be the beneficiaries of 
these efforts. They are and must remain at the forefront of the 
FCC's decisionmaking across its many responsibilities. For 
instance, it's important that the FCC put consumers first as 
the media landscape continues to dramatically change and grow. 
The FCC must also continue its efforts to protect consumers 
from fraudulent and unwanted robocalls, which remain among the 
top consumer complaints.
    Now that the D.C. Circuit has found many Wheeler-era 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules unreasonably expansive, 
arbitrary, and capricious, the real work of protecting 
consumers and restoring reason to TCPA rules has begun. 
Consumers must have meaningful rights to control who can call 
them using automated calling technology. We must also ensure 
that those trying in good faith to comply with the law in 
reaching their patients and customers have a reasonable means 
of doing so without facing potentially devastating litigation. 
And we must make sure the Commission and law enforcement have 
the tools and incentives that they need to go after the 
scammers and thieves bombarding us with illegal and unwanted 
calls.
    Finally, before I close, I want to acknowledge the 
unprecedented measures that the Commission has taken under 
Chairman Pai's leadership to improve the openness and 
transparency of Commission processes. Publicly releasing drafts 
of items the FCC plans to vote on weeks prior to doing so has 
made both the process and products at the FCC better and more 
available to the American people.
    The same applies when the Commission makes mistakes. Along 
those lines, a recent FCC Inspector General report about an 
alleged attack on the Commission's comment filing system found 
that--and I quote--``the FCC relying on then Chief Information 
Officer David Bray's explanation of the events misrepresented 
facts and provided misleading responses to congressional 
inquiries related to this incident,'' end quote. As you know, 
it is absolutely critical that the information provided to 
Congress and the American people be correct. I look forward to 
hearing how the Commission will prevent such mistakes in the 
future.
    I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being here 
today and for working with the Committee on many of these 
important issues, and I look forward to a robust discussion. 
I'll now turn to Ranking Member Nelson for any remarks he'd 
like to make.
    Senator Nelson.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The FCC majority has certainly been busy in the last year 
and a half. You've been busy abdicating the agency's statutory 
authority to protect consumers on the internet. You've been 
busy paving the way for unprecedented broadcast consolidation. 
You've been busy proposing to eliminate rules to make quality 
educational content for kids readily available on free over-
the-air television. You've been busy gutting a program designed 
to help low-income Americans afford phone and internet 
services. The bottom line here is that the FCC has been busy 
removing consumer protections in almost every industry that you 
regulate.
    What we haven't seen is progress in actually closing the 
digital divide. Access to broadband is often the number one 
issue in rural counties like so many of the counties that I 
have just visited all across north central and north Florida, 
as well as in urban communities. Floridians still do not all 
have access to the affordable, high-speed Internet service, and 
in these areas, students lack the ability to complete their 
homework, small businesses can't compete, and social and 
political engagement is hampered, and these Floridians deserve 
the same opportunities as do Americans across the country that 
other Americans have with high-speed broadband.
    So on behalf of those Americans and those Floridians who 
are part of the 24 million on the wrong side of the digital 
divide, we need real solutions for getting quality affordable 
broadband in those areas, and I hope the FCC will move with 
dispatch. It's going to take more than lip service to solve the 
problem, and it's definitely not going to be solved by 
repealing essential protections to preserve the free and open 
internet. I want to remind you that those rules were popular 
with millions of Americans and were upheld in their entirety by 
the courts.
    Now, you all are observers of the political scene. You know 
that a bipartisan majority of the United States Senate has 
decisively repudiated that action through a congressional 
resolution of disapproval led by Senator Markey. That formal 
censure should give the FCC pause. It should spur regulatory 
humility in all actions taken by the agency. The American 
people expect more from our independent regulators.
    The FCC's actions directly impact the lives of so many. The 
FCC can make a difference when you focus on the greater public 
interest, not on fulfilling the wish list of a few large 
companies. The FCC has always had a supremely important role in 
our society, and we ought to be optimistic about the future, 
particularly as we go on and as you receive oversight by this 
committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
    I look forward to hearing from the members of the 
Commission. We'll start on my left and your right with the 
Chairman, Ajit Pai, followed by Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, 
Commissioner Brendan Carr, and Commissioner Jessica 
Rosenworcel. So thank you all so much for being here, and we 
certainly look forward to hearing from you and having the 
opportunity to interact with you a little bit at the conclusion 
of your remarks.
    So, Chairman Pai, please proceed.

             STATEMENT OF HON. AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, 
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Chairman Pai. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 
Nelson, and members of the Committee. Thank you for holding 
this hearing. I appreciate this opportunity to update you on 
the work of the FCC.
    But before doing so, I would like to thank this Committee 
for the assistance it has given our agency. Earlier this year, 
as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress passed 
the MOBILE NOW Act, which originated in this Committee. MOBILE 
NOW requires the FCC to move forward with freeing up 255 
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum for mobile and 
fixed wireless broadband, including spectrum for unlicensed 
use. This new spectrum will be critical for the rollout of 5G 
services, the next generation of wireless connectivity.
    The FCC is taking your lead when it comes to 5G. This year, 
we are starting the 28 gigahertz band auction, followed 
immediately by an auction of the 24 gigahertz band. In the 
second half of 2019, we intend to hold an auction of spectrum 
in the 37, 39, and 47 gigahertz bands. Combined, these auctions 
will make almost 5 gigahertz of spectrum available and advance 
America's global leadership in 5G, and none of this would have 
been possible without this Committee's leadership.
    The FCC is also hard at work addressing our top priority, 
closing the digital divide. We are doing this in two basic 
ways: reforming our subsidy programs and modernizing our 
regulations. With respect to the first, last month, we kicked 
off our Connect America Fund, Phase II, reverse auction, which 
will provide up to $2 billion in the next decade to bring fixed 
broadband to unserved parts of rural America. Earlier this 
year, we dedicated $500 million in additional funding to assist 
small carriers deploying rural broadband, and we boosted 
telemedicine's promise by increasing funding in our rural 
healthcare program by $171 million a year, a 43 percent 
increase, as well as adjusting the cap going forward to account 
for inflation.
    With respect to modernizing our rules, we are 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 large towers. We've 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 the past to the resilient 
networks of tomorrow. We are making it easier and cheaper for 
providers, especially competitive entrants, to get access to 
utility poles with one-touch, make-ready rules, and we have 
returned to the successful, light-touch regulatory framework 
under which the Internet flourished in the United States from 
1996 until 2015.
    Overall, our policies to promote broadband deployment and 
close the digital divide 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. 
Another recent report showed that broadband network investment 
in the United States increased by $1.5 billion to $3 billion in 
2017 alone, 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.
    To give you just one example, VTel is a small internet 
service provider based in Springfield, Vermont. The company 
reported recently that it, ``committed $4 million to purchase 
equipment and services to upgrade its LTE core, to enable voice 
roaming and 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 concluded--and I 
quote again--``We are quite optimistic about the future, and 
the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.'' In 
short, we are on the right track.
    Finally, I would like to address a story that has received 
a lot of attention over the past 24 hours. Last Friday, the 
U.S. Government sued in a Texas Federal district court to 
enforce a $15,000 forfeiture order issued by the FCC's 
Enforcement Bureau in 2014 against a pirate radio station in 
Austin, Texas. Normally, our pirate radio enforcement efforts 
don't make national news, but this one has, because the pirate 
radio station in question was airing Alex Jones' show. Some 
have criticized the FCC for removing Mr. Jones from the 
airwaves in Austin, allegedly because of the content of his 
program. Many others have praised us for allegedly taking that 
same action.
    It is important to make clear that our pirate radio 
enforcement efforts, including this one, have nothing to do 
with the content that pirate radio stations air. We act against 
pirate radio stations because they are violating the law by 
broadcasting on the FM airwaves without a license. Indeed, in 
this case, the operators of the FM stations received a warning 
from the FCC that they were broadcasting without a license, yet 
refused to come into compliance with the law. We will always 
follow the law.
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, members of the 
Committee, thank you once again for holding this hearing. I 
look forward to working with you and your staffs in the time to 
come on these important issues.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Pai follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate this 
opportunity to update you on the work of the Federal Communications 
Commission to advance the public interest.
    But before doing so, I'd like to thank this Committee for the vital 
assistance that it has provided the FCC. Earlier this year, as part of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the MOBILE NOW Act was combined 
with the House's RAY BAUM'S Act and enacted into law. That 
legislation--in particular the MOBILE NOW Act portion, which originated 
in this Committee and was introduced by Chairman Thune--contained a 
host of provisions that are already having a positive impact on the 
Commission's work. As for the MOBILE NOW section, we are required to 
move forward with freeing up 255 MHz of Federal and non-Federal 
spectrum for mobile and fixed wireless broadband, including spectrum 
for unlicensed use. This new spectrum will be critical for the rollout 
of 5G services. Additionally, by addressing coordination between the 
FCC and the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, 
the legislation helps facilitate 5G infrastructure deployment on 
Federal lands and encourages more efficient deployment in rights-of-
way. In the next section, I'd like to describe what the Commission has 
already done to follow up on many of these measures.
    United States Leadership in 5G.--Perhaps one of the most important 
provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act was a correction to a 
technical problem involving deposits for spectrum auctions that 
prevented the Commission from moving forward with large auctions. With 
this fix in place, the FCC is moving forward aggressively to hold 
auctions and move a substantial amount of spectrum into the commercial 
marketplace. On November 14, we plan on beginning our 28 GHz band 
auction, which will be quickly followed by our 24 GHz band auction. 
Then, in the second half of 2019, I intend to hold a single auction of 
spectrum in the 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands. Combined, these 
auctions will make 4.95 GHz of spectrum available to the private sector 
and advance America's global leadership in the deployment of 5G, the 
next generation of wireless connectivity. None of this would have been 
possible without this Committee's leadership.
    The FCC is also moving forward on other fronts to ensure that 
America leads in 5G. In July, we proposed to make more mid-band 
spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for flexible terrestrial 
use. In June, we proposed making spectrum in the 26 and 42 GHz bands 
available for flexible terrestrial use. In May, the Commission proposed 
to allow more efficient and effective use of spectrum in the 2.5 GHz 
band by increasing flexibility for existing Educational Broadband 
Service licensees and providing new opportunities for educational 
entities, rural Tribal Nations, and commercial entities to access 
unused portions of the band. Earlier this year, we proposed in our 
Spectrum Horizons proceeding to allow for greater experimentation in 
very-high spectrum bands above 95 GHz. Commissioner O'Rielly is taking 
the lead in working with staff to conclude the 3.5 GHz proceeding in 
the coming months. And I've committed to putting forth a proposal in 
the fall to make greater use of the 6 GHz band.
    With respect to low-band spectrum, the transition in the 600 MHz 
band following the incentive auction is proceeding apace. We've granted 
wireless licenses to the vast majority of auction winners, and T-Mobile 
has already started offering service in the band in more than 900 
cities and towns in 32 states. Moreover, the additional funding that 
Congress recently provided the Commission in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act will ensure that we are able to fully reimburse 
full-power and Class A television stations for their reasonable 
relocation expenses and provide funding to LPTV stations, television 
translators, and FM stations that are adversely affected by the repack, 
as well as funding for consumer education.
    Of course, American leadership in 5G is not just about spectrum 
policy; getting infrastructure policy right is critical as well. We can 
make all of the spectrum in the world available for 5G service, but it 
won't make a difference if the physical infrastructure isn't in place 
to carry this traffic. And the private sector will need to install a 
lot of physical infrastructure because the wireless networks of the 
future will be much more densified than the networks of today.
    That's why I asked Commissioner Carr to lead the Commission's 
efforts to modernize our wireless infrastructure rules. Many of our 
regulations were designed for 200-foot towers, not small cells that can 
be the size of pizza boxes. That needed to change. And thanks to 
Commissioner Carr's leadership, that is changing. Earlier this year, 
for example, we decided that small cells would no longer have to go 
through the same Federal historic preservation and environmental review 
processes that were designed for traditional large towers. This common-
sense step will expedite the deployment of small cells, cut the cost of 
deployment, and allow for the faster rollout of 5G. I'd also like to 
thank Commissioner O'Rielly for his strong support of this important 
initiative.
    Our wireless infrastructure efforts dovetail with our initiatives 
to promote the deployment of wireline infrastructure, which is 
essential to carry the massive amounts of 5G traffic that we 
anticipate. I'll now turn to the latter.
    Closing the Digital Divide.--From the beginning of my tenure as 
head of the agency, I've made clear that my top priority would be to 
close the digital divide. I take this issue personally, having grown up 
in a small town in rural Kansas. And in order to inform our efforts on 
how to connect unserved areas, I've travelled to 32 states and two U.S. 
territories--I'll visit three more states next week--and have logged 
nearly 9,000 road miles to learn about the communications needs of 
communities around the country. I've seen places that are using the 
Internet to open new doors of opportunity as well as towns that are 
being bypassed by the digital revolution. In the time to come, I'll 
continue to visit these areas and keep the Commission's eyes focused on 
how we can find innovative ways to address this critical challenge.
    I'm pleased to report that the FCC has been taking significant 
steps to expand broadband deployment in previously unserved parts of 
our country. In particular, we're modernizing our regulations and 
reforming our Federal subsidy programs. I'll take each in turn.
    First: regulatory modernization has been a hallmark of this 
Commission. Broadband networks don't have to exist. The heavier the 
regulatory burden, the less likely it is that companies will take the 
risks, raise the capital, and hire the crews to build high-speed 
networks. We simply have to cut through the regulatory red tape and 
make it easier for these companies to invest in those networks.
    And that's exactly what we're doing. Among other things, we've 
updated our rules to make it easier for companies to transition away 
from maintaining the fading copper networks of yesterday and toward 
investing in the resilient networks of tomorrow. We're also taking 
action to make it easier and cheaper for providers to get access to 
utility poles and conduits. At our August 2 meeting, for example, we 
adopted a bold, forward-thinking proposal called ``one-touch-make-
ready.'' This proposal will substantially reduce the time and expense 
of preparing poles for new attachments by making it easier for one 
entity to do the work necessary to attach new broadband equipment to 
utility poles (as opposed to having multiple entities do so 
sequentially). Many broadband providers, particularly competitive 
entrants, have told the FCC that the time and expense of attaching 
equipment to poles are significant barriers to broadband deployment. 
Adopting one-touch-make ready rules--rules recommended by our Broadband 
Deployment Advisory Committee--is a significant step toward solving 
that problem.
    The Commission has also given the green light to companies that 
want to send a large number of satellites into low-Earth orbit to 
provide high-speed broadband. These new networks promise much faster 
and more reliable satellite broadband services and could help us reach 
the hardest-to-serve areas.
    Additionally, we've returned to the successful light-touch 
regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished in the United 
States from 1996 to 2015. Under the heavy-handed regulations adopted by 
the prior Commission in 2015, network investment declined for two 
straight years, the first time that had happened outside of a recession 
in the broadband era. But we've now abandoned that failed policy. In 
the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was adopted last December, 
we stopped regulating the Internet with 1934 rules designed for the Ma 
Bell telephone monopoly. We strengthened our transparency rules so that 
broadband providers are required to disclose more information about 
their network management practices. And we restored the authority of 
the Federal Trade Commission, our Nation's premier consumer protection 
agency, to police the practices of Internet service providers--
authority the prior Commission had stripped from the FTC in 2015.
    At the time that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order was adopted, 
there were many hysterical predictions of doom. We were told that it 
would be the destruction of the Internet, or as some outlets put it, 
``the end of the Internet as we know it.'' And the official Twitter 
account for Senate Democrats made the following assertion (one word per 
line in the actual tweet): ``If we don't save net neutrality, you'll 
get the Internet one word at a time.'' This claim was baseless when it 
was made. The Washington Post's Fact Checker gave it Three Pinocchios 
and found that it ``conveys the false impression that a slowdown is 
imminent unless net neutrality rules are restored,'' adding that ``we 
can't help but feel that we've spilled a lot of pixels here analyzing 
something that simply hasn't happened.''
    The claim remains false today. It has now been 67 days since the 
repeal of the previous Administration's utility-style Internet 
regulations took effect. Far from ending or being delivered one word at 
a time, the Internet remains open and free. Both the FCC and the FTC 
are protecting consumers--the former through its transparency rule and 
the latter through its enforcement of Section 5 of the FTC Act (which 
prohibits ``[u]nfair methods of competition'' and ``unfair or 
deceptive'' business practices). And we now have a regulatory framework 
that is encouraging the private sector to make the investments 
necessary to bring better, faster, and cheaper broadband to more 
Americans.
    The overall positive impact of our regulatory modernization efforts 
was brought home recently by VTel, a small Internet service provider 
based in Springfield, Vermont. Unsolicited, VTel recently wrote that it 
``can assure that regulating broadband like legacy telephone service 
would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its broadband 
network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.'' And as 
a result of recent FCC policies, VTel ``committed $4 million to 
purchase equipment and services from Ericsson to upgrade its LTE core 
to enable voice roaming and Wi-Fi calling to all our Vermont rural 
subscribers and to simultaneously begin rolling out faster mobile 
broadband that will start our transition to 5G.'' The company concluded 
that it ``is quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is 
a significant reason for our optimism.'' I have attached VTel's letter 
to this statement so that you can see for yourself how our decisions, 
including light-touch Internet regulation, are helping boost investment 
and close the digital divide.
    Second: we're reforming our Federal subsidy program, known as the 
Universal Service Fund. On July 24, for example, the Commission 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 in rural America. Through this first-of-its-kind 
multi-round reverse auction, a wide variety of providers, including 
rural electric cooperatives, fixed wireless providers, incumbent local 
exchange carriers, cable companies, and satellite providers are 
competing for universal support funding to expand broadband deployment. 
The reverse auction mechanism will ensure that this money is 
distributed efficiently and that we get the most bang for our buck. A 
lot of work went into getting this auction off the ground, and I'd like 
to thank the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force for all its efforts on 
this essential project.
    On the universal service front, we've also taken other significant 
steps. Earlier this year, for example, we provided about $500 million 
in additional funding to assist rate-of-return carriers in expanding 
broadband deployment in rural America and sought public input on the 
future steps we should take so that these carriers have sufficient 
resources to build out broadband. We also raised the cap in our Rural 
Health Care program by $171 million a year and agreed to adjust the cap 
in future years to account for the impact of inflation. And at our most 
recent Open Meeting on August 2, we unanimously adopted a Notice of 
Inquiry to examine a $100 million pilot program to expand telemedicine, 
spearheaded by Commissioner Carr. These steps will enable more rural 
patients, specifically low-income Americans, to access telemedicine 
through high-speed broadband.
    Incidentally, one aspect of the digital divide that we are working 
to solve involves rural call completion. Too often, rural Americans 
can't be confident that calls made to or by them will be completed. 
Whether consumers experience false ring tones, dropped calls, 
inaccurate caller ID information, or other problems, rural call 
completion issues can have serious repercussions, potentially impacting 
quality of life, economic opportunity, and public safety in affected 
communities. That's why this week the Commission adopted an order to 
tackle this problem by continuing to implement the Improving Rural Call 
Quality and Reliability Act of 2017. Specifically, it creates a 
registry for intermediate providers transmitting voice communications 
and requires that providers who select the initial long-distance route 
typically only use registered intermediate providers. The FCC's aim 
reflects yours: to ensure that every call in this country is completed, 
including those made to and from rural America.
    Public Safety.--In recent months, the Commission has taken many 
important steps to improve public safety. A principal focus has been on 
improving our Nation's alerting systems: the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). Earlier this year, for 
example, we adopted new rules to improve the geographic targeting of 
WEA alerts. The Commission heard from many public safety officials that 
alerts being transmitted to an overly broad geographic area were 
undermining the efficacy of the WEA system. Either public safety 
officials were unwilling to send certain alerts because they could not 
be sufficiently targeted, or consumers were beginning to ignore alerts 
because too many they received were not relevant to them. In order to 
address this problem, we will require wireless providers participating 
in WEA to improve geographic targeting so that alerts do not overshoot 
the affected area by more than one-tenth of a mile. Participating 
wireless providers must also now support the use of ``clickable'' 
embedded links in alerts so that consumers are able to easily access 
additional emergency information. And we have adopted rules to add a 
new ``Blue Alert'' to the EAS to notify the public about threats to law 
enforcement and help apprehend dangerous suspects.
    As you know, in January, the Nation received a stark reminder about 
the dangers posed by false emergency alerts when the State of Hawaii 
issued a false ballistic missile alert on a Saturday morning. Such 
false alerts are entirely unacceptable because they cause widespread 
panic and undermine public confidence in our alerting systems. 
Immediately following this false alert, our Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau leaped into action and launched a thorough 
investigation of what went wrong and what could be done to stop such an 
incident from happening again. Earlier this year, the Bureau issued a 
report that contained a variety of important recommendations for 
preventing false alerts and minimizing the impact of those that do 
occur. Since that time, the Bureau has been taking steps to make state 
and local alert originators aware of these recommendations. And just 
this past July, the Commission adopted new rules implementing some of 
the Bureau's recommendations and seeking comment on others. I know that 
this body, too, has been active on this front, and specifically want to 
thank Senator Schatz for his leadership to ensure that no community 
endures the panic that gripped his state months ago.
    Another important public safety priority is disaster response and 
recovery. Last year's hurricanes caused substantial damage in many 
parts of our country. And the impact was particularly severe in Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The FCC immediately recognized that 
the situation on the islands would be unlike other hurricane recovery 
operations and therefore took unprecedented efforts to assist with the 
restoration of communications networks. Most notably, we made available 
over $70 million in frontloaded universal service funding for carriers 
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to expedite recovery efforts 
in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Earlier this 
year, the Commission voted to create two funds--the Uniendo a Puerto 
Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund--to continue to provide much-needed 
funding for restoration efforts. In the short term, we agreed to make 
available another $64 million for the restoration of communication 
networks and to convert the advanced funding we provided last year into 
new funding by declining to recover those amounts from future universal 
service payments. We also sought comment on providing almost $900 
million in medium-term and long-term funding to expand fixed and mobile 
broadband connectivity in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our 
goal should not be just to restore the communications networks that 
served the islands prior to last year's hurricanes. Instead, we want to 
create networks that will be more resilient when future storms hit and 
to expand high-speed Internet access to more Puerto Ricans and Virgin 
Islanders. In March, I was pleased to visit Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands to meet with public and private sector leaders and see 
first-hand the status of recovery efforts. I look forward to continuing 
to coordinate the FCC's efforts with our partners in Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands as we keep working on this important issue.
    Finally, I want to mention the Commission's efforts to end 911 fee 
diversion at the state level. Over this past year, Commissioner 
O'Rielly has taken the lead in highlighting the problem of 911 fee 
diversion--a practice that saps funding from the ongoing work of public 
safety answering points and first responders and undermines our 
Nation's investments in next-generation 911. His use of the bully 
pulpit has already gotten real results, leading some states to change 
their practices and others to grapple with the steps needed to end 
diversion. Unfortunately, not all states have followed; some have 
continued to divert public safety funds for causes other than public 
safety, and New York has refused even to provide the FCC information on 
how it is treating these funds.
    Before concluding, I would like to thank the outstanding, 
professional, and hardworking staff at the Commission. In the year and 
a half that I've led the agency, the FCC has been exceptionally 
productive. For example, we've adopted 125 items at our monthly 
meetings, compared to 100 items in the three years before I became 
Chairman. None of this would have happened without the hard work, 
expertise, and professionalism of our staff. Whether we are discussing 
making more spectrum available for advanced wireless services, 
reforming our infrastructure rules, closing the digital divide, 
protecting public safety, or promoting American leadership abroad, our 
staff are the ones who deserve the credit for all that we've been able 
to achieve in just 19 months.
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and the Members of this 
Committee, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify this 
afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your 
questions.
                               Attachment
                                                       May 25, 2018
Senator Patrick Leahy,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Leahy,

    I hope this note finds you and Marcela well.
    I feel compelled to write after seeing a video clip of your 
questions to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai during the recent Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing. While I understand your interest 
in seeking to quantify the effects of the FCC's policies on broadband 
investment and deployment--no easy task to be sure--I can offer the 
experiences of Vermont Telephone and VTel Wireless (collectively, 
VTel), which Chairman Pai mentioned in his testimony, as a testament to 
thepositive impacts of the current FCC's regulatory policies.
    As you know, VTel was the first company to offer Internet access in 
Vermont. We were first in Vermont with GigE to homes. We built 
America's first 100 percent 4G LTE wireless broadband network, 
integrating voice and data while also supporting E911. We routinely 
post some of the fastest Internet speeds and highest customer 
satisfaction ratings in the State.
    Each year, VTel must invest to operate and grow its wireline and 
mobile broadband networks. The FCC under Chairman Pai's leadership has 
created a positive regulatory climate for VTel to make such 
investments. For example, the FCC has taken steps to reduce regulatory 
barriers to the installation of cell towers and smaller cell sites. 
These policies encouraged VTel to commit to build a new cell tower in 
March 2018, which will improve wireless broadband service to 
Whitingham, Vermont. Similarly, in April 2018, VTel turned up three new 
500 Mbps microwave paths to boost wireless backhaul to Wardsboro and 
Dover, Vermont.
    Later this year, the FCC will conduct its Connect America Fund 
Phase II reverse auction in which VTel seeks to participate. If 
successful in that auction, VTel will be able to use auction funds to 
help subsidize the cost of extending the reach of its networks to 
deploy higher speed broadband and voice services in additional rural 
areas of Vermont that are otherwise uneconomic for most wired and 
wireless carriers to serve. Importantly, there are relatively few areas 
in ruralVermont where broadband service is not currently available, 
primarily because of the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 (ARRA), pursuant to which VTel received awards allowing the 
company to deploy state-of-the-art wireline and mobile broadband 
networks where such deployment would not otherwise be possible.
    Chairman Pai's FCC also has eliminated the overhang associated with 
a number of heavy-handed regulatory initiatives launched by the FCC 
under then Chairman Wheeler, such as regulating competitive business 
data services and imposing onerous service discontinuance rules. These 
initiatives frustrated the deployment of IP technologies and required 
that VTel spend significant sums on regulatory lawyers and personnel to 
ensure compliance--sums that would be unavailable to VTel to invest in 
its broadband network and services.
    As far as net neutrality is concerned, which was a subject of your 
questioning of Chairinan Pai, VTel is committed to an open Internet. 
However, whatever your views on the need for or wisdom of net 
neutrality rules, I can assure that regulating broadband like legacy 
telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in 
its broadband network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite 
effect.
    You asked Chairman Pai to give tangible examples of investment into 
rural broadband as a result of recent FCC policies. I can tell you 
that, just days ago, VTel committed $4 million to purchase equipment 
and services from Ericsson to upgrade its 4G LTE core to enable voice 
roaming and Wi-Fi calling to all our Vermont rural subscribers and to 
simultaneously begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will 
start our transition to 5G. This commitment represents VTel's 
largestsingle technology investment since the capital invested in 
connection with VTel's ARRA awards, and one of the largest in the 
history of our company.
    There is never enough capital, and the challenges of competing 
against larger and more established companies in rural Vermont remain 
enormous. However, VTel is quite-optimistic about the future, and the 
current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.
    I hope it is clear this note is sent with the deepest respect I 
have long held for you personally, and for your decades of commitment 
to the development of rural Vermont broadband. If you would like to 
discuss any of these matters, it would be a pleasure to come to 
Washington at your convenience.
            Sincerely,
                                          Dr. Michel Guite,
                                                  Chairman and CEO,
                                        Vermont Telephone Company, Inc.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Pai.
    Commissioner O'Rielly.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Commissioner O'Rielly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start by extending my thanks to Chairman Thune, 
Ranking Member Nelson, and the members of the Committee for the 
honor to engage with you about the decisions and workings of 
the Federal Communications Commission. Today, I'd like to 
highlight a few critical issues that have been a focus of mine.
    First, I firmly believe that the ongoing problem with 9-1-1 
fee diversion by certain states and territories must end once 
and for all. Such diversion, beyond deceiving the rate payers, 
has real consequences for the public safety community and the 
American people in need of critical emergency assistance at 
some of the darkest moments of their lives.
    While the work Commissioner Rosenworcel and I have led has 
resulted in several states and territories clarifying their 
reported diversion or making commitments to prevent a 
reoccurrence, not every state or territory has been a success 
story. Accordingly, I suggest additional action such as Federal 
legislation will be necessary to address recalcitrant states. I 
understand this Committee may be looking at crafting such a 
bill, and I would be pleased to help in any way possible.
    Second, the Commission is focused on taking every step 
necessary 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. While efforts to provide other agencies such as the 
Rural Utility Service at the Department of Agriculture with new 
Federal money are commendable, there is a potential for certain 
problems to arise.
    Fundamentally, I believe that Federal funding should be 
targeted to those 14 million-plus Americans without broadband 
today. 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.
    Third, I previously brought to this Committee's attention 
my concerns regarding the inter-workings of the ITU. Based on 
my firsthand experiences and many conversations with experts 
very engaged in ITU issues, the organization faces real 
problems, ranging from mission creep and bureaucratic overreach 
to basic inefficiencies and blatant cronyism. I believe the ITU 
can be beneficial for U.S. interests, and I think it can serve 
an important function. But as I outlined in my written 
testimony, change is needed to ensure it remains a viable 
institution.
    In the end, the United States must pursue the best course 
of action to meet its own spectrum needs. It is up to the 
global community to either increase the likelihood of ITU's 
success or risk further fragmentation and like nations pursuing 
spectrum policy elsewhere.
    Last, turning to spectrum policy, the Commission has been 
hard at work ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available for 
the 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 the C-band 
downlink is an attractive option for this purpose as it 
provides sufficient, contiguous spectrum and the largest 
satellite operators are receptive to reducing their spectrum 
footprints using a market-based spectrum reallocation approach.
    Additionally, I have previously proposed several ideas to 
improve the efficiency of government spectrum users. While I 
hope they will be given appropriate consideration, both 
Commissioner Rosenworcel and I have proposed, at minimum, 
putting a market value on current Federal spectrum holdings to 
ensure they are appropriately quantified. If implemented, it 
would allow policymakers to consider it an additional factor 
when reviewing the spectrum holdings of the Federal Government.
    Finally, I want to commend the Committee for introduction 
of legislative efforts related to communications policy that, 
if enacted, would be incredibly helpful. These include Chairman 
Thune's and Senator Schatz's STREAMLINE Act, Senator Gardner's 
and Senator Hassan's AIRWAVES Act, and Senator Wicker's and 
Senator Schatz's SPECTRUM NOW Act.
    I thank the Committee for holding this hearing, and I look 
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Commissioner O'Rielly follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Thank you for the honor to appear before you today. My thanks to 
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and the members of this 
Committee for the opportunity to engage with you on many important 
issues and answer any questions you may have about the decisions and 
workings of the Federal Communications Commission.
    At the outset, I want to commend Senators Thune and Schatz on their 
introduction of the ``Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And 
Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance Small 
Cell Deployment Act.'' This bipartisan bill will help set the stage for 
5G deployment by putting in place exceptionally reasonable processes 
and timeframes to review small cell applications and ensuring that any 
fees charged are based on actual and direct costs. Earlier this month, 
the Commission took its third step in our larger effort to expedite 
broadband deployment by approving our one-touch make-ready (OTMR) 
order, and I look forward to additional actions later this year on 
Commissioner Carr's work to further extend wireless buildout relief. 
The STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act sends a strong, bipartisan 
signal to the entire communications community that we must continue to 
remove unnecessary construction and application barriers in order to 
greatly aid the private sector expansion of broadband services 
throughout America, producing a more competitive and capable nation.
    This, of course, is not the only important legislation that 
Committee members have put forth this Congress. I also commend the 
Committee for its part in the passage of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, 
which included the MOBILE NOW Act.
    Let me also take this opportunity to applaud Senators Gardner and 
Hassan, as well as their cosponsors on this Committee, Senators 
Johnson, Cortez Masto, Young, and Tester, on the AIRWAVES Act. The 
bill's firm spectrum deadlines and call for auctions of key bands is of 
critical importance. Moreover, I congratulate Senators Wicker, Schatz, 
Moran, and Udall for introducing the SPECTRUM NOW Act, which would 
ultimately fund spectrum research, development, and planning 
activities.
ITU Reform
    Back in 2016, I brought to this Committee's attention my concerns 
regarding the workings of the International Telecommunications Union 
(ITU), which were based on my first-hand experiences at the 2015 World 
Radiocommunication Conference. As I attended other international 
conferences since then, it became more apparent that the ITU faces real 
problems, ranging from mission creep and bureaucratic overreach to 
basic ineffectiveness and blatant cronyism. I believe the ITU can be 
beneficial for U.S. interests and think that it can serve an important 
function. But, change is needed to ensure it remains a viable 
institution. I recently suggested several ITU reforms in an Op-Ed, 
which I outline here.
    First, the ITU needs to focus on its main missions--and primarily 
on global spectrum harmonization--instead of allowing member states to 
veer the discourse and regulatory activity towards the shiny new 
technologies of the day, such as the Internet, cybersecurity, and 
drones. For example, the recent ITU ``Global Symposium for Regulators'' 
focused on the issues of privacy, data security, IoT, and artificial 
intelligence. While important, these are outside on the ITU's mission. 
Meanwhile, there appeared to be little discussion of spectrum policy, 
which should be of great importance to a group of global telecom 
regulators. Therefore, I suggest that there should be some primacy 
established--either in terms of financial resources and/or mission 
attention--with regards to issues explored by the ITU. Specifically, no 
fewer than eighty percent of all expenditures or events must be 
centered on spectrum policies.
    Second, the ITU has a staffing problem. Staff dictates the 
priorities of the ITU to perpetuate their personal views and to 
preserve their own jobs, operating without sufficient oversight or 
control by elected leadership. They choose the projects to pursue; hire 
the technical consultants who tend to reconfirm their desired outcome; 
frame debates to be held; and so much more. These issues can be easily 
corrected through such procedural safeguards as preventing staff from, 
among other things, self-dealing, making decisions in an isolated 
manner, or committing funds without oversight; requiring detailed 
budgeting; and ensuring that more decisions are made by member states 
rather than through delegation.
    This leads me to my third point: new, visionary leadership is 
needed. Elected leadership positions at the ITU operate on the get 
along and get promoted premise. Instead of electing the most qualified 
person, member countries tend to vote for the next person in line from 
the perceived lower rung. Talented outsiders with fresh perspectives 
are needed to rectify management flaws, provide new ideas on its 
fundamental charges, and do the hard work to get critical spectrum 
bands realigned and put to their highest use. To accomplish this, the 
ITU needs to adopt a policy that I strongly disagree with when it comes 
to domestic politics: defined term limits for leadership positions.
    In the end, the United States will pursue the best course of action 
to meet its own spectrum needs. It is up to the global community to 
either increase the likelihood of ITU success--by adopting many of the 
ideas presented above and others as well--or risk further fragmentation 
and like nations pursuing spectrum policy elsewhere.
Federal Broadband Efforts & Potential Pitfalls
    As I recently stated, the Commission is focused on taking every 
necessary and appropriate step to provide all Americans the opportunity 
to access broadband services. According to the last FCC report, at 
least 14 million Americans do not have access to broadband of 
sufficient quality to meet our standards. From our subsidy programs to 
removing deployment barriers to reducing unnecessary regulatory 
burdens, the Commission is working very hard to address these unserved 
households.
    At the same time, the Commission's efforts should be examined in 
parallel with programs by other Federal entities. Today, there are 
three primary Federal agencies that provide funding to aid the private 
sector expansion or maintenance of broadband offerings: the FCC, the 
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS), and the 
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA). On an annual basis, the Commission provides, 
from ratepayer collected funds, over $4.5 billion for the Connect 
America Fund (CAF) to support direct and measurable broadband buildout 
in high-cost areas. Meanwhile, Congress recently allocated, as part of 
last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, an additional $600 
million for a new broadband pilot program, governed by certain 
conditions, to be administered by RUS. Finally, additional broadband 
funding is being considered as part of both 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. Part 
of the problem stems from the potential to allow RUS funding to be used 
for fully served or what some consider underserved areas. Regrettably, 
``unserved'' is essentially defined as an area already having service 
or multiple broadband providers. Having travelled this great nation, I 
have met with Americans living in truly unserved areas with zero 
providers, not one or two existing ones hoping the Federal Government 
will fund another. To accurately reflect this reality, I urge Congress 
to consider modifying this definition.
    Moreover, there is a major disagreement over what should qualify as 
broadband for purposes of Federal funding. I certainly would like for 
all Americans to have sufficient broadband speeds for whatever tasks 
they seek to accomplish. However, there is simply not sufficient funds 
to subsidize ``fiber'' broadband builds, either wired or wireless, to 
every household nationwide, which would cost hundreds of billions of 
dollars. This is why the Commission has focused its CAF funds on 
broadband projects with speeds above 10/1 Mbps, and even at that level 
there is tremendous demand to add additional budgetary resources to 
reach more households. Although not ideal, the intent is to, at least, 
ensure every household has this level of service before focusing on 
increasing speeds further. Allowing the different funding programs to 
have their own speed requirements greatly increases the likelihood that 
a tremendous effort will go to overbuilding areas with service today, 
including areas funded or expected to be funded by the Commission.
    Fundamentally, Federal funding should be targeted to addressing 
those 14 million-plus Americans without any broadband today. Among 
other ideas, I have advocated having RUS, NTIA, and the Commission 
coordinate actual implementation of the differing programs. In sum, the 
program rules need to be written with strict prohibitions on 
duplication with other existing programs, alignment of speed 
requirements, and a focus on the truly unserved. As Congress concludes 
the Farm bill this fall, I hope you will consider these safeguards.
9-1-1 Fee Diversion
    I firmly believe that the ongoing problem of 9-1-1 fee diversion by 
certain states and territories must be addressed. Such diversion has 
real consequences for the public safety community and the American 
people. Underfunding Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) can lead 
to significant public safety problems, including longer wait times, 
fewer or overworked personnel, and outdated or inferior equipment to 
handle the call loads. It can also prevent 9-1-1 call centers from 
modernizing to NG9-1-1 technologies. At a minimum, allowing states to 
deceive consumers into paying fees for the 9-1-1 system and 
transferring the money elsewhere undermines the system's integrity. I 
thank my colleague, Commissioner Rosenworcel, for working with me to 
address this issue. Just last month, we sent a letter together to both 
the Republican and Democratic Governor Associations, urging their 
leadership to ensure that states collaborate with the FCC on our data 
collection and recognize the public safety harms associated with 
diverting these vital funds.
    In December, the Commission submitted its ninth annual report to 
this Committee showing that, in 2016, five states and territories 
diverted almost $130 million away from 9-1-1 enhancements and towards 
other, unrelated purposes. Unfortunately, the FCC must rely on self-
reporting by states and territories. This can lead to underreporting or 
a complete failure to respond altogether. In fact, seven states and 
territories did just that. It seems some states have figured out that 
instead of being labelled a diverter, they would rather just be known 
as a state that didn't submit the necessary paperwork. Take New York, 
for example, which failed to submit a report in response to the 
Commission's data collection, but sufficient public record information 
existed to support a finding that New York diverted ``substantial'' 
funds for non-public safety purposes. Moreover, since looking into this 
matter, my office has uncovered that Puerto Rico and Guam--both of 
which failed to respond to Commission inquiries--diverted 9-1-1 funds 
in 2016.
    Fortunately, there is some good news to report. It turns out that 
Illinois, though labeled a diverter in 2016, actually did not divert 9-
1-1 funding that year and has certified to my office that it does not 
plan to divert such funding in the future. Further, New Mexico, one of 
the largest diverters in 2016, has explained that its diversion was due 
to a unique situation in which the state faced extreme insolvency that 
has since been resolved. New Mexico had not diverted funds prior to 
2016 and has explained it will not divert these funds again. Oklahoma 
and the Northern Mariana Islands also confirmed to me that they did not 
divert funds in 2016, despite failing to submit initial documents to 
the Commission. Finally, Puerto Rico, in receiving additional USF 
support to rebuild its communications networks, has committed to 
rectify its diversion by the Commission's 2018 report.
    But, not every state has been a success story. While initial 
momentum in Rhode Island was encouraging, the state ultimately doubled 
down on its diversion practices and simply renamed its 9-1-1 fee. 
Moreover, in New York and New Jersey, state officials have shown no 
interest in eliminating this practice. And, in Guam, state officials 
appear more interested in debating the legality of their fee diversion 
than actually recognizing the harm diversion causes to its people and 
discussing ways to eliminate the practice.
    On this note, we must be more aggressive with recalcitrant states, 
as, for the most part, identifying and shaming such states has not 
sufficiently worked. Legislation has been offered in the House of 
Representatives to assign the process of designating acceptable 
purposes and functions for 9-1-1 funds to the Commission, rather than 
the states as allowed under current law. This is a key first step, as 
states like Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey, and territories 
like Puerto Rico and Guam, have passed statutes over the years actually 
requiring the diversion of 9-1-1 funds for non-public safety related 
purposes. In the case of New Jersey, lawmakers have claimed it will 
take a constitutional amendment to end the practice. I understand that 
Members of this Committee are also working on a legislative solution to 
this atrocious practice, and I stand ready to work with anyone 
interested in bringing consistency and clarity to this matter.
Spectrum Policy
    The Commission has been hard at work ensuring that sufficient 
spectrum is available for next-generation wireless services. While I 
applaud and support the Commission's plans to hold auctions in the 24, 
28, 37, 39, 47 GHz, and hopefully other high bands in the very near 
future, the Commission is also hard at work seeking to make additional 
mid-band spectrum available. As you are well aware, there are no 
greenfield mid-band frequencies available for 5G. The 3.7 to 4.2 GHz 
band, or C-band downlink, is attractive because it provides significant 
contiguous spectrum and the largest satellite operators are receptive 
to reducing their spectrum footprint using a market-based spectrum 
reallocation approach. The Commission must conclude the proceeding for 
determining how to reallocate this band promptly given its importance 
both domestically and internationally for future wireless offerings. In 
doing so, I believe that any reallocation plan must be completed fairly 
quickly; release a sufficient amount of spectrum, such as 200 to 300 
megahertz or more; and ensure that current users of the C-band 
satellite services--primarily broadcasters and cable providers--will be 
accommodated on the remaining C-band, other satellite spectrum, or 
through different technologies.
    This plan must also permit unlicensed use of the C-band uplink 
spectrum, or 6 GHz band. As Chairman Thune recently noted to the 
Commission, the 6 GHz band is a necessary ingredient to address the 
need for more unlicensed spectrum. This spectrum, along with the 
potential opening of the 5.9 GHz band and combined with the existing 5 
GHz band, will provide the unlicensed community with access to a 
significant swath of spectrum, creating wide channels for Gigabit 
services. Moreover, it will enable us to meet our statutory obligations 
under the MOBILE NOW Act.
    The last piece of the mid-band puzzle is permitting additional 
wireless operations in the frequencies below 3.5 GHz. Fortunately, the 
review to ensure that the 3.5 GHz licensing structure is attractive to 
as many users and use cases as possible and the work on the databases 
that will enable maximum use of 3.5 GHz is wrapping up. Last month, the 
FCC announced the procedures and deadlines for conditionally approved 
Spectrum Access System Administrators to file initial commercial 
deployment proposals, setting the stage for the first SAS-enabled 3.5 
GHz markets hopefully later this year. Moreover, I have formulated 
recommendations on a way to modify our existing rules for PAL licenses 
and hope that this will be ready to be considered at an Open Meeting 
soon. Assuming the item is adopted, I hope that we can move to an 
auction early next year.
    We must now turn to 3450-3550 MHz, which NTIA is currently 
reviewing for reallocation for commercial wireless use. NTIA should 
complete this work expeditiously and clear this band. But, we also 
cannot stop at just 100 megahertz. We must look to those frequencies 
right below 3450 MHz, along with any others that can be put to more 
efficient use.
    To facilitate the reallocation of Federal Government spectrum, I 
have suggested adding appropriate sticks to the current carrot approach 
contained in law and suggested by others. At a minimum, as both 
Commissioner Rosenworcel and I have stated, there is an opportunity to 
put a market value on current Federal spectrum holdings in order to 
ensure that they are appropriately quantified. Once implemented, it 
allows policymakers to make judgments based on an additional factor 
when considering and reviewing the spectrum holdings of the Federal 
Government. I would argue that any valuations can rely initially on 
conservative estimates as they will be quickly adjusted over time by 
market forces. I thank Senator Lee for his interest in this, and, 
again, am available to provide any needed technical assistance on this 
matter.
    I thank the Committee for holding this hearing and look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
    Commissioner Carr.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Commissioner Carr. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 
chance to testify.
    At the outset, I want to commend the Committee on its own 
notable and bipartisan achievements, from MOBILE NOW and the 
AIRWAVES Act, which identifies spectrum needed to win the race 
to 5G, to the SPEED Act, RAPID Act, and the STREAMLINE Small 
Cell Deployment Act, which would cut red tape that threatens 
the deployment of next-gen networks.
    Those two issues, spectrum and infrastructure, are key to 
the deployment of 5G. I'm confident that action on these fronts 
will make a difference in bringing more broadband to more 
Americans. I've seen firsthand the challenges of deploying 
networks in some of the hardest to serve parts of the country. 
I've spent time in many of your home states and heard from 
families and small businesses about the opportunities that 
connectivity enables.
    Chancellor, South Dakota, exemplifies those challenges and 
opportunities. It's where I met Tyler, a scrappy entrepreneur 
that ran a tech startup from his home. Tyler needed a better 
broadband connection, so he created one himself. He asked an 
ISP to run fiber to an old wooden utility pole near his house. 
He then set up a fixed wireless link to bridge the gap to his 
home.
    Finding success for himself, Tyler decided to launch his 
own ISP and bring wireless broadband to his community. One 
hundred and eighty feet up a nearby water tower, he showed me 
the antenna he uses to serve his customers, including Duane, 
who runs a farm nine miles away.
    When we met Duane, he immediately volunteered that he used 
to go to church regularly, and in the moment, I thought it was 
an unnecessary confession to an FCC bureaucrat. It turns out 
that without broadband, Duane would use the church's Wi-Fi 
almost daily to get his work done. Now, with broadband at home, 
Duane is quick to point out that he still goes to church, but 
he can now focus on a higher purpose.
    [Laughter.]
    Commissioner Carr. Meeting Tyler and Duane only underscores 
why the work of this Committee and the FCC is so important. We 
want every community to get a fair shot at the opportunity 
broadband enables. To do that, we must keep moving forward on 
those two key issues, spectrum and infrastructure, and we're 
making substantial progress on both.
    I want to focus this morning on infrastructure. I 
appreciate that Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC's efforts 
on wireless infrastructure, and we're getting our regulations 
5G ready. In March, we exempted small cells, which are the 
building blocks of next-gen networks, from the costly Federal 
review procedures designed for much larger 100-foot towers. 
This one step is expected to cut about 30 percent of the cost 
of deploying small cells, which can flip the business case for 
thousands of communities.
    One place where this additional deployment can pay off is 
in healthcare. The FCC has long supported broadband deployment 
to healthcare facilities. But on a visit to Mississippi 6 
months ago, Senator Wicker told me about a local project that 
demonstrated a new trend in telehealth, a trend toward 
connected care everywhere. The delivery of high-quality care is 
no longer limited to the confines of connected brick and mortar 
facilities. With remote patient monitoring and mobile health 
apps, technology can now deliver care directly to patients.
    Last month, I returned to Mississippi and visited the 
Delta, which is ground zero for the country's diabetes 
epidemic. It's where I met Miss Annie. She noticed the first 
signs of diabetes when she woke up with blurred vision. So she 
signed up for a remote patient monitoring program.
    She showed me the iPad and the Bluetooth-enabled blood 
sugar monitor that she uses to test her blood from home, and it 
gives her instant feedback, including steps she can take that 
day to stay healthy. Miss Annie's A1C levels have gone down, 
and she says she's never felt better, and research backs up 
Miss Annie's results, showing significant cost savings and 
improved patient outcomes with connected care.
    So we should align public policy in support of this 
movement in telehealth. Many members of this Committee have led 
the way on these efforts, recognizing that there's more the FCC 
can do. That's why I'm glad Chairman Pai asked me to lead the 
FCC's new telehealth initiative. Just two weeks ago, the 
Commission voted unanimously to seek comment on setting up a 
new $100 million Connected Care Pilot Program, which would 
support these types of deployments for low-income patients. I 
look forward to working with all stakeholders as we move 
forward in that proceeding.
    So, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, members of the 
Committee, thank you again for holding this hearing. I welcome 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Commissioner Carr follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify.
    I want to begin by commending the Committee on its notable and 
bipartisan achievements--from the MOBILE NOW Act and the AIRWAVES Act, 
which identify the spectrum needed to win the race to 5G, to the 
STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act and the SPEED Act, which would cut 
some of the regulatory red tape that threatens the deployment of those 
5G networks.
    These two issues--spectrum and infrastructure--are key to the 
deployment of next-generation networks. And action on these fronts 
makes a real difference when it comes to bringing more broadband to 
more Americans. In my time on the Commission, I have seen firsthand the 
challenges that come with deploying broadband to some of the hardest-
to-serve parts of the country. I have spent time in many of your home 
states and heard from families and small businesses about the 
opportunities that connectivity enables in their communities--from 
better jobs, to 21st century education, to high-quality health care.
    Chancellor, South Dakota (pop. 268) is one place that exemplifies 
those challenges and opportunities. It's where I met Tyler, a scrappy 
entrepreneur who used to run a tech startup from his home. He lived on 
part of his family's old homestead, which continues to be used as part 
of a larger farming operation. Tyler needed a better, faster, and more 
reliable broadband connection, so here's what he did. He asked a 
broadband provider to run fiber to the closest accessible point to his 
house, which happened to be an old wooden utility pole. He had to enter 
the pole's location as his ``home address'' to ensure the provider 
would run fiber to that point. He then set up a high-speed, fixed 
wireless link to bridge the gap between his house and the fiber 
connection. Turns out, this setup worked well to bring broadband to 
Tyler's house. He looked around and realized that he could help bring 
more broadband to his neighbors around Chancellor by doing similar 
work. So Tyler decided to go into the broadband business with his 
brother, Jason. They now run a small Wireless Internet Service Provider 
or WISP called Leap Communications. Connecting rural South Dakota is 
not easy work. And you can't be afraid of heights to do it.
    Tyler took me on a tour of one of his deployments. We started out 
180 feet above nearby Parker, South Dakota, on top of the town's water 
tower. The view was almost worth the climb up three series of ladders. 
Once up there, he showed me the antenna he bolted onto the tower that 
points to a receiver a few miles away, which is where he connects to 
fiber and, ultimately, the Internet. On the other side of the tower, he 
has attached another antenna to beam broadband to a farm about nine 
miles away. We visited that farm and spoke with Duane, who runs the 
operation. Duane volunteered that he used to go to church regularly to 
improve his connection. You see, before he met Tyler, Duane did not 
have broadband at the farm. So he would go to church almost every day 
to use its Wi-Fi and upload the massive data sets he collects on his 
connected tractors and combines. Duane was quick to point out that he 
still goes to church, but with a broadband connection provided by 
Tyler's company, he can now spend his time there focused on a higher 
purpose.
    For communities across the country, broadband is giving families a 
chance to change their lives. I saw this during a visit to Indiana with 
Senator Todd Young. One of our first stops was at Linda Muegge's 
kitchen table. Linda lives in Blue River Township, a community of fewer 
than 1,500 people. She told us about the very real difference it makes 
when rural America gets a fair shot at next-gen connectivity.
    Linda's farm and house in Blue River is served by an electric co-op 
that provides her with gigabit-speed fiber. In fact, Senator Young 
pitched in that morning by splicing fiber that is being deployed to the 
community. Linda said that the fast connection this fiber enables means 
HD Netflix, faster web browsing, and even some visits from neighbors 
who want to borrow her high-speed hookup.
    But what struck me most in talking with Linda is the difference 
that this connection has made in the lives of her family. Linda's son, 
Chris, went to grad school at Purdue for a degree in animal nutrition. 
Chris has used his degree to build a successful consulting business, 
mostly for cattle owners, with clients as far away as Costa Rica. Chris 
needs to see the cattle in HD and download large data sets to monitor 
their feeding and health. Without the high-speed connection, Chris 
would not be able to live in Blue River. Now, he can stay close to home 
and pitch in at the farm while continuing to pursue his own high-tech 
business.
    This is why the work of this Committee and the FCC is so important. 
As legislators and regulators, we can help ensure that every 
community--from Parker, South Dakota to Blue River, Indiana--has a fair 
shot at the opportunity that broadband enables. This is particularly 
important as we make the transition to next-generation networks, which 
can unleash a new cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship in the 
country. We do not want to see any community get left behind.
    To meet that goal, we must extend American leadership in wireless 
as we move from 4G to 5G networks. Following the Committee's lead, the 
FCC's game plan is straightforward: we must free up more spectrum and 
we must remove barriers to infrastructure deployment. I am proud to 
report that the Commission has made substantial progress on both 
fronts.
    With respect to spectrum, the Commission has taken a number of 
concrete steps in the past few months alone. In February, we paved the 
way for opening up spectrum above 95 GHz. In March, we sought comment 
on designating the 4.9 GHz band for flexible use. In April, we took a 
step towards bringing over 1.5 GHz of millimeter wave spectrum to 
auction. In May, we started a proceeding to put spectrum in the 2.5 GHz 
band to more productive use. In June, we finalized rules for the 24 GHz 
band and sought comment on opening up the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands for 
flexible use. In July, we sought comment on clearing mid-band spectrum 
for wireless use, and Chairman Pai announced the auction of spectrum in 
the 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands. And at our last open meeting two 
weeks ago, we took steps to rationalize the 39 GHz band ahead of next 
year's auction.
    On wireless infrastructure, I appreciate that Chairman Pai asked me 
to lead the FCC's efforts. And we have already made significant 
progress in ensuring that 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. While hundred-foot towers accounted 
for the lion's share of prior deployments, up to 80 percent of new cell 
sites will be small cells with antennas no larger than a backpack plus 
associated equipment. But a year ago, our regulatory structures were 
threatening to hold us back--to limit 5G deployments to only the most 
profitable-to-serve areas. The problem was that our regulations assumed 
that every new cell site was a hundred-foot tower. So in the 
intervening months, we have worked with stakeholders to update and 
modernize our approach--to ensure the United States wins the race to 
5G.
    In March, for instance, we adopted an order that exempts small 
cells from certain Federal historical and environmental review 
procedures that were designed for those large, hundred-foot towers. 
This decision extended the same regulatory treatment to small cells 
that the Commission has always applied to the deployment of other types 
of infrastructure, including Wi-Fi routers and consumer signal 
boosters. This one step is expected to cut about 30 percent of the 
total cost of deploying small cells. In fact, an Accenture study 
determined that our action could save $1.56 billion, which could be 
used to deploy 55,000 new cell sites and create more than 17,000 jobs.
    This reform alone could flip the business case for thousands of 
communities, particularly in rural and disadvantaged parts of the 
country. Almost no matter what we do, 5G and next-gen networks will be 
deployed in New York and San Francisco. But there are thousands of 
other communities that might lose out if we do not modernize our 
approach to broadband infrastructure. So the FCC is continuing to work 
with all stakeholders as we move to further update our approach to 
infrastructure deployment.
    We know that broadband deployment can create jobs, but it can also 
save lives. I have seen it in places like Beatty, Nevada, where a rural 
health care clinic is staying open because a new broadband connection 
allows patients to visit virtually with a doctor located in a much 
larger town. I have seen it in the small community of Manokotak, 
Alaska, where a broadband-enabled otoscope can allow an ENT located in 
Dillingham to diagnose a child's ear infection before it threatens her 
hearing. For years, the FCC has been playing a key role in supporting 
the deployment of broadband to these facilities through our Rural 
Health Care Program.
    But there's a new trend in telehealth--a trend towards connected 
care everywhere. The delivery of high-tech, high-quality health care is 
no longer limited to the confines of connected, brick-and-mortar 
facilities. With remote patient monitoring and mobile health 
applications that can be accessed on a smartphone or tablet, we now 
have the technology to deliver high-quality care directly to patients, 
regardless of where they are located--places like the Mississippi 
Delta.
    The Delta is ground zero for the country's diabetes epidemic. It 
sees diabetes at rates that are about twice the national average. 
Ruleville, Mississippi is no exception to this trend. In addition to 
having one of the highest rates of diabetes in the state, more than 
half of all children in this area live in poverty. That only adds to 
the challenge of finding and accessing affordable health care. But the 
Delta is also a place where remote patient monitoring technology is 
already making a difference.
    Six months ago, I had the chance to visit Mississippi, where 
Senator Wicker mentioned an innovative pilot program run by the 
University of Mississippi Medical Center. Using remote patient 
monitoring technologies, the pilot program was helping to treat and 
control cases of Type II Diabetes in the Delta.
    One of the program's patients is Ms. Annie. She noticed the first 
signs of her diabetes when she woke up one day with blurred vision. 
After seeing little progress in managing her diabetes with traditional 
care options, Ms. Annie signed up for a remote patient monitoring pilot 
program. She walked me through the blood sugar monitor that she uses at 
home. The monitor uses Bluetooth to connect to her iPad, which chimes 
every morning to remind her to check her blood sugar. Ms. Annie then 
pricks her finger and her A1C level is displayed on-screen. Based on 
that, the iPad app suggests appropriate actions--from a particular food 
or exercise, to watching a relevant video. If she forgets to enter her 
numbers that day, she'll get a phone call from a nurse. With this 
technology, Ms. Annie's A1C levels have gone down and she says she's 
never felt better.
    A few weeks earlier, at the University of Virginia's Children's 
Hospital, Dr. Karen Rheuban talked about the role that these new 
telehealth technologies are playing in saving lives--new technologies 
like a connected tablet for parents whose babies have heart problems. 
An app called Locus Health tracks a baby's weight, heart rate, and 
oxygen levels and sends the data to the hospital. The data provide 
early warning signs that can head off problems that might result in ICU 
stays and invasive procedures.
    Finding ways to use remote patient monitoring technologies to 
manage chronic diseases, which account for over 85 percent of direct 
health care spending, is a challenge that merits our attention.
    The relatively limited trials to date are showing significant cost 
savings:

   A remote patient monitoring program run by the Veterans 
        Health Administration costs $1,600 per patient--an 88 percent 
        savings from VHA's home-based primary services.

   Another telehealth project found that every $1 spent on 
        remote monitoring resulted in a $3.30 return in savings.

   The Mississippi Delta trial resulted in nearly $700,000 in 
        annual savings due to reductions in hospital readmissions 
        alone, which, assuming just 20 percent of Mississippi's 
        diabetic population enrolled in this program, Medicaid savings 
        in the state would be $189 million per year.

    And these connected care technologies are improving health 
outcomes:

   A study of 20 remote patient monitoring trials found a 20 
        percent reduction in mortality and a 15 percent reduction in 
        hospitalizations related to heart failure.

   The Veterans Health Administration's remote patient 
        monitoring program resulted in a 25 percent reduction in days 
        of inpatient care and a 19 percent reduction in hospital 
        admission.

   Another remote patient monitoring initiative showed a 46 
        percent reduction in ER visits, a 53 percent reduction in 
        hospital admissions, and a 25 percent shorter length of in-
        patient stay.

    Given the significant cost savings and improved patient outcomes 
associated with connected care, we should align public policy in 
support of this movement in telehealth. At the FCC, we can play a 
constructive role by bringing more health care options to communities 
through broadband. We can help bridge the ``doctor divide'' by closing 
the digital divide. And many members of this Committee, including 
Chairman Thune, Senator Wicker, Senator Schatz, Senator Fischer, 
Senator Gardner, and Senator Young, have led the way on these efforts 
as well, recognizing that the FCC can do more to connect people around 
the country with high-quality care.
    So I am glad that Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC's new 
telehealth initiative. I am pleased to report that two weeks ago the 
Commission unanimously approved a proposal to seek comment on setting 
up this program. The Connected Care Pilot Program would provide up to 
$100 million for connected care benefiting low-income patients, 
including those eligible for Medicaid and veterans. It would support a 
limited number of projects over a two- or three-year period, with 
controls in place to measure and verify the benefits, costs, and 
savings associated with connected care. It could take the results we've 
already seen in the limited trials to date and help replicate those 
results in communities across the country.
    From chronic disease management to pediatric cardiology, from PTSD 
to opioid dependency, this pilot has the potential to make a real 
difference for low-income individuals that currently lack access to 
quality health care. I look forward to working with my colleagues at 
the FCC, Federal and state partners, Members of this Committee, and all 
stakeholders as we consider establishing the Connected Care Pilot 
Program.
    Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you again for holding this hearing and for the 
invitation to testify. I welcome your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Carr.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Good morning, Chairman Thune, 
Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. 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. Last week marked a year since I returned to the 
Commission, and a lot can happen in 12 months. So let me offer 
you a quick year-end report.
    Too many Americans lack access to broadband. Let's put a 
number on it. Right now, 24 million Americans have no access to 
high-speed service. This is not acceptable, and we need to do 
better.
    Too often during the last year, the agency acted at the 
behest of the corporate forces that surround it, shortchanging 
the American people. You can see it 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 to 
be with a voice in our policies--the cities and towns that 
should be our partners in the process, the tribal communities 
that are entitled to government-to-government consultation, and 
the Department of Commerce, which just last month expressed 
concern about how our rush to reform could harm national 
security and public safety services. Likewise, you see it in 
proposed reforms that undermine our Lifeline Program, including 
the 2 million elderly, more than 1 million veterans, and more 
than half a million residents of Puerto Rico who rely on it 
today.
    Too often, our procedures fall short of what good 
governance requires. Our mapping practices for broadband do not 
accurately state what connectivity looks like on the ground. 
Our claim that the agency suffered a DDOS attack following John 
Oliver's report on net neutrality is just not credible. And in 
the meantime, this 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.
    I also 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. So here are three quick things we 
can do to make that happen.
    First, we need a new broadband plan, and we need to begin 
with the end in mind. At the start, I mentioned that there are 
24 million Americans without access to broadband right now. 
There are 19 million Americans who do not have access to high-
speed service in rural America, and there are 12 million 
students who fall into the homework gap because they do not 
have the broadband at home that they need for nightly school 
work. Let's commit now to a plan to ensure that every one of 
them has access to the high-speed service they need by 2020.
    Second, we're in a worldwide race to lead the future of 
wireless. We're making progress, but other nations are moving 
further and faster. South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, 
Italy, Germany, Ireland, and Australia have held or will hold 
5G auctions before we do. China also is poised to dole out key 
frequencies it has already reserved for 5G wireless service.
    Right now, we have a blitz of a dozen and a half bands 
under consideration, but we only have one big auction 
scheduled. What we need now is actually something quite 
similar--simple. We need a spectrum calendar. We need to tell 
the wireless ecosystem, from carriers to equipment 
manufacturers to consumers, just how and when the FCC will 
auction new airwaves to support 5G wireless services.
    Third, it's time to set some audacious goals. Let's not 
settle for the same broadband standard we've used for years. 
Let's decide to raise it to 100 megabits. Let's make sure every 
school has gigabit speeds in their sites, and let's ensure 
every rural healthcare facility has the speed they need for the 
newest innovations in telemedicine. And while we're at it, 
let's do something that should not be bold but might feel like 
it is. Let's reiterate the FCC's support for the First 
Amendment and commit to media policies that ensure news 
organizations can report without fear or favor.
    Thank you for having me at this hearing. I look forward to 
any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Commissioner Rosenworcel 
follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Good afternoon, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members 
of the Committee. 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.
    Last week marked a year since I returned to the Commission. A lot 
can happen in twelve months. So let me offer you a quick year-end 
report.
    Too many Americans lack access to broadband. Let's put a number on 
it. Right now, 24 million Americans have no high-speed service. This is 
not acceptable. We need to do better.
    Too often during the last year the agency acted at the behest of 
the corporate forces that surround it, shortchanging the American 
people. You can see that clearly with our roll back 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 partners in the 
process, the Tribal communities that are entitled to government-to-
government consultation, and the Department of Commerce which just last 
month expressed concern about how our rush to 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 residents of 
Puerto Rico who are still recovering from a harrowing storm and 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 plans was not credible, as demonstrated by 
last week's report from the FCC Inspector General. And 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 two 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 year this agency proved them right. But good 
reports do not only look to the past, they offer an eye to the future--
and a 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 in more places.
    So here are three things we can do to make that happen.
    First, we need a new broadband plan. And we need to begin with the 
end in mind. At the start I mentioned there are 24 million Americans 
without access to broadband. There are 19 million Americans in rural 
areas who lack this service. There are 12 million students who fall 
into the Homework Gap because they do not have the broadband at home 
they need for nightly school work. Let's commit now to a plan to ensure 
that every one of them has access to the high-speed service they need--
by 2020. Call it Broadband 2020.
    Second, we are in a worldwide race to lead the future of wireless. 
We are making progress, but other nations are moving further, faster. 
South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, and 
Australia have held or will hold a 5G auction before the United States. 
China, too, is poised to dole out key frequencies already reserved for 
5G use. We have a blitz of bands under consideration, including 2.5 
GHz, 3.5 GHz, 3.7-4.2 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5.9 GHz, 6 GHz, 24 GHz, 26 GHz, 28 
GHz, 32 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 42 GHz, 47 GHz, 50 GHz, and above 95 GHz. 
But we have only one auction scheduled. What we need now is something 
simple: a calendar. We need to tell the wireless ecosystem--from 
carriers to equipment manufacturers to consumers--just how and when the 
FCC will auction new airwaves to support 5G services.
    Third, it's time to set some audacious goals. Let's not settle for 
the same broadband standard we have been using for years--let's raise 
it to 100 Megabits per second. Let's make sure every school has access 
to Gigabit speeds. Let's ensure every rural health care facility has 
the speed they need for the newest innovations in telemedicine.
    While we're at it, let's do something that should not be bold--but 
may feel like it is. Let's reiterate the FCC's support for the First 
Amendment and commit to media policies that ensure news organizations 
can report without fear or favor.
    Thank you for having me at this hearing. I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    Let me start off.
    Chairman Pai, the Universal Service Fund's high-cost 
program is a crucial component to broadband deployment in rural 
areas, and I cannot stress enough the importance of providing 
certainty to Internet Service Providers as they plan for 
deployment in rural areas. For instance, in my home state of 
South Dakota, these projects are scheduled well in advance and 
builds are often planned around warmer seasons. A decision that 
provides certainty for years to come will go a long way in 
helping the deployment of broadband in rural areas.
    Mr. Chairman, are you willing to commit here today that the 
Commission will come to a decision that will provide certainty 
to rural America by the end of the year?
    Chairman Pai. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I look forward to working with you 
and your fellow Commissioners on that goal.
    Commissioner Carr, a number of states have adopted bills to 
streamline the deployment of small wireless facilities, and 
some localities have negotiated private arrangements with 
providers to facilitate deployment. But these steps are not 
uniform, and they're not happening everywhere, as the business 
case for deployment of 5G is often more challenging in rural 
areas due to lower population density.
    Could you discuss why it is important to set a national 
framework?
    Commissioner Carr. Thank you, Senator. I think--you're 
right. I'm glad to see a number of states that have taken 
action to modernize their regulations. But winning the race to 
5G in my mind is making sure that every community gets a fair 
shot. A place like New York or San Francisco--they're going to 
get next-generation opportunity no matter what.
    We've heard from elected representatives from South 
Carolina to Montana that want 5G in their communities as well, 
and they've talked about the problems that they see with high 
fees in certain areas, diverting capital and resources, and if 
we're not giving them a fair shot at next-gen opportunities. 
That's why I think some of the ideas about guardrails in this 
process are so important.
    The Chairman. There's a recent analysis of spectrum at 1.3 
gigahertz paired with spectrum at 1.8 gigahertz that's shown 
that this spectrum might be a particularly valuable part of the 
mix of low, mid, and high-band spectrum used for 5G. In 
addition, it could reportedly bring more than $50 billion in 
revenues for the American people and multiples of that for its 
contribution to the economy. Also, given its propagation 
characteristics, this spectrum might be more suitable for less 
populated areas.
    What has the Commission done to assess this spectrum for 
next-generation telecommunications? Mr. Chairman, if you want 
to answer that, go ahead.
    Chairman Pai. Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. 
Chairman. As with a number of different spectrum bands, we and 
the FCC's career staff are focusing on any bands that could be 
usable for 5G, including that one. So we hope to make progress 
in the future on it. In the meantime, our efforts proceed on 
all kinds of other fronts, from 6 gigahertz to 3.5 gigahertz, 
on the C-bands to the 24 gigahertz bands. We're active. We're 
not waiting to finish our analysis of one band before moving to 
the other, and we're holistic in our approach.
    The Chairman. Commissioner O'Rielly, rural communities need 
better access to broadband. We have resources such as the 
Universal Service Fund as well as others like UDSA's Rural 
Utilities Service broadband loan and grant programs. They can 
all play important roles in advancing the buildout of rural 
broadband.
    How do we make sure that these programs are working in 
coordination to avoid overbuilding areas that are already 
receiving support?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 
there's a lot of really good work that went into the Senate 
farm bill, so I don't want to be too critical of it. I think 
there are some places where it can be strengthened to prevent 
overbuilding, to rent those networks that are already existing 
in places like South Dakota that I visited, do not have a 
government-sponsored competitor come in and take away the heart 
of the company that's trying to serve that area, because it's 
easy to serve the industrial park or the anchor institution. 
It's harder to serve the surrounding areas, and hollowing out 
the provider's base of operations is incredibly problematic.
    So I think there are some provisions in the farm bill that 
I appreciate. I think that they could go a little further. I'd 
be happy to work with the Committee to make sure that happens.
    The Chairman. Could you explain why overbuilding would be a 
concern, and what suggestions would you have?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Well, I'll give you the point that 
the farm bill reduces from three to two the number of providers 
that are--you know. So you have two providers, but it's still 
considered unserved. But in many parts of America, they have 
zero, and I've talked to those families who have no provider 
today, and that should be--whether it's 14 million or 24 
million, depending on whether you count satellite--I tend to 
count those that have satellite, so 14 million Americans do not 
have service today, and we're trying to figure out how to get 
them service. If you're trying to compare that to two--or 
you're having two providers and contemplating a third--Federal 
subsidy coming in for a third provider, that's a much different 
universe, and I think we should focus on those that are truly 
unserved.
    The Chairman. So in terms of avoiding or minimizing 
overbuilding, you think it's just a function of how some of 
those programs are administered.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I think it's more than just the 
administration. I think it's the language in the bill, because 
as good as agencies are in working together, we've seen in the 
past and have had problems with other Federal subsidy programs 
where, as much as conversations went on, they didn't solve the 
problems, and we saw overbuilding notwithstanding. So I think 
it's really a matter of what the language is in terms of the 
programs themselves.
    The Chairman. My time has expired.
    Senator Nelson.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you, Chairman Pai, for the commitment 
to the Chairman of getting broadband done for the underserved 
areas. The issue of Puerto Rico--you well know what's happened 
to our fellow U.S. citizens there on communication. Chairman, 
is the FCC working with FEMA to revise both agencies' disaster 
response plan to include communications restoration?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. My 
understanding is that our Public Safety Bureau staff is, 
indeed, working with FEMA on that issue. I can double check to 
make sure that is still the case. But across the board, we've 
been cooperating with FEMA and other Federal and state and 
territorial partners on this issue.
    Senator Nelson. When American citizens are hurting after a 
national disaster, they need communications. It would be well 
if you could get your folks cooperating with FEMA.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you believe the FCC has done 
what it needs to do to learn from what happened in last year's 
hurricanes?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question, 
Senator. We obviously had an awful storm and a grave 
humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico last year, and I would take 
note that the FCC in the past, after Hurricane Katrina and 
after Superstorm Sandy, did things like held hearings onsite to 
try to learn what was going on, under the belief that we don't 
just figure it all out sitting here in Washington, and actually 
produced a report with lessons learned. We still have not done 
that with Hurricane Maria or any of the hurricanes from last 
year, and I think it's incumbent upon us to do that. We should 
understand what went wrong, what went right, and how we can 
prevent it from happening again.
    Senator Nelson. Commissioner, you know all the folderol 
that's gone on about the actions the agency has adopted to pave 
the way for broadcast consolidation, even beyond Sinclair-
Tribune. What actions has the agency taken?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Broadcasting, Senator, is 
special. It uses the public airwaves, and for decades this 
agency has had policies to support competition, diversity, and 
localism. They may not be especially trendy, but I think those 
values--they're solid. They've supported journalism and jobs, 
and they have made sure that there's a diversity of voices in 
every community. But we have rolled back our rules to the point 
where we almost have none.
    We no longer have limitations on the numbers of top 
television stations you can own in a market, the number of 
stations you can own in markets and nationwide as well, and the 
result of that is we're going to start seeing fewer and fewer 
local voices on the airwaves, and I think that has consequences 
for jobs, for journalism, and getting the facts we need in our 
communities.
    Senator Nelson. There seems to be a value to local 
broadcasting. Is this beginning to remove local from the term, 
local broadcasting?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. I'm worried that we 
are losing localism in broadcasting. It's something that has a 
terrific tradition. It's something I think we should, through 
our policies, seek to continue.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
    Senator Wicker.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, members of the Commission.
    Commissioner Pai, let me give you an opportunity to answer 
some of the statements that your colleague, Ms. Rosenworcel, 
made. She spoke about the undermining of the Lifeline Program. 
What do you have to say to that?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator Wicker. 
It is absolutely false. Our goal is to make sure that the 
Lifeline Program, once and for all, focuses on consumers, not 
on the unscrupulous companies that for too long have bilked the 
FCC, have bilked the American taxpayer of their hard earned 
dollars.
    Our goal is to make sure that every American who needs help 
through the Lifeline Program is able to get it, and that is 
precisely the reason why we are trying to target these funds on 
some of the folks who are vulnerable by definition. Every 
dollar that is siphoned off by an unscrupulous wireless 
provider, for example, cannot go to somebody who needs the 
help, and that's why we have taken aggressive action on the 
enforcement side to make sure that we weed out some of those 
unscrupulous actors. That's why we are looking at reforms 
currently in our pending proceeding, to make sure that every 
dollar that is spent, the Senate, this body, Congress, 
generally, can have confidence it's being spent to close the 
digital divide.
    Senator Wicker. An interesting other side of that argument. 
What about the allegation that the Commerce Department 
expressed concern about the rush to reform and a harm to 
national security and public safety?
    Chairman Pai. First, in context, it's a remarkable example 
of plucking one little provision out of an otherwise very, very 
supportive statement. Nonetheless, we are working with our 
Federal partners at NTIA to make sure that we progress based on 
the facts in the record.
    Moreover, I would argue--look at what the biggest argument 
thus far has been in all the comments--closing the digital 
divide and incentivizing more infrastructure investment. Every 
single dollar that is diverted to maintaining the fading copper 
networks that are in the ground now cannot go toward laying 
fiber, toward building 5G infrastructure, toward closing the 
digital divide with next-generation technologies.
    So all of the hew and cry about the copper retirement and 
network transition rules and et cetera--we have to keep the 
overall focus in mind. Our goal is to close the digital divide, 
to make sure that folks in Mississippi and Montana and 
everywhere else have the same infrastructure that people in the 
big cities can take advantage of.
    Senator Wicker. The statement by the Department of Commerce 
was largely supportive.
    Chairman Pai. Absolutely.
    Senator Wicker. Now, how are we doing with the tribal 
governments?
    Chairman Pai. There, too, to my understanding, at least, 
I've engaged in more face-to-face consultations with tribes 
than a number of my predecessors combined. I have personally 
been on the ground in Mission, South Dakota, to the Rosebud 
Sioux reservation. I have personally been to the Navajo nation 
reservation in Arizona. I have personally visited with the NCAI 
college in Connecticut last year. And we've done outreach, I 
believe--several dozen tribes in the FCC's headquarters I've 
personally attended for over 3 hours.
    It is important for us to close the digital divide, and 
nowhere is that digital divide greater than our tribal lands. I 
was recently in the Flathead reservations, as I told Senator 
Tester. When you see what is going on in St. Ignatius, how a 
lot of folks are worried about their future because they don't 
have broadband, and they think, ``Well, we need to move to 
Great Falls or Billings or even a bigger city to be able to get 
that technology,'' that is something that we need to address.
    That is exactly the reason why we've focused on tribal 
broadband, on providing more operational expenses for tribal 
carriers, for incentivizing through the tribal broadband factor 
and our rate-of-return forums----
    Senator Wicker. Let me see if I can squeeze two more in. On 
the net neutrality, you've got a choice when you're going to 
regulate the internet, and that's the light touch approach that 
has really brought about the success of the internet for all 
except 2 years of its existence, and then you have the idea 
that we should use a 1934 Act designed to be applicable during 
the depression era to the Ma Bells.
    I suppose since the new order by the FCC--I assume we've 
had a spate of throttling and blocking that has just been 
outrageous. Has that been the case since the FCC entered its 
due order?
    Chairman Pai. That has not been the case, Senator. We were 
told for many months that this decision would be, quote, ``the 
end of the Internet as we know it,'' that if this decision 
passed, you would get the Internet one word at a time. That has 
proved flatly false. It has been 67 days since the repeal. The 
Internet is still working. It's open and free. The FCC is 
working with the FTC to protect consumers, and based on the 
example of VTel that I suggested--there are many others that 
show that our decision is having a positive impact.
    Senator Wicker. You know, you were having to rush through 
your statement. I do believe that the Washington Post gave that 
allegation three Pinocchios. So your full statement will be in 
the record. One thing I do want to agree with is the maps are a 
real problem.
    Chairman Pai. Can I address that, Senator?
    Senator Wicker. Absolutely.
    Chairman Pai. I'm very pleased to announce that the FCC has 
adopted an Order that would extend by 90 days the period within 
which carriers, farm bureaus, Senator Joe Manchin, to whom we 
granted a waiver--everybody can file a challenge to those maps. 
We want to make sure we give everybody a full and fair 
opportunity to participate in the challenge process to make 
sure we're operating on the basis of accurate data.
    Senator Wicker. I think you've granted a waiver to the 
Mississippi Farm Bureau.
    Chairman Pai. That is correct.
    Senator Wicker. They want to challenge it. I'm asking 
Mississippi State University's Innovative Center to explore 
using drones and see if we can get better information with the 
use of some different sort of challenge. That said, I don't 
know that we're going to get an accurate map, even with the 
challenge process. However, I do think there is widespread 
concern across the political spectrum that we're going to end 
up with a map that doesn't fairly distribute this $4.5 billion 
to people who need coverage. So work with us on that. I'm still 
skeptical.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
    Senator Blunt.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

    Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Pai, there has been a lot of discussion about the 
value of the spectrum and how we use it, and I think the 
Committee is supportive of that, as the Commission appears to 
be using that spectrum in the best possible way. There are 
always transition concerns in spectrum. I know people already 
who occupy, for instance, the C-band--which we're talking about 
making a transition there. I know you have an ongoing 
proceeding on that.
    Can you explain to me the plans you have to be sure that 
current users of the band are protected from, first of all, 
interference, and, second, undue harm?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. The C-
band is an important band. It's 500 megahertz of spectrum from 
3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz, and, as I outlined recently in a letter 
in response to Senator Tester, we are taking an approach to 
make sure that we give everybody a fair shake. For example, we 
are granting waivers to make sure that the expensive 
engineering studies that are typically required for these 
applications don't have to be filed, we are extending the time 
within which those entities have to file, and we're taking 
other steps to make it easier for them to be able to 
participate.
    Our goal is to essentially balance two competing interests. 
Number one, to figure out what the best valued use of the 
spectrum is, and on the other hand, to make sure that we know 
where existing users of that spectrum might be. And with 
respect to that second piece, we want to make sure that 
broadcasters--anybody--that they make their voices heard at the 
FCC, because we can't protect them if we don't know they're 
there. So we're easing that process.
    Congress, of course, has mandated an application fee. 
That's something we don't have the discretion to waive. But 
beyond that, we are taking steps to make sure that we make it a 
smooth transition, whatever decision the FCC ends up making.
    Senator Blunt. I believe it's the view of the Committee 
and, hopefully, the view of the FCC that the people who have 
made an investment there or have made a commitment there are 
not harmed by this effort to use the spectrum to our best 
possible advantage for broadband and other items.
    Let me go to broadband next. In Missouri, we have several 
companies that are rate-of-return carriers. They have access to 
the possibility of the alternative Connect America model. But 
I'm not at all sure and have real questions as to whether the 
amount of money provided in that model is now enough to do what 
needs to be done for the people that are hard to serve. Do you 
have a comment on that?
    Chairman Pai. I do. Last month, the FCC extended--I believe 
it's 36 million additional dollars to make sure that we close 
some of the gap that some of those carriers were perceiving. 
Additionally, I've just committed, including here, to work with 
my fellow Commissioners, with the Committee, to make sure that 
we update our system to provide predictable, sufficient 
support. That's not just an aspiration. That is the law that 
Congress saw fit to instruct the FCC with. So we're going to 
make sure that we give carriers the certainty they need to be 
able to deploy in places like West Plains and Ozark, two small 
towns that I personally visited and where I saw the challenges 
of deploying broadband in rural areas.
    Senator Blunt. Well, about 50 percent of our rural 
population does not have access. Now, I think the national 
average is now 31 percent. It's troubling to me that we've 
gotten behind on that. We have 3 percent of the rural 
population of the whole country, and half of them don't have 
access.
    So let's go down the row of the other Commissioners here. 
What are your ideas of better ways to use the Universal Service 
Fund or spectrum sales? Or how do we close this gap that all of 
you have talked about, from the agriculture and schools and 
homework, that are all very dependent on broadband access? If 
you live close to a school, you may have an opportunity to have 
a lot more access during homework.
    But let's just go down with your thoughts on this, starting 
with you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Sure. So I think the Chairman has 
done a great job in moving forward a number of our Universal 
Service Funding programs. We have one going on right now, 
Connect America Fund, CAF. The Phase II auction for reverse--
auction is running right now. So, hopefully, that will buy down 
areas that don't have service today. We're going to have to 
deal with the harder areas, those that don't have service and 
will not likely be covered by--these are the hardest of hard to 
serve areas, and I've been pushing for that, to deal with what 
is known as Remote Areas Fund, and we've got some heavy work to 
do with that.
    The real part is trying to coordinate the holes that we 
have with the other money that Congress has allocated to make 
sure that the $600 million for the pilot program in last year's 
appropriations bill and the 1.2 or more that we may see as part 
of the farm bill that actually goes to trying to address those 
people who don't have service today--so trying to make sure 
that they coordinate.
    And then on spectrum, your point is well taken. We're 
trying to find the right mixture of licensees and licenses, so 
we address the fact that there are needs for both big providers 
and small providers in trying to find that middle ground that 
addresses everyone's concerns. So we're working hard on this. 
It is everyone--I think Commissioner Rosenworcel said it well, 
and I said it before. We're all committed to this goal of 
addressing those that don't have service.
    Senator Blunt. Mr. Carr?
    Commissioner Carr. I would agree. I think there are three 
principal issues. One, we need to continue to open up and 
allocate more spectrum, which we're working to do and a lot of 
the legislative bills being considered would also do. Second, 
we need to continue to update our infrastructure rules so they 
account for changes in technology and that they're encouraging 
deployment and not holding it back. And I think, three, we're 
continuing to reorient our Universal Service Funding both with 
the $2 billion CAF II auction ongoing and the $4 billion MF II.
    If I've got a fourth, Chairman Pai had identified a rural 
dividend that I believe is included in some legislative ideas 
which would take some of the private sector money that's raised 
through auction and find ways to help support buildout in rural 
areas.
    Senator Blunt. And, Ms. Rosenworcel?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. All right. I've got three, too. 
First, we need better maps. Our maps right now don't reflect 
what it really looks like on the ground. We should stop 
thinking we can do this alone in Washington. We have to go out 
to the American public and private sector actors and get their 
assistance and help before we distribute billions of dollars.
    Second, when we do have spectrum auctions, we need to have 
some smaller licenses so some smaller companies that want to 
serve rural communities have a fair shot of bidding for them in 
the process and providing service.
    And, third, when we do issue those licenses, it's important 
that when we develop buildout criteria, we make the buildout 
criteria on the basis of geography, reaching, for instance, 80 
percent of the geography and not just 80 percent of the 
population, which is a standard that would be biased toward 
urban areas.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
    Senator Schatz.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Commissioners, for being here.
    Commissioner Pai, where are we with contribution reform?
    Chairman Pai. I would defer that question, Senator, to 
Chairman O'Rielly. He's the Chairman of our joint board on 
contributions.
    Senator Schatz. All right. Go ahead.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
that. We're at a crossroads on contribution reform. There are 
many different ideas, and there is a state proposal that has 
been put forward that I don't think is viable amongst the 
members, and we haven't been able to cross that approach, but 
haven't been able to find something in commonality on that. So 
we're stuck at the moment, to be quite honest, and it has been 
something we've been stuck at for quite a while.
    So it's something I inherited. It's something that has been 
going on, and nobody has a perfect answer as we--and you see 
this fight in different states as they're trying to figure out 
different--there has been at least a half dozen states that are 
trying to figure out what is the new formula, what should it 
look like, what should it include, and there has been no 
agreement.
    Senator Schatz. I understand the difficulty, and you 
understand the urgency.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Yes.
    Senator Schatz. So we'll follow up with each of the 
Commissioners. This is an essential part of policy here. I know 
it's the hard part, but we still have to do it.
    Chairman Pai, I want to follow up on the DDOS attack. What 
strikes me as difficult to digest is that there was an 
unprecedented number of--there were an unprecedented number of 
comments that came in after the first John Oliver show that 
overwhelmed the system, and then there was another batch of 
unprecedented communications to the FCC website, and everybody 
figured that it was the same as last time, just intuitively.
    And then your CIO said that it was a DDOS attack, and yet, 
you know, Ron Wyden and I and others in the legislative branch 
said, ``That doesn't make any sense.'' The tech community said, 
``That doesn't make any sense.'' I think a lot of people's 
first instinct was that it didn't make any sense. So I 
understand your reliance on your CIO. I don't blame you for 
that.
    My question is did you have any doubt at any time before 
the report came out a couple of weeks ago?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, on May 8, I believe it was, that 
Monday, when I heard that the ECFS system had been overwhelmed 
for a couple of hours, as I then understood it, my assumption 
was that it was John Oliver's viewers or----
    Senator Schatz. Right. So I got that part. But then the CIO 
tells you it's a DDOS attack.
    Chairman Pai. Correct.
    Senator Schatz. And then you basically declared to the 
world that it was a DDOS attack, including communicating with 
Congress, that a Federal crime has been committed, and the 
thing that I wonder about, given your expertise in the law and 
expertise in tech, is why didn't you entertain any of those 
quite reasonable doubts that were out there in the community or 
out there among your former colleagues in the tech community?
    It just seems odd that the moment your CIO says something, 
that you run with it, and you ran with it quite aggressively 
all the way up until the point where--I guess it was last week 
or the week before--you said, ``Well, I was duped.'' That's 
very hard to digest. So I'm trying to figure out--did you ever 
have any doubt between the point at which your CIO told you 
something and the point at which the IG told you that it was 
wrong?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I would urge any critics on this 
issue--read the entire report. You will see----
    Senator Schatz. Right. I read--I have----
    Chairman Pai. If I could just answer, Senator.
    Senator Schatz. But you're not answering my question. Did 
you have any doubt?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I did have doubts, which is why I 
asked our Chief of Staff who then asked the CIO explicitly, 
``Is this a result of John Oliver's viewers?'' He said, and I 
quote, ``We are 99 percent confident this was external folks 
deliberately trying to tie up the server,'' and he continued, 
``This was definitely high traffic targeting ECFS to make it 
appear unresponsive to others.''
    Later on, on July 24, I had a meeting in my office with 
certain IT staff. We asked them again, ``Are you confident that 
this is what happened?'' They said yes, essentially replicating 
what the former CIO said in his statement.
    Senator Schatz. OK. I got it. So now you're trying to sort 
of muddle through this as your CIO is telling you something and 
the rest of the world is saying that doesn't seem right.
    The question I have is: In terms of your relationship with 
this Committee and the public and in the context of a quite 
partisan, quite hot battle around net neutrality and the 
legitimacy of the participation of the public in this net 
neutrality process, did it ever occur to you to say, ``You 
know, I've got these doubts now, and so my declarative 
statements from before--I'm not so sure that I should stick 
with those, and I'd like to modify my statements. In fact, 
Senator Schatz and Senator Wyden, I'd like to answer the letter 
that you sent me.''
    So at some point before the IG report came out, did it 
occur to you to communicate back with the public that this may 
not have been a DDOS attack?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, on January 23 of 2018, I was 
informed by my Chief of Staff, who had been informed by the 
Office of Inspector General, that they had suspicions that the 
former Chief Information Officer's statements to us and to 
Congress were inaccurate. The OIG then requested, because they 
had referred this matter for potential criminal prosecution to 
the Department of Justice, ``do not say anything to anyone.'' 
Ultimately, the OIG--it became known that they were developing 
a report and that they were going to issue this report.
    Once we knew what the conclusions were, it was very hard to 
stay quiet. We wanted the story to get out, not only because it 
vindicated what we'd been saying, that we'd relied on the Chief 
Information Officer's representations, but also because, 
otherwise, we knew that members of this committee, including 
potentially you, would think, ``Well, he knew something was 
wrong, but he didn't tell us about it.''
    So the position I was in was do we breach the Office of 
Inspector General's request for confidentiality, in which case 
the accusation from perhaps members of this Committee would be 
``he's jeopardizing an independent OIG investigation, including 
a potential criminal prosecution,'' or do I adhere to the 
independent Inspector General's request? It's a difficult 
position to be in. I made the judgment that we had to adhere to 
the OIG's request, even though I knew we would be falsely 
attacked for having done something inappropriately.
    Senator Schatz. Do you consider my line of inquiry a false 
attack?
    Chairman Pai. No. I'm saying plenty of others have 
certainly not held loose about----
    Senator Schatz. I guess what I'm looking for is some 
measure of accountability as the Chairman, and I understand 
that you were in a difficult position. But I can't imagine that 
there was not another way to thread this needle and deal with 
us in our oversight capacity.
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I guess my only request to you would 
be put yourself in my position from January 23 until August 3, 
or whenever it was the report came out. You have a request from 
the Inspector General: ``Do not say anything to anyone.'' The 
story in this report vindicates my position. It was in our 
interest to get it out sooner. We wanted you to get this 
information sooner because it proved what we said. We didn't 
have the ability to do that. I could have done it, but then I 
would have been accused of stifling an OIG investigation, 
potentially frustrating a criminal prosecution.
    I did what I thought was the right thing to do, which was 
to stick by the OIG recommendation, and as I pointed out in my 
August 10 letter--and I quoted the very text on which we relied 
from May 9, I believe it was, all the way forward. We relied on 
the representations of the former Chief Information Officer, 
which--and the OIG's investigation--I would urge you, in 
particular, to read the Memorandum of Interview, if you 
haven't. Those vindicate the position.
    We asked them, ``Is this what it is?'' They said no. ``Have 
you talked to the FBI and DHS?'' They said, ``Yes, those 
agencies have essentially concurred in our recommendations.'' 
That was not true.
    Senator Schatz. OK. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
    Senator Moran.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. With such 
short time and so many questions, I am reluctant to ask all of 
you to respond. So I would defer to whoever feels compelled to 
provide me an answer to my questions.
    I want to start with the USF high-cost program. We worked 
with the Senate Appropriations Committee to include an FSGG 
language that would encourage the FCC to conduct a 
comprehensive assessment of what is needed--quote, ``what is 
needed to appropriately fund the high-cost program to fulfill 
its statutory mandate for universal service.'' I support the 
short-term funding the FCC agreed to provide rate of return 
carriers to mitigate the immediate effects of the budget 
control mechanism.
    My question is, what is the current state of the assessment 
of this program, and what is the status of the short-term 
funds? We've had this conversation many times, but USF high-
cost is not receiving the dollars that it needs.
    Chairman Pai. You left it open to everybody, so I'll pass 
it on to my colleagues. But, no, Senator, I'll take the 
question. We do have an open proceeding. It was important to 
me, because I heard your concerns and the concerns of carriers 
throughout Kansas that the budget control mechanism, in 
particular, was creating a lot of uncertainty. So, as you know, 
we suspended that temporarily, issued an NPRM in March, and, as 
I've committed here, we are going to work with our colleagues 
here and with the Committee to make sure that by the end of the 
year, we have a rate of return system that provides that 
predictability and sufficient support that you require.
    Senator Moran. The Chairman mentioned this in his comments, 
and I would join him in stressing to you the importance of this 
issue. Let me talk to maybe Commissioner O'Rielly, who has been 
most vocal on this.
    We provided in the farm bill those areas, those 
opportunities to narrow the scope of subsidizing places that 
already have a carrier, already have a service. What kind of 
interagency communications are already taking place between 
USDA, the FCC, and NTIA about bridging the digital divide?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I think that's best answered by the 
Chairman, who has had teams working on this. I'm not party to 
them.
    Senator Moran. We may spend more time deciding who is going 
to answer the question than----
    Chairman Pai. Senator, with respect to USDA, we have been 
actively collaborating. For example, I've consulted repeatedly 
with Secretary Perdue as well as the Administrator of RUS from 
Missouri to figure out ways to make sure we're on the same page 
with respect to the $600 million that they're now distributing. 
We're also working together to make sure that our USF programs 
generally cohere. We're working with NTIA on a whole variety of 
issues to make sure that we're all on the same page when it 
comes to broadband deployment.
    Senator Moran. I'm not sure what Commissioner Rosenworcel 
was specifically addressing in her comments, but it caught my 
attention. Most recently, the CEO of Nex-Tech Wireless in my 
hometown of Hays, Kansas, expressed support for extending the 
challenge process on the Mobility Fund Phase II auction based 
upon difficulties that carriers and others are experiencing in 
collecting reliable data, urging the FCC to, quote, ``measure 
twice and cut once'' before dispersing over $4 billion of 
resources.
    I have expressed a lot of concern about the initial 
eligibility map. I think it dramatically overstates existing 
unsubsidized coverage in my state, and looking at the map, my 
belief is it's elsewhere as well. You, Chairman Pai, met with 
me--and I appreciate that conversation--along with Chairman 
Wicker and others. One of my complaints then and now is that 
the FCC has put in place a map that is known to be flawed and 
expects others to fix the problem. That, to me, as I indicated 
previously, is not the way that government should work.
    My question is: What efforts beyond the challenge process 
is the FCC able, willing, or now doing to see that the map is 
righted before we cut twice and--whatever that expression was--
before that happens?
    Chairman Pai. Excellent question, Senator. We inherited 
from the prior FCC a mess when it came to the map. We 
essentially asked every single carrier to report, based on its 
own preferred technical parameters, where they had coverage. 
But that wasn't good enough for me. So I urged and the FCC 
approved a bespoke data collection to make sure that we got a--
based on the same technical parameters for every single 
carrier, show us where you have coverage, and then we overlaid 
all of those.
    Then on top of that, we said now we're going to open it up 
for a challenge process, as you know. I'm pleased to report, as 
I mentioned to Senator Wicker, that we have adopted an order 
that extends by 90 days, until November 28, the time-frame 
within which to promulgate a challenge. We also have extended 
waivers to the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Mississippi Farm Bureau, 
to elected officials like Senator Manchin, and to others to 
participate in that challenge process.
    Our Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force has put out a map 
showing areas where there's one unsubsidized competitor to make 
it easier to target the areas that are right for challenge. We 
have also made it easier to--we've essentially changed the 
buffer area to make it much easier to submit a challenge. So a 
variety of steps we have taken have made it much easier than it 
was in January 2017 when I came on board. But I agree with you. 
We should not be distributing this funding to parts of the 
country that are unserved if we don't know they're unserved. 
That's what the entire goal of our new data collection is.
    Senator Moran. I think the answer that I hear you saying, 
Chairman, is that it still is the challenge process that will 
correct the map. There's nothing the FCC is currently doing or 
could do to take that task on itself.
    Chairman Pai. Well, we've done a number of things. Our 
Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force has been in nine states. 
We've been investigating on the ground as best we can. We don't 
have the personnel, the thousands of people, that would be 
necessary to go around the entire United States. We've relied, 
as I said, on a wide variety of actors, private sector, state 
and local officials, and others to make those challenges.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I don't want to discount anything 
that the Chairman said. I agree that extending the deadline is 
a good idea. But I fundamentally agree with you that our maps 
are flawed, and over the next 10 years, we are going to 
distribute $4.5 billion to rural communities. If we get it 
wrong, they're going to pay a really big price. They won't get 
the funding they need.
    So in addition to extending it--and our process is really 
cumbersome. You've got to download all these data from the FCC, 
go onto their portal at USAC. You've got to get a variety of 
handsets and then at half a kilometer distances go and test 
signal strength and latency, upload it back, put it on a grid, 
get it certified by an engineer. It is difficult.
    We should be adding to this with our own efforts. We could 
do that if we took some of the FCC field offices and had them 
go out and do testing. We can ask our colleagues at the 
Universal Service Administrative Company, who are already 
planning on testing after the fact, to go out and also do spot 
checks.
    And then we can take advantage of our Measuring Broadband 
America program, where we've got like 200,000 consumers around 
the country who have downloaded a test to see if broadband is 
available through wirelessly in their communities and see if we 
can have them to help us, too, because the more data we get 
here to make it more accurate, the better off rural communities 
will be.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Commissioner Rosenworcel, and 
please consider me an ally in any efforts to do that. To 
demonstrate how important this issue is and yet how wrong the 
process is, the Kansas Farm Bureau is taking upon itself to go 
out and do the testing. I applaud them for doing that, but it 
doesn't seem like it's a responsibility of the Kansas Farm 
Bureau to correct a map developed by the FCC and information 
provided to it.
    Mr. Chairman, I would offer to you and to the Ranking 
Member that if I can help in any way to get the fifth 
commissioner confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I am interested in 
seeing that we have a second Kansan serving on the FCC.
    The Chairman. I don't know. Sounds like an inside deal to 
me.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
    Senator Cantwell is up.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the 
hearing.
    This is for any of the commissioners. Last week, Google's 
smartphone service storage user--it came out that its storage 
user locations, even when the privacy settings are adjusted to 
shut these features off, and while the company asks permission 
from users to share location information, it does not stop 
those tracking services when the user pauses the location 
history. Now, Homeland Security has received reports of 
nefarious actors having exploited weaknesses in cell phone 
network operation systems and targeting communications of 
Americans.
    Does the FCC need to be doing more in this issue in 
protecting consumers by correcting some of these issues with 
your oversight?
    Yes?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the 
question. The answer is yes. Protection of the safety of life 
and property is in the very first sentence of the 
Communications Act. Cybersecurity is no longer some siloed 
notion. As we connect everything in our lives, it is part of 
our basic cyber hygiene to make sure we consider how we can be 
more safe and secure and less vulnerable to difficult actors.
    We've got issues right now with the Stingrays in this town, 
adjacent to big Federal buildings like the White House, that 
are using our airwaves. We should be investigating that. It's a 
violation of the Communications Act for them to do that. And 
there are interference issues that are real there and something 
we should be looking at, and we should be looking at the 
situations you described where wireless carriers are giving out 
geolocation information without customer consent. That's a 
violation of our Customer Proprietary Network Information 
Rules.
    We should also be looking at technologies like SS-7, which 
we know are vulnerable. From front to back, we need to be 
thinking about cybersecurity in everything we do.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm glad to hear you say that. I 
hope some of your other fellow Commissioners agree. Can we get 
comments?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I agree with the issue--the position 
you've taken that cybersecurity is an important issue, and that 
is why we have worked very well with the Department of Homeland 
Security. I personally have worked with the DHS under Secretary 
Krebs, who handles a lot of these issues, and have had 
briefings in our own skiff on some of the cyber issues that we 
see emerging, and we'd like to work with you on that if there's 
a way for it.
    Senator Cantwell. I think last time you were here, you were 
more or less drawing a line, saying that the life and property 
issue--but that you didn't have a real role in cybersecurity. 
So I hope you're rethinking that, because I think the continued 
evolution here is we need the FCC to play an aggressive role. I 
love that Commissioner Rosenworcel used the word, hygiene. 
That's the word we use so much in our state.
    But the challenge we face is that it is--you know, if you 
look at what happened with the Equifax, they even had a patch, 
and the guy was supposed to fix the patch and apply it, didn't 
do it, and now all these people are without security. So I hope 
the same can be said of the FCC in focusing on what it wants to 
require here so that consumers are better protected, but, more 
importantly, that this outlet is not just a front-door portal 
for more attacks.
    Chairman Pai. Senator, if I might, as I said at the earlier 
hearing, our challenge is that we are a creature of Congress. 
We can only exercise the authority that Congress has entrusted 
to us. Section 1 of the Communications Act is a purpose 
section. It doesn't grant us operative authority, and that's 
why under current law, at least, we are to operate in a 
consultative role with the Department of Homeland Security, 
with the intelligence community, and others.
    We are doing that to develop best practices and the like, 
and DHS just last week, I believe--earlier this week, rather--
announced that they have a new cybersecurity center that they 
are standing up to help address these issues. We look forward 
to working with them and with anyone who is interested in these 
issues.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I serve on several committees where 
we've had hearings, and I so appreciate this Committee joining 
in that.
    But I think--I want to hear from Commissioner Rosenworcel. 
Do you disagree? Do you think there's something you could do 
now, that you don't need a new authority or bill by us to do 
that?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I do not think we need additional 
authority, but we would always welcome it. I think it is just 
part of our duty as public servants. The first duty of the 
public servant is the public safety. We should look at our 
statute and find every way to make sure that cybersecurity is 
part of everything we do.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I think we, no doubt, are just 
going to have to keep upping the aggressive nature of helping 
here, because, obviously, wherever people can get in is where 
they're going to get in, and I think some of this information 
is very, very important. But thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Markey.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, net neutrality has been the 
governing principle of the Internet up until now, until the FCC 
overturned those rules. Chairman Pai has been saying, ``Well, 
the sky is not falling.'' But I'd like your insight into 
whether or not at this point we would expect broadband 
providers to start to set up fast and slow lanes, knowing that 
there's a court proceeding that has not been completed and 
knowing that the Congressional Review Act that I authored has 
already passed in the Senate and is now pending over in the 
House.
    So I'd like to get your insight with regard to whether or 
not you agree that no changes that are significant have taken 
place yet because the whole process has not been completed.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I think you're right, Senator. I 
mean, just look at what happened in the aftermath of our 
decision. Millions of Americans know what the FCC is. I'll bet 
you they didn't before. We've had a Congressional Review Act 
here in the Senate. There's one pending in the House. We've got 
23 state attorneys general suing us, six Governors who issued 
executive orders, three states that have actually passed their 
own laws, and legislation pending in 30 more states. What 
you're seeing is the American public angry about what happened 
here, and I am certain that providers are careful in light of 
that.
    Senator Markey. OK. Now, let me move on to the children's 
television proceeding that has now begun at the FCC. I'm the 
author of the Children's Television Act of 1990. Ultimately, it 
requires 3 hours a week of educational and informational 
programming for all children in America on free over-the-air 
broadcasting.
    So there's a consideration to reduce the number of hours 
from three to some other number. There's also consideration of 
the concept that it wouldn't even be regularly scheduled so 
kids necessarily or their parents wouldn't know what time it's 
on in order to go to that program.
    Now, the problem, of course, is that we have a very high 
percentage of minorities in America--Hispanics, African 
Americans, Asians--who do not have cable, who do not have 
broadband, high-speed broadband, so they're reliant upon free 
over-the-air television. So this nutrition for the brain, which 
is the educational and informational programming that the law 
requires, is absolutely essential.
    So could you talk to any concerns you might have about what 
we need to guarantee stays in place in order to make sure these 
kids get what they need?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Sure. Listen, I'm a mom. I know 
that my kids watch programming differently than I did when I 
was a child. But if you look at the data, what you learn is 
that a quarter of the low-income households with kids under 
eight in this country don't have broadband, and many of the 
houses that do don't have unlimited plans. This idea that 
everyone is just going to stream educational content for 
children easily in a cost-free way is flawed.
    It's okay to decide we want to modernize these rules. We 
should want to modernize these rules. But we've got to be 
careful about how we are reducing the positive impact that the 
Children's Television Act could really have on the households 
that need it most.
    Senator Markey. And I agree with you. I don't have a 
problem with going back and reviewing what has evolved over the 
years, but I also don't want to do it without focusing upon all 
the kids, tens of millions of them, who are going to be in a 
different situation than families that look like the ones that 
are on this panel or sitting at the witness table today. 
They're in a different situation. They need access to this kind 
of programming.
    I would hope that as we're going through this whole re-do 
of the children's television rules that we're mindful of those 
children. They need the same kind of information we were given 
access to growing up.
    Finally, I'd like to come to you, Mr. Chairman, on 
robocalls. That's just an incredible issue that just drives 
people crazy in our country. That's why I authored the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 so that we would have 
rules that could protect people from just--especially around 
supper time--just having their lives interfered with in a way 
that drives them crazy.
    I know the D.C. Circuit struck down the rules that were put 
on the books by the FCC. So can you give me some kind of 
guidance as to how you're going to be robust in putting 
protections on the books?
    Chairman Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. We are 
taking a two-track approach. One is with respect to our 
regulations, and the other is with respect to enforcement. I'll 
tackle the second piece first.
    We have taken the most aggressive action in the agency's 
history across any area to address this issue. We've made it 
our number one consumer protection authority. The largest fines 
ever imposed in the FCC's history have been imposed against 
robocallers.
    With respect to regulation, as you pointed out, the D.C. 
Circuit vacated the previous 2015 rules. We have issued a 
public notice and are still taking public input on what the 
appropriate way forward is with respect to autodialers, 
reassigned numbers, and revocation of consent, and we look 
forward to developing the record further with the staff and 
trying to assess the way forward.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, and I appreciate that.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, I was going to come to you next, but 
my time is running out. But I want to work with you on this 
children's television----
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Happy to.
    Senator Markey.--so that we get the right answer for every 
child in America. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Senator Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
    I want to thank the Commissioners for being here today. I 
do really appreciate it. I particularly want to thank 
Commissioner Carr for visiting Indiana some months ago. We had 
a really productive day visiting some rural communities that 
are having challenges with respect to connectivity. Downtown 
Indianapolis--I thought that was quite interesting, certainly 
to me, as wireless carriers are utilizing spectrum to deliver 
new 5G services. We also visited West Lafayette, Perdue 
University that is leading the world in advancing smart 
agriculture through the latest technology.
    There was a common theme as we went around the state of 
high-speed connectivity leads to jobs and economic growth and 
better health and education. I want to commend you, certainly 
on the healthcare front, for taking action. The proposed 
Connected Care Pilot Program to support delivery of telehealth 
services for people of modest means is really important to me 
and the people of Indiana.
    With regard to this pilot program, do you foresee the FCC 
studying the overall impact this will have on healthcare 
expenditures, or it could have, as a result of increased access 
to telemedicine services for people of modest means?
    Commissioner Carr. Senator, thank you for the question. 
Absolutely, and you actually deserve some credit for this. 
There was an idea that you threw out during that trip, which is 
if we are investing in these telehealth technologies and 
there's a direct reduction in Medicaid expenditures, how do we 
capture that savings in a beneficial way when it comes either 
to more telehealth or more broadband deployment? That's 
something that we ended up including in the NOI, and we're 
seeking comment on how to do that.
    Senator Young. Yes, if we invest intelligently, we can 
avoid government expenditures. We might be able to set that 
money aside in the future and then pay back those at the 
private level who might actually make these investments. So I 
see some exciting possibilities here. We're doing this as well 
in the social realm through so-called social impact bonds or 
social impact partnerships. So this is a variant of that.
    What results, as a follow-up, have you seen to date for 
similar telehealth programs?
    Commissioner Carr. We've seen tremendous positive results. 
The one pilot that I saw in Ruleville, Mississippi--they saw 
results that if only 20 percent of the state's diabetes 
population enrolled in that program, it would be a $189 million 
reduction in the state's Medicaid expenses, not to mention, 
obviously, improve patient outcomes.
    Senator Young. Well, it's very encouraging. How do we 
ensure that we're not just replicating existing government 
programs, whether it's through the FCC or USDA or through one 
of the other constellation of government entities we have out 
there?
    Commissioner Carr. Thank you, Senator. This is another good 
question, and we've teed up very specific asks in our notice of 
inquiry about accounting and metrics and how we make sure that 
we're not duplicating funding and that we can coordinate, 
because as you mentioned, there are a lot of different agencies 
that are involved in this space, and we don't want to be 
duplicating efforts. We want to stretch the dollars as far as 
possible.
    Senator Young. Thank you. I'm going to turn quickly to the 
advancement to win the race to 5G, something we all are 
supportive of, I believe.
    Commissioner Carr, I mentioned our trip to Indianapolis. We 
went on a walking tour that day of existing small cell wireless 
deployment that AT&T has implemented there in downtown 
Indianapolis. And then just a couple of days ago, Verizon made 
an exciting announcement. They said Indianapolis would be one 
of the first 5G cities in the United States, and that should 
launch later this year, I understand.
    Now, companies--they don't make decisions like this in a 
vacuum. State and local regulations, I hear, make a huge 
impact. So I just want to get your perspective on that. Do you 
believe the actions of our state and local governments were key 
in facilitating these investments, and, if so, shouldn't this 
be done on a national scale to incentivize investment in all 
communities, big and small alike?
    Commissioner Carr. Senator, thank you. I agree. When we 
were in Indiana, in Indianapolis, we met with the Governor. We 
talked about the policies that have been put in place at the 
state level, some pretty basic commonsense guardrails, and that 
is the incentive that created the environment that you see 
multiple nationwide providers leading their 5G deployments in 
that state. So the idea that some basic commonsense rules of 
the road are going to attract and incentivize investment--we're 
seeing exactly that pay off for a lot of Hoosiers right now.
    Senator Young. What else should the FCC be doing to 
expedite the process for deploying small cells that are 
necessary to win this race to 5G?
    Commissioner Carr. We have a proceeding right now where 
we're looking at some basic commonsense ideas. Some of the 
ideas that we've seen in Indiana are ones that have stuck with 
us that we're looking to see if we can build on so that we can 
get deployment not just in the biggest of big cities but to 
every community.
    Senator Young. I'll be brief with respect to my last 
question here, Chairman Pai. It relates to Hoosier 
broadcasters. They have expressed great anxiety over this 
channel repack, and this Committee has already done some really 
good work on this front, so I want to acknowledge that. But now 
it's crunch time, as it were, and Phase 1 of the repack is 
beginning to move forward in earnest.
    So how closely is the FCC monitoring the progress of tower 
crews, and what's the backup plan for when the arbitrary time 
table slips because of, for example, weather or other 
unforeseen circumstances?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. We do 
have a transition plan in place to ensure that every one of the 
10 phases proceeds smoothly. In addition, we've built some 
given systems, so to speak, so, for example, if a broadcaster, 
for reasons outside of his control, is not able to go through 
the process, we have a process to grant waivers, for example, 
to extend other sort of regulatory discretion, you might say, 
to make sure that they're held harmless.
    But we've also adopted recently a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to implement some of the authority that Congress 
recently gave us with respect to low power TV stations, 
translators, and the like, and FM radio stations as well to 
make sure that we address their issues also.
    Senator Young. I don't think you addressed this, so I'm 
going to very quickly--what process does the Commission have in 
place to ensure that if a broadcaster is being moved to a 
different channel and is unable to meet that deadline for that 
phase to move through no fault of their own--how are they--is 
there some sort of process that the Commission has in place to 
accommodate or allow these channels--these broadcasters to stay 
on their current channel?
    Chairman Pai. There is. So there is a waiver process that I 
mentioned. In addition, we have special temporary authority, or 
STA, that can be granted. If I remember correctly, it is to 
stay on a channel that another broadcaster who participated in 
the auction has vacated and where there's not a wireless 
licensee occupying it. We have the ability to grant an STA in 
those situations.
    Senator Young. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
    Senator Hassan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Hassan. Thank you. I thought that was the case, but 
just checking. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having the hearing and 
to our Ranking Member as well, and thank you to the panel for 
being here today.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, I wanted to ask you a question 
following up on a line that I think Senator Wicker began to 
cover with Chairman Pai. Chairman Pai included in his testimony 
a discussion of net neutrality and quoted from a Washington 
Post piece from February of this year, which gave the claim--
and I think Senator Wicker mentioned this--that the FCC's 
repeal of net neutrality rules would slow down Internet traffic 
speeds, and the article gave it three Pinocchios. So I'd like 
to ask unanimous consent to insert the full article into the 
record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

          The Washington Post--March 5, 2018 at 3:00 a.m. EST

   Will the FCC's net neutrality repeal grind the Internet to a halt?

                           By Salvador Rizzo

``If we don't save net neutrality, you'll get the Internet one word at 
        a time.''
--U.S. Senate Democrats, in a tweet, Feb. 27, 2018

    This clever tweet caught our eye because each word is separated by 
paragraph breaks, giving readers a bitter taste of what it's like to 
scroll through the Internet one word at a time.
    It also set off our antennae because of the sweeping claim 
Democrats are making--that consumers will see a sharp drop in Internet 
speeds if the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with its plan 
to unwind net neutrality rules imposed under President Barack Obama in 
2015.
    Led by a new chairman chosen by President Trump, the FCC voted to 
roll back the Obama-era rules and relinquish oversight of Internet 
service providers to the Federal Trade Commission.
    Supporters say that by lifting the burden of net neutrality 
regulations, companies such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will invest in 
their networks, improve service and expand to underserved and rural 
areas. Critics say that absent regulations, Internet providers have 
free rein to slow down certain websites or features--video streaming, 
for example--or speed up websites and services willing to pay more for 
Internet ``fast lanes.''
    The tweet from Senate Democrats is clearly meant to be exaggerated. 
For words to load one at a time, the Internet would have to slow down 
to a glacial crawl that would render it pointless. But the basic 
assertion in the tweet--that consumers will see a sharp drop in 
Internet speeds--is worth fact-checking.
The Facts
    In 2015, the FCC voted 3 to 2 along party lines to approve rules 
enshrining what's known as net neutrality--the idea that all types of 
digital traffic should be treated equally, whether it's e-mail, Web 
content, video or any other kind of data. The FCC's Open Internet Order 
reclassified broadband providers as telecoms; imposed transparency 
rules; and, among other changes, barred these providers from blocking 
online content, throttling speeds or setting up Internet fast lanes and 
charging fees for their use, what's known as ``paid prioritization.''
    For net neutrality advocates, the Open Internet Order was a 
milestone after years of debate and court battles over earlier 
regulations. A December 2017 report by the Congressional Research 
Service outlines the recent history of net neutrality in the FCC, 
Congress and the courts, and makes a key point: In an earlier online 
era, the most popular services were e-mail and Web content, a 
relatively light load for networks. Since then, demand has grown for 
data-heavy services such as video streaming, online gaming and Internet 
voice services.
    The Obama-era regulations prevented broadband companies from 
blocking or slowing down any online service or application for any 
reason other than reasonable network maintenance. The rules also barred 
paid prioritization. But these regulations would be in place for just 
short of three years.
    Under FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Trump appointee, the commission in 
December voted 3 to 2 along party lines to reverse almost all of the 
Open Internet Order and transfer the FCC's oversight of Internet 
service providers to the FTC, which has a lighter touch since it can 
only enforce the terms of the broadband providers' user agreements and 
police ``anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive conduct.''
    The FCC's rollback proposal, called Restoring Internet Freedom, was 
published Feb. 22 in the Federal Register, the official journal of 
administrative actions, but additional paperwork must be filed before 
the new rules are finalized.
    ``It will lead to slower speeds for certain websites, absolutely,'' 
said Gigi Sohn, who was counselor to former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, 
an Obama appointee, when the now-repealed net neutrality rules were 
adopted in 2015. She is now a distinguished fellow at Georgetown Law's 
Institute for Technology Law and Policy.
    ``There is a very good chance that companies will ask . . . Netflix 
or Hulu, Etsy or Facebook, even the little companies, too, to pay for 
faster service or better quality of service,'' Sohn said. ``And if you 
don't pay, you'll get lower quality of service.''
    This hasn't happened. But a 2016 report by the FCC says 61 percent 
of Americans have one or no provider in their area offering high-speed 
Internet. The number rises to 87 percent for rural Americans. So if it 
did happen, it's not as if consumers could switch easily to a faster or 
less content-biased provider.
    The Internet Association, a group that represents tech giants such 
as Facebook and Google, says broadband providers need net neutrality 
regulations or they'll come to control what users see by giving top 
speeds only to the highest bidders--or to themselves. Comcast owns NBC. 
AT&T owns DirecTV. Both companies and Verizon offer their own video-
streaming services.
    ``We need strong, enforceable net neutrality protections because 
consumers have little or no choice at the point of connection, and ISPs 
shouldn't be able to advantage their own or preferred websites and apps 
over the rest of the Internet,'' said Noah Theran, an Internet 
Association spokesman. ``Consumers should choose which websites and 
apps are best.''
    Contrary to what Democrats claim in their tweet (which looks a lot 
like this tweet from the ACLU, by the way), some of the biggest U.S. 
broadband providers say in pretty stark terms that they have no plans 
to block or throttle content or to start along the road of paid 
prioritization.
    ``Even with the FCC's recent changes to net neutrality, nothing has 
changed,'' said Richard J. Young, a Verizon spokesman. ``For years, 
we've seen all sorts of hypothetical scenarios in which some speculate 
that changes to net neutrality rules will bring the end to the Internet 
as we know it. The fact is that we need to end the speculation, because 
the reality tells a very different story.''
    He quoted from Verizon's open Internet pledge. `` `We will not 
throttle or slow down any Internet traffic based on its source or 
content,' '' Young said. ``That's been our commitment for years. And we 
have zero intention of changing or pulling back on that pledge.''
    The pledge also says: ``We will not accept payments from any 
company to deliver its traffic faster or sooner than other traffic on 
our consumer broadband service, nor will we deliver our affiliates' 
Internet traffic faster or sooner than third parties'. We will not 
prioritize traffic in a way that harms competition or consumers.''
    Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast, said ``we have a long 
history of supporting net neutrality and have been calling on 
congressional legislation to enshrine it for years.'' She pointed to a 
Dec. 13 blog post by David L. Cohen, Comcast's senior executive vice 
president and chief diversity officer.
    ``Despite repeated distortions and biased information, as well as 
misguided, inaccurate attacks from detractors, our Internet service is 
not going to change,'' the blog post says. ``Comcast customers will 
continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet today, 
tomorrow, and in the future. Period.''
    The post goes on to say that ``we do not and will not block, 
throttle, or discriminate against lawful content'' and that ``we've not 
entered into paid prioritization agreements and have no plans to do 
so.''
    ``We don't block websites,'' Randall Stephenson, AT&T's chairman 
and chief executive, wrote in an open letter Jan. 24. ``We don't censor 
online content. And we don't throttle, discriminate or degrade network 
performance based on content. Period. We have publicly committed to 
these principles for over 10 years. And we will continue to abide by 
them in providing our customers the open Internet experience they have 
come to expect.''
    Critics say these statements in some cases leave enough wiggle room 
for a change of position once public attention shifts away from the 
FCC's latest round of rulemaking, or once any court challenges to the 
new FCC rules are resolved. There are several documented cases of 
broadband providers blocking or slowing down applications. The FCC in 
2008 found that Comcast had violated one of the commission's Internet 
policies by blocking some users' peer-to-peer file-sharing connections 
in an effort to manage network traffic. (Comcast no longer manages 
traffic like this; its network management policies are posted online.)
    Stephenson's statement does not specifically address paid 
prioritization, and Bob Quinn, AT&T's senior executive vice president 
for external and legislative affairs, touched off speculation about 
prioritized content when he wrote Feb. 27: ``What we do care about is 
enabling innovative new technologies like autonomous cars, remote 
surgery, enhanced first responder communications and virtual reality 
services. I think we can all agree that the packets directing 
autonomous cars, robotic surgeries or public safety communications must 
not drop. Ever. So, let's address concerns around paid prioritization 
without impacting those innovations.''
    Broadband providers have tweaked their positions over the years on 
paid prioritization, and in some cases have not lived up to other 
customer pledges, critics say. Sohn pointed to a court case, Verizon v. 
FCC. In 2013, Verizon's attorney said the company was interested in 
paid prioritization during oral argument before a panel of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
    ``Broadband providers also have powerful incentives to accept fees 
from edge providers, either in return for excluding their competitors 
or for granting them prioritized access to end users,'' Judge David S. 
Tatel wrote in ruling on the case in 2014. ``Indeed, at oral argument, 
Verizon's counsel announced that `but for [the Open Internet Order] 
rules we would be exploring those commercial arrangements.' ''
    He added: ``Although Verizon dismisses the [FCC's] assertions 
regarding broadband providers' incentives as `pure speculation,' those 
assertions are, at the very least, speculation based firmly in common 
sense and economic reality.'' The court noted that ``Voice-over-
Internet-Protocol (VoIP) services such as Vonage increasingly serve as 
substitutes for traditional telephone services, and broadband providers 
like AT&T and Time Warner have acknowledged that online video 
aggregators such as Netflix and Hulu compete directly with their own 
`core video subscription service.' ''
    The two Democratic FCC commissioners say broadband providers could 
roll out paid prioritization by making discreet changes that might go 
unnoticed.
    ``Maybe several providers will quietly roll out paid prioritization 
packages that enable deep-pocketed players to cut the queue,'' 
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said. ``Maybe a vertically-integrated 
broadband provider decides that it will favor its own apps and 
services. . . . Maybe some of these actions will be cloaked under 
nondisclosure agreements and wrapped up in mandatory arbitration 
clauses so that it will be a breach of contract to disclose these 
publicly or take the provider to court over any wrongdoing.''
    ``Now our broadband providers will tell you they will never do 
these things,'' Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said. ``They say just 
trust us. But know this: They have the technical ability and business 
incentive to discriminate and manipulate your Internet traffic.''
    Again, none of this has happened. Pai says the Internet flourished 
in the years leading up to 2015, before the Obama-era net neutrality 
regulations.
    ``Under this light-touch approach, the private sector invested in 
networks to the tune of $1.5 trillion. Internet speeds accelerated from 
kilobits to gigabits per second,'' he said. ``The Internet wasn't 
broken in 2015. We were not living in a digital dystopia.''
    An FCC spokeswoman, Tina Pelkey, said that ``there is no evidence 
to support'' claims that the Internet will slow down. She noted that 
the new rules keep ``requiring ISPs to publicly disclose accurate 
information regarding the network management practices, performance, 
and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services 
sufficient for consumers to make informed choices.''
    Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the Senate Commerce Committee 
Republicans, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the committee chairman, 
referred us to an FCC chart showing a steady rise in Internet speeds 
from March 2011 to September 2015. (It measures median download speeds 
in megabits per second.)
    ``Driven by technology, the Internet has gotten faster even as 
regulations change, new users get connected, and the volume of Internet 
traffic balloons,'' Hill said. ``While Senator Thune shares concerns 
about the impact of regulatory back and forth on the Internet, pursuing 
bipartisan legislation to put net neutrality protections in place to 
end the uncertainty would be vastly more constructive than pushing 
false claims to politicize the issue.''
    A Senate Democratic aide said that ``the underlying fact is that 
without the net neutrality rule, ISPs will be free to charge consumers 
more for faster Internet, leaving many that cannot afford it with 
slower Internet speeds.''
The Pinocchio Test
    The debate over net neutrality is reshaping the Internet and 
raising big-picture questions about modern life. But we can't help but 
feel that we've spilled a lot of pixels here analyzing something that 
simply hasn't happened.
    Senate Democrats, industry leaders and net neutrality activists say 
the FCC's move to toss out the Obama-era rules will bog down and end 
the Internet as we know it. The biggest broadband providers forcefully 
reject this claim, saying they have no plans to block or throttle 
content or offer paid prioritization.
    That could change in time. As the D.C. Circuit said, broadband 
companies could make more money from paid prioritization, and it's 
``common sense'' to think they might try it. These providers have the 
ability and the incentive to slow down or speed up Internet traffic, 
and they've engaged in these practices in the past.
    For now, though, there's scant evidence that Internet users should 
brace for a slowdown. Yet the Democrats' tweet conveys the false 
impression that a slowdown is imminent unless net neutrality rules are 
restored. This transmission error merits Three Pinocchios, but we will 
monitor the situation and update our ruling depending on whether the 
fears were overstated or came true.

    Senator Hassan. Thank you. Because the full piece goes on 
to state that the Internet traffic hasn't slowed yet. The piece 
goes on to say, and I quote, ``that could change in time. As 
the D.C. Circuit said, broadband companies could make more 
money from paid prioritization, and it's common sense to think 
they might try it. These providers have the ability and the 
incentive to slow down or speed up Internet traffic, and 
they've engaged in these practices in the past.''
    So, Commissioner Rosenworcel, is there anything that would 
stop an ISP from blocking certain websites and content right 
now, given the FCC's rollback of net neutrality rules?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the 
question. The answer is no. We gave them the legal right to 
block websites and censor online content. I mean, I don't think 
that's a good thing, but I do know this. Now that they have the 
legal right, all they have to do is combine it with their 
existing business incentives and technical ability, and I think 
history will demonstrate if you've got legal right, business 
incentive, and a technical ability, it will happen.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you for that. How will this impact 
consumers in my state and consumers across the country who rely 
on the Internet as an even playing field for business and for 
innovation?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. It's not good for anyone who 
consumes or creates online. We're adding another gatekeeper and 
toll online. We could have them build the internet into a fast 
lane for some and a slow lane that's bumpy for the rest of us. 
I don't think that's the openness that has led our Internet 
economy to thrive.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Pai, another topic that I'd like to cover--the 
last time you testified before this Committee, you, frankly, 
struggled to respond to a very basic question about whether you 
believe the press is the enemy of the people, as President 
Trump continues to assert. Since that hearing, more reporters 
have been roughed up and assaulted. The Administration has shut 
down--or shut certain reporters out of press conferences, and 
the President's rhetoric against the media has increased.
    So, today, the media is fighting back with words. Today, in 
a coordinated effort, over 350 newspapers published editorials 
decrying this rhetoric and standing up for the freedom of the 
press. My question to you and the entire panel is--and I'd just 
like a yes or no--do you believe the President's rhetoric is 
harmful to the values enshrined in the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, as I answered last year in response 
to your letter, I do not believe the media are the enemy of the 
people.
    Senator Hassan. Is the President's rhetoric harmful to the 
values enshrined in our First Amendment, yes or no?
    Chairman Pai. I'm not going to make comments on people's 
political comments on either side of the aisle. I will simply 
say that this FCC has proven that it will stand on the side of 
the First Amendment in all its forms.
    Senator Hassan. Well, I think there are several reporters 
who might differ with you on that.
    Mr. O'Rielly?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I think that the First Amendment and 
the ability of press and journalists to respond to the 
circumstances are stronger than anyone's critique, any 
particular persons, no matter who they may be.
    Senator Hassan. So you don't think the President's rhetoric 
is harmful to the First Amendment?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I don't think it's appropriate for 
me to comment about the President of the United States in this 
context. But I'll say I think the Constitution, First 
Amendment, and the journalistic integrity is stronger than 
anyone's critique.
    Senator Hassan. So the First Amendment is the only 
amendment in our Constitution that singles out a particular 
industry as absolutely vital to our freedom and our democracy, 
and yet when the President of the United States, who swore to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America says 
that their industry is the enemy of the people, you don't think 
that's harmful?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. No, I said I don't believe--and I 
said this previously--I don't believe that that comment that he 
made was accurate. I don't--just like Chairman Pai, I agree 
that they're not the enemy of the people. I have said that 
before. However, I believe that the strength of journalism is 
stronger than any criticism of any one person, no matter who 
they may be.
    Senator Hassan. Again, I think there are members of the 
press who might differ with you. The question is: Is it 
harmful? And I'm not going to get into a debate with you. I 
think your reluctance to answer speaks for itself.
    Mr. Carr?
    Commissioner Carr. Senator, thanks for the question. The 
First Amendment operates as a restraint on the government. The 
idea is that we don't put a thumb on the scale in favor of one 
speaker or the other. The whole purpose of the First Amendment 
is to encourage strong, robust, perhaps rough in some 
situations, discourse. At the FCC, my job is to act consistent 
with the First Amendment in every single thing that I do, and 
that's consistent with the First Amendment rights of the media 
and the journalists, and I commit to you that I'll continue to 
do that.
    Senator Hassan. Well, and I'll continue to note the 
avoidance of the question I asked.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. This is simple. This is easy. 
Yes, it's harmful.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
    Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank you all for being here today.
    Chairman Pai, in regards to consultation with Indian 
tribes, I commend those activities, and I hope you continue to 
do them. I think there are a lot of agencies within government 
that don't understand consultation. I think it's really 
important. So I appreciate you doing that.
    Being down the line in asking questions, I got to hear a 
lot of conversation about the maps. The maps stink, basically, 
and I don't know that the process that you've got to take care 
of the maps is going to work. In other words, I'm sitting here 
thinking if I get a text to go out, does that mean I have 
coverage? And if I get a text to go out in one side of my house 
but not in the other side of my house, does that constitute 
coverage? If it's a voice call and the same thing, does that 
constitute coverage? Because, quite frankly, that's exactly my 
world. I can send texts, depending on where the sun is in the 
sky, basically, and I can get voice calls sometimes, depending 
on which direction I'm driving the tractor.
    So in rural America, whether you're talking about Montana 
or South Dakota or anywhere else, that's where it's at, and 
we've got to get those maps very quickly. I agree with Jessica. 
It will result in a big spending of a lot of money that will be 
unnecessarily spent.
    The other thing I would say in regards to the robocalls--
you had said that you've been very aggressive on this issue. I 
can tell you personally, and my constituents have seen an 
incredible increase in robocalls over the last couple of years. 
I don't know if that's because of the D.C. Circuit Court 
decision or some other reason.
    But we've got to shut them down. They are an incredible 
nuisance. And whatever you can do--and if you need more 
jurisdiction from us, please let us know, because I don't think 
anybody around this circle in a bipartisan way would not give 
you the power you need to shut this stuff down, because it is 
incredibly a big nuisance.
    The other thing I would just say--and this is a question. 
It deals with 5G. I am happy that 5G--that Verizon is going 
into Indianapolis. I am very concerned that it'll never come to 
Montana. We have advocated to put 5G into our biggest town, 
Billings. Yet we have gotten no response whatsoever.
    So here's my question. As we work to get 5G--and I think 
all of us want to have 5G throughout the country--what happens 
to the places that have no G?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. This is 
part of the reason why I'm so passionate about rural broadband. 
I believe 5G could, in fact, help us close that digital divide. 
I recently met with Ted Rappaport----
    Senator Tester. So here's the question. So we invest 5G in 
Indianapolis and Houston and Miami and New York City and L.A. 
and San Francisco. You getting the drift?
    Chairman Pai. Yes.
    Senator Tester. We still don't have a G where I live. What 
happens there? Are we still going to invest to build out those 
systems?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, that's precisely the reason why 
we've been modernizing our rules to build that business case 
for 5G in rural areas, to get the infrastructure in place, to 
get the spectrum out there, to allow carriers, especially small 
ones like VTel that I referenced in my statement about rural 
Vermont--this enables them to make the investments to get rural 
5G--to make rural 5G a reality.
    Senator Tester. I think it's going to take more than rules. 
It's going to take some sort of a push, to be honest with you, 
because, as we talked before the hearing started, we all get 
pushed to population centers because this is the way it works. 
That's where the people live. But the truth is we've got to 
figure out some way to push out service into rural America. So, 
in that regard, what is the FCC's definition of rural?
    Chairman Pai. We have a definition that's pretty arcane. 
I'd be happy to share it with you afterwards. I can't remember 
the specific language.
    Senator Tester. Is it 500,000 people?
    Chairman Pai. No, no. Essentially, it tracks some other 
agencies' definitions of rural, and so--but I can't remember 
the specific definition off the top of my head.
    Senator Tester. All right. Well, I mean, I just think it's 
really important as you guys go through your rulemaking 
process. We will never get 1G if we're focused on 5G in 
Houston, and I'm not saying we shouldn't be focused on 5G.
    Go ahead.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I want to say that's the purpose of 
the Mobility Fund Phase II, to get everyone to 4G. So the money 
that we're spending and why the maps are so important and the 
challenge process that I asked for--that is to get everyone to 
4G.
    Senator Tester. But let me tell you, you're never going to 
get your maps done with your challenge process, and I will tell 
you why.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. No, I don't disagree.
    Senator Tester. Because I'm one of those guys that don't 
have it, and I don't even understand the damn challenge 
process.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. No, I don't disagree with you. We've 
had some problems with the challenge process. I'm glad there is 
a challenge process. I've wanted a more robust one.
    Senator Tester. But if there's one thing--and I never want 
to put words in the Committee's mouth--that I heard here 
today--the maps stink, and we've got to be more proactive about 
getting them fixed, and you can't depend on the Kansas Farm 
Bureau to do it.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I agree. I think one of the things 
we need to do is work with the providers. We've been trying to 
answer the question----
    Senator Tester. The problem is the providers created this 
problem by showing you a map covered in red. Where I live, it's 
covered in red. There ain't even pink where I live.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I guess I shouldn't have said 
providers. I should--outside parties. There are many who are 
working on the challenge process. We've tried to answer the 
question for them rather than work with them.
    Senator Tester. All right. Just one real quick thing--and, 
by the way, I do appreciate--this is very parochial. Do you 
have a bunch of staff behind you? I assume you do. Raise your 
hands. No? No staff? Damn it.
    Chairman Pai. They're afraid to raise their hands.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Tester. They're afraid to raise their hands. We've 
got a situation with Woodman School and with the Missoula 
School District. We all talked about healthcare and schools, 
how important broadband is. These folks still aren't getting 
their service. They need it. One of them is a rural school. One 
of them is not, by Montana standards, a rural school, but it's 
a rural school, too, by national standards. I'd appreciate it 
if your staff would take a look at Woodman and Missoula County 
schools to make sure that they get what they need so our kids 
can get a fair shake at a 21st century economy.
    Chairman Pai. Happy to do that, Senator, and if I might 
very, very briefly just in response to the previous issue----
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Chairman Pai. Here's the fundamental issue on Mobility Fund 
Phase II. Right now, we are spending over $300 million every 
year to subsidize a fourth, a fifth, or even a sixth competitor 
in a part of the country that already has private investment, 
and the evidence suggests that states like Montana are getting 
short--they don't get any money through that process. That's 
why we're trying to engage in this process.
    Senator Tester. I've got to tell you that's what I wondered 
about--and I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman--your definition of rural, 
because we've got a situation in Montana where an outfit--and 
I'll call them out by name because they're not doing their job. 
Frontier got money two years ago. They haven't spent it, and 
Libby has no service. So even the places that do have a 
provider aren't spending the money to get it out. We've got to 
kick somebody's ass, truthfully.
    So thank you. Thank you for your work, by the way, all of 
you.
    Chairman Pai. We'll certainly consider that figuratively, 
Senator.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    I think what you guys are hearing is a bipartisan concern 
about the maps, making sure that we are accurate and that we're 
not overbuilding, and that those areas that truly need the help 
are getting it.
    Next up is Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Now 
we're going to switch to a Minnesota nice way of saying the 
same thing, although I love Senator Tester's approach.
    So I was just out and attended a bunch of broadband 
meetings in rural Minnesota way up on the Canadian border, and, 
to me, it is such a switch from 10 years ago when people were 
just asking to get some kind of service so they could send an 
e-mail to their grandkids. Now they're worried about their very 
livelihood because our farmers have to be able to use precision 
agriculture to do business. You know this.
    So the question Senator Thune asked about the 
overbuilding--a big issue raised, because we are in some areas 
just aren't getting the help they need, and I just implore you 
all to look at that issue.
    The second thing--and I know you agreed to address 
Universal Service Fund money issues by the end of the year--
incredibly important. Senator Thune as well as Senator Fischer 
and I have led a number of efforts to push that. You know that. 
I appreciate your first effort, but we need to do more.
    And then, second, I guess I would ask this of you, 
Commissioner Rosenworcel. You've expressed concerns that the 
FCC's recent inquiry on the broadband report may not accurately 
portray service in rural areas. Do you want to quickly expand 
on that?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes. Thank you for the question. 
Listen, we continue to take data in based on whether or not 
there is one subscriber in a census block, and if one 
subscriber in a census block has it, we assume broadband is 
available throughout. Anyone who has visited a rural community 
knows that's probably not the case. We have got to stop just 
trying to pull this information together in Washington with 
carriers. We need to start going out to the American public and 
figuring out a way to crowd source their assistance and their 
help so we get this right.
    Senator Klobuchar. Anyone else want to respond?
    Chairman?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. I 
appreciate, based on my visit to Madelia, among other places, 
that you might serve the core of Madelia, but on the outskirts, 
even if it's in the same census block, it's not served. That's 
part of the reason why the FCC has an ongoing proceeding to 
figure out how to modernize its Form 477 and other processes to 
have a more accurate picture of where coverage is and where it 
isn't. And I know the issue is the same up in the Iron Range as 
well.
    Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. Rural call 
completion--and I know that you just have announced that you're 
starting this registry for intermediate service providers to 
increase accountability. This is an issue that we took on on a 
bipartisan basis--us, Chairman Thune and Senator Tester and a 
number of other people on this Committee. I think you know the 
problem here. It's just unbelievable that these calls were 
being dropped, and we had the proof, and you had the proof of 
it. So I guess this week, you're starting this registry, which 
we appreciate.
    Could you talk about how will the recently established 
rules help improve call completion rates in rural areas? And we 
have a deadline of February 26, 2019, for the Service Quality 
Standards. Do you think that can be met?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, thanks for your leadership on this 
issue. It's critical in some of these rural communities, 
especially for smaller businesses that rely on voice calls to 
get the job done, quite literally. We do believe, with respect 
to the second component of your question, that we'll be able to 
move forward with those by February 2019.
    And with respect to the first, our hope and expectation is 
that it will improve rural call completion rates. By creating 
this registry, by requiring covered providers to work with 
intermediate providers who are part of that registry, we're 
making sure that every link in the chain, so to speak, has 
accountability, either directly to the FCC or indirectly 
through the covered provider who is carrying those long-
distance calls. So our hope is that the service that people 
take for granted in Minneapolis will be the same one that 
people can rely on in Madelia.
    Senator Klobuchar. Does anyone want to add on that one?
    [No verbal response.]
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. The Rural Spectrum Accessibility 
Act--Senator Fischer and I have introduced that. It was 
recently signed into law--thank you, Mr. Chairman--as part of 
the MOBILE NOW Act, and the provision requires the FCC to 
explore ways to provide incentives for wireless carriers to 
lease unused spectrum to rural or smaller carriers. Could you 
talk about how quickly we can get that rulemaking going?
    Chairman Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. Our staff 
is working diligently on that legislation, and I understand 
there's a March 23, I believe, deadline for the FCC to take 
action, and I have every expectation that our staff will be 
able to present an order that comports with that timeframe.
    Senator Klobuchar. The Dig Once policy--something I've 
worked with Commissioner Rosenworcel on--was also signed into 
law as part of the MOBILE NOW Act. Could you talk about how 
this could reduce the cost of deployment if we did this and any 
thoughts you have on it?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Sure. My first thought is you've 
passed a lot of legislation in this last bill. The Dig Once Act 
is important, because if you decide that when you open up the 
roadways and you throw in some fiber, you only add one percent 
to the cost of a transportation project, but you secure a 
community's future, because they will always have the broadband 
facilities that they are going to need. It's also nice because 
you don't have to rip up the roads multiple times. So it is a 
low-cost way to ensure that broadband gets more places.
    Senator Klobuchar. One last question. The T-Mobile/Sprint 
merger. I know you're looking at this, so I'm not going to ask 
specific questions. But one of the claims made was that the 
network would be superior in breadth and depth to anything that 
Verizon and AT&T could offer, and that it was necessary to 
enable the U.S. to win the global race to 5G. Do you think 
further consolidation of wireless carriers is necessary to make 
deployment of 5G networks economically feasible?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I want to be cautious about a 
proceeding that is before us right now. But it's certainly--
moving from four providers to three is a hard case for 
consumers, and they're going to have to demonstrate how prices 
won't go up and innovation won't go down.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. You didn't get 
to your question about getting Vikings games in every corner of 
the state.
    Senator Klobuchar. I actually had that question, and I'm 
going to be asking that in writing because I thought it looked 
just a little too parochial, and I didn't want to hurt the 
feelings of those senators that represent states that don't 
have pro football teams.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. We all have the same number of Super Bowl 
championships as you.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Klobuchar. Touche.
    The Chairman. Senator Gardner is up.

                STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. That was really good, Mr. Chairman. That 
was really good. I guess I can start right there. Why do the 
people of southwestern Colorado have to watch Dallas Cowboys 
games?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner. We'll work on that. Thank you.
    We're about to violate the number of Kansas quotas on this 
Committee and on the Commission, too, so as a Coloradan, I have 
grave concern with the next member of the FCC, adding too many 
Kansans to the Board here.
    Chairman Pai, just a quick question for you. Thank you very 
much for the work that you have done on rural broadband and the 
dividend that we've talked about in terms of making sure that 
we expand access into rural areas. You've made a particular 
effort to talk about higher frequency bands, the race to 5G--
that's critical, too--and to make more efficient use of 
spectrum.
    Senator Hassan and I have introduced a bill called the 
AIRWAVES Act, as you know, that takes the opportunity to set up 
a pipeline of spectrum but also the rural dividend provisions 
that you've been a champion of--and I'm grateful for that--
which could provide as much as $6 billion if it follows similar 
auctions to rural broadband deployment and development of 
infrastructure.
    Could you talk a little bit about new spectrum 
opportunities, the importance of doing it in a timely manner, 
and other bands that you may be considering taking action with?
    Chairman Pai. Sure. First, thanks, Senator, for your and 
Senator Hassan's leadership on that issue. That rural 
dividend--had it been in place since the FCC instituted 
competitive bidding, we would have gotten more money through 
that process than the entire Mobility Fund. So we're talking 
about a serious amount of money that could be closing that 
digital divide in rural America.
    With respect to bands that we're looking at--a whole bunch 
of them. For example, recently, we started a proceeding with 
respect to the Educational Broadband Service, or EBS, which is 
2.5 spectrum. Senator--looking to the future----
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Pai.--Commissioner O'Rielly has taken the lead on 
3.5 gigahertz spectrum, which we hope to be able to move on 
relatively soon. As I pointed out earlier in the colloquy, 
looking at the C-band, 3.7 gigahertz spectrum. Six gigahertz 
spectrum is something I'm very interested in, and I thank 
Chairman Thune and all the Members of this Committee for 
supporting action through the MOBILE NOW Act to encourage us to 
take a look at unlicensed use in 6 gigahertz band. I cannot 
tell you how much work I and our staff have been putting in to 
try to get that across the finish line.
    And, in addition, we've been looking at very high bands--24 
gigahertz, 28 gigahertz, we're auctioning in November; 37, 39, 
47 next year. In addition, I wanted to make sure that we had a 
space for innovators to use. So we teed up a notice--about 95 
gigahertz, spectrum that was previously thought to be 
unusable--and we're saying, ``Look, here's a bunch of spectrum. 
Tell us what will work for both unlicensed and licensed uses.'' 
I'm hopeful that the smart engineers and technologists out 
there can come up with unique ways similar to what they did 
with Wi-Fi in 2.4 gigahertz spectrum. We can't anticipate where 
technology is going to take us. We do know that it could be 
useful if we give them the tools.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Pai. And I, too, just 
to reiterate what's been said by multiple members of the 
Committee here--I live in rural Colorado. In fact, I'm probably 
one of .00 percent of the population that live more than 60 
miles away from a Starbucks. But, you know, if you look at the 
map I live in a well-covered area. You can get five bars in my 
hometown. It's just not on my phone. So I think that's----
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Pai. I might have to steal that.
    Senator Gardner.--what we need to continue to focus on.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, you've also been a champion of 
finding new ways to innovate in mid-band spectrum. We have to 
have this to focus on--well, our spectrum policy needs to focus 
on low-band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum to make sure that 
we have licensed, unlicensed services across a range of 
technologies--fixed, wireless, satellite, Wi-Fi, you name it.
    How close are we to finalizing a pathway forward on a mid-
band proposal?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Well, I thank you for your 
leadership because your legislation, AIRWAVES Act, includes 
this and is very aggressive and it's much appreciated. We just 
a couple of months ago issued the NPRM so it's going to take us 
a little bit of time to get to that point. There are a lot of 
tough conversations to work through and figure out the right 
path. There are many ideas that we put forward in that item, 
and we're going to have to make sure that all the existing 
contracts are taken care of, and so there are a number of 
principles I've outlined.
    But I think that it is incredibly important that we free up 
the C-band downlink band, in addition to the 6 gigahertz band, 
with the C-band uplink. So I think both of those are going to 
be important, and I think we can do that in a short amount of 
time. But I don't want to get ahead of ourselves.
    Senator Gardner. Sooner is more important than later, 
correct?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely.
    Senator Gardner. Commissioner Carr, thank you for coming to 
Colorado not too long ago. Thanks for your commitment in rural 
broadband as well and I just commend you for the work you've 
been doing on telehealth.
    Yesterday--or, excuse me--earlier this week, I had the 
opportunity to visit Swedish Hospital, which is a premier 
stroke center in the United States. They are able to diagnose 
stroke and deliver the lifesaving TPA treatment for a stroke 
patient, and they can do it in 17 minutes now, and, as we know, 
every minute, when you're suffering a stroke, there are 
millions of neurons in your brain that are affected. So it's 
incredibly important.
    They've also developed a strong telestroke program. I was 
able at the hospital to visit--my hometown of Yuma, Colorado--
from the Swedish Hospital--Dr. Chang, a renowned neurosurgeon. 
I visited with the emergency room in my hometown. They're part 
of this telestroke program. They are able to get close to that 
17 minutes.
    What's remarkable about this in terms of delivery of that 
local hospital TPA as they transfer them to the stroke center--
what's remarkable about telehealth and strokes is they have 
been able to eliminate 80 percent of--I guess I may be using 
the wrong word here--but they've been able to eliminate 80 
percent of the misdiagnoses related to strokes. That means 80 
percent of the time, somebody who comes into the hospital 
thinking they may be having a stroke are not having a stroke, 
and that means that they're not calling the Flight for Life, 
which could be a $65,000 flight from my hometown to Denver or 
other emergency services. There's a medical need, for sure, but 
they're able to save that patient, keep them local perhaps, and 
avoid that 80 percent of the time when it comes to stroke.
    So telemedicine is incredibly important. Thank you for your 
work. I've run out of time here. But can we help you more in 
the effort that you're undertaking with telehealth?
    Commissioner Carr. Well, thank you, Senator, and thank you 
for your leadership on this. The AIRWAVES Act is going to help 
by creating a spectrum pipeline. Your leadership on telehealth 
has been tremendously beneficial. You wrote the FCC a letter 
last month, and we were able to take action a few weeks later 
to stand up this new program. And as you say, time is brain 
when it comes to stroke specialties, and I'm glad that this is 
an FCC that has voted, among other things, to increase spending 
on telehealth by over $170 million a year, and we're seeking 
comment now on establishing a new program as well. We need to 
keep pushing in this direction.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    We're out of time, Commissioner Rosenworcel, so if you'd 
like to use somebody else's time to talk about the mobility and 
buses and broadband, that would be great, too. Thanks.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I do appreciate that you're 
working on that.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
    Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Let me just also echo all 
of the comments we've discussed and I've heard from my 
colleagues on access to rural broadband and opening those 
doors.
    I support telehealth. We have that happening right now in 
the state of Nevada. It's incredible the resources that we can 
bring into our rural communities from telemedicine to education 
to, believe it or not, access to our judicial system. I mean, 
it is phenomenal, and I think we do that by opening these doors 
through broadband.
    But let me--before I get into the rural broadband, let me 
show you a map of actually the Las Vegas Valley. This was 
actually covered in a local paper, Las Vegas Review Journal, 
and the map actually shows--the pink areas show a recent 
analysis of 4G wireless coverage gaps and weak spots that 
currently exist, and that's the Las Vegas Valley. That is the 
largest populated community or urban area in southern Nevada, 
about 2 million people.
    So I guess my question to you, Chairman Pai and the 
Commissioners--how do we address this issue? How do we address 
the challenges that we see here, where there are people that 
are living in urban areas where they cannot access the Internet 
or they're having dropped calls? In fact, there's a gentleman 
by the name of Steve Greenberg in Las Vegas who runs an 
important business from home. In the Las Vegas Review Journal 
article, he says his calls have been dropping for the whole 8 
years he's lived in his home. How do we address this?
    Chairman Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. Three 
basic tools in the toolbox. Number one, getting more spectrum 
out there for carriers of all kinds to use. That's the critical 
way to transmit this information after all.
    Number two, infrastructure, setting rules of the road that 
make it easier to deploy towers and small cells. They're the 
guts of these networks that are critical. In a lot of those 
places, there might be some Federal, state, or local 
restrictions that prevent that.
    Number three, smarter subsidy programs. As I said in 
response to Senator Tester, for years, the FCC had been 
subsidizing a fourth or fifth or even sixth competitor in a 
part of the country that already had service from the private 
sector. We need to refocus that effort on unserved parts of the 
country. Las Vegas has gaps. I imagine places like Elko is even 
worse. You can't get a signal at all.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I haven't gotten to that yet.
    Chairman Pai. But it's a public safety issue. I visited the 
Las Vegas 911 call center that took all those calls in the wake 
of the 2017 tragedy of the Mandalay Bay shootings, and when you 
hear that 83 percent--I believe it is--calls came from 
wireless--come from wireless phones every year, something like 
90-some percent in that case, it heightens the importance of 
this issue to make sure that everyone has access to that 
wireless phone with service when emergency strikes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    I know, Ms. Rosenworcel, we've talked about this as well. 
Do you have any comments?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes. I mean, two thoughts. First, 
this demonstrates very clearly we need better mapping with 
participation from the people who are on that map and don't 
have service--an individual you described. But a second short-
term idea is we should expand the use of signal boosters. 
They're small devices that can amplify existing networks. We've 
had restrictions on businesses and schools and some consumer 
use of them. We have an open proceeding now to remove some of 
those restrictions, and I believe that is something that could 
help with urban dead zones in a significant way. We should 
explore their greater use.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Can you comment, both of you, on 
digital redlining? What can the FCC do about this and ensure us 
that you are addressing this issue where wireless companies do 
not benefit the neighborhoods that feed their bottom line and 
we're getting the service to the neighborhoods that actually 
need it?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, this is an issue that is important 
to me. In September 2016, I targeted specifically the issue of 
digital redlining. I said, ``This is not acceptable. Every 
American deserves access to high-quality, high-speed Internet 
access,'' and outlined a whole bunch of proposals for doing so. 
One of which I would commend to you and this body is Senator 
Capito's and Senator Coons' bipartisan legislation building on 
a proposal I made then called the Gigabit Opportunity Act.
    Essentially, you would target a geographic area as small as 
a city block or as large as a rural county so long as the 
median income in that area was 75 percent or less of the 
national median. You would grant tax incentives to companies to 
build infrastructure in those areas. You would also relieve the 
payroll taxes for employers who build jobs in those areas using 
those networks.
    That's one tool that Congress could use. It would be 
powerful in making sure that those parts of the map that the 
private sector has just overlooked, because there's not a 
return on the investment, could finally get on the grid once 
and for all.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Anyone else?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. The Chairman has some good ideas, 
but here's what we could do. The FCC could comb through its 477 
data and try to identify areas that look like they've been 
redlined, and we should open a proceeding and ask for stories 
from around the country so we can identify not just the rural 
areas that go without, but the urban areas that are having 
difficulty getting modern broadband service.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that. I 
notice my time is up. Thank you for being here today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
    We have votes coming at noon. I have four members here to 
still ask questions. If everybody stays on five minutes, I 
think we can probably get everybody in before we wrap.
    Next up is Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here and thanks for your service. 
We've had a fair amount of discussion this morning about 
robocalls. I don't think anybody in this building or in this 
country would admit, at least, to favoring robocalls. They are 
a plague that seems to have universal condemnation. So I would 
like your commitment that you will support the measure that 
Senator Markey and I have introduced. It's called Repeated 
Objectionable Bothering of Consumers on Phones Act, also 
Robocop.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Blumenthal. This bill would require phone companies 
to offer effective tools to block robocalls to consumers at no 
extra cost to them. It's been around for a while, so I presume 
you've had time to look at it, and I'd like your commitment 
that you'll support it, each of you, beginning with you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I'm very supportive of efforts to 
encourage blocking. I've have to take a look at our----
    Senator Blumenthal. If you could take a look at it. I don't 
want to spend time with an answer that is not a commitment to 
support it. You will take a look at it?
    Chairman Pai. Absolutely, Senator. We always will provide 
technical assistance as needed.
    Senator Blumenthal. Is there anyone here who will support 
it?
    Thank you, Ms. Rosenworcel.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes, and it's----
    Senator Blumenthal. Will the rest of you look at it? And 
can I have a commitment that you will get back to me within a 
week?
    Chairman Pai. Yes, Senator.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Yes.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes.
    Commissioner Carr. If it moves the ball at all forward on 
this issue, then I'm all for it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Chairman Pai, during the FCC oversight hearing last year, 
you committed to informing Congress if the White House or 
anyone on behalf of the White House ever directed or advised 
you to take action in any matter. I believe you recall that 
testimony. Regarding the Sinclair-Tribune merger, has anyone in 
the Administration contacted you prior to or after the July 
decision?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, no one has called from the White 
House to express a view. We received one status inquiry.
    Senator Blumenthal. And who was that from?
    Chairman Pai. From the counsel to the President.
    Senator Blumenthal. When was it received?
    Chairman Pai. I believe it was July 16 or 17.
    Senator Blumenthal. Could you provide the Committee with a 
copy of the document?
    Chairman Pai. There's no document. There was just a phone 
call.
    Senator Blumenthal. Was it from the White House counsel 
himself?
    Chairman Pai. Yes, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. Don McGahn?
    Chairman Pai. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. To you directly?
    Chairman Pai. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what was the substance of the 
conversation?
    Chairman Pai. Just wanted to know what--he saw something in 
the news and wanted to know what our decision was, or what the 
action was, proposed action.
    Senator Blumenthal. Maybe you could repeat that. He wanted 
to know what the action was?
    Chairman Pai. He just wanted to know what it was.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, since I have only a limited 
amount of time, I'd like from you a written summary of the 
conversation, if that's possible.
    Chairman Pai. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Regarding the Lifeline 
program, as you well know, it has helped to ensure affordable 
telephone service for low-income Americans for over 30 years, 
including many, many veterans. In 2016, the FCC advanced this 
important mission to include broadband internet.
    Mr. Chairman, you opposed the Lifeline modernization order 
as a Commissioner. Now, as Chair, you have proposed to limit 
funding, service eligibility, and enrollment. These actions 
appear to be intended to make it more difficult for Americans 
to seek assistance from Lifeline and also, frankly, kick people 
off the program. For this reason, your proposals were widely 
criticized as harmful to vulnerable Americans, including many 
veterans groups.
    Will you commit to this Committee today that no veteran 
will be kicked off the Lifeline program?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, we are looking at ways to modernize 
our program to better serve consumers, including veterans who 
rely on it, and my commitment is to make sure we have a 
Lifeline program that does just that.
    Senator Blumenthal. I'm wondering whether you can answer my 
question. Will you commit that no veteran will be kicked off 
the Lifeline program?
    Chairman Pai. Again, Senator, I can't commit to something 
without the FCC having a chance to fully study the record, 
which we're in the process of doing. But my commitment is to 
make sure we have a Lifeline program that does serve that 
worthy interest.
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit that all veterans who 
currently qualify into the program will continue to receive it?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, that's one of the issues that we're 
working on now to make sure that the program serves consumers 
like that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why would you not make that commitment?
    Chairman Pai. I can't think of any reason why we would want 
to kick off someone who's qualified for the program. Indeed, 
the very purpose of our reforms is to make sure that we include 
folks who are qualified for the service and that they get the 
funding they need as opposed to the money going to unscrupulous 
wireless carriers who fleece the system.
    Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired, but I'd like to 
follow up on this issue. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank all of you for being here, and thank you for 
participating with me in several events both in the state and 
here in Washington, D.C. I appreciate that.
    Chairman Pai, I want to ask you sort of a niche question, 
which we're all niched into what's happening in our individual 
states, as you would expect. I'm concerned about the 
Commission's Mobility Fund in terms of the topography of a 
state such as ours. As you know we have a lot of hills and 
valleys, and it's a lot more difficult to put service in than 
it would be, say, in Kansas, where it's flatter and easier. So 
it may make the deployment of the service more expensive and 
time consuming for providers and could potentially drive them 
to use their Mobility Fund resources in different locations.
    So I want the assurance that locations that are currently 
eligible and may become eligible through the challenge process 
are adequately funded by a formula that's adopted that takes 
topography into consideration.
    Chairman Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. Your 
topography is much more complex than my home state, and so 
that's part of the reason why we have included an analysis of 
terrain, for example, to make sure that we take account of that 
unique situation.
    Senator Capito. I appreciate that in response to our 
request.
    Commissioner Carr, thank you for coming to our Senate Rural 
Broadband Caucus. We've talked a lot about the deployment of 
telehealth and how advantageous that will be to many of us in 
rural areas and really across the country. What's the next step 
here in terms of making sure we're deploying this in the 
telehealth area as accurately as we should be?
    Commissioner Carr. Thanks for the question, Senator. We are 
pursuing sort of two tracks at the Commission. On the one hand, 
we've long been supporting broadband deployment to connected 
brick and mortar healthcare facilities that would increase the 
funding on that portion.
    What we've just voted on earlier this month is to start the 
process of setting up a new program that will focus on a 
slightly different issue, which is how do we make sure that 
that connected care can stay with patients when they leave the 
facility, whether it's on their iPhone or on a tablet. That 
administrative process is running its course right now. We're 
taking comment, and my hope would be that we could stand that 
up as quickly as possible.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just a 
point of clarification--this is for anybody. When people say 
robocalls, does this include the spoofing call that you get? So 
is a robocall either somebody who robocalls you or somebody 
using a fake number to entice you to pick up the phone? Do you 
consider that a robocall as well?
    Chairman Pai. Yes, Senator. Spoofing is perhaps the most 
pernicious of those, because it mimics both the area code and 
sometimes even the prefix to make it appear as if a call is 
coming from your neighborhood when, in fact, it could be coming 
from another continent.
    Senator Capito. I know. I know. And they also get the 
numbers lined up so you might think it's your mother calling, 
and it ends up being a call about student loans.
    So, Commissioner Rosenworcel, thank you for coming to our 
Rural Broadband Caucus. I've joined in a letter with Senator 
King and House Representatives McKinley and Welch to the 
Department of Education to fully complete the research that 
Congress has requested in the Every Student Succeeds Act to 
develop strategies in order to close this homework gap.
    I was just at the opening of a brand new middle school in 
northern West Virginia, Brooke Middle School. Each one of those 
children in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade will have a 
Chromebook. The technology is very advanced. We're into 
interactive smart TVs in every classroom. It's fascinating to 
watch.
    How are we going to be assured that when they take the 
Chromebook home with them they're going to be able to complete 
their assignment? This is the big challenge for areas, 
especially when we talk about the population that can't afford 
to actually purchase a Chromebook or whatever they would have, 
an iPad or whatever. Can they use it?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for your work 
on this. According to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, 
there are 12 million students in this country who do not have 
broadband at home and can't get their homework done. I mean, 
it's the cruelest part of the digital divide. We have got to 
fix it. There are some measures that can help, more Wi-Fi in 
more places, more low-cost broadband plans. Senator Udall and 
Senator Gardner have a bill to help put Wi-Fi on buses.
    And then I also think we have to explore how we can use the 
2.5 gigahertz band, which has long been used for education 
purposes, to create a new incentive auction structure so that 
perhaps we can fund a program for wireless hotspots for those 
students to take home with their Chromebooks, because every 
child needs to be able to do their homework, and no child 
should be left offline.
    Senator Capito. Right. Does anybody else have any comments 
on that, on the education aspect of this?
    Chairman Pai. I would just offer two quick points. I think 
Commissioner Rosenworcel is exactly right that EBS holds 
particular promise. I met on Monday--on Tuesday, rather, with a 
northern Michigan university that's using some of that spectrum 
in an innovative way for access to places in the upper 
peninsula of Michigan that otherwise wouldn't have service.
    We also want to make sure that we promote as much of these 
kinds of reforms as possible, telehealth, E-rate, all the rest 
of it. These are critical tools, I think, for these rural 
communities to use.
    Senator Capito. Thank you all. Thank you for your service.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan [presiding]. Good afternoon, everybody. 
I'm going to be chairing here for a minute, but I'm going to 
call on myself. Sorry to my colleagues.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Sullivan. I want to focus where I know a lot of the 
discussion has been with regard to broadband in remote and 
extreme rural areas. A lot of us have that concern. It's an 
overriding concern of mine. I want to begin with some 
compliments. I want to thank the Commissioners.
    Two years ago, I was very focused on the Alaska plan, which 
kind of recognized that there's remote and then there's Alaska, 
and we're obviously extremely remote relative to any other 
state in the country. I also appreciate the many visits to the 
state.
    Commissioner Carr, thank you for just being up in my state 
just last week. I know you got around, and I know all of you 
have also been up there.
    Increasing the funding from $400 million to $571 million on 
the rural healthcare related issues are very important, and we 
need to continue that work, and I think you see broad 
bipartisan support on that.
    The ideas--Commissioner O'Rielly, you've talked about 
remote areas funds and other things. I think we want to 
continue to work on that, and I think you're seeing strong 
bipartisan support.
    But I will say none of this matters if programs are not run 
with predictability and certainty and stability. The Chairman's 
initial comments when he kicked off the hearing this morning 
really emphasized that, you probably saw. This is a big issue 
for all of us. If a program doesn't have stability or 
certainty, then it's--essentially, you're kind of undermining 
the whole system.
    In my state, we don't have stability. We don't have 
certainty. The rural healthcare program, unfortunately, from my 
perspective, has moved from being run in an ad-hoc, constantly 
changing, move-the-goalpost manner, and is having very negative 
consequences in Alaska. My state and I have spent countless--
and I mean countless--hours on this issue with the FCC and its 
staff. I've probably worked on it with my team almost more than 
any other issue, particularly with your office, Mr. Chairman, 
and the results have been underwhelming and frustrating and 
completely unacceptable.
    The damage being done to this program in Alaska by the 
FCC's remarkably ad-hoc approach hurts not just telecom 
companies and their ability to invest their private sector 
capital, but the health clinics and, most importantly, the 
constituents that it's meant to serve in some of the most 
impoverished places in America, in America. You know, we're 
into Fiscal Year 2018, and the 2017 reimbursements are still 
not happening, which is unbelievable to me.
    So I will always support rigorous oversight of the program 
to ensure good stewardship, and a focus on taxpayer dollars of 
the Universal Service Fund. But stability, predictability, 
objective enforcement of the rules is critical for the 
program's integrity in carrying out its intents.
    So I'm going to ask each of you this basic question. Are 
you aware of the status of the 2017 rural healthcare 
applications in Alaska, and what specific steps or reforms are 
you able to commit to taking in order to ensure that the 2017 
issues are not repeated next year or after or after? Already 
six healthcare providers, small, rural providers in my state, 
have opted out of the program for next year because they have 
no idea if they're going to get the money, and there's probably 
going to be more. So I'd like an answer from each of you 
starting with Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator, I recognize how 
important this program is to Alaska. I am aware of 
difficulties, and I can commit to you now that we should 
resolve them as expeditiously as possible and make sure that we 
don't continue to have them going forward.
    Senator Sullivan. Commissioner Carr?
    Commissioner Carr. Yes, Senator, I'm aware of it, and I've 
been a voice inside the Commission pushing to make sure we can 
get to a resolution and get to stability going forward.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
    Commissioner O'Rielly?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Yes, I agree with my colleagues on 
this point. I associate myself with Commissioner Rosenworcel's 
points.
    Senator Sullivan. And, Mr. Chairman, again, my frustrations 
on this have exceeded almost any other issue I've worked on as 
a U.S. Senator. Most of it has come from your office.
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I appreciate your concern. As you 
know, we've had many conversations about this----
    Senator Sullivan. Too many.
    Chairman Pai.--as have our staffs, and I can commit to you 
I'm obviously aware of the issue and we are working diligently 
with one carrier, in particular, to resolve those issues.
    Senator Sullivan. This was stated--essentially some version 
of that to me probably 8 months ago, and, again, I've lost my 
patience, and we need to not only deal with what went on in 
2017, but right now, I have entire communities that are spooked 
because they have no earthly idea what the rules are. And when 
you don't have predictability, you don't have people 
participating, and when you don't have people participating in 
companies, in clinics, then the people it's meant to help--my 
constituents--I was just out in a lot of these rural 
communities. These are amazing American citizens, but they're 
in very, very impoverished parts of the country. This has 
been--I hear this from everybody.
    You've got to do a better job. We want to work with you. 
But I am just tired of having this same conversation.
    Chairman Pai. I couldn't agree more, Senator, which is why 
we resolved issues with respect to one company, and from the 
other, we are looking--we are getting information from them 
still and looking to work through that to make sure we resolve 
these issues with respect to every fiscal year. And going 
forward, as you know, thanks to your leadership, we've 
increased the fund by 43 percent and included that inflation 
factor to mitigate this problem going forward.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, look, I appreciate the increase in 
funding, but stability, predictability, as the Chairman stated 
in his--not just for Alaska, but for all of these programs, is 
critical or you're not going to get people or companies to 
participate.
    Thank you.
    Senator Duckworth.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Pai, as you may recall from your confirmation 
hearing last year, we discussed your perspective about inmate 
calling services and protecting families and inmates from 
unjust and unreasonable inmate phone rates. Last July before 
this Committee, you made it clear that you did not and never 
have endorsed unjust and unreasonable rates. Rather, you 
believed that while Congress has provided the FCC with 
authority to regulate interstate inmate calls, Congress had yet 
to provide the FCC with clear authority to address unjust and 
unreasonable intrastate inmate call rates.
    While we have an honest disagreement over the scope of the 
FCC's authority in this space, I was pleased to find that we 
agree that Congress should provide this authority to the FCC, 
and I appreciated your commitment to this committee that you 
would, and I quote, ``welcome additional authority should 
Congress see fit to provide it.''
    Chairman Pai, is this still your view?
    Chairman Pai. Yes, Senator, it is.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, this is our first encounter. I'm 
glad we have this opportunity to finally meet, and I was 
pleased to read that you appear to share the views of your FCC 
colleagues that the prison pay phone industry is extremely 
troubled. I completely agree that the unjust and unreasonable 
rates we find in intrastate inmate call rates represent an 
outrageous market failure.
    As you may know, I've been working with Senators Schatz, 
Booker, and Portman to advance our bipartisan Inmate Calling 
Technical Corrections Act. Our commonsense resolution would fix 
this market failure and achieve just and reasonable rates by 
applying the longstanding Section 202 standard found in the 
Telecommunications Act to intrastate inmate calling rates 
regardless of technology used just as the FCC currently does 
for interstate inmate calls.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, do you share Chairman Pai's view 
that you would welcome this Committee clarifying the FCC's 
authority to ensure just and reasonable rates applied to 
intrastate inmate calls just as it applies to interstate inmate 
calls?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Yes, I believe that any time 
Congress addresses a matter, it provides clarity to the 
Commission and it's helpful. So if this is a path the 
Commission, the Committee, and the Congress wants to take, then 
I would be supportive and would implement whatever is put 
forward.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Chairman Pai, our bipartisan coalition has been working 
with stakeholders to understand the challenges that inmates and 
their families face, as well as the safety and security 
challenges that faces law enforcement. Most of the input and 
feedback we've received has been helpful in narrowing the scope 
of our legislation to carefully clarify the law in the wake of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
    However, of all the stakeholder feedback we've received, 
there is one problem viewpoint that I hope you can qualify. One 
stakeholder asserted that the FCC, and I quote, ``has shown 
that it is not capable of appropriately considering state and 
local issues and needs in its regulatory process.'' So they're 
questioning your ability to question state and local issues and 
needs in your regulatory process. They're arguing that the 
Commission should have no role in making sure intrastate inmate 
calling rates are just and reasonable. I find this troubling, 
if true.
    Chairman Pai, can you assure this committee that the FCC 
under your leadership is not only capable but also 
appropriately considers state and local issues and needs in 
your regulatory processes?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I'm not aware of the nature of that 
objection. I'd have to study it a little more carefully to 
understand the full context of it. But, generally speaking, 
beyond this particular issue, we always try to take account of 
all relevant factors, including, in this particular case, 
potentially state and local processes.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, what are your thoughts when it 
comes to fixing the longstanding market failure that results in 
unjust and unreasonable intrastate inmate calling rates?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. There are 2.7 million children in 
this country with a parent in prison, and most of them can't 
stay in contact because the cost of a single call is what you 
and I spend for our monthly plans. This is outrageous. We 
should be fixing it. We have tried on several episodes to do 
that with intrastate, interstate ancillary fees, site 
commissions. We have had most of our work on this sent back to 
us.
    While I fully appreciate the additional help that you've 
offered us on intrastate rates, I believe the agency could be 
doing more right now on ancillary fees and interstate rates, 
but we have thrown up our hands, and we have no proceeding that 
is ongoing, and we have refused to defend the agency's work to 
date. I think we should be doing more with the authority we 
have.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And I just want to note for 
Mr. Chairman that there's clearly a strong consensus for 
addressing this longstanding problem. I hope this committee 
will advance the Inmate Calling Technical Corrections Act 
before the end of the year.
    I have many more questions about issues important to 
Illinoisans--robocalls, the Lifeline program, media ownership 
issues--already covered by my colleagues. But in the interest 
of time, I will submit them for the record.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Udall.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
really appreciate the Commission being here today.
    Let me just first say it seems like New Mexico is getting a 
lot of attention. I know, Mr. Chairman, you're headed to New 
Mexico on Monday. Commissioner Rosenworcel just got back, I 
believe, a week or two ago, and then she came out earlier to 
visit on some issues that we had, which I think is great. So 
thank you for doing that.
    Let me also say to Commissioner Rosenworcel, thank you for 
the plug on the bill that Senator Gardner and I are working on. 
You know how important it is. I think you've seen this 
firsthand. When you have students that are commuting in these 
rural areas, sometimes on buses an hour or an hour and a half, 
two hours--tremendously important to get Wi-Fi in those buses 
and make sure that they are able to do their homework and we 
don't have a homework gap.
    Now, I watched a lot of this from my office, and I have to 
comment, especially in light of the fact that the President 
today is blasting away again at the Boston Globe, at the New 
York Times--once again, his very just destructive behavior in 
terms of the First Amendment, in terms of freedom of the press, 
and I think this term he uses over and over again, being the 
press being the enemy of the people, has to be taken head on.
    I really appreciate you, Commissioner Rosenworcel, taking 
it head on and answering the question earlier that I've asked 
several times. I hope that we see the rest of the Commission 
step up to the plate on this. I would really like to see that. 
I don't think there's any doubt that this is very, very harmful 
to our democracy, and you need to speak truth to power in these 
circumstances.
    I think it's a big dock to say you're not going to get into 
this. I mean, when this kind of behavior happens over and over 
again, day after day, we need to do everything we can at all 
levels of government--you're in a crucial position--and speak 
up against this.
    So I've done a lot of work to make sure we can free up 
spectrum currently being occupied by Federal agencies. But I 
believe we should also know which spectrum is currently in use 
or not in use right now, and it's my understanding that until 
2014, the FCC maintained a spectrum dashboard where anyone 
could pull up a map and determine the owner of the spectrum in 
their area.
    I'm going to go down the line here. This is a yes or no 
question. Do you support the FCC relaunching the spectrum 
dashboard?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, yes, subject to obvious resource 
constraints and any potential legal issues.
    Senator Udall. Commissioner O'Rielly?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. I'm not familiar with it, but it 
sounds like a very good idea, so yes.
    Senator Udall. Commissioner Carr?
    Commissioner Carr. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Udall. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
    All of you know we work very, very carefully with the 
tribes in our community. Some of you, I think, will be--I know 
Commissioner Rosenworcel has visited with the New Mexico 
tribes. I think you're also on your visit going to visit a 
tribe.
    The FCC recently finalized an Order that would have 
curtailed if not outright eliminated reseller services in 
tribal areas. Indian country, including the Navajo Nation, 
widely opposed this Order. The D.C. Circuit stepped in and 
stayed the FCC's Order, finding that the FCC has, quote, 
``identified no evidence of fraud or misuse of funds'' and that 
the Order could result in--a quote here again--``tribal 
populations suffering widespread loss of vital 
telecommunications services.''
    Now that the D.C. Circuit has preliminarily stayed this 
damaging Order, will the FCC revisit its decision, and do you 
think it should revisit its decision?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, we have a pending proceeding on this 
very issue, and we are still studying the record and trying to 
figure out the appropriate way forward.
    Senator Udall. The other commissioners--do you agree with 
that? Do you have anything else to say?
    Commissioner O'Rielly. Even if you litigate it out, but 
we're going to have to in one form or another, whatever the 
decision is, accordingly.
    Commissioner Carr. I think we need to keep pushing forward 
to get more broadband deployed and more connectivity there.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes, everything we can do to 
improve connectivity on tribal lands is a step we should be 
taking.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much, and I'm going to give 
back a little time here to let others participate. Thank you.
    Senator Sullivan. Senator Baldwin.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    As promised, I'm going to start by talking about the 
Packers.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Baldwin. I don't want to disappoint, but I actually 
do want to cover a little bit of territory in the few minutes I 
have. I actually hear about this issue regularly from my 
constituents in the northwestern part of Wisconsin, and that's 
their inability to be able to get the programming they want. 
It's a political crisis when they can't get Packer games, I 
have to say. But it's because they live in one of the 13 
Wisconsin counties that is assigned to an out-of-state media 
market, and, primarily Minnesota, but there are a couple of 
counties in Wisconsin that get Michigan programming.
    Now, earlier this summer, I introduced the Go Pack Go Act, 
which actually would require cable or satellite or other video 
providers to give these Wisconsinites a local option. While 
this may only impact people in these Wisconsin counties, as 
well as similarly situated ones in states across the country, I 
actually believe very seriously that not only is the sports and 
entertainment that we are so passionate about in our state, but 
the local programming, news about events and current affairs 
that are relevant to them and their communities is vital.
    This Committee and Congress have taken some important steps 
to address this problem in the past, and I hope that we'll 
continue to work toward solutions for more of those who are 
affected.
    Chairman Pai, I know the FCC has studied this issue. Do you 
agree that this continues to be a problem facing many Americans 
and something that you and we should be working to address, 
and, if so, how can we work together to advance solutions?
    Chairman Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. Years 
ago, I spoke about the problems that folks in La Plata and 
Montezuma Counties in Senator Gardner's state were getting. 
Even though they were in Colorado, they were getting 
Albuquerque programming that wasn't relevant to them. Congress 
has given us some authority in this space to modify markets, 
and we have processed those market modification applications 
very quickly in most cases.
    We'd be happy to work with you on your legislation to make 
sure that Packer fans in the future only have to worry about 
who is going to step out at number three behind Randall Cobb or 
Davante Adams or how Jimmy Graham is going to be used in the 
red zone or whether Aaron Jones is going to be the lead back. I 
say this as a fantasy football fan with a great amount of 
interest in these particular issues. We'll be happy to work 
with you on that legislation.
    Senator Baldwin. So I want to also say that I'm glad to see 
continued Federal investments to support rural broadband 
deployment. Like many of my colleagues, I had roundtable 
discussions during our week-long recess last week on this very 
issue and heard, again, stories that are so infuriating. 
Wisconsin gets cold in the winter. I heard from a young person 
who actually does homework in the parking lot of the school 
because that's the only way that they can get the broadband 
after school hours.
    So we've heard a lot of discussion about the map and 
whether we are going to be able to marshal our scarce resources 
wisely to help areas that are truly unserved or underserved. I 
think that the Federal Government can and should do more to 
bear the burden of having accurate maps.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, you have taken a real interest in 
this issue. What I want to just observe is that in rural parts 
of my state, Federal agencies operate every day, from the 
postal service to the Forest Service to the Army Corps of 
Engineers. I can name others. It seems to me that they could 
help contribute to our knowledge of what's truly available to 
consumers there.
    I wonder if you have any comments about that in terms of 
asking the broader Federal Government to collect accurate data 
on broadband service and, particularly, wireless coverage.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. Yes, Senator. Our effort to map 
where broadband is and is not in this country should not begin 
and end here in Washington. We have got to go out to the 
American public and try to figure out how they can help us 
crowd source this activity. We should be using our FCC field 
resources as well, and we should look at other resources, even 
postal trucks that traverse rural America. Why can't we outfit 
them with the kind of spectrum equipment that would allow us to 
learn where wireless service is and is not? We need to be 
innovative and creative, because we need the best data possible 
to fix this problem.
    Senator Baldwin. Why can't we?
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I would be happy to work with you 
and my colleagues over here on that if you want to.
    Senator Baldwin. One just note for the record. I was going 
to ask about consumer education for the broadcast repack, and I 
just wanted to share the story of the Milwaukee PBS station in 
Wisconsin--completed their channel change earlier this year and 
developed a full scale marketing campaign entitled ``Plan to 
Scan.''
    It utilized social and traditional media, and they staffed 
a phone bank to answer questions and walk their viewers through 
the process of rescanning their television sets. Calls, on 
average, lasted 30 minutes, as each viewer needed assistance to 
understand how to rescan. I basically want to have you take 
this information from Milwaukee's PBS station to understand 
that this is a significant undertaking for consumers.
    Chairman Pai, I was pleased to see the FCC issue an NPRM on 
utilizing the consumer education funds provided by Congress. 
How will the Commission incorporate the experiences of 
broadcasters like Milwaukee PBS in their rulemaking?
    Chairman Pai. Thanks for the question, Senator. I think 
part of it is hearing stories like the one you just related, 
and we'd be interested in learning more about Milwaukee PBS, in 
particular, and any other stations that have similar 
experiences. We're grateful to Congress for providing that $50 
million or so of funding for consumer education, and our goal 
is to do something similar to what we did with DTV, to make 
folks aware of this entire process and give them the answers 
they need. So we'd love to work with you on that effort.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Go Pack.
    Senator Cruz is up next.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome to each of you. Thank you for being here.
    Let me say first of all, Chairman Pai, that I want to thank 
you for your leadership, in particular, in stepping forward 
with the Commission and repealing the Obama FCC's net 
neutrality rules. That has been a topic of much discussion, 
including enormous hyperbole. Indeed, we heard that the world 
was going to end when the net neutrality rules were repealed, 
notwithstanding the fact that they had been implemented only in 
2015. So for the entire history of the internet, the FCC had 
not declared the authority to regulate prices and terms of 
service on the Internet other than for the two years of that 
unlawful power grab.
    Nonetheless, with an abundance of misinformation, many 
people of good conscience were told that somehow eliminating 
regulation of the Internet by the Federal Government would 
imperil their freedom. So let me ask you, now that those rules 
have been repealed, has the internet ceased to function?
    Chairman Pai. It has not, Senator.
    Senator Cruz. And the parade of horribles that people were 
told--have those parade of horribles--is there any evidence 
that any of them have come to pass?
    Chairman Pai. They have not, and, moreover, even if one or 
two or many were, we now have in place an FCC transparency rule 
and FTC enforcement to make sure that it would be addressed 
quickly.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I want to commend you for having the 
courage to do that, because there was a lot of political 
animus, nastiness, and misinformation, and much of that was 
directed at you, personally, and your family. I want to say 
thank you publicly for serving and enduring that kind of grief. 
I believe that our families should be off limits, and for 
anyone to be targeting particularly kids is inappropriate.
    So thank you for your service, and I appreciate--I am a big 
believer in keeping the Internet free and keeping it free from 
taxation, keeping it free from regulation, and allowing it to 
be an oasis of free speech and entrepreneurial freedom, and I 
believe the decision that the FCC made to end that power grab 
by Washington was the right decision and was consistent with 
the law.
    Let's shift to a different topic, which is 5G. Earlier this 
month, Deloitte released a report entitled ``5G, the Chance to 
Lead for a Decade.'' The report highlights that, quote, ``since 
2015, China has outspent the U.S. by approximately $24 billion 
in wireless communication infrastructure and has built 350,000 
new sites while the U.S. has built fewer than 30,000. Looking 
forward, China's five-year economic plan specifies $400 billion 
in 5G-related investment. Consequently, China and other 
countries may be creating a 5G tsunami, making it near 
impossible to catch up.'' So that was Deloitte's conclusion.
    Do you share that assessment that it may be near impossible 
to catch up with China on 5G?
    Chairman Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. I believe 
the U.S. is leading on 5G with respect to spectrum. We're 
holding major auctions at the end of this year and in the 
second half of next year.
    With respect to infrastructure, over short-sighted 
opposition, we've been modernizing our rules to make sure that 
any small cell deployment doesn't have to jump through Federal, 
state, local, and, in some cases, tribal hoops. That is an 
effort that is absolutely necessary. You will never get 5G 
infrastructure at scale if you have these multiple levels of 
regulatory review, which China, for obvious reasons, doesn't 
observe. So I think it's critical for us to modernize our rules 
to assert U.S. leadership in 5G.
    Senator Cruz. So what are the barriers, regulatory or 
otherwise, that have been standing in the way of deployment of 
5G infrastructure?
    Chairman Pai. Senator, I think by far the biggest one has 
been our infrastructure policies. These policies were developed 
for another age, another kind of infrastructure. They were 
designed for big cell towers, not multiplicity of small cells. 
In addition, as I said, we've had a history in this country, 
for a variety of reasons, for multiple levels of regulatory 
review.
    The most powerful thing this Congress could do, frankly, 
with respect to the Internet is to adhere to the five-word 
phrase that Chairman Thune used in his opening remarks: the 
borderless nature of Internet access. The FCC has long found 
that the Internet is inherently an interstate service. It 
follows from that, then, that the FCC should be able to 
establish a consistent, uniform system of regulation. So long 
as we have multiple bites of the regulatory apple and the 
regulatory uncertainty that flows from that, we will always be 
behind those countries that have established a national policy 
on 5G.
    Senator Cruz. So last question. As you're aware, a report 
came out from the National Security Council suggesting the 
possibility of nationalizing 5G, and, indeed, there have been 
others who have expressed possible support for that. 
Personally, I think that's a terrible idea, and, as you know, 
I've introduced legislation, bipartisan legislation, with 
Senator Cortez Masto to make clear that the Federal Government 
cannot nationalize 5G, absent explicit congressional 
authorization.
    The question I wanted to ask Chairman Pai, but actually to 
each of the four of you--do any of you disagree that 
nationalizing 5G would be a mistake?
    Chairman Pai. I do not, Senator. I've consistently said 
that I believe the market, not government, is best positioned 
to drive innovation and investment in this area.
    Commissioner O'Rielly. No. I support your legislation.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    Commissioner Carr. Nationalizing networks is not the path 
forward. We won the race to 4G based on the free market, and 
that's the path to 5G as well.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. I agree with my colleagues on 
this.
    Senator Cruz. Very good. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz. That was remarkable. 
You end and get everybody on the same page.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well, I think we've pretty much covered all 
the bases, and we appreciate very much the members of the 
Commission for being here. This is, as you know, a critical 
part of what we do here in terms of oversight, and we 
appreciate your responses to the questions. We will have 
additional questions that will be submitted by members for the 
record.
    We will keep the hearing record open for a couple of weeks 
and hope that you all will get any responses to those questions 
back as quickly as possible.
    So, again, thank you for being here. Thank you for enduring 
the slings and arrows of being in public life. As was noted, 
sometimes there are lines that get crossed by people that 
shouldn't get crossed when it comes to the work that our 
officials do. So we appreciate your willingness and your 
families' willingness to engage in this sometimes difficult and 
challenging business. But there is so much in front of the 
Commission, so many things that you deal with that profoundly 
impact and affect the lives of every American, and so we want 
to make sure we do everything we can to work with you to see 
that we get it right.
    So thank you again, and with that, we'll conclude this 
hearing. It's adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                          Federal Communications Commission
                                       Washington, DC, July 9, 2018

Jeffrey H. Blum,
Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
DISH Network L.L.C.,
Washington, DC.

Re: DISH Coverage and Service Construction Deadlines for AWS-4, Lower 
            700 MHz E Block, and H Block licenses; DBSD Corporation, 
            AWS-4, Lead Call Sign T070272001; Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., 
            AWS-4, Lead Call Sign T060430001; Manifest Wireless L.L.C., 
            Lower 700 MHz E Block, Lead Call Sign WQJY944; American H 
            Block Wireless L.L.C., H Block, Lead Call Sign WQTX200

Dear Mr. Blum:

    On May 22, 2018, representatives of DISH Network Corporation, 
including its Chairman, Charles Ergen, met with FCC Commissioners and 
staff to discuss its plans to deploy a wireless network to meet its 
buildout obligations for several spectrum licenses.\1\ The next day, at 
an event hosted by the Wireless Infrastructure Association, Mr. Ergen 
gave public remarks about DISH's plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President & Deputy 
General Counsel for DISH Network Corporation to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, GN Docket No. 17-183 
(filed May. 24, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 5 and 6, Mr. Ergen and representatives of DISH met with FCC 
Chairman Pai and staff of the Chairman's office and later with Wireless 
Bureau to discuss the same issues. Mr. Ergen and representatives of 
DISH, among other things, stated that they plan to deploy their network 
in two phases: in phase 1, DISH would deploy a narrowband Internet of 
Things (IoT) network using its AWS-4, 700 MHz E Block, and H Block 
licenses; and in phase 2, DISH would deploy using its other spectrum 
holdings, and would ``upgrade and expand [its] network to full 5G to 
support new use cases in addition to mobile broadband services.'' \2\ 
They also discussed plans to: (1) take delivery of network equipment 
and begin installation of the network this year, and (2) delay the 
completion of its phase 2 deployment in low- and mid-band spectrum 
until after 600 MHz spectrum is cleared on a nationwide basis in July 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Previously, DISH and several of its wholly owned subsidiaries \3\ 
notified the Commission that they had failed to meet several interim 
construction deadlines for their FCC licenses, and that they would 
therefore need to meet several accelerated final coverage and service 
construction deadlines.\4\ Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ DBSD Services Limited (``DBSD''), Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. 
(``Gamma''), Manifest Wireless L.L.C. (``Manifest''), and American H 
Block Wireless L.L.C. (``American H Block''), are all wholly-owned 
subsidiaries of DISH. DBSD owns 176 licenses in the AWS-4 band; Gamma 
also owns 176 licenses in the AWS-4 band; Manifest owns 168 licenses in 
the Lower 700 MHz E Block, and American H Block owns 176 licenses in 
the AWS H Block.
    \4\ In addition to the buildout deadlines discussed below, we note 
that DISH holds interests in Northstar Wireless, LLC, and SNR Wireless 
LicenseCo, LLC, licensees of a total of 505 licenses in the AWS-3 bands 
that have an interim construction deadline (provide coverage to 40 
percent of the population for each license's area by October 27, 2021). 
DISH also, directly and through its wholly-owned subsidiary South.Com 
L.L.C., holds a total of 82 licenses in the Multichannel Video 
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) with interim construction 
deadlines (provide substantial service in each license's area by July 
26, 2019 (44 licenses), August 18, 2019 (37 licenses), and September 
23, 2019 (1 license).

   On March 7, 2017, DISH notified the Commission that it had 
        not met the applicable interim construction deadline for its 
        AWS-4 licenses,\5\ and by rule its final construction deadline 
        was accelerated by one year. It will be required to provide 
        signal coverage and offer service to 70 percent of the 
        population of each license's service area by March 7, 2020. 
        Failure to meet its final requirement for any license area will 
        result in automatic termination of that license without 
        Commission action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz.

   On that same date, DISH notified the Commission that it had 
        not met the applicable interim construction deadline for its 
        700 MHz Lower E Block licenses,\6\ and by rule its final 
        construction deadline was accelerated by one year. It will be 
        required to provide signal coverage and offer service to 70 
        percent of the geographic area of each license or 70 percent of 
        the population of each license's area by March 7, 2020. Failure 
        to meet these benchmarks by the deadline will result in 
        unserved portions of the service area being returned to the 
        Commission for relicensing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 722-728 MHz.

   On May 14, 2018, DISH notified the Commission that it had 
        not met the interim buildout requirement for its H Block 
        licenses,\7\ and by rule its final construction deadline was 
        accelerated by two years. It will be required to provide signal 
        coverage and offer service to 75 percent of the population of 
        each license's service area by April 29, 2022. Failure to meet 
        its final requirement for any license area will result in 
        automatic termination of that license without Commission 
        action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz.

    I am contacting you to request updates and more detailed 
information on your buildout plans for the 53 megahertz of low- and 
mid-band spectrum that is apparently lying fallow in these bands. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we request the following information:

   What are the most significant challenges you face in 
        constructing the intended network by 2020, and how do you 
        intend to overcome those challenges?

   Please describe the timing of critical milestones leading up 
        to your previously-stated goal of completing deployment by 
        March 2020, including technology selection, vendor(s) 
        selection, equipment selection/acquisition, system engineering, 
        site acquisition, equipment testing, and advertisement of 
        service and deployment to customers.

   Please describe the service DISH intends to provide with 
        respect to each spectrum band that has an upcoming construction 
        deadline. Do you intend to include other licensed bands in the 
        phase 1 deployment? If not, why? It has been reported that DISH 
        began testing ATSC 3.0 in Dallas, TX, on the 700 MHz E block 
        spectrum earlier this year. What role will this technology play 
        in meeting the upcoming construction requirements for this 
        spectrum?

   How will each spectrum license independently be constructed 
        to meet the service requirement? Will each and every spectrum 
        band be deployed at each base station? If not, how do you plan 
        to demonstrate that you have met the buildout requirement for 
        each license in each band?

   If an industry standard technology will be used, what is the 
        standard and what is its status? Has DISH decided to not move 
        forward given the current state of the standard? If so, please 
        provide an explanation of the actions DISH chose to delay due 
        to the pace of standards development.

   Please describe the architecture of the network DISH is 
        constructing for its phase 1 network (including how base 
        stations, repeaters, and end-user devices will interact) and 
        the IOT services/applications it plans to provide?

   Describe the coverage area you expect to achieve from each 
        base station in phase 1. What are the technical parameters that 
        are assumed in arriving at the expected coverage--such as data 
        rate, receive signal level, frequency of transmissions (how 
        often and how long does the base station communicate with 
        subscriber units or an individual subscriber unit), and link 
        budget? Also, describe the amount of bandwidth that you expect 
        to use for each band (AWS-4, 700 MHz E Block, and H Block) for 
        the phase 1 network.

   Please clarify whether any portion of a narrowband IoT 
        network using DISH's AWS-4, 700 MHz E Block, and H Block 
        licenses in phase 1 will consist of one-way base stations that 
        transmit to subscriber units that do not communicate with a 
        base station. If the network will support two-way 
        communications between base stations and customer equipment, 
        how do you intend to deploy each band to support two-way 
        communication?

   Describe the end-user devices you intend to deploy in order 
        to meet the construction requirements for these spectrum bands 
        (e.g., types of devices and their intended applications, 
        locations and heights above ground where they would be 
        installed, frequency bands available in the devices, how 
        frequently they would interact with base stations). Also, 
        please indicate when you expect these devices to become 
        available.

   When you previously stated that you expect to deploy by 
        March 2020, did you mean that network coverage and equipment 
        would be available to customers as of that date? Do you expect 
        to be marketing and providing service to customers in each 
        licensed area as of that date? How do you intend to market the 
        service to customers in each licensed area?

   For the H Block licenses, do you anticipate having chip sets 
        and developer kits that support the band available in time to 
        offer customer equipment by April 29, 2022?

   Do you anticipate that the contemplated construction will 
        require any rule waivers from the Commission (excluding any 
        waivers already filed), including an extension of the 
        construction deadline, waiver of the substantive construction 
        requirement, or waiver of any service rules?

    Please upload your response to this letter by using the FCC's 
Universal Licensing System (ULS) non-docketed pleadings module at 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/Uls
Entry/pleadings/pleadingsType.jsp. Choose ``Reply'' as the Type of 
Pleading and associate the response with the three lead call signs 
listed at the top of this letter. We appreciate your cooperation in 
this matter. Questions regarding the foregoing may be referred to 
Matthew Pearl.
            Sincerely,
                                  Donald K. Stockdale, Jr.,
                                                             Chief,
                                    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                    August 15, 2018

Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Bill Nelson,
Ranking Member,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson:

    Thank you for holding a Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') 
Oversight Hearing on Thursday, August 16th and for the opportunity to 
submit this letter for the record on behalf of Anthem, Inc. and its 
affiliated health plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, WellCare 
Health Plans, Inc., and the American Association of Healthcare 
Administrative Management (collectively, the ``Healthcare 
Petitioners'').
    We respectfully request your assistance with urging the FCC to act 
quickly and favorably to clarify its earlier guidance addressing 
whether patients may receive health care related communications in 
accordance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (``TCPA''). In 
particular, we ask you to encourage the FCC to grant without further 
delay the pending Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and/or 
Clarification (``Joint Petition'') filed twenty-three months ago by the 
Healthcare Petitioners.\1\ The Joint Petition asks the FCC to clarify 
certain aspects of the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Order\2\ and to confirm 
the FCC's longstanding policy of harmonizing its interpretations of the 
TCPA with the regulation of the use of telephone numbers under the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (``HIPAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Joint Petition of Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield 
Association, WellCare Health Plans, Inc., and the American Association 
of Healthcare Administrative Management for Expedited Declaratory 
Ruling and/or Clarification of the 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling 
and Order, CG Docket No. 02-278 (filed July 28, 2016) (``Joint 
Petition'').
    \2\ Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act of 1991 et al., Declaratory Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 
7961 (2015) (``2015 Declaratory Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2015 Declaratory Order provided, in relevant part, that the 
``provision of a phone number to a healthcare provider constitutes 
prior express consent for healthcare calls subject to HIPAA by a HIPAA-
covered entity and business associates acting on its behalf.'' \3\ The 
Healthcare Petitioners have sought clarification of two related aspects 
of the 2015 Declaratory Order: (1) who may receive the number; and (2) 
what the call must be about. Regarding the ``who'' question, the 
Healthcare Petitioners asked the FCC to clarify that the provision of a 
phone number to a HIPAA ``covered entity'' or ``business associate,'' 
whether by an individual, another covered entity, or a party engaged in 
an interaction subject to HIPAA, constitutes prior express consent 
calls to the HIPAA-covered entity and business associate acting on its 
behalf. A critical limitation is that covered entities and business 
associates must make calls within the scope of the consent given, and 
absent instructions to the contrary. Regarding the ``what'' question, 
the Healthcare Petitioners asked the FCC to clarify that a HIPAA-
regulated entity may place ``treatment, payment, and operations'' calls 
otherwise allowed under HIPAA. In short, the Joint Petition requested 
narrow clarifications to bring the FCC's TCPA rules for healthcare-
related calls more in line with patient expectations and HIPAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Id.  141 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Joint Petition has received strong, bipartisan support in the 
FCC record and among members of Congress. On October 13, 2017, a 
bipartisan group of members of the House of Representatives led by 
Representatives Bilirakis and Cardenas sent a letter asking Chairman 
Pai to act promptly to ``afford clarity to covered entities and 
business associates making non-marketing communications that benefit 
patients.'' \4\ As this bipartisan coalition observed, ``helpful, 
important non-marketing communications can be critical safeguards to 
reaching underserved populations and supporting more effective, 
efficient health care.'' \5\ Senators Booker and Nelson also sent a 
bipartisan letter to Chairman Pai on November 3, 2017 noting that calls 
and text messages subject to the Joint Petition convey ``important 
medical and treatment information'' and ``improve patient outcomes'' 
\6\ They also stated that ``time is of the essence to ensure that 
consumers' access to health care is not jeopardized'' and asked the FCC 
to ``resolve these issues as soon as possible (preferably within the 
next 90 days) and to protect communications allowed under HIPAA in 
light of their unique value to consumers and their positive impact on 
Americans' health and well-being.'' \7\ Further, in September of 2016, 
WellCare was invited to testify before the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and received strong bipartisan support for its position 
supporting these reasonable and measured changes that would have a 
positive impact on their beneficiaries health outcomes by allowing the 
company to communicate in the most effective and efficient manner 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Letter from Rep. Gus Bilirakis, et al. to FCC Chairman Ajit 
Pai, at 1 (Oct. 13, 2017).
    \5\ Id. at 2.
    \6\ See Letter from Sens. Corey Booker and Bill Nelson to FCC 
Chairman Ajit Pai, at 1 (Nov. 3, 2017).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The breadth and depth of support for the Joint Petition is hardly 
surprising. The communications at stake include onboarding, wellness, 
informational, and follow-up and calls and texts that, for example: (i) 
explain coverage and how to get needed care, including providing 
updates about benefits and/or network changes; (ii) perform health 
screenings and identify at-risk members; (iii) facilitate selection of 
primary care provider and schedule appointments; (iv) remind members to 
get preventive care, such as shots and help ensure medication 
adherence; (v) notify patients of changes in enrollment or disruptions 
in coverage due to non-payment and remind members about renewing their 
benefits; and (vi) solicit member feedback on healthcare quality and 
other issues and ensure satisfaction.
    Patients need and expect these and other non-marketing treatment, 
payment, and operations calls and texts, irrespective of which party in 
the HIPAA ecosystem--physicians, health plans, clearinghouses, or 
business associates--places the communication or initially obtains the 
patient's telephone number. Nevertheless, the FCC has not yet issued a 
decision on the Joint Petition. In the meantime, the threat of abusive 
class-wide litigation has chilled HIPAA-regulated entities from placing 
non-marketing calls about treatment, payment, or operations that 
patients want and expect.
    Given the fact that the D.C. Circuit's decision was now released 
several months ago, we ask you to urge the FCC to grant the Joint 
Petition without delay. Thank you very much for your consideration of 
this request, and we are available to answer any questions that you or 
your staff may have about this important issue.
            Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Samuel J. Marchio                /s/ Paul Miller
Samuel J. Marchio                    Paul A. Miller, LCP, PPC
Regional Vice President, Federal     Miller/Wenhold Capitol Strategies
 Affairs                             Fairfax, VA
Head of Congressional Affairs        [email protected]
Washington, DC                       On behalf of the American
[email protected]             Association of Healthcare
On Behalf of Anthem, Inc.             Administrative Management
 
/s/ Justine Handelman                /s/Michelle Turano
Justine Handelman                    Michelle Turano Vice President,
Senior Vice President, Office of      Public Policy & Government Affairs
 Policy and Representation           Wellcare Health Plans. Inc.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association   Tampa, FL
Washington, DC                       [email protected]
[email protected]              On behalf of WellCare Health Plans,
On Behalf of Blue Cross Blue Shield   Inc.
 Association
 

                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. Please describe actions the FCC has taken to meet its 
statutory obligations in regards to the T-band.
    Answer. Following passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act in February 2012, the Commission froze the processing of 
applications for new or expanded T-Band operations to avoid adding to 
the cost and complexity of public safety relocation. It also waived the 
pre-Act regulatory deadline for migration of T-Band licensees to 
narrowband technologies, in light of the need for future relocation. In 
February 2013, the Commission released a Public Notice to gather 
information to develop a better understanding of options for the 
Commission's future consideration regarding the T-Band. In October 
2014, the Commission opened up the 700 MHz narrowband reserve channels 
(twenty-four 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth channel pairs) for general 
licensing and afforded T-Band public safety licensees priority access 
to these channels in T-Band areas. In a 2015 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, proposing addition of interstitial channels to the 800 MHz 
band, the Commission proposed affording public safety T-Band licensees 
priority access to the 800 MHz interstitial channels. Currently, 
Commission staff are developing options and recommendations for 
Commission consideration on addressing the statutory requirements for 
initiation of a T-Band auction and relocation of T-Band licensees.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. Chairman Pai, I appreciate your efforts to close the 
digital divide. I also appreciate the FCC's efforts to protect the 
Lifeline program through reforms by removing bad actors, including 
those wireless resellers that have perpetrated fraud in the Lifeline 
program. Nonetheless, there are many wireless resellers not engaged in 
such misconduct that play an important role in providing Lifeline 
services to Tribal lands and in other parts of my state and nationwide. 
In light of the August 10th U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit's stay order, will you commit to conducting further analysis on 
the impact that a proposed wireless reseller ban in the Lifeline 
program would have on access to essential voice and broadband services 
for low-income consumers on Tribal lands, as well as in non-Tribal 
areas?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. Chairman Pai, what will you do to ensure that the FCC 
addresses the specific needs of Federal Government customers during the 
IP transition, particularly those with multisite locations in rural 
areas?
    Answer. Our goal is to close the digital divide and make sure that 
residential and business consumers in rural America have comparable 
service to those in urban America. That goes for Federal Government 
customers in rural areas as well. As NTIA recently wrote us, ``in most 
instances, the transition from legacy to next-generation networks and 
services will be seamless for residential and business customers.'' We 
continue to work with our Federal partners at NTIA to make sure we 
address the needs of all customers, including Federal Government 
customers.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. The Commission has several issues in front of it 
regarding the TCPA--some remanded from the DC Circuit and some stemming 
from petitions filed with the agency. What is your timing on answering 
these questions and can you elaborate on your intent for future 
proceedings related to the TCPA?
    Answer. We are deliberating on the appropriate path forward in 
response to the March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down 
much of the agency's 2015 interpretation of the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act (TCPA). I do not have a particular time-frame to report 
at this time, nor have I made a definitive judgment with respect to the 
issues raised by the court (e.g., the definition of autodialer). But I 
look forward to working with you and my colleagues on this matter.
    In the meantime, we're continuing our crackdown on unwanted 
robocalls--what former Senator Fritz Hollings once rightfully deemed 
the ``scourge of civilization.'' Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top 
complaint to the Commission, and we have accordingly made combating 
illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have 
aggressively enforced the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID Act, 
leveling $120 million of fines and proposing more than $82 million in 
fines, respectively, against two robocallers who engaged in illegal 
spoofing on a massive scale. We have authorized carriers to stop 
certain robocalls at the source while we pursue the creation of a 
reassigned numbers database and a robust call-authentication framework. 
And we have been working with our colleagues at the Federal Trade 
Commission, hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo in April.
    This work will continue this fall. We are currently studying the 
record in response to our open rulemakings regarding a reassigned 
numbers database and additional opportunities for carriers to block 
illegal robocalls. In addition, we are closing loopholes in our rules 
that allow robocallers to profit through regulatory arbitrage (e.g., 
with toll-free calls), and we are working with carriers to implement a 
call-authentication framework by next year so that consumers can once 
again trust Caller ID.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. On May 15, 2018, I sent you a letter with Senator 
Klobuchar and 61 Senators emphasizing long-term certainty needed for 
small, rural carriers receiving Universal Service Fund high-cost 
support. I appreciated the response you sent on August 6, 2018, 
reaffirming our concerns with regard to sufficient funding and 
consistency both for small carriers on the cost model, and those not on 
the model. In your response, you noted that the Commission is still in 
the process of reviewing the record on the pending Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission's conclusions will have a significant 
impact on rural broadband deployment in rural Nebraska.

   Can you please provide further detail on when the Commission 
        plans to take action on the NPRM?

   At this point in time, what are your recommendations for 
        stabilizing much needed high-cost support going forward?

     For legacy companies, what considerations would enable 
            these companies to plan predictably so that they can 
            service loans, implement periodic fiber network upgrades, 
            and pay for annual repair and maintenance expenses?

     For A-CAM model companies, is there an updated status 
            on the issue of additional funding of up to $200 per 
            location?

    Answer. I'm grateful for your advocacy on this issue and glad you 
agree that our reforms in March were a big win for rural communities 
that want high-speed Internet access and are served by rate-of-return 
carriers.
    The NPRM seeks comment on ways to improve and simplify the funding 
system so that rate-of-return carriers have predictable support and the 
right incentives to efficiently invest in broadband connectivity in the 
rural areas they serve. We're also considering a second offer of model-
based support to carriers, as well as how the legacy rate-of-return 
system might be improved. The public comment and reply period cycle for 
the NPRM closed on June 25, 2018. Like you, I believe it is a priority 
to ensure that small carriers can offer high-quality, affordable 
broadband to rural America. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to put forward an order that would do just that before the 
year is over.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. The MOBILE NOW Act, which was signed into law as part 
of the most recent omnibus package, called for the FCC and NTIA to 
identify 100 megahertz of new unlicensed spectrum while also requiring 
the creation of a ``National Plan for Unlicensed Spectrum.'' 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? How are 
you coordinating with NTIA?
    Answer. The FCC has a routine consultation process with NTIA, 
especially through the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). 
We also have less formal staff contacts through various bureaus and 
offices, especially the Office of Engineering and Technology.
    We plan to move forward on a rulemaking for the 6 GHz band this 
fall. Indeed, before passage of the RAY BAUM'S Act (FY 2018 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Division P), we issued a July 14, 2017 
Notice of Inquiry including that subject, resulting in a broad range of 
support for 6 GHz unlicensed use for Wi-Fi. I'm pleased that we're 
working in concert with NTIA and have a congressional mandate to 
proceed.

    Question 2. This committee worked hard to ensure that adequate 
funding for the broadcast channel repack in the omnibus this past 
March, including money for impacted FM radio stations and Low Power TV 
and Translators. Next month, phase one of the repack moves begin. What 
process does the Commission have in place to ensure that, if a 
broadcaster being moved to a different channel is unable to meet their 
phased move deadline, through no fault of their own, that they will not 
be moved off of their current channel?
    Answer. There are options for stations to keep broadcasting even if 
there are circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from 
completing construction on their new channel at the end of their 
construction permit. Stations may be able to seek an extension of time 
to construct (though they will not be allowed to continue operating on 
their pre-auction channel more than 39 months after the repacking 
process started). Stations also could seek special temporary authority 
to operate on temporary facilities on their new channel or on another 
channel, if available. And the Commission of course has the ability to 
waive our rules when necessary and in the public interest. Commission 
staff are monitoring the transition through quarterly progress reports 
filed by the stations.

    Question 3. I was successful in getting the FCC CIO Parity Act 
signed into law as part of the recent omnibus. This law requires the 
FCC to ensure that the agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO) has a 
significant role in the budgeting, programming, and hiring decisions of 
the agency, and given the CIO's subject matter expertise, prioritizing 
the replacement of costly and vulnerable legacy IT systems would be 
accounted for in this critical decision-making. Will you please 
describe the current role of the FCC's CIO in the agency's efforts to 
formulate an effective and targeted budget?
    Answer. I appreciate your ongoing and substantial commitment to 
ensuring that the Federal Government has robust and resilient 
Information Technology (IT) resources. It is essential that CIOs feel 
empowered to make critical decisions essential to upgrading and 
modernizing our IT systems. I'm pleased to note that our Acting CIO 
currently plays an important role in working with our Managing Director 
and my office to develop our budget and allocate resources.
    Our top budget priority related to IT modernization is to end our 
reliance on outdated legacy systems by moving systems and applications 
to the cloud, a priority strongly supported by our Acting CIO. Such 
efforts not only improve the quality of our IT services, they also 
decrease expenses in the long run because it is quite expensive to keep 
many of our legacy systems running.
    Consistent with this priority, in our Fiscal Year 2019 Budget 
Request, we have asked for $8,535,200 for IT modernization and 
implementation, including $4,619,000 for shifting systems to the cloud 
and $3,666,200 for shifting applications to the cloud. In fact, this 
request comprises the vast majority of the new spending contained in 
that budget request.
    Moreover, it is important to note that we recently received and are 
grateful to you and your colleagues for approval for a reprogramming 
that would move de-obligated resources to current IT needs, improving 
our security and redesigning our Electronic Comment Filing System.

    Question 4. As a Senator from rural Kansas, I always want to make 
sure that our broadband policies are moving towards connecting more 
rural Americans. Do you plan to take a balanced approach in the 3.5 
gigahertz Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS) proceeding, that 
ensures that both those who are connecting urban America and those who 
are connecting rural America are given fair opportunity to participate?
    Answer. Yes. We are reviewing the recommendations made by 
Commissioner O'Rielly, who I asked in 2017 to lead the FCC's review of 
our 3.5 GHz plans. I am actively engaged in the issue, having taken 
meetings just in the past several weeks with entities as varied as 
industrial Internet of Things representatives, fixed wireless 
providers, and others. Our goal is yours: to maximize the value of this 
band for American consumers and encourage broad participation.

    Question 5. In May, the FCC approved an NPRM proposing to modernize 
part of the 2.5 GHz band, better known as Educational Broadband Service 
or EBS. EBS currently operates through a public-private partnership 
model among educators, commercial entities, and the public. In many 
places, for example, partnerships between EBS licensees and commercial 
lessees have led to low-cost Internet service for schools, libraries, 
and anchor institutions. Additionally, some of these partnerships have 
supported the buildout of 4G and future 5G mobile networks, as well as 
fixed wireless systems that are closing the digital divide. As the FCC 
pursues this rulemaking, what is the agency considering and 
prioritizing related to existing lease agreements, service areas, 
levels of service, and current programs provided through these existing 
partnerships?
    Answer. This is an ongoing proceeding, the FCC (as you mention) 
having issued an NPRM on this topic earlier this year. The record is 
still open, and we have not made any definitive judgments on the way 
forward. Nonetheless, we have proposed to accommodate various interests 
involving this spectrum. For example, in paragraph 17 of the NPRM, we 
specifically sought comment ``on whether we should first open up to 
three new local priority filing windows to give existing licensees, 
Tribal Nations and educational entities an opportunity to access 2.5 
GHz spectrum to serve their local communities.'' Additionally, I 
personally met with representatives of Northern Michigan University 
last month in Michigan to learn how they are making innovative use of 
this spectrum to provide broadband access to very rural and remote 
towns in the state's Upper Peninsula.

    Question 6. While EBS licenses have been issued in approximately 
half of the U.S., the FCC has not issued any new licenses since 1995, 
leaving much of the U.S. without a license. Some of these unlicensed 
areas are irregular-shaped gaps that currently exist between current 
license areas. In an effort to make certain this spectrum between 
licenses areas can quickly be put to use for mobile broadband, the FCC 
is considering automatic expansion of existing geographic service areas 
(GSAs) to the nearest county boundary in counties that service areas 
already intersect. Do you support this proposal? If not, please 
explain.
    Answer. This is indeed one of the proposals I made to my colleagues 
when we considered the NPRM and one which my colleagues unanimously 
adopted. The proceeding is still ongoing, as you know, and we are still 
receiving public feedback, so we have not made any definitive judgments 
on the appropriate way forward.

    Question 7. In 2007, Kelsey Smith was abducted in broad daylight as 
she was getting into her car outside a department store in Overland 
Park, Kansas. While a search for her began immediately, law enforcement 
encountered difficulty in obtaining location information from her cell 
phone provider. After four days of searching, law enforcement located 
her body within 45 minutes of receiving her device location data.
    Following Kelsey's murder, 23 states have enacted legislation in 
her name, the Kelsey Smith Act, which requires Commercial mobile 
service providers to provide call location information to law 
enforcement when the device has been used to call 9-1-1 for emergency 
assistance, or for a device that is in the possession of a user that 
law enforcement believes to be in an emergency situation involving risk 
of death or serious physical harm.
    While current Federal law doesn't prohibit telecommunications 
companies from providing location information to the police in true 
emergency situations that involve the risk of physical harm or death, 
it doesn't require them to do so either. Therefore, inconsistencies can 
arise in the way that firms respond to emergency requests from law 
enforcement officials for device location data and delay attempts to 
locate individuals in need of life-saving assistance. In testimony 
given before this committee on September 15, 2016, you stated that 
legislation, ``can make a difference,'' and, ``is already helping law 
enforcement save lives.''

   Do you still believe that enacting the Kelsey Smith Act at 
        the Federal level will help law enforcement save lives by 
        requiring telecommunications providers to provide call location 
        information to law enforcement officials when responding to a 
        call for emergency service or in an emergency situation that 
        involves the risk of death or serious physical harm?

   Do you believe the Kelsey Smith Act, as introduced by 
        Senators Roberts, Moran, Fischer and Blunt on May 24, 2018, 
        adequately safeguards civil liberties?

    Answer. I still believe that enacting the Kelsey Smith Act could 
help law enforcement save lives. And I will not forget meeting Kelsey's 
parents a few years ago in Kansas; hearing from Johnson County law 
enforcement officials about a small child who was recovered during a 
carjacking in part because of location information like this; and 
working with you, Congressman Yoder, and others on this issue. I would 
also note that the proposed legislation also contains several 
safeguards to protect civil liberties.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. In many rural communities, students have long commutes on 
school buses sometimes upwards of half an hour, an hour, or even longer 
one-way. Given the connectivity challenges many students face in rural 
communities, how could E-rate help connect school buses with wifi to 
allow students to use commute time to do homework, projects, or other 
school work?
    Answer. I agree with you on the value proposition of this approach. 
As just one example, I recently visited Moab, Utah, where I heard 
firsthand how Wi-Fi-enabled buses allow students in rural Utah schools 
to do their homework while they are traveling to and from athletic 
events.
    My top priority is closing the digital divide, and that includes by 
leveraging existing programs such as the E-Rate program to ensure that 
low-income and rural students receive access to next-generation 
technologies and opportunities. Although the current E-Rate program 
does not support Wi-Fi on school buses, the idea is intriguing and 
worthy of further study--especially for those in rural communities 
where students generally have longer bus rides.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. Your agency has been tasked with commencing a study of 
broadband deployment and access on tribal lands by March 2019. The 
agency has been criticized in the past for having less than robust 
compliance with the need for tribe consultation. Do you intend to 
consult with tribes in order to conduct this study?
    Answer. Yes

    Question 2. If so, have you started the tribal consultations? If 
not, why not?
    Answer. We are presently in the planning phase for these Tribal 
consultations. We anticipate scheduling and conducting consultations as 
soon as we finalize the Tribal consultation plan.

    Question 3. If you have started tribal consultations, which tribes 
and stakeholder groups have you consulted with or who do you intend to 
consult with?
    Answer. As stated in response to question 2, we are in the process 
of developing a Tribal consultation plan and anticipate that it will 
include reaching out to both individual Tribes and inter-Tribal 
organizations on a national and regional basis. This will likely 
include the National Congress of American Indians and regional 
associations such as the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the 
United South and Eastern Tribes, the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign 
Tribes, and the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council. We also 
anticipate reaching out to Tribal telecommunications carriers and their 
association, the National Tribal Telecommunications Association, as 
well as individual Tribes.

    Question 4. Your agency has been tasked with commencing a study of 
broadband deployment and access on tribal lands by March 2019. The 
agency has been criticized in the past for having less than robust 
compliance with the need for tribe consultation. How can we optimize 
the tribes' participation in the broadband study and the composition of 
the report?
    Answer. Previous experience suggests that we can optimize Tribal 
participation in the broadband study and composition of the report by 
engaging with a diverse range of Tribes and inter-Tribal organizations, 
and by doing so throughout the information-gathering and decisional 
stages of these efforts. We have also learned it is beneficial to offer 
Tribes the choice of both on-and off-the-record opportunities for 
discussion. These engagements can be made most productive by ensuring 
opportunities for participation by Tribal leaders or their formal 
designees, focusing discussion on a set of key topics and questions 
identified by Commission staff and based on currently-available 
broadband data coverage provided in advance to consultation 
participants.

    Question 5. Will you commit to completing the next quadrennial 
review before leading the FCC in any process that changes any more of 
the existing media ownership rules?
    Answer. I can assure you that no further changes will be made to 
the rules covered by the quadrennial review mandate until the 
Commission completes another quadrennial review.

    Question 6. Under your leadership the FCC has made many changes to 
media ownership rules over the past 18 months. Will you be looking at 
the impact of those changes in the upcoming quadrennial review?
    Answer. Congress requires the Commission to review the broadcast 
media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they 
continue to be necessary in the public interest. If the Commission 
determines any such rules not to be in the public interest, Congress 
has directed it to repeal or modify those rules. Typically, in 
quadrennial review proceedings, the Commission collects comment and 
data regarding the existing rules in order to meet this Congressional 
directive. I anticipate we will follow a similar course in the next 
quadrennial review, which is scheduled to begin before the end of the 
year.

    Question 7. Do you think it's important that the upcoming 
quadrennial review reviews the changes that have been made to media 
ownership over the past 18 months and the impact that these changes 
have had on localism, media concentration and diversity?
    Answer. See response to Question 6 above.

    Question 8. In 2016, the Court of Appeals chastised the FCC for 
making changes to media ownership rules without the benefit of having 
completed statutorily mandated reviews of the media marketplace and 
media ownership rules that were required in 2010 and 2014. Basically 
the court was saying that the FCC's policy making needed to be based on 
data and analysis. It's my understanding that the FCC needs to start 
its next data gathering review this year.
    Given the court's guidance that any FCC changes to media ownership 
rules should be grounded in the type of up-to-date data and analysis 
required by the quadrennial review process, what you would recommend 
that the next Quadrennial review cover?
    Answer. See response to Question 6 above.

    Question 9. When I asked you at the hearing if the FCC has the 
authority to address cybersecurity threats, you said that the FCC 
currently lacks the authority. In your view, which Federal agency, if 
any, is the lead agency on cybersecurity issues, such as SS7, impacting 
wireless telephone networks?
    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on 
cybersecurity issues.

    Question 10. When I asked Chairman Pai at the hearing if the FCC 
has the authority to address cybersecurity threats, he said that the 
FCC currently lacks the authority. In your view, which Federal agency, 
if any, is the lead agency on cybersecurity issues, such as SS7, 
impacting wireless telephone networks?
    Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on 
cybersecurity issues.

    Question 11. The FCC has publicly encouraged wireless carriers to 
voluntarily address cybersecurity issues related to SS7 that impact 
their networks. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
wireless carriers to address cybersecurity issues related to SS7? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. The Commission has not previously identified such 
authority, and I am not aware of any statutory provision that grants 
such authority. Notably, standing alone, Section 1 of the Act does not 
provide substantive regulatory authority to the Commission. See, e.g., 
Motion Picture Ass'n of America v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 804 (D.C. Cir. 
2002) (MPAA) (characterizing Section 1 as ``very general'' and 
rejecting notion that it afforded basis upon which agency could 
promulgate certain accessibility regulations); American Library Ass'n 
v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 691, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (in rejecting FCC's so-
called ``broadcast flag'' rule--in defense of which agency ``cited no 
specific statutory provision giving the agency authority to regulate'' 
but simply relied on Title I--extending MPAA and finding that ``[t]here 
is no statutory foundation for the broadcast flag rules, and 
consequently the rules are ancillary to nothing'').

    Question 12. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, 
governments in other countries, including the United Kingdom, have 
``commissioned independent testing of the vulnerabilities in national 
cellular networks.'' Does the FCC currently have the authority to 
commission independent cybersecurity testing of U.S. wireless networks? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. We have not been appropriated funding, nor do we have the 
specific expertise in this area, to carry out such testing.

    Question 13. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
mobile carriers to assess risks relating to the security of mobile 
network infrastructure as it impacts the Government's use of mobile 
devices? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Although the Commission's authority to collect information 
is fairly broad, the Commission has not previously addressed this issue 
before. This does not prevent government agencies when contracting with 
mobile carriers to require an assessment of risks relating to the 
security of mobile network infrastructure as it impacts government use.

    Question 14. Does the FCC currently have the authority to compel 
mobile carrier network owners/operators to provide information to the 
FCC to assess the security of the carriers' communications networks? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. Although the Commission's authority to collect information 
is fairly broad, the Commission has not previously addressed this issue 
before.

    Question 15. A recent investigation by Senator Wyden revealed that 
wireless carriers were providing customer location to private companies 
without verifying that users had consented to this disclosure of 
private information. In response, all of the major wireless carriers 
announced they would stop selling location data via location 
aggregators.
    Is subscriber location data, when created by wireless carriers 
through their cell towers or other network infrastructure, is Customer 
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. Section 222 of the Communications Act defines CPNI, in 
part, as ``information that relates to the quantity, technical 
configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a 
telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a 
telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier 
by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer 
relationship.'' (emphasis added)

    Question 16. Is location data is protected by 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222, 
regardless of whether it is collected when the subscriber is making a 
call, browsing the web from their smartphone, or even when the 
subscriber's phone is not being used and is in the subscriber's pocket? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Carriers retain their CPNI obligations regardless of 
whether a consumer is using their phone when data is collected or not.

    Question 17. Prior to January 1, 2018, had the FCC ever audited a 
wireless carrier to determine whether or not it was verifying customer 
consent before sharing their location information with third parties?

  a.  If yes, please detail when these audits took place, what was 
        their scope, and what did the FCC discover.

  b.  If not, please explain why.

    Answer. The Commission has not previously audited wireless carriers 
as described. However, the Commission constantly monitors complaints, 
public reporting, and carrier self-reporting of possible CPNI issues.

    Question 18. Has the Commission responded to the Third Circuit 
mandate in the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC line of cases to examine 
the impacts of broadcast consolidation on ownership opportunities for 
women and people of color?
    Answer. Yes. In its 2017 Reconsideration Order, the Commission 
analyzed whether there would be a material impact on minority and 
female ownership as a result of the policy decisions made therein. 
Additionally, in early August, the Commission majority also took 
definitive action to increase broadcast diversity by establishing the 
framework for an incubator program designed to help new entrants, 
including women and minorities, succeed in the broadcast industry.

    Question 19. Does the Commission intend to collect any data so that 
it can examine how and whether broadcast consolidation relates to 
ownership diversity?
    Answer. The Commission collects data on broadcast ownership on a 
biennial basis. This includes comprehensive information on racial and 
ethnic minority and female broadcast ownership. Commission staff are 
currently working on the next report to summarize the data submitted 
earlier this year.

    Question 20. What percentage of broadcast stations are owned by 
people of color? By women? Are you satisfied with those levels? If not, 
what kind of meaningful changes can the FCC make to expand ownership 
diversity?
    Answer. According to the Commission's 2017 Ownership Report that 
summarizes data from 2015, racial minorities owned 2.6 percent of full 
power TV stations, 5.8 percent of AM radio stations and 2.3 percent of 
FM radio stations. The same report showed that women owned 7.4 percent 
of full power TV stations, 8.9 percent of AM radio stations, and 8.1 
percent of FM radio stations.
    In order to promote greater diversity, in 2017 I re-established an 
Advisory Committee on Diversity that had been dormant for years before 
I became Chairman. And I specifically tasked this Advisory Committee 
with setting up a working group focusing on promoting broadcast 
diversity. Through its working group, the Committee is providing advice 
and recommendations to the Commission regarding how to empower 
disadvantaged communities and accelerate the entry of small businesses, 
including those owned by women and minorities, into the media, digital 
news and information, and audio and video programming industries. I 
also pushed to implement a new incubator program--something that had 
received a lot talk at the Commission for the last quarter century, but 
little action until the Commission majority finally established one in 
August. I hope that this program will help promote diversity of 
ownership and help address the significant barriers to enter the 
broadcast industry.

    Question 21. What data, if any, did the Commission rely on to 
justify its recent assumptions that deregulation in the form of 
loosening local ownership protections would improve competition and 
localism in the broadcast market?
    Answer. The Commission must base its policy decisions on the data 
and information provided in the record. In the 2017 Reconsideration 
Order, the Commission found that the Eight-Voices Test included in the 
local television ownership rule was not supported by the record 
evidence and that there was no reasoned basis for retaining it. 
Further, the Commission found that the test denied the benefits of 
common ownership--particularly in smaller and mid-sized markets--
without any evidence that it provided countervailing benefits to 
competition. The Commission also found that the Top-Four Prohibition 
contained in the Local TV Ownership Rule should be retained, but with a 
modification to allow for a case-by-case approach to address instances 
where the evidence proffered demonstrates that the Commission should 
not extend a blanket prohibition in a particular market or in a 
particular transaction.

    Question 22. Does the FCC have any intention of soliciting public 
input with field hearings regarding whether or not local broadcast 
stations are serving the public interest to inform evaluations of 
recent media ownership changes or future ownership reviews?
    Answer. The Commission does not have any field hearings planned at 
this time.

    Question 23. Notwithstanding any recent legislation, in your 
opinion, which part of the Federal Government should maintain 
responsibility for updating and maintaining the broadband map? What is 
the basis for your answer?
    Answer. The Commission has no strong view on who or what government 
entity should maintain and be responsible for updating the broadband 
map. The FCC does collect relevant data for such a map, and this data 
collection is critical for Universal Service Fund purposes.

    Question 24. What is your view on whether the Federal agency should 
use or rely on the data sets of private companies to fill out the 
broadband map?
    Answer. Federal agencies should use the best available data for the 
broadband map.

    Question 25. What expertise does the FCC have with regard to data 
analytics and mapping?
    Answer. The FCC has more than 50 Ph.D. economists and statisticians 
that it relies on for the collection and analysis of data, along with a 
smaller number of data analysts. In addition, the Commission has 
roughly two dozen people who work with Geographic Information System 
(GIS) data, including several who specifically have a GIS background.

    Question 26. What additional resources does the FCC need to 
effectively update and maintain the broadband map?
    Answer. The Commission has been able to update the fixed broadband 
map using existing resources and continues to work on updates with new 
information. Of course, additional resources would be helpful to update 
and improve the broadband map further, including the addition of 
mobile.

    Question 27. On Friday, August 10, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit granted a stay of new FCC Tribal Lifeline rules 
that would have barred wireless resellers from providing Tribal 
Lifeline and would also limit the Tribal Lifeline program to rural 
Tribal areas. The Court found the FCC's decisions to be arbitrary and 
capricious. The FCC has proposed the same ban on resellers in its 
ongoing Lifeline proceeding. In so doing, the agency threatens to cut 
off service to more than 7 million of our most vulnerable citizens--
veterans, seniors, single moms and others--who depend on the Lifeline 
program.
    Does this decision put to rest any notion of limiting the important 
role of wireless resellers in the Lifeline program?
    Answer. The Commission has not reached any conclusion as to whether 
resellers should continue to be permitted to participate in the 
Lifeline program. We are reviewing the record in this open proceeding, 
including on this issue, because resellers have been the subject of the 
vast majority of Lifeline investigations for waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Furthermore, we are examining how the Lifeline program can support 
investment in broadband networks where they are needed most--in low-
income urban communities, in rural areas, and on Tribal lands.

    Question 28. Recently, wireline and wireless service providers 
recently asked the FCC for relief from the Lifeline program minimum 
service standards rules. These service providers claim that the FCC's 
minimum service standards--which increase each December--will force 
Lifeline subscribers into higher service levels and packages than they 
can afford. Can you tell me whether the agency plans to provide relief 
on this matter so that consumers are not hit with price increases in 
early December?
    Answer. The Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice 
seeking comment on petitions concerning the Lifeline minimum service 
standards. The comment period closed on September 14, 2018. We will 
take into consideration the issues raised and concerns expressed by all 
stakeholders as we work to resolve this proceeding.

    Question 29. Broadband and bridging the digital divide is one of 
our top concerns in this subcommittee, and it is encouraging that this 
issue is a priority for the FCC. I know the FCC has taken a number of 
steps to advance the deployment of broadband and I am curious about 
your thoughts on TV white spaces technology and the opportunity it 
presents to serve rural areas. We've seen announcements about TV white 
spaces deployments in a variety of rural areas. It's my understanding 
that if the Commission were to finalize some of its open proceedings 
freeing-up sufficient spectrum and adopting appropriate technical 
rules, it would drastically help to reduce the upfront cost of building 
rural networks and any local provider would be able to provide 
unlicensed TV white spaces broadband connectivity.
    What are your thoughts on this issue and would resolving these 
issues maximize an additional tool to address our rural broadband 
challenge? Would the FCC be able to resolve the critical technical and 
spectrum issues by the end of the year?
    Answer. From incorporating auctions into the Universal Service 
Fund's high-cost program and increasing support for telemedicine and 
telehealth applications to reducing regulatory barriers to investment 
and freeing up new spectrum resources, the Commission has made bringing 
digital opportunity to every American our top priority. I appreciate 
your recognition of the substantial work the Commission has done under 
my leadership to close the digital divide.
    TV white spaces deployments may be another tool in the tool chest, 
and the Commission is currently weighing whether any targeted changes 
to our technical rules would facilitate such deployments. Complicating 
matters is that we are in the midst of repacking TV broadcasters as a 
result of the broadcast incentive auction, and so the Commission's top 
priority at this stage must be to ensure that the repacking process 
mandated by Congress in the Spectrum Act of 2012 is carried out 
appropriately and in a timely manner. Pursuant to the procedures 
adopted by the Incentive Auction Task Force and the Media Bureau in the 
Transition Scheduling Plan, the 10-phase transition deadlines include 
initiation of the Phase 1 testing period on September 14, 2018, with 
Phase 10 complete by July 3, 2020.

    Question 30. Thank you continuing to advocate for the millions of 
rural Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide. As you know, 
many members of this committee share your concerns, and we want to do 
everything we can to expand coverage. However, as you know, it is 
important to have reliable mapping and data tools in order to do so. 
What can the Commission and members of this committee do to improve 
your data collection and broadband mapping in order to ensure we know 
exactly where coverage gaps remain?
    Answer. The Commission has been able to update the broadband map 
using existing resources and continues to work on updates with new 
information. Of course, additional resources would be helpful to update 
and improve the broadband map further. In the meantime, the Commission 
has an open proceeding on how to improve our corresponding data 
collection, and staff is reviewing ways to improve that data 
collection.

    Question 31. With respect to Fixed Broadband Deployments, the Form 
477 instructions provide that ``. . . fixed broadband connections are 
available in a census block if the provider does or could, within a 
service interval that is typical for that type of connection--that is 
without an extraordinary commitment of resources--provision two-way 
data transmission to and from the Internet. . .'' Is it possible for 
the Commission to segregate the data it collects on consumers who are 
served with broadband from the data it collects on consumers who could 
be served with broadband? Will that provide a better picture of which 
Americans have broadband connectivity?
    Answer. I agree that we must improve the Form 477 data collection 
devised by the last Administration. That's why the Commission, under my 
leadership, commenced a rulemaking last year to review Form 477 and 
consider ways to improve the quality, accuracy, and usefulness of the 
deployment data it collects. We seek comment on collecting data more 
granularly, such as you describe.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. What specific steps, if any, did the FCC take to 
prepare when it was informed in advance by a producer from the John 
Oliver show that they planned to run a new episode on net neutrality on 
May 7, 2017? If it did not take any steps, why not?
    Answer. While members of my staff believed that the Chief 
Information Officer had been informed of the upcoming show, the Office 
of Inspector General did not find any evidence that this notification 
occurred. In any event, prior to the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom 
proceeding, the FCC IT team made performance improvements to ECFS to 
ensure it could handle the same volume as was experienced with the 2014 
proceeding, and the Electronic Comment Filing System had been 
functioning well during the 2017 proceeding up to that point. The 
Electronic Comment Filing System was available over 99 percent of the 
time during the 2017 proceeding.

    Question 2. At the hearing you stated that you relied on assurances 
given by your staff on July 24, 2017, that the May 7, 2017, incident 
was a DDoS attack and not merely the result of excessive traffic from 
the John Oliver show. What questions did you ask those individuals at 
that time that gave you confidence in their assurances? What facts and 
documentation did they present to you that was so convincing? What 
steps did you take at that time to ensure that criminal law enforcement 
authorities had been properly engaged to investigate what you 
apparently had been assured was an unprecedented criminal act? What 
steps did you take once you became aware that you had been misled about 
the nature of the May 7th event, including disciplinary action against 
the individuals who provided you with false information and those who 
supervised them?
    Answer. When my office was informed that we had been misled about 
the nature of the May 7 event, we specifically asked the Office of 
Inspector General whether we could discuss this matter with our IT 
staff and take disciplinary action if warranted. OIG asked us to 
refrain from taking these steps in order not to jeopardize its 
investigation. After the conclusion of the investigation, my office has 
discussed the matters contained in the report with relevant IT staff. 
At this point, however, I don't believe that it would be appropriate to 
discuss whether we are or will be taking any disciplinary action 
against specific staffers. I would note, however, that the Office of 
the Inspector General's report makes clear that the Commission's then-
CIO was primarily responsible for providing my office with inaccurate 
information, and he is no longer with the Commission so we are not able 
to discipline him. Additionally, and as I observed in my statement of 
August 6, 2018, it has become clear that in addition to a flawed 
comment system, we inherited from the prior Administration a culture in 
which many members of the Commission's career IT staff were hesitant to 
express disagreement with the Commission's former CIO in front of FCC 
management.
    Following the incident, the Commission's Chief of Staff asked the 
then-CIO about contacting Federal law enforcement. Subsequently, my 
office was informed that the FBI had told our IT staff that the 
incident did not appear to rise to the level of a major incident that 
would trigger FBI involvement. However, as indicated in the Office of 
Inspector General's report, that information does not appear to have 
been accurate.
    My office had several discussions with the then-CIO and other IT 
staff so that we could understand what had happened. During these 
discussions, members of my office asked many questions about how the 
ECFS operated and why the then-CIO was confident that problems with the 
system had not been caused by individuals attempting to file comments 
with the Commission. The answers we were provided appeared to make 
sense, but unfortunately many were based on inaccurate information. In 
terms of the July 24, 2017, meeting that you reference, I don't recall 
the specific questions I asked but I do remember being told that the 
incident was not caused by individuals attempting to file comments with 
the Commission but rather bots. I believe I was told that this 
conclusion was based, in part, on the amount of traffic at issue as 
well as the characteristics of that traffic.

    Question 2. At the hearing you testified as follows: ``On January 
23 of 2018, I was informed by my Chief of Staff, who'd been informed by 
the Office of the Inspector General, that they had suspicions that the 
former Chief Information Officer's statements to us and to Congress 
were inaccurate. The OIG then requested, because they had referred this 
matter for potential criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice, 
do not say anything to anyone.'' Did the OIG direct you not to inform 
Sen. Wyden and me that you had provided an incorrect and misleading 
account of the events of May 7, 2017, to us in your letter response 
dated June 15, 2017? Did you ask the IG if it would be permissible to 
inform us? Did you consult with the FCC General Counsel about the 
appropriate course of action in this regard and what was his advice? 
Why didn't you inform us as soon as you learned that the USAO-DC 
declined prosecution on June 7, 2018?
    Answer. The Office of the Inspector General made a blanket request 
of us not to discuss its investigation with anyone during its pendency. 
We acceded to that request, even though we knew that we would be 
criticized for doing so, because we thought that it was important not 
to interfere with or jeopardize the investigation.

    Question 3. What specific upgrades and modifications did the FCC 
make to the ECFS system after the 2014 John Oliver incident and prior 
to the 2017 incident to improve the integrity and stability of the 
system?
    Answer. The FCC's IT team has advised me that a new cloud-based 
ECFS (version 3.0) was built and delivered. ECFS 3.0 was built using 
node.js and with an ElasticSearch data store. The entire system is 
operating in the cloud with no dependencies on FCC's infrastructure. 
Prior to the 2017 proceeding, the FCC IT team made performance 
improvements to ECFS 3.0 to ensure it could handle the same volume as 
experienced with the 2014 proceeding. Improvements included optimizing 
the individual pages, reducing the page sizes, and improving load time.

    Question 4. How is the FCC working to identify and make available 
sufficient unlicensed spectrum to keep up with demand and to comply 
with the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018? Be specific.
    Answer. Last year, we issued a Notice of Inquiry on mid-band 
spectrum, resulting in a broad range of support for unlicensed use in 
the 6 GHz band. In the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, Congress recognized the 
importance of this and other bands, and we appreciate the legislative 
support for our work in the statute. This fall, we plan to issue a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to continue our work on the 6 GHz band. 
That's why I plan for the Commission to move forward on a rulemaking 
for the 6 GHz band this fall.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board recently 
praised your decision to challenge the Sinclair-Tribune merger, stating 
that ``the FCC Chairman follows the law in stopping a merger.'' \1\ The 
editorial concluded by saying, ``it's up to Congress to change 
broadcast ownership restrictions.'' Do you agree that only Congress has 
the authority to change broadcast ownership restrictions, like the 
national television audience reach cap?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/ajit-pai-and-sinclair-1531955296
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. This issue is currently under review in an open proceeding. 
I would note, however, that the prior Administration asserted that it 
did have the authority to modify the national cap when it decided to 
eliminate the UHF Discount in 2016. Specifically, the FCC majority 
explained:

        ``We conclude that the Commission has the authority to modify 
        the national audience reach cap, including the authority to 
        revise or eliminate the UHF discount. We find that no statute 
        bars the Commission from revisiting the cap or the UHF discount 
        contained therein in a rulemaking proceeding so long as such a 
        review is conducted separately from a quadrennial review of the 
        broadcast ownership rules pursuant to Section 202(h) of the 
        1996 Act. The [2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act] simply 
        directed the Commission to revise its rules to reflect a 39 
        percent national audience reach cap and removed the requirement 
        to review the national ownership cap from the Commission's 
        quadrennial review requirement. It did not impose a statutory 
        national audience reach cap or prohibit the Commission from 
        evaluating the elements of this rule. Thus, the Commission 
        retains authority under the Communications Act to review any 
        aspect of the national audience reach cap; it simply is not 
        required to do so as part of the quadrennial review.'' 
        (footnotes omitted; emphasis added)

    Question 2. A December 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explores 
gutting one of the last few remaining rules protecting consumers from 
massive consolidation in media: the media ownership cap. Didn't 
Congress--through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004--very 
clearly instruct the FCC to set this cap at 39 percent? What authority 
would the FCC now have to change this cap?
    Answer. See response to Question 1 above.

    Question 3. With the launch of 5G technology, there are renewed 
concerns regarding the risks of radiofrequency radiation.\2\ What role 
does the FCC play in making sure exposure to 5G airwaves by 
occupational workers or consumers remain at safe levels? To that end, 
what is the FCC doing to understand whether exposure to RF radiation 
and 5G technology may be linked to health risks for certain 
occupational workers or the general public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-
20160808-snap-story.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The FCC's rules regarding RF exposure to humans extends to 
all devices and facilities that transmit RF energy, regardless of the 
use, service, or technology--the same standards apply to exposure 
limits whether the device is 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, or any other kind of radio 
transmitter. With regard to RF exposure levels and their regulation 
generally, we have an open proceeding that addresses issues related to 
our rules implementing RF exposure limits.
    Because the FCC is not a health sciences agency, we rely on the 
recommendations of Federal health and safety agencies with extensive 
experience and knowledge in this area as we review the appropriateness 
of our limits with respect to RF biological effects and related issues. 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the lead Federal health 
agency in monitoring the latest research developments and advising 
other agencies with respect to the safety of RF-emitting products used 
by the public, and we work closely with FDA in this regard. I would 
note that earlier this year Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, head of the FDA's 
Center for Devices and Radiological Health noted that: ``[B]ased on our 
ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into account all available 
scientific evidence we have received, we have not found sufficient 
evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by 
exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure 
limits. Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we 
have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors. Based on this 
current information, we believe the current safety limits for cell 
phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/
ucm595144.htm; 
see also https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/
february2/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The open rulemaking referenced above also is considering 
clarifications and updates to the rules regarding modern installation 
and use practices. In addition to signage and barrier requirements 
related to occupational/controlled exposure, as well as enforcement 
actions related to this area, the Commission has conducted educational 
outreach and onsite programming with the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration regarding worker safety. We will continue to work with 
the expert health agencies to ensure that consumers and occupational 
workers are safe and secure.

    Question 4. Do you have any knowledge or information as to who was 
responsible for the fake comments during the Restoring Internet Freedom 
Order proceeding?
    Answer. Unfortunately, the current Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) cannot validate the user identity of people that file comments 
into the record. Going forward, we want to mitigate if not eliminate 
this problem, which is why we are focused on redesigning the ECFS 
system.

    Question 5. Did the FCC engage in any internal investigation into 
the fake comments in the docket? Did the FCC refer the matter to the 
Department of Justice--has there been any criminal investigation into 
the fake comments during the Restoring Internet Freedom Order 
proceeding?
    Answer. As a general matter, the Commission does not discuss 
whether a matter is the subject of either an Enforcement Bureau or 
criminal investigation.

    Question 6. Given the IG's findings about your previous CIO's 
failure to provide accurate information regarding the fake comments 
during the Restoring Internet Freedom Order proceeding, will you commit 
to an IG investigation into the source and the FCC's response?
    Answer. The Commission will always cooperate with the Office of 
Inspector General, as we did in the recent report you mention.
    Prior to repeal of net neutrality, several public interest 
organization warned that we would see small changes first, such as 
imposing additional fees for high definition video, as ISPs tested the 
waters to see what they could get away with. Public Knowledge's Harold 
Feld testified to the Maryland Senate in March that ``primary broadband 
providers will take advantage of this to find new ways to charge 
customers if they want to get high quality service.'' Since then, 
Comcast and Verizon have begun to throttle mobile video for certain 
data plans unless consumers upgraded to more expensive services.

    Question 7. Will we see more requirements that a subscriber must 
upgrade to the more expensive plans to access specific services or 
attach certain devices?
    Answer. The types of data plans mentioned in your question have 
nothing to do with the June 11 repeal of utility-style Internet 
regulations. Indeed, they permitted under the previous regulations, and 
companies were offering them while those regulations were in effect. Of 
course, to the extent that Internet Service Providers act in an 
anticompetitive manner, including any allegations relating to your 
hypothetical, there are ample consumer protection authorities to 
evaluate and, if appropriate, prosecute any such behavior found to 
violate the law.

    Question 8. Doesn't this new trend of fees for video service 
demonstrate that net neutrality rules were, in fact, absolutely 
necessary to protect consumers from price gouging?
    Answer. Please see response to question 7.

    Question 9. Do you consider impersonation or making fraudulent 
statements within a Federal proceeding a crime?
    Answer. I would defer to the Department of Justice on criminal 
matters.
    In August 2017, USAC removed National Verifier Service Provider API 
from the National Verifier Plan. This will force eligible Lifeline 
users to go into an inefficient and confusing two-step process to 
enroll in Lifeline. Hindering or eliminating service providers' ability 
to conduct online Lifeline enrollments will have a substantial impact 
on veterans in rural areas or with disabilities who cannot travel 
easily to enrollment events or storefronts.

    Question 10. Why was the Service Provider API removed from the 
National Verifier Plan?
    Answer. As you know, the Commission created the National Verifier 
in response to widespread waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline 
program, with the goal of eliminating the role of carriers in verifying 
the eligibility of consumers. A carrier API could give the very 
companies that have previously abused the Lifeline program direct 
access to the National Verifier. In light of the $137 million in abuse 
that the Government Accountability Office discovered in the Lifeline 
program last year, we must be careful in designing any carrier API to 
mitigate the ability of unscrupulous carriers to evade the screening 
role of the National Verifier.
    As such, we have not made a final decision on whether to include a 
carrier API in the National Verifier. We continue to study the National 
Verifier's functioning to determine whether one is necessary and 
whether one can be designed without undermining the National Verifier's 
work of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in this important program. In 
the meantime, carriers are able to work with consumers in person using 
the National Verifier's service provider portal.

    Question 11. Who directed this decision? What role did you play in 
this decision?
    Answer. See response to Question 10.

    Question 12. Is there any plan to reinstate it?
    Answer. See response to Question 10.

    Question 13. Do you believe that Lifeline is underutilized by 
eligible Americans, or oversubscribed? Do you commit to continuing the 
Lifeline program in its full mission?
    Answer. I am committed to bridging the digital divide, and I 
believe the Lifeline program can help do just that. That is why the 
Commission adopted the 2017 Lifeline Reform Order, which seeks to focus 
Lifeline support where it is most needed and incentivize investment in 
networks that enable 21st-century connectivity for all Americans.
MBA Report
    Since August 2011, the FCC has published annual reports on 
nationwide broadband performance based on measurements from consumers 
under the Measuring Broadband America (MBA). The MBA reports are a 
critical consumer protection program to ensure that broadband 
subscribers receive the quality of service advertised to them and 
enables informed decisions in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the FCC 
has not published an MBA report or released broadband measurement data 
since December 2016, which was based on measurements collected in 
October 2015. According to an ex parte, the 2017 MBA Report is ``still 
waiting for final approval by the Chairman's office.''

    Question 14. When do you expect the 2017 Measuring Broadband 
America report will be published?
    Answer. Since the Measuring Broadband America report pertains to 
the communications marketplace, we plan to include 2017 and 2018 MBA 
reporting as part of the biennial Communications Marketplace Report 
required by the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018. Consistent with that Act, we 
are doing so to consolidate and streamline our various reporting 
workstreams to reduce the burden of reporting on Commission staff and 
provide Congress and the public with a single point of reference 
spanning the entire market.

    Question 15. In previous reports, the MBA report has provided 
charts and data on year-over-year changes in download speeds for 
broadband consumers. Do you commit to continuing to include these same 
comparisons to previous years in the 2017 report?
    Answer. I expect the Communications Marketplace Report will discuss 
data regarding the broadband marketplace for the past two years, as 
required by the RAY BAUM'S Act. The timeframes covered will be the same 
as in past years' MBA reports (i.e., data collected in September/
October 2016 and September/October 2017) and the same measurement 
methodologies will be used. Relatedly, we're looking at the best ways 
we could release data in advance of the report to make the data more 
timely and hence more useful to stakeholders.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. The Commission is currently considering a forbearance 
petition to limit protections ensuring incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers provide competing telecommunications carriers access to their 
networks at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions if there is not 
sufficient competition in the market. Will the Commission take into 
consideration the special circumstances of how Hurricane Maria 
devastated the local telecommunications infrastructure as it considers 
this proposal?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. Chairman Pai--There is a recurring theme with the FCC, 
both with the changes to the Lifeline program and the FCC's recent 
order about National Historical Preservation Act consultation. The FCC 
says that it consulted with Indian Tribes while the tribes themselves 
disagree. What is your definition of meaningful tribal consultation?
    Answer. The Commission consults extensively with Indian Tribes in 
accord with our Tribal Policy Statement. For example, in 2017, the 
Commission tasked its Office of Native Affairs and Policy with 
developing and implementing a targeted Tribal consultation plan 
involving Commission senior staff in outreach efforts with a variety of 
Tribes across the country in connection with the Commission's Wireless 
Infrastructure Initiative. As a result of this plan, the Commission 
conducted extensive consultation and engagement in Indian Country to 
focus most particularly on wireless infrastructure deployment but also 
more generally on broadband deployment on Tribal lands as well as 
strategies for achieving that deployment, such as use of USF support. 
Commissioners and FCC staff visited at least nine different states, 
including Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin, in addition to holding 
consultations at FCC headquarters and numerous, widely attended 
conference calls. I personally participated in some of these 
consultations, from the Navajo Nation to the Rosebud Sioux Reservation 
to individual consultations at the National Conference of American 
Indians' Winter Session in Connecticut. For example, these targeted 
consultation and outreach efforts just through the summer of 2017 (from 
the Second Report and Order) include:
    ``Additional outreach efforts began immediately upon the NPRM's 
release with a May 25, 2017 conference call during which Commission 
staff walked through questions asked in the item and took questions and 
comments from 52 representatives of Tribal governments and Tribal 
cultural preservation offices, as well as three intertribal 
organizations. . . .
    ``The Commission facilitated consultations between the Chairman and 
Tribal representatives on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota 
on June 8, 2017. Twenty-nine Tribal representatives from the Lower 
Brule Sioux Tribe, Chippewa Cree Tribe, Fort Belknap Indian Community, 
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, Eastern 
Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Kaw Nation, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and 
Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as well as a participant representing several 
Oklahoma Tribes, attended. . . .
    ``At the NCAI Mid-Year Conference on June 14, 2017, Chairman Pai 
participated in oneon-one consultations with the Gila River Indian 
Community, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, multiple Oklahoma Tribal 
representatives including the Cherokee and Choctaw Nations, the 
Organized Village of Kake, the Chippewa Cree Tribe, the Pueblo of 
Isleta, the Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, . . . the Ohkay 
Owingeh Pueblo, and the Tanana Chiefs. Chairman Pai also delivered 
plenary remarks and consulted with representatives of NCAI, USET, and 
the NATHPO. Commission staff also held a listening session and briefed 
both the Telecommunications and Technology Subcommittee and the Human, 
Religious, and Cultural Concerns Committee. . . .
    ``A member of the Chairman's staff, together with WTB and ONAP 
staff, consulted with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the 
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Nez 
Perce Tribe, and Chippewa Cree Tribe on July 20, 2017, in Eugene, 
Oregon. . . .
    ``A similar FCC group subsequently conducted meetings in Broken 
Arrow, Oklahoma, on July 24, 2017. This visit included one-on-one 
meetings with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Navajo Nation, and Delaware 
Nation that discussed fees, information needs, and changes in 
technology. FCC staff also consulted with representatives from the 
Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, 
Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation, Delaware Nation, 
Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kaw Nation, 
Kialegee Tribal Town, Kiowa Indian Tribe, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 
Navajo Nation, Osage Nation, Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Ponca 
Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Seminole Nation 
of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetoowah Band of 
Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. . . .
    ``WTB and ONAP staff held a two-day dialogue session following the 
NATHPO annual conference on August 10-11, 2017, in Pala, California. 
Participants included representatives from NATHPO and over 70 
representatives of approximately 50 different Tribal Nations, including 
the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Acoma, 
Agua Caliente Band Of Cahuilla Indians, Bad River Band Of Lake Superior 
Tribe Of Chippewa Indians, Blackfeet Nation, Bridgeport Colony, 
Cahuilla Band Of Indians, Cherokee Nation, Comanche Nation, Cow Creek 
Band of Umpqua Indians, Dry Creek Band of Pomo, Eastern Shawnee Tribe 
Of Oklahoma, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Fort Belknap Indian 
Community, Gila River Indian Community, Ho-Chunk Nation Of Wisconsin, 
Hualapai Tribe, Jamul Indian Village, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Lac 
Du Flambeau Band Of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian,; Mescalero Apache 
Tribe, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Mohegan Indian Tribe; Muscogee (Creek) 
Nation, Navajo Nation, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Organized Village Of Kake, 
Osage Nation, Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Pala Band of Mission 
Indians, Pauma/Yuima Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band Of Luiseno 
Indians, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Reno Sparks Indian Colony Sac and 
Fox Nation in Oklahoma, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Shawnee 
Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 
Traverse Reservation, Soboba Band Of Luiseno Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa 
Community, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Table Mountain Rancheria, Tejon 
Indian Tribe, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tule 
River Reservation, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, Upper 
Sioux Community of Minnesota, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, White Mountain 
Apache Tribe, and Wichita & Affiliated Tribes. . . .
    ``Chairman Pai, supported by ONAP and WTB staff, traveled to the 
Navajo Reservation on August 22, 2017, to consult with representatives 
from an estimated 18 Tribal Nations, including the AkChin Indian 
Community, Blue Lake Rancheria, Delaware Tribe of Indians, Gila River 
Indian Community (Gila River Telecommunications, Inc.), Havasupai 
Indian Tribe, Hopi Nation (Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.), Jena Band of 
Choctaw Indians, Kaw Nation, Mescalero Apache Tribe (Mescalero Apache 
Telecom, Inc.), Navajo Nation, Nez Perce Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, 
Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Zia, San Carlos Apache 
Tribe (San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc.), Tohono 
O'odham Nation (Tohono O'odham Utility Authority), and Yavapai-Apache 
Nation and from organizations including the Alaska Native Health Board, 
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Native Public Media, National 
Tribal Telecommunications Association, and Tuba City Regional Health 
Care. . . .''

    Question 2. The FCC recently sought comments on an NPRM that 
proposes to modernize the 2.5 GHz band, better known as Educational 
Broadband Service or EBS. EBS has been a successful public-private 
partnership model that benefits educators, commercial entities, and the 
public. I support plans that allow schools, tribes, and nonprofits to 
get new licenses before moving to auction. Do you agree that 
educational entities should have an opportunity to get new licenses 
before any auction? (Yes/No Question)
    Answer. This is an ongoing proceeding, the FCC having issued an 
NPRM on this topic earlier this year. The record is still open, and we 
have not made any definitive judgments on the way forward. Nonetheless, 
we have proposed to accommodate various interests of educational 
entities involving this spectrum. For example, in paragraph 17 of the 
NPRM, we specifically sought comment ``on whether we should first open 
up to three new local priority filing windows to give existing 
licensees, Tribal Nations and educational entities an opportunity to 
access 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve their local communities.''

    Question 3. I know that the FCC is considering allowing current 
licensees to sell their licenses to commercial entities. Do you think 
licensees should be allowed to sell to anybody?
    Answer. No. An entity or person must be qualified under the 
Communications Act and the Commission's rules before the Commission 
would approve the assignment of any license.

    Question 4. I support the Commission's efforts to enable increased 
spectrum for broadband services, particularly in rural states such as 
mine. For that reason, I am encouraged by some of the FCC's recent 
actions, including its current consideration of proposals to encourage 
wireless use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band. I do however have 
concerns that any new or shared uses within this band--known as the 
``C-band''--might interfere with television and radio broadcasters', 
including small, public broadcasters, use of satellite services for 
distribution of their content to local stations across the country. Can 
you commit that any new or additional uses of the c-band will not 
result in harmful interference or forced relocation from this band for 
incumbent users?
    Answer. As you know, our consideration of the C-band is ongoing; 
the period for public input is still open (in fact, initial comments 
are due on October 29 and reply comments are not due until November 
27). Our goal is to determine how best to use this important band in 
order to help bridge the digital divide in our country and deliver 
American consumers the best value for this public resource. We are 
simultaneously urging those who are currently using the band to 
register with us. We need this information because we can't protect 
current users if we don't know they exist. Whatever decision we make, 
we aim to make sure we have a smooth transition.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. In its reconsideration last year of the 2014 
Quadrennial Media Ownership rules, the FCC addressed the issue of the 
attributing of stations involved in shared services and joint sales 
agreements for the purpose of applying the local ownership rules. The 
FCC has not done so, however, in its notice of proposed rulemaking 
issued late last year regarding the potential modification or repeal of 
the national ownership cap. Will you commit to initiating a broad 
rulemaking about the attribution of stations for the purpose of 
applying the national ownership rule, should you decide to retain it? 
Please explain your reasoning.
    Answer. The Commission did not initiate a separate rulemaking to 
address the attribution rules is light of the national cap rulemaking 
because, as you note, the Commission had just ruled on the attribution 
rules (that apply in the context of all media ownership rules) the 
prior month.

    Question 2. The FCC designated the Sinclair-Tribune transaction for 
a hearing in part because it found that there exists a substantial and 
material question of fact as to whether Sinclair was the real party of 
interest in the application to transfer the license of WGN-TV 
(Chicago). The FCC noted that Sinclair would have owned most of WGN-
TV's assets, would have been responsible for many aspects of the 
station's operations, and would have had an option to purchase the 
station in the future. Sinclair has similar relationships with three 
stations in the Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, and a television market and 
two stations in the Gainesville, FL, market. Does this situation give 
you reason to consider whether such relationships might be attributable 
for the purpose of applying the FCC's national media ownership cap? Why 
or why not?
    Answer. At this point, the Administrative Law Judge has yet to rule 
on a request from the parties to withdraw the applications that were 
part of the Hearing Designation Order. Until the Administrative Law 
Judge acts, the Hearing Designation Order is still in effect, and I do 
not believe that it would be appropriate for me to express a view on 
this issue.

    Question 3. In May of this year, you accepted the recommendations 
from the North American Numbering Council (NANC) regarding the call 
authentication ecosystem, namely the adoption and deployment of 
``SHAKEN/STIR,'' the set of procedures and protocols intended to 
eliminate the use of illegitimate spoofed numbers from the telephone 
system. This report also included milestones for deploying SHAKEN/STIR. 
Please provide an update on the SHAKEN/STIR development and deployment 
process since the NANC report was submitted to the FCC three months 
ago.
    Answer. Since the May 2 NANC report, industry stakeholders have 
begun the process of establishing a governance authority and associated 
mechanisms for SHAKEN/STIR through the Alliance for Telecommunications 
Industry Solutions. This governance body provided a report on its 
progress at the September 13 NANC meeting. The Commission has continued 
to follow up with telecommunications providers, software vendors, 
hardware manufacturers, and other stakeholders to assess industry 
readiness to adopt and deploy the SHAKEN/STIR standards for call 
authentication.

    Question 4. The 2016 trial of the Do Not Originate Registry was, by 
nearly all accounts, a success. When do you believe the DNO Registry 
will become operational?
    Answer. In 2017, the Commission authorized voice service providers 
to block calls on the ``do-not-originate'' list, i.e., calls falsely 
purporting to be from a telephone number used for inbound calls only 
(among other things). Carriers under USTelecom's leadership 
operationalized the do-not-originate list in early 2018 once those rule 
changes became effective.

    Question 5. In January 2017, the FCC withdrew from consideration 
rules that would have protected consumers from harassing robocalls from 
debt collectors servicing federally-backed loans. These callers, 
according to consumer groups, offer no easy way for consumers who are 
wrongly receiving these calls to get their numbers removed from the 
robocallers' list. What was the justification for withdrawing these 
rules and does the FCC plan to provide any protections for consumers 
going forward?
    Answer. In 2016, the Commission (over my dissent) exempted all 
Federal contractors, including Federal debt collectors, from the TCPA 
in the Broadnet Order. Later in 2016, parties sought reconsideration of 
that decision along with the adoption of the rule to implement the 
Budget Act Amendments regarding Federal debt collection. To allow the 
Commission time to carefully consider the legal and policy issues, 
including questions about our statutory authority, the rules have not 
yet become effective. The Commission sought renewed comment on these 
issues in May 2018 and is reviewing the record now.

    Question 6. Some carriers provide robocall blocking services free 
to their customers, while others do not. Does the FCC have plans to 
require telephone companies to provide these tools free of charge? If 
not, what remedy will there be for consumers who cannot afford to pay 
for these services?
    Answer. I applaud those carriers that have devoted their resources 
to solving the epidemic of unlawful robocalls and especially those that 
offer such services to consumers for free. Indeed, many consumers 
benefit from robocall blocking services--like the Do Not Originate 
registry--without even knowing it because such services are built into 
a carrier's network. Given that there is no silver bullet to ending 
unlawful robocalls and the wide experimentation going on in the market 
now, I would be concerned that preemptive price regulations would 
stifle needed innovation while also being unnecessary given that 
consumers generally have the ability to choose a carrier that offers 
such services for free.

    Question 7. In April of this year, the House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce held a hearing on robocalls and caller ID spoofing. At 
that hearing, a witness testified that consumers who still have 
traditional copper phones lines, often senior citizens, may not have 
access to blocking options to protect them from robocall scammers. What 
is the FCC doing to educate or otherwise protect these customers? How 
will the FCC track and report these concerns to the public?
    Answer. We have undertaken a major outreach campaign to reach older 
Americans and alert them to robocalls scams. On September 18th, the FCC 
will team up with AARP on two tele-townhalls to inform older Americans 
about phone scams and what they can do to avoid being victims. We are 
also working with the American Library Association to furnish libraries 
throughout the Nation with FCC Consumer Guides and Tip Cards for all 
patrons, many of whom are 65 and over. We use information gathered from 
consumer complaints about robocalls to post consumer alerts about 
current scams such as ``grandparent scams,'' ``Social Security scams,'' 
``IRS scams,'' and others that target older Americans. We also share 
this information with national and local community groups.

    Question 8. The FCC adopted, as part of its March 2016 Lifeline 
modernization order, a plan to establish a National Lifeline 
Eligibility Verifier (National Verifier) to help prevent fraud, waste, 
and abuse in the Lifeline program. The National Verifier database is a 
centralized system to verify whether individual subscribers are 
eligible to participate in the USF Lifeline program by verifying a 
subscriber's identity and eligibility status, thereby preventing 
duplicate enrollments. What is the status of the National Verifier and 
when can we expect that all U.S. states and territories will be 
included in the database?
    Answer. The National Verifier soft launched in six states--
Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--in June 
2018, enabling service providers to begin optionally using the system 
to check consumer eligibility. Hard launch (where use of the system is 
required) in these six states should occur later this year. The 
Commission has targeted a launch in all states and territories by 
December 31, 2019.

    Question 9. The FCC issued, in November 2017, a notice of proposed 
rulemaking seeking comment on proposals to further modify the Lifeline 
program. Included in those proposals was one which would exclude non-
facilities-based providers--that is, providers that do not build or 
maintain their own network facilities--from participating in the 
program. What impact would such an exclusion have on the number of 
eligible providers offering wireless and wireline Lifeline service and 
how would this affect the ability of subscribers to access Lifeline 
service?
    Answer. The Commission not reached any conclusion as to whether 
resellers should be permitted to continue to participate in the 
Lifeline program, and your question is one of the issues that is being 
explored in the pending rulemaking proceeding. We continue to review 
this issue because resellers have been the subject of the vast majority 
of Commission Lifeline investigations for waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Furthermore, we are examining how the Lifeline program can support 
investment in broadband networks where they are needed most--in low-
income urban communities, in rural areas, and on Tribal lands.

    Question 10. Since the FCC modernized the E-Rate program, it has 
made digital learning a reality for thousands of Illinois students and 
Illinois recently took steps to create a state E-rate matching fund to 
accelerate fiber buildouts to our schools. I am increasingly concerned 
about the large number of fiber projects that have been 
administratively delayed by the FCC, especially those that involve a 
state funding match. In the past two years alone, 22 Illinois school 
districts have had their broadband upgrades delayed because of 
bureaucratic challenges in the E-rate application approval process. In 
2018, 16 Illinois school districts applied for broadband upgrades to 
give their students greater learning opportunities totaling more than 
$1.4 million in new investment. Yet as of today, none of these schools 
have received funding decisions. With less than three weeks until the 
September 1st target date for completing all funding decisions, what 
will you do to prioritize E-Rate and address the growing concerns 
around delays in fiber approvals?
    Answer. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the E-rate 
program connects students everywhere with the digital tools they need 
to succeed. USAC has processed nearly 95 percent of workable FY2018 E-
rate applications and committed significantly more funding so far this 
year ($1.68B) than it had committed around this time last year ($965M). 
And the FCC is working closely with USAC to ensure that the remaining 
FY2018 E-rate applications get processed as quickly as possible so that 
all schools, including those in rural areas, can obtain funding for 
much needed broadband infrastructure and bridge the digital divide for 
their students.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. In your written testimony, you highlight that American 
companies are launching satellites to provide broadband to underserved 
areas. Improving rural, or otherwise underserved areas access to 
broadband and closing the digital divide should be a priority of the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
    American companies are working to find innovative ways to develop 
and deploy cutting-edge technology to bridge the digital divide. There 
are many exciting proposals under consideration by the FCC, including 
stratospheric-based communications services that will support the rapid 
deployment of next-generation services in rural and underserved areas.
    What are the FCC's plans for enabling innovative new technologies 
and services that would aid in closing the digital divide?
    Answer. Closing the digital divide is my top priority as Chairman. 
Accordingly, we're thinking broadly and acting quickly to make sure we 
consider and encourage innovative new technologies. For instance, we're 
streamlining our non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) rules to help 
facilitate the deployment of large satellite constellation systems. Our 
hope is that NGSO constellations can create an effective mesh network 
in space to provide access to millions of unserved Americans and more 
competition for millions more. We're also granting experimental 
licenses to entities that want to think out-of-the-box to close the 
digital divide. From Google's Project Loon in Puerto Rico to companies 
trying out 3.5 GHz plans, the private sector is responding. Finally, 
we're broadening our view of universal service programs in order to 
make sure that we're encouraging non-traditional players. For example, 
our recently-completed Connect America Fund Phase II auction, which 
allocated approximately $1.5 billion for fixed broadband in unserved 
areas, awarded funds to fixed wireless companies, electric 
cooperatives, and others who have shown a willingness to deploy 
broadband infrastructure in hard-to-serve places.

    Question 2. It is my understanding that Commissioner Rosenworcel 
worked to include maternal health issues in the recently passed Notice 
of Inquiry on the FCC's proposed telehealth pilot program. Given that 
the inclusion of maternal health issues is critical for rural women and 
their families, will you commit to maintaining them, if this program 
moves forward?
    Answer. The Connected Care Pilot Program Notice of Inquiry you 
referenced has always included maternal health among the many health 
services that may be supported under the program. We look forward to 
reviewing the record that develops in response to the Notice and will 
keep this issue in mind should we proceed to a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                            to Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. A recent FCC Inspector General report recently 
concluded, despite the FCC's repeated claims that comment period for 
the net neutrality repeal was the subject of a cyberattack, that it was 
actually just the comment system simply being overwhelmed with public 
outcry against the rollback of net neutrality.
    Does the FCC have estimates as to how many people may have lost 
their ability to comment during the time when the system was down? If 
so, please provide that number.
    Answer. We do not have such an estimate. However, the docket was 
open from April 27, 2017--when the Commission released a copy of the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Commission was going to consider 
at the May 23, 2017 Open Meeting--until August 30, 2017--the date to 
which the Wireline Competition Bureau extended the comment deadline. 
That was 125 days--or 3,000 hours--that the docket was open for 
comment, and the system was available over 99 percent of the time. 
Thus, there was more than ample time for people to file their comments 
in the official record of this proceeding.

    Question 2. John Oliver's show had made the FCC aware of the fact 
it was airing a segment on net neutrality and advocating for viewers to 
leave comments, was the FCC's IT staff and CIO made aware of this 
outreach?
    Answer. The Office of Inspector General report concluded that there 
is not evidence that the IT staff and CIO were made aware.

    Question 3. When did you first learn that the attack may not have 
happened?
    Answer. On January 23, 2018, my Chief of Staff was told by the 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) that OIG had concluded that the 
former Chief Information Officer's assessment was wrong and that a DDoS 
attack had not occurred. My chief of staff orally conveyed that 
information to me, as well as OIG's request that our office not 
disclose the fact or substance of its investigation to anyone.

    Question 4. Did this cause you to give any consideration to 
delaying the process in order to more fully understand what happened 
and ensure proper time for public input?
    Answer. No. Among other things, I did not receive this information 
until after the Commission adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom 
Order. Moreover, as indicated in my response to question 1 above, 
people had ample opportunity to express their views to the Commission 
in this proceeding.

    Question 5. Why did the FCC, despite doubts cast by the tech 
community, Congress, and the press, issue such statements calling the 
press reports ``categorically false'' and claiming to have ``voluminous 
documentation'' of an attack?
    Answer. The agency relied on the representations of career staff, 
most importantly the former Chief Information Officer--representations 
that, as the Office of the Inspector General later determined, were 
inaccurate.

    Question 6. Did you have any indication, aside from Mr. Bray's 
assurances, that the FCC had voluminous evidence of this supposed 
attack?
    Answer. See response to question 5.

    Question 7. In hindsight, how would you have handled the situation 
differently?
    Answer. Knowing what I know now, I would have relieved the then-
Chief Information Officer from his duties immediately after becoming 
Chairman of the agency in January 2017.

    Question 8. Multiple reports have shown that ISPs have throttled 
content and have begun creating tiered service in the wake of the net 
neutrality repeal.\4\ \5\ \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/comcast-
starts-throttling-mobile-video-will-charge-extra-for-hd-streams/
?utm_campaign=Newsletters&utm_source=sendgrid&utm
_medium=e-mail&mc_cid=cebfe51b52&mc_eid=bf11efc24c
    \5\ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/charter-
launches-mobile-service-throttles-all-video-to-480p/
    \6\ https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/directv/
KM1131836?gsi=A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If these trends continue, or become commonplace, will you 
reconsider your views on net neutrality rules?
    Answer. The reports you cite confirm that these practices have 
nothing to do with the June 11 repeal of utility-style Internet 
regulations. Indeed, they were permitted under the previous 
regulations, and companies, such as T-Mobile, were engaging in them 
while those regulations were in effect. In any event, the adoption of 
the Restoring Internet Freedom Order last December restored the Federal 
Trade Commission as the cop on the beat, and that agency is both able 
(given its broad jurisdiction over any ``unfair or deceptive'' trade 
practice or ``unfair method of competition'') and willing (given 
Chairman Joe Simons' repeated public commitments) to investigate and 
take action against any anticompetitive conduct that it finds in the 
Internet marketplace.

    Question 9. If not, are there any actions that ISPs could take that 
would make you reconsider your views on the repeal of these rules?
    Answer. We have two decades of experience under the light-touch 
regulatory framework to which the FCC has returned. That experience 
teaches that the Internet economy thrived without (and I would argue 
due to the absence of) utility-style regulations. Going forward, I am 
confident in both our agency's determination to enforce its 
transparency rule against ISPs and the Federal Trade Commission's 
ability to police those companies with respect to anticompetitive 
conduct. In the meantime, I would certainly encourage and be willing to 
work with Congress on codifying the basic principles of an open 
Internet into statute--principles with which I agree and which 
historically have united both sides of the aisle.

    Question 10. Do you believe if ISPs give preferential treatment to 
their own services that is compatible with the value of a free and open 
internet?
    Answer. To the extent that an ISP acts in an anticompetitive 
manner, such action could undermine the free and open Internet. The 
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, with their long 
histories of antitrust enforcement, are best positioned to police any 
potential anticompetitive conduct.

    Question 11. As you know, spectrum will be vital part in deploying 
5G. There have been a variety of pushes from industry for spectrum both 
for millimeter waves and mid-band spectrum below 6 GHz.
    What is the balance between mid-band spectrum and millimeter waves, 
and how have other countries struck that balance as they have worked to 
deploy 5G?
    Answer. The Commission has adopted an all-of-the-above approach to 
spectrum, including mid-band and millimeter wave spectrum. That's why 
we have within the last year teed up proceedings on the 2.5 GHz band, 
the 3.5 GHz band, the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the 4.9 GHz band, the 26 GHz 
band, and the 42 GHz band, set for auction the 24 GHz band and the 28 
GHz band, teed up an auction for the Upper 37 GHz band, 39 GHz band, 
and 47 GHz band in 2019, and proposed new service rules for bands above 
95 GHz.
    Other countries and regions have different approaches, but 
generally speaking they are also pursuing multiple bands of mid-band 
and millimeter wave spectrum in order to ensure as broad a foundation 
as possible of 5G development.

    Question 12. How does freeing up mid-band spectrum for 5G use 
impact rural access, especially with the high demand for these bands 
for rural areas?
    Answer. Increasing the usage of the mid-band spectrum like the 2.5 
GHz band and the 3.5 GHz band will be critical to our Nation's 5G 
efforts as well as ensuring widespread deployment of high-speed 
broadband services to rural America. I believe that rural consumers 
have waited long enough for high-speed broadband, and we cannot as a 
nation afford to lose the race to 5G.

    Question 13. The Federal Government has been involved in helping 
make the case for private companies to bring broadband to underserved 
areas for a long time. It's crucial that every Federal dollar that goes 
to these communities is well spent, not duplicative, and gets sent out 
in a timely manner.
    What are some of the challenges for better coordinating Federal 
resources and efforts to further deploy high-speed broadband?
    Answer. The fundamental challenge is ensuring that taxpayer dollars 
are devoted to connecting unserved areas. The alternative is Federal 
support for overbuilding projects, which disserves consumers who lack 
access, undermines the government's role as a fiscally responsible 
steward, and displaces private investment. We welcome coordination with 
our Federal partners and private sector entities to ensure we are not 
duplicating efforts.

    Question 14. Do you consider current tools, such as working groups, 
sufficient to improve efforts to curb overbuilding and duplication?
    Answer. Working groups certainly can help and have aided in this 
effort, and we always are willing to work with our colleagues to curb 
the use of Federal funding to support overbuilding projects.

    Question 15. Robocalls are one of the top complaints received by 
the FCC. Protecting consumers from these calls will take technological 
as well as enforcement efforts.
    Do you believe stronger enforcement efforts could offer further 
deterrence for people making illegal robocalls?
    Answer. Yes, I believe our stronger enforcement efforts (including 
imposing the largest fine in the FCC's history) can have a deterring 
effect on illegal robocallers. I intend to continue our vigorous 
enforcement actions against these unlawful activities.

    Question 16. Are fines enough to crack down on the worst offenders?
    Answer. We must have a multi-prong strategy, and that is why the 
Commission has attacked the robocalls problem on multiple fronts: 
taking enforcement action against offenders, taking necessary 
regulatory steps to empower consumers to avoid unwanted robocalls, 
making available lists of caller IDs used in robocalls to aid 
development of call filtering tools, and supporting industry efforts to 
harness technological developments to better protect consumers (such as 
allowing voice service providers to block robocalls that, based on 
Caller ID, appear to be from phone numbers that are invalid, 
unallocated, or unused, or from numbers that are not used to make 
outgoing calls). With respect to enforcement matters, under the 
Communications Act, the FCC only has civil authority to combat illegal 
robocalls. We defer to Congress and other law enforcement agencies 
regarding criminal action.

    Question 17. As you are aware, the Trump administration has 
suggested that nationalizing the 5G network could be necessary for 
national security.
    Do you believe that the private sector is best positioned to move 
forward with 5G?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 18. Nevada is one of the Nation's leaders in school 
broadband thanks to E-rate modernization.
    Since the modernization order in 2014, we have seen 100 percent of 
our students reach the FCC's short-term bandwidth goal--this is quite 
the achievement in some of our very rural counties. But there is still 
work to be done--in our state alone, over 3,400 Native American 
students still lack scalable broadband infrastructure. This year, 
Nevada school districts have requested E-rate funding to bring nearly 
$1.5 million in new fiber ``special construction'' to schools. Our 
state leaders have established an E-rate matching fund to accelerate 
these fiber builds as well. However, funding decisions have been 
delayed, leading to uncertainty.
    Can you commit to working with my office and Congress to provide 
certainty to e-rate funding decisions to help bring broadband to our 
most rural areas?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 19. The FCC has moved quickly to revise child television 
rules under the Children's Television Act, arguing that new modes of 
watching require updating the rules. In the proposed rulemaking, you 
propose to eliminate the requirement that broadcasters air their 
programming on main program streams, which would allow them to move to 
multicast streams. Low income kids really rely on this programming for 
education, so it's very important we get this right.
    Why not first issue a Notice of Inquiry, to fully examine the issue 
rather than move forward on such an aggressive timeline?
    Answer. Our approach in this proceeding reflects the exact process 
prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act: a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that ``give[s] interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rule making through submission of written data, 
views, or arguments.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c). Far from a rush to 
judgment, the NPRM incorporates an extended time period for input, 
reflecting the FCC's desire to receive thoughtful public comment. The 
NPRM was adopted in early July, but the comment deadline (September 24, 
2018) has not even arrived as of the date of this submission and the 
reply comment deadline will come in late October. Thereafter, the 
agency's staff will study the record and recommend the appropriate way 
forward.

    Question 20. Multicast streams have 10 percent of the viewership as 
a main feed, how will a move to these streams not be hugely disruptive 
to the current system?
    Answer. The issue of use of multicast signals for the provision of 
children's television programming is currently under consideration as 
part of our open proceeding. The Commission is soliciting public input 
on this issue and will make a decision on whether and how to modify 
existing rules based on the record.

    Question 21. In Northeastern Nevada, we have a Designated Market 
Area (DMA) that is shared with Utah and as a result, many constituents 
there have trouble getting news about information in Nevada, such as 
the happenings of the state government. Most importantly, they need 
emergency updates that come from Nevada.
    If they wished, could localities there apply for a dual DMA and can 
you commit to working with my office on all possible solutions for 
these constituents?
    Answer. Today, cable operators, satellite providers, broadcasters, 
and counties (only with respect to satellite market modifications) are 
able to file a petition with the FCC to modify markets for cable and 
satellite carriage in order to potentially provide in-state stations to 
consumers who currently reside in areas assigned to a DMA that provides 
out-of-state stations. Detailed information on this process can be 
found on the Commission's website. We are able to provide assistance to 
Congress in this regard if needed.

    Question 22. One exciting technology that will be enabled as we 
move to the Internet of things and 5G is wearable technology and the 
possibilities for better health outcomes, including for rural 
Americans.
    Can you point to an example you have seen about how this technology 
is being deployed in a way that improves people's lives?
    Answer. Perhaps the best example I have seen came at Augusta 
Health, a regional health care facility in rural Staunton, Virginia. 
Medical professionals there explained how they had given wearable 
devices with wireless sensors to patients who had had surgery in order 
to monitor their vital signs. As a result of being able to track these 
signs and intervene more quickly when patients were showing signs of 
regression, Augusta Health was able to reduce the incidence of sepsis 
by 38 percent.
    More generally, wireless technology can dramatically improve the 
diagnosis of problems and speed and efficacy of treatment. For 
instance, the Cleveland Clinic deploys a mobile stroke unit with 
advanced wireless capability in order to assess and stabilize a patient 
38 minutes more quickly than before (vital, since a stroke victim loses 
2 million brain cells per minute). And as highlighted in a November 
2017 White House report, telemedicine can connect opioid patients to 
caregivers when there is no other option, with wearable biosensors 
detecting real-time drug use and alerting a family member or first 
responder to intervene.

    Question 23. How can Congress help assist the FCC in ensuring the 
deployment of this technology in the future?
    Answer. The Commission is considering this in the August Notice of 
Inquiry seeking comment on a proposal for an experimental ``Connected 
Care Pilot Program,'' led by Commissioner Carr. Based on my own study--
which includes visits to telemedicine facilities in Idaho, Utah, 
Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Rhode Island, and elsewhere--I would 
recommend Congress consider a few legislative fixes: (1) interstate 
medical licensure, as cross-state licensure is commonly cited as the 
biggest barrier to telemedicine across state lines; (2) Medicare/
Medicaid reimbursement for telemedicine services; and (3) granting the 
FCC more flexibility in structuring the types of telemedicine services 
and networks eligible for support.

    Question 24. I have heard from many local communities in Nevada 
about their concerns about preemption of their authority over the 
citing and placement of wireless and other telecommunications 
facilities. Common sense measures to update regulations for new 
technology are important, but must also ensure that local communities 
have power to make decisions for themselves.
    Do you understand some of the concerns of local communities over 
the FCC's recent orders and what have you done to engage with these 
communities to ensure they feel respected during this process?
    Answer. Commissioner Carr has been leading our wireless 
infrastructure efforts, and he and I are well aware of local concerns 
regarding this issue. We have conducted extensive outreach to ensure 
that we consider all legitimate concerns in the rulemaking process. Our 
processes are designed to encourage public input and provide for a 
transparent and respectful review of conflicting points of view.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question. I understand the FCC is working on a rule to assess 
whether to establish a program under which a spectrum licensee may 
partition and sublease the license to an unaffiliated carrier to serve 
a rural area. What is the status of that rule? What other steps are you 
taking to make sure rural carriers that want to buildout in rural 
America have access to Spectrum?
    Answer. RAY BAUM'S Act required the Commission to initiate a 
proceeding to consider rules regarding the partition and sublease of 
licenses to small carriers in rural areas by March 23, 2019. Our staff 
in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau are currently studying 
options on how to proceed.
    We are also exploring other tools to increase the efficiency of 
spectrum use and repurpose spectrum for next-generation services, 
including in rural areas. For example, last year we issued a Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish uniform 
license renewal, discontinuance of operation, and geographic 
partitioning and spectrum disaggregation rules and policies for certain 
wireless radio services--including potentially increasing buildout 
requirements in rural America. The comment period is now closed, and 
our staff is reviewing the record on how to proceed.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. Please describe actions the FCC has taken to meet its 
statutory obligations in regards to the T-band.
    Answer. As you know, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) required the Commission to reallocate 
and reauction the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band, commonly referred 
to as the T-Band, within nine years of enactment. This means that far 
in advance of February 22, 2021, the FCC must take steps to begin the 
auction and relocation process. Consistent with passage of the Act in 
February 2012, I pushed the Commission to cease processing applications 
for new or expanded T-Band operation and issue a Public Notice seeking 
information on how to enact the statutory requirement, which it did. 
Unless the law is modified or eliminated, I support the Commission 
taking the next steps expeditiously in this matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. In your dissent to the 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory 
Ruling, you expressed your disappointment with the Commission's 
decision, and discussed the need to balance consumer protection with 
that of businesses trying to contact their consumers for a legitimate 
business purpose. I agree with this approach along with six of my 
colleagues, which we vocalized in a letter sent to the FCC on July 24. 
Is the FCC planning to ensure the appropriate balance is achieved 
between these two interests when answering the TCPA questions set 
before it?
    Answer. I certainly hope that the Commission will achieve this 
balance and will advocate internally to my colleagues for such an 
approach. As your letter eloquently highlighted, ``The FCC's past 
interpretations of the TCPA have resulted in uncertainty about how 
those calling in good faith can comply with FCC regulations, making it 
more difficult for consumers to receive communications they want and 
need. This chills legitimate communications and leads to increasing 
class action litigation that often does little to help consumers.''
    In fact, as you mention above, I raised similar concerns in my 
dissent. Specifically, I stated that any claim that the order protected 
Americans is a farce and highlighted that, in its overreach, the order 
would penalize legitimate businesses and institutions acting in good 
faith to reach their customers using modern technologies. Therefore, I 
was pleased that the D.C. Circuit struck down the 2015 TCPA Omnibus 
Declaratory Ruling, providing the Commission with the opportunity to 
rethink its prior decision.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. The MOBILE NOW Act, which was signed into law as part 
of the most recent omnibus package, called for the FCC and NTIA to 
identify 100 megahertz of new unlicensed spectrum while also requiring 
the creation of a ``National Plan for Unlicensed Spectrum.'' 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? How are 
you coordinating with NTIA?
    Answer. In July, the Commission initiated a proceeding to 
reallocate spectrum in the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz band, or C-band downlink, for 
licensed use. As the Commission considers this proceeding, the overall 
plan must also permit unlicensed use of the C-band uplink spectrum, or 
6 GHz band. As Chairman Thune recently noted to the Commission, the 6 
GHz band is a necessary ingredient to address the need for more 
unlicensed spectrum. This spectrum, along with the potential opening of 
the 5.9 GHz band and combined with the existing 5 GHz band, will 
provide the unlicensed community with access to a significant swath of 
spectrum, creating wide channels for Gigabit services. Moreover, in 
March, the Commission issued a notice to contemplate whether 
underutilized spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band--in close proximity to the 5 
GHz band--should be allocated for unlicensed use, what the technical 
rules should be, and how the Commission should deal with the 
incumbents. Taken together, I believe that these actions will enable us 
to meet our statutory obligations under the MOBILE NOW Act.

    Question 2. This committee worked hard to ensure that adequate 
funding for the broadcast channel repack in the omnibus this past 
March, including money for impacted FM radio stations and Low Power TV 
and Translators. Next month, phase one of the repack moves begin. What 
process does the Commission have in place to ensure that, if a 
broadcaster being moved to a different channel is unable to meet their 
phased move deadline, through no fault of their own, that they will not 
be moved off of their current channel?
    Answer. I have repeatedly stated that if a broadcaster being moved 
to a different channel is unable to meet their phased move deadline, 
through no fault of their own, I would support modifications to that 
broadcaster's deadline in order to ensure that no broadcaster is forced 
off the air. I have been in constant communication with both the 
industry and the Media Bureau, regarding the progress of Phase 0 and 
any anticipated complications or slowdowns as we move forward. 
Throughout these conversations, it has been clear that affected 
broadcasters and the FCC are methodically working through the ten 
phases of the repack. Most experts are not anticipating huge problems 
until at least phase three, but I'll be following closely the 
experiences stations are having with the repack and what issues may be 
on the horizon. For instance, I was one of the first to raise awareness 
of the potential shortage of tower crews that could cause relocation 
delays.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. In many rural communities, students have long commutes on 
school buses sometimes upwards of half an hour, an hour, or even longer 
one-way. Given the connectivity challenges many students face in rural 
communities, how could E-rate help connect school buses with wifi to 
allow students to use commute time to do homework, projects, or other 
school work?
    Answer. The FCC's Universal Service Fund programs--which are 
authorized pursuant to Section 254 of the Communications Act--have 
served to help connect consumers and communities that would not 
otherwise have access to modern communications networks. Accordingly, 
it is not surprising to see a desire to expand their scope to other 
aspects of our increasingly connected lives. At the same time, there 
are certain statutory, fiscal, and practical limits on this agency's 
mission that keep us from engaging in certain initiatives, no matter 
how compelling a particular idea may be. Of course, as I have stated on 
multiple occasions, any time Congress provides the Commission with 
clear direction via the passage of legislation, I will implement it as 
required. In this case, absent new statutory requirements, the 
Commission currently lacks legal authority to fund such projects under 
the E-Rate program.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. Your agency has been tasked with commencing a study of 
broadband deployment and access on tribal lands by March 2019. The 
agency has been criticized in the past for having less than robust 
compliance with the need for tribe consultation. How can we optimize 
the tribes' participation in the broadband study and the composition of 
the report?
    Answer. My door remains open to any stakeholder who would like to 
weigh in on any proceeding at the agency, and I have met with tribal 
representatives on numerous occasions, both at the Commission and while 
traveling throughout our Nation. I am committed to improving tribal 
broadband connectivity, and the Commission should discuss policy 
changes and seek to gain accurate information from tribes regarding the 
state of communications on tribal lands. At the same time, consultation 
does not require tribal approval or provide tribal representatives a 
veto over Commission actions. To facilitate the most accurate and 
helpful report in 2019, the Commission should seek a dialogue with 
tribal representatives to obtain necessary information. However, such a 
process should not be seen as a means to acquiesce to whatever policy 
changes tribal representatives are seeking.

    Question 2. Do you think it's important that the upcoming 
quadrennial review to review the changes that have been made to media 
ownership over the past 18 months and the impact that these changes 
have had on localism, media concentration and diversity?
    Answer. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
requires that the Commission review its rules on broadcast ownership 
every four years to ``determine whether any of such rules are necessary 
in the public interest as the result of competition,'' and ``shall 
repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the 
public interest.'' As statutorily required, we should review all of our 
remaining media ownership rules, and whether they make sense in the 
current media marketplace. The law is specific in its focus on existing 
rules and not those that have been eliminated already.
    For instance, in November, the Commission found that some of our 
rules, including the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership (``NBCO'') 
rule, was not necessary to promote competition, localism, or ensure 
viewpoint diversity. In February, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
denied a mandamus petition challenging our order, allowing our revised 
rules to go into effect. Unfortunately, I believe the repeal of the 
NBCO rule happened 15 years too late, and, as we approach the 2018 
Quadrennial Review, I hope that we can make more changes so that our 
rules will truly reflect the modern media marketplace that the Third 
Circuit recognized as early as 2004.

    Question 3. In 2016, the Court of Appeals chastised the FCC for 
making changes to media ownership rules without the benefit of having 
completed statutorily mandated reviews of the media marketplace and 
media ownership rules that were required in 2010 and 2014. Basically 
the court was saying that the FCC's policy making needed to be based on 
data and analysis. It's my understanding that the FCC needs to start 
its next data gathering review this year.
    Given the court's guidance that any FCC changes to media ownership 
rules should be grounded in the type of up-to-date data and analysis 
required by the quadrennial review process, what you would recommend 
that the next Quadrennial review cover?
    Answer. While I have expressed concerns with the Third Circuit's 
reasoning in this set of cases, I agree that the Commission's efforts 
on the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review were shoddy at best, ignoring the 
record and marketplace data to indefensibly maintain rules that should 
have been dismissed years ago. Consider that prior to Commission 
action, the Third Circuit admonished the FCC for its delay in our 
review and specifically highlighted the NBCO rule, stating that ``the 
1975 ban remains in effect to this day even though the FCC determined 
more than a decade ago that it is no longer in the public interest.'' 
\1\ When the Commission finally did act, it examined the full media 
landscape then did nothing to adjust our rules in response to that 
landscape. In fact, despite having the votes to eliminate the cross-
ownership rules, the Commission ignored precedent, consensus, and the 
record before it and in an about-face, decided to maintain the NBCO 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33, 50 (3d Cir. 2016) 
(Prometheus III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the next Quadrennial Review, I hope that we can more honestly 
define the media market as it exists today. For instance, while our 
November Order acknowledged that the video marketplace has 
substantially evolved, the Commission declined to expand its market 
definition beyond local broadcast television stations. I believe there 
is ample evidence that cable operators, over-the-top providers, 
Internet sites, and social media platforms compete with local 
broadcasters.
    Further, I hope the 2018 Quadrennial Review will more fully review 
each and every aspect of our Broadcast Ownership Rules. For starters, 
it's time to review the Commission's AM/FM subcaps. Additionally, I 
have long called for a reexamination of the duopoly rule. In many 
markets, duopolies or triopolies could strengthen the overall state of 
broadcasters and allow stations to concentrate more resources on 
bringing more and higher quality local content and news to their 
viewers. In November, the Commission rightfully eliminated the ``eight 
voices test,'' which made even less sense in 2017 than it did in 2002 
when the Commission first sought to eliminate it. As to the relaxation 
of the top-four restriction, I would have preferred for relief to be 
provided through bright-line rules rather than relying on staff-driven 
case-by-case waiver assessments. I trust that as we re-examine this 
issue, as well as its possible elimination altogether, as part of the 
2018 Quadrennial Review we will give serious weight to a full 
elimination of the duopoly rule.

    Question 4. When I asked Chairman Pai at the hearing if the FCC has 
the authority to address cybersecurity threats, he said that the FCC 
currently lacks the authority. In your view, which Federal agency, if 
any, is the lead agency on cybersecurity issues, such as SS7, impacting 
wireless telephone networks?
    Answer. I agree with Chairman Pai that current law provides the 
Commission with little authority over Internet or communications 
network security. I have written about, given speeches, testified 
before Congress, and spoken publicly on that exact point. Cybersecurity 
is certainly and rightly a policy area that requires a significant 
amount of attention. Accordingly, it seems that everyone wants to be 
involved. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee held a hearing on this very topic last year, finding that 
duplicative cyber regulations imposed by various Federal agencies have 
taken industry's attention away from securing their networks and 
towards a compliance, check-the-box regime.\2\ That is why Congress 
assigned responsibility over these issues to the Department of Homeland 
Security. It is detrimental for any agency or department to try to 
insert itself into an area under another's jurisdiction. Of course, if 
Congress passes a statute providing the Commission with authority over 
this issue, I will fully implement any new authority given to the 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, ``Cybersecurity Regulation Harmonization'' (June 21, 2017), 
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/cybersecurity-regulation-
harmonization.

    Question 5. The FCC has publicly encouraged wireless carriers to 
voluntarily address cybersecurity issues related to SS7 that impact 
their networks. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
wireless carriers to address cybersecurity issues related to SS7? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. No. Those that suggest the Commission has authority in this 
space point to specious readings of the law, such as Section 1 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 providing some universal authority over all 
communications activity, especially cybersecurity. However, the plain 
reading of Section 1 clearly shows that it serves as a preamble to 
justify the creation of the FCC. It sets the stage for Congress moving 
away from the Federal Radio Commission and to the ``modern'' Commission 
and serves as a policy statement, not actual authority. I would be 
troubled to try to read cybersecurity within any other provisions in 
our current statutory authority.

    Question 6. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, 
governments in other countries, including the United Kingdom, have 
``commissioned independent testing of the vulnerabilities in national 
cellular networks.'' Does the FCC currently have the authority to 
commission independent cybersecurity testing of U.S. wireless networks? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. No. While I can't speak to the regulatory authority 
provided to foreign regulatory bodies, the Commission's authority in 
this space is limited. Instead, the Commission relies on its advisory 
committees to be kept up to speed on pertinent topics and a partnership 
with the Department of Homeland Security in its exercise of pertinent 
authority.

    Question 7. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
mobile carriers to assess risks relating to the security of mobile 
network infrastructure as it impacts the Government's use of mobile 
devices? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Government entities, through their procurement processes, 
can always seek to require mobile carriers to provide certain levels of 
services in order to receive their business. However, that would 
probably be done individually by such government entities, rather than 
by the FCC.

    Question 8. Does the FCC currently have the authority to compel 
mobile carrier network owners/operators to provide information to the 
FCC to assess the security of the carriers' communications networks? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. The Commission engages in various information collection 
processes with mobile carrier network owners/operators to provide 
statutorily mandated reports to Congress. However, I am not familiar 
with any required report that would permit us to compel mobile carrier 
network owners/operators to provide information to the FCC to assess 
the security of the carriers' communications networks.

    Question 9. A recent investigation by Senator Wyden revealed that 
wireless carriers were providing customer location to private companies 
without verifying that users had consented to this disclosure of 
private information. In response, all of the major wireless carriers 
announced they would stop selling location data via location 
aggregators.
    Answer. I am aware of the recent release of certain consumer 
location data by a company, Securus, that collects this data, upon 
receiving consent from the wireless subscriber, as part of its prison 
payphone offering. It is my understanding that the wireless carriers 
provided the location information to an aggregator, LocationSmart, 
which then provided the information to Securus. This is an issue that I 
am following, and I am in the process of obtaining the facts so that I 
understand exactly what consent was received from subscribers, how this 
data was collected, and what led to the disclosure of this information. 
It is also my understanding that the Commission has opened an 
investigation into these events. One of the issues that will need to be 
considered is whether we have authority over the specific facts 
presented in this case. I do not want to prejudge an issue that is 
likely to come before me in the coming months, but I am happy to work 
with you and your staff as we continue to consider this matter.

    Question 10. Is location data is protected by 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222, 
regardless of whether it is collected when the subscriber is making a 
call, browsing the web from their smartphone, or even when the 
subscriber's phone is not being used and is in the subscriber's pocket? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. As I stated in my previous answer, the Commission is 
currently looking into this very issue, and I will reserve judgement 
until I have all of the facts and am able to perform a thorough 
statutory analysis. To my knowledge, the Commission has not addressed 
this issue before, and I expect that, while I do not have insight into 
the parameters of the staff investigation, this is one of the issues 
that the Commission will be exploring.

    Question 11. Has the Commission responded to the Third Circuit 
mandate in the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC line of cases to examine 
the impacts of broadcast consolidation on ownership opportunities for 
women and people of color?
    Answer. Yes, it is my understanding that appropriate paperwork was 
filed with the court in this matter. Chairman Pai deserves much credit 
for bringing to order an incubator program last month. The number of 
women-owned and -controlled broadcast stations and the number of 
African-American-owned and -controlled stations in the United States is 
abysmally low. As I stated at a Congressional hearing last October, the 
situation we have today is a result of our media ownership rules, and 
those rules have not worked. We must try something new. With our new 
Incubator Program, the Commission does just that. I truly hope that 
this program is a success and the court review will validate this 
approach.

    Question 12. Does the Commission intend to collect any data so that 
it can examine how and whether broadcast consolidation relates to 
ownership diversity?
    Answer. I am not aware of the Chairman's exact plans for the 2018 
Quadrennial Review, so I cannot speak with authority to this question.

    Question 13. What percentage of broadcast stations are owned by 
people of color? By women? Are you satisfied with those levels? If not, 
what kind of meaningful changes can the FCC make to expand ownership 
diversity?
    Answer. According to the Commission's most recent report on the 
ownership of commercial broadcast stations, women collectively or 
individually held a majority of the voting interests in 102 full-power 
commercial television stations, or 7.4 percent. African Americans fared 
even worse, holding collectively or individually a majority of the 
voting interest in 12 full-power commercial television stations, or 0.9 
percent. Importantly, these are statistics that resulted under the 
FCC's archaic media ownership rules, which we took an important step to 
modernize in November. I truly believe that updating our rules to 
reflect the actual marketplace will allow broadcasters to fully compete 
in the dynamic marketplace and thrive in many instances. Congress 
shared this sentiment when it passed the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, which included Section 202(h) that required the Commission to 
review its rules on broadcast ownership every four years in order to 
``determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public 
interest as the result of competition'' and to ``repeal or modify any 
regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.'' \3\ 
As I have previously stated, the situation we have today is a byproduct 
of decades old rules, and those rules have not worked. We must try 
something new.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 
Sec. 202(h), 110 Stat. 56, 111-12 (1996).

    Question 14. What data, if any, did the Commission rely on to 
justify its recent assumptions that deregulation in the form of 
loosening local ownership protections would improve competition and 
localism in the broadcast market?
    Answer. Each time the Commission takes action, it relies on the 
record to support our decisions. While there are many actions we have 
taken in the broadcasting space, I will focus my answer on the NBCO 
rule as an example of our analysis. More than a decade ago, the Third 
Circuit found that the FCC ``reasonably concluded'' that the NBCO rule 
was not necessary to promote competition or localism \4\ and in our 
November order we fully addressed why it was not needed to ensure 
viewpoint diversity. According to Pew, ``Americans turn to a wide range 
of platforms to get local news and information.'' \5\ The Third Circuit 
recognized this multiplicity of voices, including cable and Internet, 
in 2004. It simply disagreed with the Commission on the degree to which 
these services competed with local newspapers. But, something else 
happened in 2004: a social media platform known as Facebook launched, 
followed by Twitter in 2006. These social media platforms, along with 
Google, became go-to sites that many consumers visit to first learn 
about breaking national or local news. More than a decade later, it is 
hard to overstate the impact of social media platforms and online 
outlets on viewpoint diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 400-01 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(Prometheus I).
    \5\ Pew Research Center and Knight Foundation, How People Learn 
About Their Local Community 1 (Sept. 26, 2011) (How People Learn About 
Their Local Community), http://www
.pewinternet.org/2011/09/26/how-people-learn-about-their-local-
community.

    Question 15. Does the FCC have any intention of soliciting public 
input with field hearings regarding whether or not local broadcast 
stations are serving the public interest to inform evaluations of 
recent media ownership changes or future ownership reviews?
    Answer. I am not aware of the Chairman's plans for the 2018 
Quadrennial Review, so I cannot speak with authority to this question. 
However, I have found that past field hearings have offered little 
additional value to the record.

    Question 16. Notwithstanding any recent legislation, in your 
opinion, which part of the Federal Government should maintain 
responsibility for updating and maintaining the broadband map? What is 
the basis for your answer?
    Answer. It is critical that policymakers and the public understand 
where broadband coverage is available throughout America, and I believe 
that the FCC is well-suited to update and maintain our broadband maps. 
But to engage in an effective mapping effort, we must make a 
determination on the appropriate level of granularity for the 
underlying data, and evaluate the costs of and our mandate for 
producing more specific maps. This notwithstanding, the Commission has 
taken actions during my tenure to improve the broadband data reporting 
requirements, allowing for more accurate maps.

    Question 17. What is your view on whether the Federal agency should 
use or rely on the data sets of private companies to fill out the 
broadband map?
    Answer. The Commission should rely on a multitude of sources to 
provide reliable and accurate data in order to produce the best 
broadband maps possible. That being said, the Commission's previous 
data collection processes have had shortcomings, producing a great deal 
of inconsistencies in companies' submissions. The Commission is 
currently working on modifying our data forms in order to ensure that 
the information provided is helpful, consistent, and paints a more 
accurate picture of broadband deployment.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board recently 
praised Chairman Pai's decision to challenge the Sinclair-Tribune 
merger, stating that ``the FCC Chairman follows the law in stopping a 
merger.'' The editorial concluded by saying, ``it's up to Congress to 
change broadcast ownership restrictions.'' Do you agree that only 
Congress has the authority to change broadcast ownership restrictions, 
like the national television audience reach cap?
    Answer. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
requires that the Commission review its rules on broadcast ownership 
every four years to ``determine whether any of such rules are necessary 
in the public interest as the result of competition,'' and ``shall 
repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the 
public interest.'' Therefore, I respectfully do not agree that only 
Congress has the authority to change broadcast ownership restrictions. 
To the contrary, the Commission is statutorily mandated to review and 
update these rules.
    The one exception, of course, is to the national television 
audience reach cap. As I have stated previously, I do not believe that 
the Commission has the authority to modify the national audience reach 
cap, which also extends to eliminating the UHF discount. While the 
discount may no longer be technologically justified, it is up to 
Congress to make that determination, not the Commission. This was the 
clear intent of Congress, from my experience and perspective, when it 
partially rolled back the FCC's proposed cap increase of 45 percent in 
2004.

    Question 2. A December 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explores 
gutting one of the last few remaining rules protecting consumers from 
massive consolidation in media: the media ownership cap. Didn't 
Congress--through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004--very 
clearly instruct the FCC to set this cap at 39 percent? What authority 
would the FCC now have to change this cap?
    Answer. After extensive debate and too many meetings to count, 
Congress enacted the relevant portions of the 2004 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. The language in the law cannot be clearer from my 
opinion: it statutorily sets the national ownership limit and 
correspondingly removes it from the quadrennial review under section 
202(h) of the Telecommunications Act.
    While this is my interpretation, there is broad disagreement among 
interested parties over the Commission's authority in this space. Many 
qualified practitioners, for instance, make colorable arguments that my 
statutory interpretation is wrong. For these reasons, I believe it is 
time for the courts to opine on this matter. We need certainty, in a 
way that only the courts or Congress can provide, as to where the 
Commission's authority begins and ends. Therefore, I have stated that 
if the Commission proceeds, after a review of its record, to alter or 
eliminate the cap, I will support that item. That is not to suggest my 
position has changed, but only that I believe in getting to finality 
and am willing to cast a vote that will allow the Commission to take 
the needed step to get this to court review. Substantively, I believe 
the cap is not intellectually defensible and should be changed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. At the hearing you testified that contribution 
methodology reform ``has been stuck for quite a while'' because a 
proposal by the state members of the Federal-State Joint Board on 
Universal Service is not ``viable amongst the members'' of the full 
board. Explain specifically what the state members' plan proposes and 
why you think it is not viable?
    Answer. The heart of the proposal by State representatives to the 
Federal-State Joint Board has been to expand the contribution base by 
requiring broadband companies--and ultimately their consumers--to pay 
new fees to support USF. I have long opposed the idea of imposing fees 
on broadband. Fundamentally, taxing broadband deters its adoption and 
use. Congress, the Commission, and certain consumer groups have 
recognized this on multiple occasions in the past.
    It is also wrong to assume that assessing broadband will cause the 
current contribution factor to drop dramatically, resulting in lower 
fees for consumers. Broadening the base may reduce the fees on 
currently assessed services, but new fees will be applied to more parts 
of the same consumers' bills. In other words, it would just spread the 
pain in the hopes that people will not notice or care enough to object. 
Moreover, the notion that broadening the base would result in a lower 
contribution factor assumes that spending remains constant, which is 
unlikely given the recent interest in increasing overall spending.

    Question 2. What other proposals have been put forward by you or 
any other Joint Board members? How many meetings did the Joint Board 
hold to discuss the state members' proposal? How many times has the 
Joint Board met this year and last year to discuss contribution 
methodology reform, and when was the last meeting? Has the plan 
submitted by the state members been put to a formal vote by the Joint 
Board and rejected by a majority of the members? If it has not been put 
to a vote, why not?
    Answer. Over the years, the Commission and, specifically, the Joint 
Board, have explored numerous options to replace the current 
methodology. I can't speak to Joint Boards overseen by other 
Commissioners, but I have had numerous conversations with the state 
representatives on their proposal, including a formal meeting held in 
Phoenix. The state proposal has not been presented before the Joint 
Board for a vote because a majority of FCC members vehemently oppose 
capturing broadband in the contribution methodology. I believe such 
action would be extremely harmful, and we are under no obligation to 
vote on a proposal from the Joint Board that is doomed for failure when 
it comes to the Commission.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. The Commission is currently considering a forbearance 
petition to limit protections ensuring incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers provide competing telecommunications carriers access to their 
networks at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions if there is not 
sufficient competition in the market. Will the Commission take into 
consideration the special circumstances of how Hurricane Maria 
devastated the local telecommunications infrastructure as it considers 
this proposal?
    Answer. Without prejudging the petition before the Commission, I 
think it is fair to say that I have always supported a robust record in 
order to make the best decision possible. To the extent parties submit 
relevant information, I will give it appropriate consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. What is your view on what a meaningful tribal 
consultation should look like?
    Answer. My door remains open to any stakeholder who would like to 
weigh in on any proceeding at the agency, and I have met on numerous 
occasions with tribal representatives, both at the Commission and while 
traveling throughout our Nation. Tribal consultation means just that: 
The Commission should discuss policy changes and seek to gain accurate 
information from tribes regarding the state of communications on tribal 
lands. Consultation does not require tribal approval or provide tribal 
representatives a veto over Commission actions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. It is my understanding that Commissioner Rosenworcel 
worked to include maternal health issues in the recently passed Notice 
of Inquiry on the FCC's proposed telehealth pilot program. Given that 
the inclusion of maternal health issues is critical for rural women and 
their families, will you commit to maintaining them, if this program 
moves forward?
    Answer. In August, the Commission launched a Notice of Inquiry 
(NOI), led by Commissioner Carr, on a pilot program to examine whether 
to expand the Commission's telehealth program. Importantly, an NOI 
represents the very beginning of a process. As I stated at the Open 
meeting, as I follow the record in this proceeding, my goal is to 
ensure that any new program is: legally sound; coordinated both within 
the Universal Service Fund (USF) and with other agencies' programs to 
avoid duplication; cost-effective for consumers and businesses that 
would fund it; and accountable to the agency and the American public. 
The NOI raised some concerns along these lines, which I highlighted in 
my statement. I am pleased that Commissioner Carr got us to this point, 
but much work lies ahead. I will commit to rolling up my sleeves to 
address these matters and others, consistent with my principles, before 
any Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is considered. As it pertains to 
maternal health, I have witnessed the impact of the deterioration of 
access to certain women's health care in many rural parts of America 
and fully recognize that telehealth technologies, many of which are 
already in operation today to great success, can greatly improve this 
situation. As such, I would be in favor of including provisions related 
to maternal health, if the pilot project proceeds forward.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                        to Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. A recent FCC Inspector General report recently 
concluded, despite the FCC's repeated claims that comment period for 
the net neutrality repeal was the subject of a cyberattack, that it was 
actually just the comment system simply being overwhelmed with public 
outcry against the rollback of net neutrality.
    When did you first learn that the attack may not have happened?
    Answer. I was not interviewed or involved in the Inspector 
General's (IG) investigation. I learned about the IG's findings just 
prior to its release on August 6, 2018.

    Question 2. As you know, spectrum will be vital part in deploying 
5G. There have been a variety of pushes from industry for spectrum both 
for millimeter waves and mid-band spectrum below 6 GHz.
    What is the balance between mid-band spectrum and millimeter waves, 
and how have other countries struck that balance as they have worked to 
deploy 5G?
    Answer. Experts agree that we need additional spectrum to meet the 
demands of a broad range of applications and to provide greater 
capacity, faster speeds, and lower latency. Next generation systems 
will capitalize on both new and existing licensed and unlicensed 
networks, utilizing low-, mid-and high-band spectrum, including 
millimeter wave frequencies. More than two years ago, I started 
focusing my attention on the mid bands, after it became apparent that a 
global shift in spectrum policy had occurred and the world was eyeing 
these frequencies as a component for 5G deployment. Thus, it became 
vital for the United States to have a serious mid-band play to 
complement our spectrum work in the low and high bands. Other nations 
seeking to lead on 5G have tended to focus their respective spectrum 
allocations on mid-bands and generally lacked a millimeter wave 
strategy.

    Question 3. How does freeing up mid-band spectrum for 5G use impact 
rural access, especially with the high demand for these bands for rural 
areas?
    Answer. The mid-band frequencies most often discussed for possible 
reallocation to flexible wireless use, including 5G services, are 3.55 
to 3.7 GHz, 3.45 to 3.55 GHz, and 3.7 to 4.2 GHz. The first two bands 
are relatively unused by commercial providers because of protections 
afforded the Department of Defense. Thus, allowing commercial entities 
to use these bands under certain conditions should expand the options 
for providers, including those in rural areas. In fact, mid-band 
spectrum is particularly attractive for rural mobile systems because it 
propagates farther than the millimeter waves. To the extent your 
question touches upon the geographic license sizes for the CBRS 
Priority Access Licenses (3.55 to 3.7 GHz), I have stated repeatedly 
that the Commission is working to make sure the license sizes work for 
as many entities as possible, reflecting that it is a prime spectrum 
for offering 5G services nationwide.
    In terms of the C-band downlink (3.7 to 4.2 GHz), the most 
prevalent users are a handful of licensed satellite providers. In order 
to successfully complete the reallocation, the needs of current end 
users of the band will have to be addressed in one form or another.

    Question 4. The Federal Government has been involved in helping 
make the case for private companies to bring broadband to underserved 
areas for a long time. It's crucial that every Federal dollar that goes 
to these communities is well spent, not duplicative, and gets sent out 
in a timely manner.
    What are some of the challenges for better coordinating Federal 
resources and efforts to further deploy high-speed broadband?
    Answer. I completely agree.
    While efforts to provide new Federal money towards broadband 
deployment are commendable, there is a potential for certain problems 
to arise. One such problem stems from the potential to allow certain 
funding to be used for fully-served or what some consider underserved 
areas. Regrettably, the definition of ``unserved'' has been formulated 
to include areas already having service, or already featuring multiple 
broadband providers. Moreover, there is a major disagreement over what 
should qualify as broadband for purposes of Federal funding. I 
certainly would like for all Americans to have sufficient broadband 
speeds for whatever tasks they seek to accomplish. However, there is 
simply insufficient funding to subsidize ``fiber'' broadband builds, 
either wired or wireless, to every household nationwide-an effort that 
would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Allowing different Federal 
funding programs to have their own speed requirements greatly increases 
the likelihood that a tremendous effort will go to overbuilding in 
areas with preexisting service, including areas funded or expected to 
be funded by the Commission.
    Fundamentally, Federal funding should be targeted to addressing 
those 14 million-plus Americans without any broadband today. If not 
addressed statutorily, the next best option would be to ensure that 
program rules are written with strict prohibitions on duplication with 
other existing programs, alignment of speed requirements among Federal 
programs, and a focus on the truly unserved.

    Question 5. Do you consider current tools, such as working groups, 
sufficient to improve efforts to curb overbuilding and duplication?
    Answer. Unfortunately, past experiences suggest that such efforts 
do not prevent inefficiencies, abuse, or misuse. For instance, 
coordination that consists of merely having discussions among 
bureaucrats is not sufficient to prevent overbuilding and duplication. 
While I have little doubt that added dialogue among our three entities 
could be helpful, such dialogue does not solve the underlying problems 
that result in duplication, wasted spending, or worse. More affirmative 
protections are needed in law to truly prevent duplication.

    Question 6. Robocalls are one of the top complaints received by the 
FCC. Protecting consumers from these calls will take technological as 
well as enforcement efforts.
    Do you believe stronger enforcement efforts could offer further 
deterrence for people making illegal robocalls?
    Answer. I certainly join with you and most consumers in seeking a 
solution that addresses the consumer problem of illegal robocalls, many 
of which initiate overseas. Many of these calls are intended to defraud 
or deceive consumers from their hard-earned income. The FCC certainly 
has been very active exploring different means to end such illegal 
practices, through both our rulemaking authority and in enforcement 
actions. While I believe these actions are important and should be 
continued, the low cost of illegal robocalls has unfortunately 
undermined the effectiveness of enforcement.

    Question 7. Are fines enough to crack down on the worst offenders?
    Answer. As I stated in my previous answer, while fines are 
important, it is hard to crack down on illegal robocall offenders. The 
cost to make such calls is cheap, and many of the bad actors are 
overseas, making the collection of such fines challenging. Again, while 
enforcement is important and necessary, fully cracking down on illegal 
robocalls remains a big challenge.

    Question 8. As you are aware, the Trump administration has 
suggested that nationalizing the 5G network could be necessary for 
national security.
    Do you believe that the private sector is best positioned to move 
forward with 5G?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 9. Nevada is one of the Nation's leaders in school 
broadband thanks to E-rate modernization.
    Since the modernization order in 2014, we have seen 100 percent of 
our students reach the FCC's short term bandwidth goal--this is quite 
the achievement in some of our very rural counties. But there is still 
work to be done--in our state alone, over 3,400 Native American 
students still lack scalable broadband infrastructure. This year, 
Nevada school districts have requested E-rate funding to bring nearly 
$1.5 million in new fiber ``special construction'' to schools. Our 
state leaders have established an E-rate matching fund to accelerate 
these fiber builds as well. However, funding decisions have been 
delayed, leading to uncertainty.
    Can you commit to working with my office and Congress to provide 
certainty to e-rate funding decisions to help bring broadband to our 
most rural areas?
    Answer. Yes, I always stand ready to work with Congress on any of 
our USF programs. However, it should be noted that I have raised 
fundamental concerns regarding such E-Rate fiber builds. Beyond being 
legally suspect, funding fiber construction projects has the ability to 
significantly undermine the competitive process and alter the 
competitive marketplace for such services in an area.

    Question 10. The FCC has moved quickly to revise child television 
rules under the Children's Television Act, arguing that new modes of 
watching require updating the rules. In the proposed rulemaking, you 
propose to eliminate the requirement that broadcasters air their 
programming on main program streams, which would allow them to move to 
multicast streams. Low income kids really rely on this programming for 
education, so it's very important we get this right.
    Why not first issue a Notice of Inquiry, to fully examine the issue 
rather than move forward on such an aggressive timeline?
    Answer. Both Notices of Inquiry and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 
are vehicles that permit the agency to ask the necessary questions, 
obtain the relevant information, and fully and transparently consider 
all issues raised regarding any subject matter. Moreover, I 
respectfully disagree that the Commission has an aggressive timeline to 
move forward on this item. We are currently at the beginning stages of 
our comment period, with initial comments due on September 24 and reply 
comments due on October 23. This comment period of 90 days is typical, 
if not longer than other Commission proceedings. Once the record closes 
the Commission will review the record. There is no date set for 
determining a final path forward.
    It is important for me to stress, that the launch of this 
rulemaking is the beginning of the process, not the end. That means 
everyone will have plenty of time to provide the requisite analysis of 
the proposed rule changes outlined in the NPRM before the Commission 
moves forward on any final decision. We can and will obtain the same 
data in an NPRM that we could in any NOI.

    Question 11. Mutlicast streams have 10 percent of the viewership as 
a main feed, how will a move to these streams not be hugely disruptive 
to the current system?
    Answer. As you highlighted, the NPRM considers allowing 
broadcasters the opportunity to move their children's programming to a 
multicast stream. This is an important protection for over-the-air only 
viewers, who do not have access to the plethora of children's 
programming offered from cable or over-the-top providers. To the over-
the-air viewer, it should not matter if their programming is on channel 
3.0 or 3.1. All that should matter is that they have access to the 
programming. Throughout our proceeding, the Commission intends to 
collect important input on how such a relocation would impact the 
current system. We also hope to learn who relies on ``Kid Vid'' 
programming today. According to initial studies of U.S. households, 
only 1.04 percent have children present in the home and have neither 
cable nor Internet access. Moreover, of U.S. households, only 0.63 
percent have children present in the home, have neither cable nor 
Internet access, and a household income of less than $30,000 per year. 
This is not to suggest that this population can or will be ignored. On 
the contrary, the multicasting option was designed to address these 
specific viewers.

    Question 12. One exciting technology that will be enabled as we 
move to the Internet of things and 5G is wearable technology and the 
possibilities for better health outcomes, including for rural 
Americans.
    Answer. Can you point to an example you have seen about how this 
technology is being deployed in a way that improves people's lives?
    I have seen demonstrations of clothing that integrates wearable 
technologies, enabling remote data monitoring of those wearing the 
materials. This data is not only beneficial to improve workouts for 
ultra-athletes but can serve to monitor and alert those individuals who 
may be at risk for particular ailments, such as heart attacks. The 
reality is that, like all of 5G, we cannot predict with any accuracy 
the exciting new services wearable technologies may bring to improve 
the lives of Americans.

    Question 13. How can Congress help assist the FCC in ensuring the 
deployment of this technology in the future?
    Answer. Through the introduction of legislation such as the SPEED 
Act, STREAMLIINE Small Cell Deployment Act, the AIRWAVES Act, and 
SPECTRUM NOW Act, as well as the passage of the MOBILE NOW Act, 
Congress has made clear its priority to expand 5G deployment through 
both infrastructure reform and making additional commercial spectrum 
available to the private sector. I stand ready to work with the 
Committee on these and other bills put forward to achieve these goals.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. I understand the FCC is working on a rule to assess 
whether to establish a program under which a spectrum licensee may 
partition and sublease the license to an unaffiliated carrier to serve 
a rural area. What is the status of that rule? What other steps are you 
taking to make sure rural carriers that want to buildout in rural 
America have access to Spectrum?
    Answer. The Commission has long sought ideas and ways to facilitate 
secondary market transactions, including license partitioning and 
disaggregation and various leasing models, by those who may not wish to 
serve all of a particular license area. The Chairman is in a better 
position to outline the timing and status of this review.
    In terms of my efforts to promote greater buildout via spectrum 
licenses, I believe that releasing as much spectrum as possible into 
the marketplace is one way to give smaller providers a greater 
opportunity to obtain licenses. This is why I have pushed so hard to 
reallocate as much mid-band and high-band spectrum for wireless 
flexible use, including mobile broadband. In my view, reducing 
scarcity, rather than limiting access, is the better course of action.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. Please describe actions the FCC has taken to meet its 
statutory obligations in regards to the T-band.
    Answer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question and for your 
leadership on public safety issues. It is my understanding that the FCC 
has taken a number of actions in recent years to meet its statutory 
obligations pursuant to the Spectrum Act relating to the T-Band. Those 
actions are as follows:

   In April 2012, the FCC issued a Public Notice that froze the 
        processing of applications for new or expanded T-Band 
        operations. That same month, the FCC adopted an Order that 
        waived the January 2013 deadline for the migration of T-Band 
        licensees to narrowband technologies, due to the need for 
        future relocation.

   In February 2013, the FCC issued a Public Notice to obtain 
        additional information to help inform future decisions 
        regarding the T-Band.

   In October 2014, the FCC adopted an Order opening up the 700 
        MHz narrowband reserve channels (24 reserve channel pairs) for 
        general licensing and gave T-Band public safety licensees 
        priority access to those channels.

   Finally, in February 2015, the FCC issued a Notice of 
        Proposed Rulemaking regarding the 800 MHz band that proposed to 
        give T-Band incumbents priority access to interstitial 
        channels.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. Commissioner Carr, this month Mississippi celebrated 
the groundbreaking of a new Center for Emergency Services on the 
University of Mississippi Medical Center's campus in Jackson. This 
center will enhance our disaster response by helping emergency medical 
personnel and first responders deliver faster, quality care to those in 
need. This center will support the deployment of the Mississippi Tele-
Assist System, which involves deploying emergency vehicles with the 
ability to transmit life-saving images using Internet connectivity. In 
your view, how can we leverage existing services, such as those that 
will be provided through the new Mississippi Center for Emergency 
Services, to maximize the impact and effectiveness of the Connected 
Care Pilot Program, particularly for our first responders and emergency 
medical personnel?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on telehealth issues. The idea for the Connected Care Pilot Program 
stemmed from my initial visit with you in Jackson and the time I spent 
at the University of Mississippi Medical Center learning about their 
advanced telehealth technologies.
    As part of the Notice initiating the Connected Care Pilot Program, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether and how the pilot program could 
fund connectivity for emergency medical service facilities, such as 
ambulances, recognizing that EMS-based telehealth may help triage 
patients more quickly and lead to cost savings for local governments. I 
would welcome the chance to learn more about the Mississippi Tele-
Assist System and how emergency services might be leveraged as part of 
the Connected Care Pilot Program.

    Question 2. Commissioner Carr, will the FCC consider using the 
Connected Care Pilot Program to help meet the needs of rural emergency 
responders in improving their care delivery and coordination to special 
needs populations, like children?
    Answer. Yes. I think this is an important way that the Pilot 
Program could help bridge the health care digital divide.

    Question 3. Commissioner Carr, in rural areas patients often lack 
access to primary care facilities. In many instances, local schools 
(and homes) serve as a site of health care service in these areas. Will 
the FCC consider permitting schools to be ``sites of service'' in 
telehealth programs supported by the Connected Care Pilot Program?
    Answer. Senator, you raise a good point. I will plan to look into 
this idea further, consistent with the Commission's statutory authority 
to provide connectivity to such sites.

    Question 4. Commissioner Carr, will the FCC consider using the 
Connected Care Pilot Program to support tele-mental health care 
delivery to rural areas and other underserved communities?
    Answer. Yes. I believe this is an important health care application 
where remote connectivity can be especially helpful, particularly in 
rural areas and for veteran populations.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. According to studies, the deployment of 5G wireless 
technology is expected to contribute $275 billion in new investment, 
$500 billion in economic growth, and up to 3 million new jobs to the 
U.S economy. These projected benefits highlight why the U.S. needs to 
keep pace and surpass our foreign competitors like China and South 
Korea. While I have supported legislation like the RAPID Act and the 
MOBILE NOW Act to streamline overly-cumbersome siting requirements and 
regulations, what else should be done to increase U.S. competitiveness 
in 5G deployment while appropriately maintaining local and state 
authority over larger macro-tower siting?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on these issues. As I envision it we must focus on two things to keep 
pace and surpass our foreign competitors in the race to 5G: spectrum 
and infrastructure. On the spectrum side, we became the first country 
in the world to allocate high-band spectrum for 5G, and we're now 
opening even more 5G bands. At the FCC, we have already assigned more 
high-band spectrum for 5G than any country in the world--we're more 
than four gigahertz ahead of second-place China. Additionally, we are 
looking to free up more low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. We need to 
keep this up.
    On the infrastructure side, we must continue to remove barriers to 
infrastructure deployment to ensure our regulatory structures are 5G 
Ready. Your efforts on the RAPID Act are very helpful in this regard. 
The FCC has been taking steps, as well, to push the regulatory costs 
out of the system and encourage more deployment. In March, for 
instance, we adopted an order that exempts small cells from certain 
Federal historical and environmental review procedures that were 
designed for those large, hundred-foot towers. This decision extended 
the same regulatory treatment to small cells that the Commission has 
always applied to the deployment of other types of infrastructure, 
including Wi-Fi routers and consumer signal boosters. This one step is 
expected to cut about 30 percent of the total cost of deploying small 
cells. In fact, an Accenture study determined that our action could 
save $1.56 billion, which could be used to deploy 55,000 new cell sites 
and create more than 17,000 jobs. Additionally, the FCC is scheduled to 
vote at its September 26 Open Meeting on a 5G order that is expected to 
pave the way for small cell deployment, including by saving $2 billion 
in unnecessary fees and creating more than 27,000 new jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. In many rural communities, students have long commutes on 
school buses sometimes upwards of half an hour, an hour, or even longer 
one-way. Given the connectivity challenges many students face in rural 
communities, how could E-rate help connect school buses with wifi to 
allow students to use commute time to do homework, projects, or other 
school work?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on these issues. I agree with you that we should continue looking for 
ways to close the digital divide. There may be a range of solutions to 
help do that, as you suggest. I would be happy to work with you and 
your staff to think about additional policies we can implement to help 
ensure connectivity for students around the country.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. Your agency has been tasked with commencing a study of 
broadband deployment and access on tribal lands by March 2019. The 
agency has been criticized in the past for having less than robust 
compliance with the need for tribe consultation. How can we optimize 
the tribes' participation in the broadband study and the composition of 
the report?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on these issues. I agree with you on the importance of ensuring 
broadband deployment and access on Tribal lands. Frankly, broadband 
deployment and access on tribal lands falls far short of where it needs 
to be. The deployment rates for Tribal lands lag well behind those of 
the rest of the country, which tells me that more work remains to be 
done to address this digital divide. I believe the FCC can improve its 
broadband data collection methods, including on Tribal lands. Last 
year, the FCC initiated a proceeding to modify its Form 477 data 
collection process to help improve the granularity and accuracy of 
deployment data we collect from carriers. I look forward to seeing this 
proceeding move forward. Additionally, pursuant to a request from 
Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Report of 2018, the FCC 
will be conducting a rulemaking to address the availability of 
broadband services and access and on Tribal lands. I welcome the chance 
to confer with Tribes as part of this proceeding.

    Question 2. Do you think it's important that the upcoming 
quadrennial review review the changes that have been made to media 
ownership over the past 18 months and the impact that these changes 
have had on localism, media concentration and diversity?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. Localism, competition, and 
diversity have long served as the touchstones of the FCC's media 
policies. We should continue to be guided by these principles and the 
realities of the modern media marketplace whenever we review our rules.

    Question 3. In 2016, the Court of Appeals chastised the FCC for 
making changes to media ownership rules without the benefit of having 
completed statutorily mandated reviews of the media marketplace and 
media ownership rules that were required in 2010 and 2014. Basically 
the court was saying that the FCC's policy making needed to be based on 
data and analysis. It's my understanding that the FCC needs to start 
its next data gathering review this year. Given the court's guidance 
that any FCC changes to media ownership rules should be grounded in the 
type of up-to-date data and analysis required by the quadrennial review 
process, what you would recommend that the next Quadrennial review 
cover?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. Since the 1940s, the FCC has 
had rules on the books that limit the number of television stations any 
single entity can own. Over the decades, as the media landscape has 
evolved, the Commission has revisited these rules to account for new 
competitors and advances in technology. Those changes have only 
accelerated in recent years with the advent of online and streaming 
offerings. In light of these changes, I am glad the FCC will be 
launching the next quadrennial review in the near future. The FCC must 
assess the advancements in the media marketplace using the most 
adequate and up-to-date data, as well as in accordance with the 
statutory directive that we consider whether our media ownership rules 
remain ``necessary in the public interest as the result of 
competition.''

    Question 4. When I asked Chairman Pai at the hearing if the FCC has 
the authority to address cybersecurity threats, he said that the FCC 
currently lacks the authority. In your view, which Federal agency, if 
any, is the lead agency on cybersecurity issues, such as SS7, impacting 
wireless telephone networks?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. The FCC has an 
important and statutorily-mandated role to play in helping to ensure 
that networks are safe and resilient. This is especially true in the 
context of 9-1-1 networks. With respect to cyberthreats in particular, 
the government must avoid a siloed approach and thus the FCC should 
continue to bring our expertise to bear on these issues in coordination 
with other Federal partners that are working in this space, including 
the Department of Homeland Security.

    Question 5. The FCC has publicly encouraged wireless carriers to 
voluntarily address cybersecurity issues related to SS7 that impact 
their networks. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
wireless carriers to address cybersecurity issues related to SS7? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. While I am not aware of a specific grant of authority that 
addresses SS7 functions, the FCC has an important role to play in 
promoting cybersecurity, and I am happy to work with you or your staff 
on any specific SS7 issues that might require additional discussion.

    Question 6. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, 
governments in other countries, including the United Kingdom, have 
``commissioned independent testing of the vulnerabilities in national 
cellular networks.'' Does the FCC currently have the authority to 
commission independent cybersecurity testing of U.S. wireless networks? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Thank you for the question. The FCC takes the security of 
communications infrastructure seriously. Right now, we have a 
proceeding ongoing that asks for comment on testing and other regimes. 
I have an open mind on these issues, and I am currently reviewing the 
record in that proceeding.

    Question 7. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
mobile carriers to assess risks relating to the security of mobile 
network infrastructure as it impacts the Government's use of mobile 
devices? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. The FCC has an important and statutorily-mandated role to 
play when it comes to promoting safe, secure, and resilient networks. 
The FCC should continue to bring its expertise to bear in promoting 
cybersecurity, and we should ensure that we do so in coordination with 
other Federal partners.

    Question 8. Does the FCC currently have the authority to compel 
mobile carrier network owners/operators to provide information to the 
FCC to assess the security of the carriers' communications networks? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. As indicated in response to a question above, the FCC has 
an important and statutorily-mandated role to play when it comes to 
promoting safe, secure, and resilient networks. The FCC should continue 
to apply its expertise to promote cybersecurity, and we should ensure 
that we do so in coordination with other Federal partners.

    Question 9. A recent investigation by Senator Wyden revealed that 
wireless carriers were providing customer location to private companies 
without verifying that users had consented to this disclosure of 
private information. In response, all of the major wireless carriers 
announced they would stop selling location data via location 
aggregators.
    Is subscriber location data, when created by wireless carriers 
through their cell towers or other network infrastructure, is Customer 
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. My understanding is that subscriber location data can 
qualify as CPNI.

    Question 10. Is location data is protected by 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222, 
regardless of whether it is collected when the subscriber is making a 
call, browsing the web from their smartphone, or even when the 
subscriber's phone is not being used and is in the subscriber's pocket? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. I am not aware that the FCC has previously addressed this 
question. Whether required by law or not, consumers rightly expect that 
their providers are transparent about the use of their data.

    Question 11. Has the Commission responded to the Third Circuit 
mandate in the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC line of cases to examine 
the impacts of broadcast consolidation on ownership opportunities for 
women and people of color?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. To the best of my knowledge, 
the FCC responded to this line of cases in its November 2017 Order on 
Reconsideration, as well as its August 2018 Order establishing a 
broadcaster incubator program.

    Question 12. Does the Commission intend to collect any data so that 
it can examine how and whether broadcast consolidation relates to 
ownership diversity?
    Answer. While I do not set the FCC's agenda, my expectation and 
understanding is that the Commission's quadrennial review of our media 
ownership rules will provide forum for a robust discussion of the 
issues raised in that proceeding. I would welcome feedback on all 
relevant issues from interested stakeholders.

    Question 13. What percentage of broadcast stations are owned by 
people of color? By women? Are you satisfied with those levels? If not, 
what kind of meaningful changes can the FCC make to expand ownership 
diversity?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. According to the FCC's 
2014 Report on Ownership of Commercial Broadcast Stations:

   Women collectively or individually held a majority of the 
        voting interests in 997 broadcast stations, which equates to 
        approximately 6.3 percent of full power commercial television 
        stations, 13.1 percent of low power television stations, 8.3 
        percent of commercial AM radio stations, and 6.7 percent of 
        commercial FM radio stations.

   Hispanic/Latino persons collectively or individually held a 
        majority of the voting interests in 571 broadcast stations, 
        equating to approximately 3 percent of full power commercial 
        television stations, 9.4 percent of low power television 
        stations, 5.2 percent of commercial AM radio stations, and 3.2 
        percent of commercial FM radio stations.

   Racial minorities collectively or individually held a 
        majority of the voting interests in 499 broadcast stations, 
        equating to 3.0 percent of full power commercial television 
        stations, 3.9 percent of low power television stations, 6 
        percent of commercial AM radio stations, and 3 percent of 
        commercial FM radio stations.

    These numbers show that we are clearly not where we need to be with 
regards to media ownership diversity. To that end, I am glad the 
Commission recently adopted an order to create an incubator to help 
address issues faced by new entrants into the media marketplace. 
Additionally, I support efforts to streamline our media regulations to 
better reflect the current media landscape.

    Question 14. What data, if any, did the Commission rely on to 
justify its recent assumptions that deregulation in the form of 
loosening local ownership protections would improve competition and 
localism in the broadcast market?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. As the November 2017 Order 
states, the FCC relied on the records from the 2010 and 2014 media 
ownership reviews, as well as the issues raised on reconsideration. 
Under our rules, any interested party can petition the FCC to 
reconsider a final decision in a notice-and-comment rulemaking, and a 
number of parties did so. In response, the Commission provided public 
notice and afforded all stakeholders an opportunity to comment.

    Question 15. Does the FCC have any intention of soliciting public 
input with field hearings regarding whether or not local broadcast 
stations are serving the public interest to inform evaluations of 
recent media ownership changes or future ownership reviews?
    Answer. Thank you for the question, Senator. In my time on the 
Commission, I have made it a point to get outside of D.C. and solicit 
feedback directly from the consumers, carriers, and broadcasters 
impacted by the FCC's policies. For my part, I intended to continue to 
spend time in the field hearing from stakeholders about the issues that 
are important to them.

    Question 16. Notwithstanding any recent legislation, in your 
opinion, which part of the Federal Government should maintain 
responsibility for updating and maintaining the broadband map? What is 
the basis for your answer?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. In my opinion, having an 
accurate map is more important than where the broadband map is housed. 
As such, I defer to Congress's judgment on which agency is best 
positioned to update and maintain the map.

    Question 17. What is your view on whether the Federal agency should 
use or rely on the data sets of private companies to fill out the 
broadband map?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. Broadly speaking, I 
believe we need to make sure we have the most accurate and reliable 
data, whether that is provided by private carriers or by another 
source. I understand the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the 
accuracy of the FCC's mapping data. As noted in question #1, in 2017, 
the FCC initiated a proceeding to modify its Form 477 data collection 
process to help improve the granularity and accuracy of deployment data 
we currently collect from carriers. I look forward to reviewing the 
record in this proceeding and thinking about ways to improve the 
existing data collection process.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board recently 
praised Chairman Pai's decision to challenge the Sinclair-Tribune 
merger, stating that ``the FCC Chairman follows the law in stopping a 
merger.'' The editorial concluded by saying, ``it's up to Congress to 
change broadcast ownership restrictions.'' Do you agree that only 
Congress has the authority to change broadcast ownership restrictions, 
like the national television audience reach cap?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. In 2016, the FCC majority under 
Chairman Wheeler determined that ``the Commission has the authority to 
modify the national audience reach cap'' and that ``no statute bars the 
Commission from revisiting the cap.'' In 2017, the FCC adopted a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on whether the prior 
FCC got it right in reaching that conclusion. For my part, I am 
currently reviewing the record in that proceeding.

    Question 2. A December 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explores 
gutting one of the last few remaining rules protecting consumers from 
massive consolidation in media: the media ownership cap. Didn't 
Congress--through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004--very 
clearly instruct the FCC to set this cap at 39 percent? What authority 
would the FCC now have to change this cap?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. As indicated above, in 2016, 
the FCC majority under Chairman Wheeler determined that ``the 
Commission has the authority to modify the national audience reach 
cap'' and that ``no statute bars the Commission from revisiting the 
cap.'' In 2017, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
that seeks comment on whether the prior FCC got it right in reaching 
that conclusion. For my part, I am continuing to review the record in 
that proceeding, and I welcome your views on this question as well as 
that of your colleagues.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. Thank you for your leadership on the ``Connected Care'' 
pilot program. Improving telehealth is a bipartisan issue. I have 
worked to advance telehealth with Senators Thune and Wicker, among 
others, because I have seen firsthand how telemedicine can make it 
easier for patients to see their doctors, bring specialized care to 
more places, and literally save lives. Telemedicine doesn't work if 
patients can't access the Internet or afford it, so this trial will be 
important. Do you commit to an open and fair process for the pilot 
program and to test it across the country, including in insular, urban 
as well as rural areas?
    Answer. Thank you for the question, Senator, and for your 
leadership on telehealth issues. As indicated in your question, the FCC 
unanimously adopted a Notice of Inquiry at its August 2 meeting that 
seeks comment on establishing a new $100 million ``Connected Care Pilot 
Program.'' This program would support telehealth for low-income 
Americans, especially those living in rural areas and veterans. As part 
of the Notice, the Commission seeks comment on how the pilot program 
can improve health outcomes by focusing on particular populations, 
demographic groups, or geographic areas of the country. The Notice also 
seeks comment on the application process for participants in the pilot 
program. I look forward to reviewing the record in the proceeding. 
However, I can assure you that I am committed to supporting an open and 
fair process for the program, including the selection of participants 
and test projects. To your question, I welcome the chance to review how 
insular and urban areas can benefit and participate in the program. I 
look forward to working with you and your staff on these issues.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. The Commission is currently considering a forbearance 
petition to limit protections ensuring incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers provide competing telecommunications carriers access to their 
networks at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions if there is not 
sufficient competition in the market. Will the Commission take into 
consideration the special circumstances of how Hurricane Maria 
devastated the local telecommunications infrastructure as it considers 
this proposal?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. As you know, in May 
2018, USTelecom filed a petition seeking forbearance from certain 
obligations under sections 251, 252, 271, and 272 of the Communications 
Act. Because this is a pending proceeding, I have not reached a final 
position on the issues and so cannot offer a definitive view on the 
merits of the petition. However, I do believe it is important to 
consider all relevant data in the record, which I look forward to 
reviewing in more detail.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. What is your view on what a meaningful tribal 
consultation should look like?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on these issues. The FCC's March 2018 decision in our wireless 
infrastructure proceeding, which aimed to accelerate the deployment of 
next-generation broadband to communities across the country, is a good 
example. It's a proceeding in which the FCC exceeded the obligations 
imposed by law regarding to consultation.
    In reaching our decision on the merits in that case, the FCC 
benefited from extensive engagement with Tribal Nations--consultations 
that spanned three years. Indeed, when the prior Commission took steps 
to update our infrastructure rules, I am not aware of the FCC engaging 
in any similar effort. In this case, FCC leadership and staff 
participated in consultations in at least nine different states, 
including Oklahoma, South Dakota, California, New Mexico, and Arizona. 
FCC officials attended Tribal conferences, hosted Tribal 
representatives at the FCC, and conducted dozens and dozens of meetings 
and conference calls concerning the subject matter the FCC voted on.
    These consultations resulted in significant outcomes. For instance, 
the Order maintained the current approach to small cell and other 
deployments on Tribal lands, given the feedback we received. It adopted 
reforms that will give Tribes more information, earlier in the process 
for those reviews that go through NHPA procedures. It rejected requests 
to limit the geographic area where Tribes can express interests and 
participate in the process. It also expressly recognized the 
circumstances in which Tribes can be paid fees for their consulting 
services. And in those cases, it rejected calls that we limit or 
otherwise regulate the fees that Tribes can charge.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. It is my understanding that Commissioner Rosenworcel 
worked to include maternal health issues in the recently passed Notice 
of Inquiry on the FCC's proposed telehealth pilot program. Given that 
the inclusion of maternal health issues is critical for rural women and 
their families, will you commit to maintaining them, if this program 
moves forward?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question and for your leadership 
on telehealth issues. At its August 2 meeting, the Commission 
unanimously adopted a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on establishing 
a new $100 million ``Connected Care Pilot Program.'' This program would 
support telehealth for low-income Americans, especially those living in 
rural areas and veterans. Too many Americans living in our Nation's 
rural communities are at risk of falling behind when it comes to high-
quality affordable healthcare. This Notice tees up a full range of 
questions to assess how the FCC can advance the trend in telehealth 
beyond brick-and-mortar facilities towards connected care everywhere.
    As you note, as part of the Notice, the FCC asks how the Pilot 
Program can help improve maternal health, particularly for women in 
rural areas. I agree with Commissioner Rosenworcel that maternal health 
is a key area where telehealth can yield dividends. In fact, during one 
of my first telehealth-related visits to the University of Virginia 
Medical Center, I had the opportunity to see how fetal monitoring 
applications are helping improve high-risk pregnancy outcomes. So I 
appreciate the leadership that you and Commissioner Rosenworcel have 
shown on this important issue, and I look forward to reviewing the 
record that we receive.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                          to Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. A recent FCC Inspector General report recently 
concluded, despite the FCC's repeated claims that comment period for 
the net neutrality repeal was the subject of a cyberattack, that it was 
actually just the comment system simply being overwhelmed with public 
outcry against the rollback of net neutrality.
    When did you first learn that the attack may not have happened?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. I first learned that 
the FCC's comment system may not have been subject to a cyberattack 
during the week of August 6, 2018, when I was contacted by the FCC's 
Office of Inspector General to share its findings. However, as I was 
traveling for work in Alaska that week, I did not have an opportunity 
to learn all of the details of the Inspector General's investigation 
until the following week.

    Question 2. As you know, spectrum will be vital part in deploying 
5G. There have been a variety of pushes from industry for spectrum both 
for millimeter waves and mid-band spectrum below 6 GHz.
    What is the balance between mid-band spectrum and millimeter waves, 
and how have other countries struck that balance as they have worked to 
deploy 5G?
    Answer. Thank you for the question and your leadership on these 
issues. I agree with you that spectrum is a vital part in the race to 
5G, and I am glad the FCC is now looking to prioritize freeing up mid-
band spectrum for commercial use. While the U.S. has, to date, freed up 
more spectrum than any other country in the world--we're more than 4 
GHz ahead of second place China--there's still work to be done in the 
mid-band, where other countries have already freed up substantial 
amounts of spectrum. The August 2017 Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry, which 
was voted on before I became a Commissioner, as well as the Notice of 
Inquiry we adopted in July to look into 500 MHz of spectrum in the C-
band, are both steps in the right direction.

    Question 3. How does freeing up mid-band spectrum for 5G use impact 
rural access, especially with the high demand for these bands for rural 
areas?
    Answer. Senator, I appreciate the question. When I think about 
success--when I think about winning the race to 5G--the finish line is 
not the moment we see next-gen deployments in New York or San 
Francisco. Success means ensuring that all Americans, no matter where 
they live, have a fair shot at fast, affordable broadband. This 
includes both efforts to streamline infrastructure deployment, but also 
to free up additional spectrum to bring more broadband to more 
Americans.

    Question 4. The Federal Government has been involved in helping 
make the case for private companies to bring broadband to underserved 
areas for a long time. It's crucial that every Federal dollar that goes 
to these communities is well spent, not duplicative, and gets sent out 
in a timely manner.
    What are some of the challenges for better coordinating Federal 
resources and efforts to further deploy high-speed broadband?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. It is a good thing 
that many agencies are focused on ways to encourage broadband 
deployment. That shows that deployment is an important Federal 
priority, as it should be. However, that means that sometimes our 
individual missions and priorities overlap, underscoring the need for 
coordination. So the FCC must continue our efforts to coordinate with 
our Federal partners and share our own views on the best ways to bring 
broadband to underserved areas without wasteful spending. We are 
continuing to engage in those efforts.

    Question 5. Do you consider current tools, such as working groups, 
sufficient to improve efforts to curb overbuilding and duplication?
    Answer. I believe working groups are helpful in improving 
interagency coordination and communication. But I am certainly open to 
additional tools to help ensure that we identify and curb overbuilding 
and duplication. There are still too many communities that lack 
sufficient broadband. I have spent time in many of them, including in 
Mountain Springs, Nevada, where, at a community forum, I heard how 
efforts to site broadband on Federal lands continues to slow down the 
deployment of next-generation connectivity.

    Question 6. Robocalls are one of the top complaints received by the 
FCC. Protecting consumers from these calls will take technological as 
well as enforcement efforts.
    Do you believe stronger enforcement efforts could offer further 
deterrence for people making illegal robocalls?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. Yes, I do believe that strong 
enforcement efforts by the FCC can help deter illegal robocalls. The 
FCC has elevated robocalls to its top enforcement priority in the last 
few years, and I welcome our efforts on this front.

    Question 7. Are fines enough to crack down on the worst offenders?
    Answer. Senator, I do not believe that fines alone are sufficient 
to deter bad actors in this space. The FCC has been pursuing other 
technical solutions as well, including seeking comment on establishing 
database to help get a better handle on situations where a consumer 
gives a business permission to call them, but then their telephone 
number is subsequently reassigned to another consumer. Additionally, 
last summer the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry on its role in 
facilitating call authentication methods aimed at reducing spoofing. 
Finally, I would support stronger penalties for those who engage in 
illegal robocalls, including revoking Commission licenses where 
appropriate.

    Question 8. As you are aware, the Trump administration has 
suggested that nationalizing the 5G network could be necessary for 
national security.
    Do you believe that the private sector is best positioned to move 
forward with 5G?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. I have spoken on the 
issue of 5G nationalization previously (https://www.fcc.gov/document/
commissioner-carr-statement-deployment-5g). To be clear, the U.S. 
benefited from the deployment of world-leading 4G networks precisely 
because we got the government out of the way. The path to winning the 
race to 5G is to free up spectrum and update our infrastructure rules 
to clear the path for the private sector to invest and deploy.

    Question 9. Nevada is one of the Nation's leaders in school 
broadband thanks to E-rate modernization.
    Since the modernization order in 2014, we have seen 100 percent of 
our students reach the FCC's short term bandwidth goal--this is quite 
the achievement in some of our very rural counties. But there is still 
work to be done--in our state alone, over 3,400 Native American 
students still lack scalable broadband infrastructure. This year, 
Nevada school districts have requested E-rate funding to bring nearly 
$1.5 million in new fiber ``special construction'' to schools. Our 
state leaders have established an E-rate matching fund to accelerate 
these fiber builds as well. However, funding decisions have been 
delayed, leading to uncertainty.
    Can you commit to working with my office and Congress to provide 
certainty to e-rate funding decisions to help bring broadband to our 
most rural areas?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 10. The FCC has moved quickly to revise child television 
rules under the Children's Television Act, arguing that new modes of 
watching require updating the rules. In the proposed rulemaking, you 
propose to eliminate the requirement that broadcasters air their 
programming on main program streams, which would allow them to move to 
multicast streams. Low income kids really rely on this programming for 
education, so it's very important we get this right.
    Why not first issue a Notice of Inquiry, to fully examine the issue 
rather than move forward on such an aggressive timeline?
    Answer. Thanks for the question. As you know, in July, the FCC 
adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on our rules 
governing children's educational programming. The Notice queues up a 
full range of issues for the FCC's consideration. It does not commit 
the FCC to taking any particular action on any particular timeframe. I 
look forward to reviewing the record once it is complete.

    Question 11. Multicast streams have 10 percent of the viewership as 
a main feed, how will a move to these streams not be hugely disruptive 
to the current system?
    Answer. Senator, I appreciate the question. This is one of the 
issues that has been teed up for the FCC to consider in our pending 
rulemaking. I have an open mind on the question and look forward to 
reviewing the administrative record and learning from the views 
expressed there by a range of stakeholders.

    Question 12. One exciting technology that will be enabled as we 
move to the Internet of things and 5G is wearable technology and the 
possibilities for better health outcomes, including for rural 
Americans.
    Can you point to an example you have seen about how this technology 
is being deployed in a way that improves people's lives?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. With remote patient 
monitoring and mobile health applications that can be accessed on a 
smartphone or tablet, we now have the technology to deliver high-
quality care directly to patients, regardless of where they are 
located. One of the most memorable examples I have seen is Ms. Annie, 
who is a patient of a clinic located in Ruleville, Mississippi, in the 
Mississippi Delta. The Delta is ground zero for the country's diabetes 
epidemic. It sees diabetes at rates that are about twice the national 
average. In addition to having one of the highest rates of diabetes in 
the state, more than half of all children in this area live in poverty. 
That only adds to the challenge of finding and accessing affordable 
health care.
    Miss Annie noticed the first signs of her diabetes when she woke up 
one day with blurred vision. After seeing little progress in managing 
her diabetes with traditional care options, Ms. Annie signed up for a 
remote patient monitoring pilot program. She walked me through the 
blood sugar monitor that she uses at home. The monitor uses Bluetooth 
to connect to her iPad, which chimes every morning to remind her to 
check her blood sugar. Ms. Annie then pricks her finger and her A1C 
level is displayed on-screen. Based on that, the iPad app suggests 
appropriate actions--from a particular food or exercise, to watching a 
relevant video. If she forgets to enter her numbers that day, she'll 
get a phone call from a nurse. With this technology, Ms. Annie's A1C 
levels have gone down and she says she's never felt better. I believe 
that, by aligning public policy in support of this movement in 
telehealth, we can achieve more health outcomes like Miss Annie's.

    Question 13. How can Congress help assist the FCC in ensuring the 
deployment of this technology in the future?
    Answer. At its August 2 meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted 
a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on establishing a new $100 million 
``Connected Care Pilot Program.'' This program would support telehealth 
for low-income Americans, especially those living in rural areas and 
veterans. Too many Americans living in our Nation's rural communities 
are at risk of falling behind when it comes to high-quality affordable 
healthcare. This Notice tees up a full range of questions to assess how 
the FCC can advance the trend in telehealth beyond brick-and-mortar 
facilities towards connected care everywhere. We are currently 
receiving comments in this proceeding, and I look forward to reviewing 
the record in more detail in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. I understand the FCC is working on a rule to assess 
whether to establish a program under which a spectrum licensee may 
partition and sublease the license to an unaffiliated carrier to serve 
a rural area. What is the status of that rule? What other steps are you 
taking to make sure rural carriers that want to buildout in rural 
America have access to Spectrum?
    Answer. Senator, thank you for the question. I understand that 
Bureau staff is currently working on the rulemaking proceeding that you 
reference.
    Additionally, the FCC has been undertaking additional efforts to 
remove barriers to infrastructure deployment to ensure our regulatory 
structures are 5G Ready--to ensure the United States wins the race to 
5G. In March, for instance, we adopted an order that exempts small 
cells from certain Federal historical and environmental review 
procedures that were designed for those large, hundred-foot towers. 
This decision extended the same regulatory treatment to small cells 
that the Commission has always applied to the deployment of other types 
of infrastructure, including Wi-Fi routers and consumer signal 
boosters. This one step is expected to cut about 30 percent of the 
total cost of deploying small cells. In fact, an Accenture study 
determined that our action could save $1.56 billion, which could be 
used to deploy 55,000 new cell sites and create more than 17,000 jobs. 
Additionally, the FCC is scheduled to vote at its September 26 Open 
Meeting on a 5G order that is expected to pave the way for small cell 
deployment, including by saving $2 billion in unnecessary fees and 
creating more than 27,000 new jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. Please describe actions the FCC has taken to meet its 
statutory obligations in regards to the T-band.
    Answer. Today, many public safety authorities in the Nation's 
largest metropolitan areas, including Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, 
Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, 
and Washington have licenses in the 470-512 MHz band. However, in the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress tasked 
the Federal Communications Commission with recovering and auctioning 
this spectrum for commercial use by February of 2021. The law 
specifically requires that proceeds from the T-band auction be used for 
T-band relocation.
    Following its passage, the FCC froze the processing of applications 
for new or expanded T-band operations in order to avoid adding to the 
cost and complexity of public safety relocation. The FCC also waived an 
earlier deadline associated with the migration to narrowband 
technologies. In addition, in February of 2013, the FCC released a 
public notice seeking comment on the technical, financial, 
administrative, legal, and policy implications of implementing this 
aspect of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. Following 
on this effort, in October of 2014 the FCC opened up the 700 MHz 
narrowband reserve channels for general licensing and afforded T-band 
public safety licensees priority access to these channels in T-band 
areas. However, in light of the time that has elapsed since the agency 
first sought comment on T-band relocation, I believe a prudent next 
step would involve refreshing the record on this subject, both so that 
the agency can take steps to prepare for commercial auction and also so 
it can provide Congress with updated information on the relocation of 
existing public safety services that rely on these airwaves.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. How can ``crowdsourcing'' data assist the commission in 
producing more accurate information regarding broadband availability 
depicted on the Mobility Fund Phase II eligibility map?
    Answer. The wireless maps the Federal Communications Commission 
uses are not what they should be. They have too many inaccuracies to be 
reliable. They overstate signal strength in rural America and 
understate where universal service support is needed to ensure that 
communities are not left behind.
    This is a problem. However, the agency is not without tools to 
clean up this mess.
    First, the FCC can use the wisdom of crowds to fix what is wrong. 
More than 200,000 volunteers have downloaded the agency's Speed Test 
app that collects anonymized wireless broadband performance data. We 
need to find a way to put this information to use. Excluding 
crowdsourcing from our innovation toolkit means forgoing the 
opportunity for better maps.
    Second, the FCC already has committed to having the Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC) test and validate the network 
coverage of winning bidders in its Mobility Fund auction--after they 
have built out using this new source of universal service support. Why 
not give USAC a role up front and have them assist with validating 
existing data before the auction? Even doing some sampling like this 
could yield important information about systematic problems with our 
existing maps. Moreover, this kind of review, like audits, can be an 
essential tool to ensure program effectiveness.
    Finally, the FCC should mobilize other resources at its disposal. 
That includes the personnel the agency has available for spot testing 
in field offices in Atlanta; Boston; Chicago; Columbia, Maryland; 
Dallas; Denver; Honolulu; Los Angeles; Miami; New Orleans; New York; 
Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco. In short, there's no reason why 
the FCC should not use the widely-dispersed spectrum expertise and 
tools it already has deployed across the country.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. In many rural communities, students have long commutes on 
school buses sometimes upwards of half an hour, an hour, or even longer 
one-way. Given the connectivity challenges many students face in rural 
communities, how could E-rate help connect school buses with wifi to 
allow students to use commute time to do homework, projects, or other 
school work?
    Answer. According to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, the 
Homework Gap is real. By their estimate, it affects 12 million children 
across the country. They are everywhere. In my time at the FCC, I have 
spoken with students in Texas who do homework at fast food restaurants 
with a side of fries--just to get a free Wi-Fi signal. I have heard 
from students in Pennsylvania who make elaborate plans every day to 
head to the homes of friends and relatives just to be able to get 
online. I have listened to a high school football player in rural New 
Mexico who lingers in the pitch-black dark of the school parking lot 
after games with a device in hand because it is the only place he can 
get a reliable connection. These kids have grit. But it shouldn't be 
this hard. Because today no child can be left offline--and developing 
digital skills is flat-out essential for education and participation in 
the modern economy.
    More needs to be done to address the Homework Gap, because it's an 
especially cruel part of the new digital divide. To this end, some 
communities are installing Wi-Fi routers on district school buses. 
After all, in rural areas, students often ride the bus an hour to get 
to school and an hour to get home at night. So these communities turn 
ride time into connected time for homework. These buses are hitting the 
road everywhere from Huntsville, Alabama to Marengo, Illinois to 
Watkins Glen, New York and many more places in between. It's a smart 
idea that deserves attention and support, including from the FCC's E-
Rate program, as you suggest. It also is the subject bipartisan 
legislation. S. 2958 specifically directs the FCC to make the provision 
of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-Rate support.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. Your agency has been tasked with commencing a study of 
broadband deployment and access on tribal lands by March 2019. The 
agency has been criticized in the past for having less than robust 
compliance with the need for tribe consultation. How can we optimize 
the tribes' participation in the broadband study and the composition of 
the report?
    Answer. Pursuant to the Ray Baum's Act, adopted as part of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, the Federal Communications 
Commission must submit a report to Congress ``evaluating broadband 
coverage in Indian country and on land held by a Native Corporation 
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.'' Following this 
effort, the agency is required to conduct a proceeding addressing the 
unserved areas identified in the report.
    These tasks are important because for too long tribal lands have 
lagged in the deployment of modern communications infrastructure. 
Moreover, this problem will never be managed without first improving 
our measurement of where broadband facilities are and are not in tribal 
communities. To this end, the Government Accountability Office, in a 
report released September 7, 2018, found that while the FCC ``collects 
data on broadband availability from providers,'' ``these data do not 
accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands.'' 
The GAO further observed that the ``FCC does not collect information on 
several factors--such as affordability, quality, and denials of 
service--that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent 
to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband 
services.'' As a result, the GAO recommended that the agency establish 
``a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments on the 
accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data'' in order to help 
improve the accuracy of the FCC's broadband data for tribal lands.
    I believe the starting point for the FCC's report to Congress 
should be the issues identified by the GAO. The agency needs to address 
the deficiencies outlined in this report and in doing so must directly 
engage with tribes, consistent with the Federal Government's trust 
responsibility as detailed in the agency's June 2000 Statement of 
Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with 
Indian Tribes.

    Question 2. Do you think it's important that the upcoming 
quadrennial review, review the changes that have been made to media 
ownership over the past 18 months and the impact that these changes 
have had on localism, media concentration, and diversity?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 3. In 2016, the Court of Appeals chastised the FCC for 
making changes to media ownership rules without the benefit of having 
completed statutorily mandated reviews of the media marketplace and 
media ownership rules that were required in 2010 and 2014. Basically, 
the court was saying that the FCC's policymaking needed to be based on 
data and analysis. It's my understanding that the FCC needs to start 
its next data gathering review this year.
    Given the court's guidance that any FCC changes to media ownership 
rules should be grounded in the type of up-to-date data and analysis 
required by the quadrennial review process, what would you recommend 
that the next quadrennial review cover?
    Answer. Under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act, the FCC 
is required to review its media ownership rules every four years to 
determine whether they are ``necessary in the public interest as a 
result of competition.'' The last two such reviews began in 2010 and 
2014. Accordingly, the FCC is expected to begin a review this year. 
However, within the last year, acting on reconsideration of earlier 
efforts, the FCC made substantial changes to its rules. It is essential 
that the agency study the impact of these changes in the marketplace. 
To this end, the next quadrennial review must include robust data 
collection, analysis, and an assessment of the consequences of changing 
our media ownership rules on localism, competition, and diversity.

    Question 4. When I asked Chairman Pai at the hearing if the FCC has 
the authority to address cybersecurity issues related to SS7 that 
impact their networks. Does the FCC currently have the authority to 
require wireless carriers to address cybersecurity issues related to 
SS7? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. The very first sentence of the Communications Act 
tasks the agency with a duty to ``make available, so far as possible, 
to all the people of the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, 
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service . . . 
for the purpose of the national defense'' and for ``promoting safety of 
life and property.'' Accordingly, the FCC has a clear mandate to help 
ensure the safety and resiliency of our Nation's communications 
networks.
    To this end, the agency needs to address communications 
vulnerabilities like SS7. SS7 is a signaling protocol that permits 
carriers to communicate with one another to deliver calls and text 
messages between and among their networks. While SS7 offers practical 
benefits, it is known to have significant cybersecurity problems. It is 
well understood that criminals and foreign governments can exploit 
flaws in SS7 to track mobile users, intercept calls and texts, and even 
steal sensitive information available on devices.
    The FCC is uniquely situated to comprehensively address problems 
with SS7--and has both the network expertise and statutory authority 
necessary to do so. To date, the FCC's Communications Security, 
Reliability, and Interoperability Council recommended that 
communications service providers implement specific security measures 
to help prevent exploitation of SS7 network infrastructure. The FCC's 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, in turn, released a Public 
Notice recommending that communications service providers implement 
these measures. In addition, the Bureau sought comment on the progress 
being made to address SS7 vulnerabilities. At this point, the FCC needs 
to move beyond studies and voluntary recommendations to ensure that the 
measures identified by CSRC are implemented in a timely fashion. As 
part of the agency's effort to do so it should coordinate with other 
authorities with appropriate jurisdiction and expertise, including the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.

    Question 5. The FCC has publicly encouraged wireless carriers to 
voluntarily address cybersecurity issues related to SS7 that impact 
their networks. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
wireless carriers to address cybersecurity issues related to SS7? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. As noted above, the FCC has a clear mandate to help 
ensure the safety and resiliency of our Nation's communications 
networks. In addition to this authority detailed in Section 151 of the 
Communications Act--the very first sentence of the law--the agency has 
additional statutory power pursuant to Section 222, which describes 
duties of telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of 
customer proprietary network information.

    Question 6. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, 
governments in other countries, including the United Kingdom, have 
``commissioned independent testing of the vulnerabilities in national 
cellular networks.'' Does the FCC currently have the authority to 
commission independent cybersecurity testing of U.S. wireless networks? 
If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. However, I recognize that the decision to commission 
such testing would lie with the Chairman of the FCC. That said, I 
believe that the FCC's 13 field offices should, as a matter of regular 
practice, test for vulnerabilities in our wireless networks in order to 
identify problems and promote best practices in cyber hygiene.

    Question 7. Does the FCC currently have the authority to require 
mobile carriers to assess risks relating to the security of mobile 
network infrastructure as it impacts the government's use of mobile 
devices? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. A broad range of national security and public safety 
functions of the Federal Government rely on our commercial 
telecommunications networks, which are subject to the oversight and 
authority of the FCC.

    Question 8. Does the FCC currently have the authority to compel 
mobile carrier network owners/operators to provide information to the 
FCC to assess the security of the carriers' communications networks? If 
not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes. Pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act, the 
FCC retains broad authority over licenses, including authority to seek 
information from licensees.

    Question 9. A recent investigation by Senator Wyden revealed that 
wireless carriers were providing customer location to private companies 
without verifying that users had consented to this disclosure of 
private information. In response, all of the major wireless carriers 
announced they would stop selling location data via location 
aggregators.
    Is subscriber location data, when created by wireless carriers 
through their cell towers or other network infrastructure, is customer 
proprietary network information (CPNI)? If not, please explain why.
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 10. Is location data protected by 47 U.S.C. Section 222, 
regardless of whether it is collected when the subscriber is making a 
call, browsing the web from their smartphone, or even when the 
subscriber's phone is not being used and is in the subscriber's pocket? 
If not, explain why.
    Answer. Location data is protected by Section 222 of the 
Communications Act, in connection with the provision of a 
telecommunications service. Under the law, customer proprietary network 
information includes ``information that relates to quantity, technical 
configuration, type, destination, location and amount of use of a 
telecommunication service subscribed to by any customer of a 
telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier 
by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. 
Moreover, under Section 222, a carrier that receives customer 
proprietary network information may only use, disclose or permit access 
to such individually identifiable information in its provision of a 
telecommunications service from which such information is derived or 
services necessary to, or used in the provision of such 
telecommunications service, absent the carrier obtaining the customer's 
prior express authorization for its broader use.
    In a unanimous Declaratory Ruling in 2013 the FCC further clarified 
that Section 222 ``applies to information'' such as location data, 
provided that it ``fits the statutory definition of customer 
proprietary network information when such information is collected by 
the subscriber's mobile device, provided the collection is undertaken 
at the carrier's direction and that the carrier or its designee has 
access to or control over that information.'' However, the scope of 
protections presently afforded under Section 222 remains untested in 
the wake of the FCC's decision to roll back its net neutrality policies 
and the Joint Resolution of Disapproval from Congress in 2017 
concerning the agency's broadband privacy rules.

    Question 11. In June, the FCC's repeal of its net neutrality rules 
went into effect, leaving consumers and small businesses without 
assurances that ISPs won't block or throttle web traffic or introduce 
paid prioritization schemes, and without any opportunity for redress if 
ISPs do engage in those activities.
    States and localities have begun to take steps to protect consumers 
and businesses in their states from ISP abuses. What do you make of all 
of this state and local activity around net neutrality?
    Answer. With its decision to roll back net neutrality, the FCC put 
itself of the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the 
wrong side of the American public. Its misguided decision awoke a 
sleeping giant--because across the country the American public is 
demanding action. States, cities, and towns are coming forward with new 
laws, resolutions, and executive orders to make right what the FCC got 
wrong. These efforts are a welcome development.

    Question 12. Is it appropriate for states and localities to protect 
consumers where the FCC has abandoned them?
    Answer. Yes. I support efforts by states and localities to try and 
address the gap left by the FCC refusing to exercise its authority and 
provide basic oversight of the terms of broadband service.

    Question 13. How would you respond to critics of state net 
neutrality action regarding concerns about complying with varying 
standards across states and whether states have the authority to 
protect consumers given the FCC's attempt to pre-empt state action?
    Answer. I respect the rights of states and localities to try and 
fill the consumer protection gap in the wake of the FCC's net 
neutrality repeal by using whatever jurisdiction they may have at their 
disposal.

    Question 14. Has the Commission responded to the Third Circuit 
mandate in the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC line of cases to examine 
the impacts of broadcast consolidation on ownership opportunities for 
women and people of color?
    Answer. On three separate occasions, the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals has directed the FCC to consider the impact its rule changes 
have on media ownership diversity. The FCC's most recent effort to 
respond to this call from court took place in August of 2018. The 
agency adopted an incubator program that is designed to increase the 
diversity of broadcast ownership. However, this proposal is 
extraordinarily limited. It provides existing radio station licensees 
with the right to exceed certain radio ownership limits if they offer a 
bit of aid to a qualifying entrant in the same market. It does not 
apply in all circumstances and does not include any opportunities for 
television broadcasting. I do not expect that this modest effort, 
however well intended, will substantially diversify the ownership of 
broadcast licenses in the United States. I believe that more needs to 
be done to make progress on this front. To this end, I believe that 
reinstating the minority tax certificate program, which provided 
incentives to companies that sell radio or television stations to 
socially and economically disadvantaged businesses, would materially 
increase media ownership diversity.

    Question 15. Does the Commission intend to collect any data so that 
it can examine how and whether broadcast consolidation relates to 
ownership diversity?
    Answer. The FCC collects broadcast ownership data through its 
biennial commercial broadcast ownership reporting form, known as FCC 
Form 323. This collection is designed to assist the agency with 
assessing the state of media ownership diversity. The data also is used 
to identify trends across time and the impact of agency rules on 
broadcast ownership.

    Question 16. What percentage of broadcast stations are owned by 
people of color? By women? Are you satisfied with those levels? If not 
what kind of meaningful changes can the FCC make to expand ownership 
diversity?
    Answer. According to the most current FCC data available, which was 
released in 2017 but reflects ownership as of 2015, minorities 
collectively or individually held a majority of voting interests in 2.6 
percent of full-power commercial television stations, 1.8 percent of 
Class A television stations, and 2.4 percent of low-power television 
stations. Across all broadcast interests, American Indian and Alaska 
Natives owned 40 broadcast stations, Asians owned 152, African-
Americans owned 180 broadcast stations, Native Hawaiians and other 
Pacific Islanders owned 20 broadcast stations, and persons of two or 
more races owned 10 broadcast stations.
    The same data demonstrate that women held a majority of voting 
interests in 7.4 percent of full-power commercial television stations, 
9.3 percent of Class A television stations, and 11 percent of low-power 
television stations.
    I am not satisfied with these levels. Moreover, I am concerned that 
the recent changes to FCC media ownership rules will result in greater 
media consolidation, making it even less likely that women and people 
of color will become owners of broadcast stations.

    Question 17. What data, if any, did the Commission rely on to 
justify its recent assumptions that deregulation in the form of 
loosening local ownership protections would improve competition and 
localism in the broadcast market.
    Answer. In November 2017, the FCC approved a decision that 
eliminated the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule, the radio-television 
cross ownership rule, the eight-voices test, and allowed for case-by-
case waiver for companies to own two of the top four stations in a 
single market. To justify this action, the FCC relied on data collected 
and reviewed in its 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews, which were 
completed in 2016. I did not support this decision.

    Question 18. Does the FCC have any intention of soliciting public 
input with field hearings regarding whether or not local broadcast 
stations are serving the public interest to inform evaluations of 
recent media ownership changes or future ownership reviews?
    Answer. To my knowledge, the FCC does not currently have plans to 
hold field hearings concerning the agency's media ownership rules. 
However, I believe soliciting public input directly from the public in 
this fashion is important before the agency makes any further changes 
to its media ownership rules.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. Can you discuss the harms the Chairman's proposals 
would cause to the Lifeline program, and especially the veterans that 
rely on the program?
    Answer. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have served in the 
military. They have made sacrifices at home, with their families, and 
on the battlefield. We also owe those who have worn the uniform, 
policies that ensure that when they return to civilian life, 
opportunities await.
    Unfortunately, by this measure, the Federal Communications 
Commission comes up short. Last year, the agency unveiled a plan to 
make deep cuts to Lifeline, a program that helps 1.3 million veterans 
afford basic telephone and broadband service. However, they are not the 
only community that will be harmed by the FCC's proposal. There are 
500,000 Lifeline subscribers on Puerto Rico who rely on the program to 
help rebuild their lives in the aftermath of a devastating storm. There 
are 2 million elderly across the country who count on Lifeline to stay 
connected, stay healthy, and stay safe. In addition, many victims of 
domestic abuse and homeless youth rely on the program.
    While I support efforts to update and modernize Lifeline, I believe 
that the proposed reforms to this program are cruel. They would 
dismantle the program with a cavalier disregard for the communities 
that depend on this service--including veterans. For this reason, a 
wide range of organizations, including the National Association of 
American Veterans and AARP have expressed serious concern with the 
agency's proposal.

    Question 2. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board recently 
praised Chairman Pai's decision to challenge the Sinclair-Tribune 
merger, stating that ``the FCC Chairman follows the law in stopping a 
merger.'' The editorial concluded by saying ``it's up to Congress to 
change broadcast ownership restrictions.'' Do you agree that only 
Congress has the authority to change broadcast ownership restrictions, 
like the national television ownership cap.
    Answer. Yes, I believe that Congress is best-suited to make changes 
to the national television ownership cap.

    Question 3. A December 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explores 
gutting one of the last few remaining rules protecting consumers from 
massive consolidation in media: the media ownership cap. Didn't 
Congress--through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004--very 
clearly instruct the FCC to set this cap at 39 percent? What authority 
would the FCC now have to change this cap?
    Answer. Yes, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 
Congress clearly instructed the FCC to set this cap at 39 percent.

    Question 4. Prior to repeal of net neutrality, several public 
interest organizations warned that we would see small changes first, 
such as imposing additional fees for high definition video, as ISPs 
tested the waters to see what they could get away with. Public 
Knowledge's Harold Feld testified to the Maryland Senate in march that 
``primary broadband providers will take advantage of this to find new 
ways to charge customers if they want to get high quality service.'' 
Since then, Comcast and Verizon have begun to throttle mobile video for 
certain data plans unless consumers upgraded to more expensive 
services. Is the Commission looking at these practices under the 
transparency requirements in its 2017 rules?
    Answer. No, not to my knowledge.

    Question 5. If the FCC has concerns about any of these practices 
what, if anything, can it do about them under the 2017 rules?
    Answer. So long as a broadband provider accurately describes its 
practices in the fine print, consumers and this agency have little 
recourse.

    Question 6. In May 2018, the New York Times disclosed that the big 
four mobile providers were allowing the company LocationSmart direct 
access to the real-time location of their customers for tracking and 
advertisers. The LocationSmart example is demonstrative of how much the 
broadband and mobile companies know about our daily lives. Just a few 
companies occupy a unique position as the gatekeeper--to watch our 
movements and our borrowing history, often without our consent.
    Do consumers benefit from their broadband companies being able to 
track and sell their browsing history?
    Answer. For any benefit to occur, it is imperative that consumers 
clearly consent before broadband companies use and sell this 
information.

    Question 7. Is allowing broadband companies to sell our browsing 
history necessary toward building out faster networks?
    Answer. No, I do not believe it is necessary.

    Question 8. Without the broadband privacy rules, do consumers have 
any meaningful recourse protect their browsing history from being used 
or shared by broadband providers?
    Answer. No.

    Question 9. Do you agree with me that Congress needs to pass 
comprehensive privacy legislation to protect the privacy of broadband 
subscribers?
    Answer. Yes, comprehensive privacy legislation would be one way to 
protect the privacy of broadband consumers.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. The Commission is currently considering a forbearance 
petition to limit protections ensuring incumbent Local Exchange 
Carriers provide competing telecommunications carriers access to their 
networks at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions if there is not 
sufficient competition in the market. Will the Commission take into 
consideration the special circumstances of how Hurricane Maria 
devastated the local telecommunications infrastructure as it considers 
this proposal?
    Answer. I believe that the Federal Communications Commission should 
take these special circumstances into account.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. What is your view on what a meaningful tribal 
consultation should look like?
    Answer. The Federal Communications Commission has a duty to consult 
with tribes before implementing any regulation or policy that will 
significantly or uniquely affect tribal governments, their land, or 
their resources. This responsibility it memorialized in the FCC Policy 
Statement on Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with 
Indian Tribes.
    It is essential that the agency honor this Policy Statement in all 
of its proceedings and efforts. To this end, I believe successful 
consultation is a two-way exchange of information, a willingness to 
listen, and an attempt to understand all stakeholders with interest in 
the matter before the agency. It also requires a genuine effort to 
reach consensus or develop approaches that represent a fair compromise. 
However, simply listing ever minor contact the FCC has had with Tribal 
authorities in a proceeding does not reflect meaningful consultation--
especially when not a single Tribe expresses support for the action 
taken.
    To ensure meaningful consultation going forward, the FCC should 
update the Policy Statement to standardize outreach in a manner 
consistent with the Federal trust responsibility. This document has not 
been revisited since it was adopted more than a decade and a half ago. 
I believe clarifying expectations for outreach and engagement in this 
document would help ensure more meaningful tribal consolation going 
forward.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. The Universal Service Fund (USF) High-Cost program is a 
crucial component to broadband deployment in rural areas. The FCC 
helped to address the USF budget shortfalls in the last Fiscal Year, 
but the program remains underfunded. The uncertainty of a budget 
control that has gone from approximately 4 percent to more than 15 
percent in two years undermines investment opportunities and may 
prevent rural areas from getting the broadband they deserve. The 
Alternative Cost Model is also underfunded, resulting in fewer 
locations being served. Will you commit to working with your fellow 
commissioners to ensure that both parts of the UFS High-Cost program 
that supports voice and broadband are each sufficiently funded and not 
subject to continuing shortfalls?
    Answer. Yes, I commit to working with my colleagues on funding 
issues related to the high-cost universal service program.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                      to Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. A recent Inspector General report recently concluded, 
despite the FCC's repeated claims that comment period for the net 
neutrality repeal was the subject of a cyberattack, that it was 
actually just the comment system being overwhelmed with public outcry 
against the rollback of net neutrality.
    When did you first learn that the attack may not have happened?
    Answer. I have long harbored serious doubts about the alleged DDoS 
attack. These doubts were confirmed by the Federal Communications 
Commission's report from the Inspector General.

    Question 2. Did you believe there was a better way for the FCC to 
respond to the situation than how it did?
    Answer. Yes. The agency should have been transparent and honest 
about the comment system problems from the very start.

    Question 3. The Federal Government has been involved in helping 
make the case for private companies to bring broadband to underserved 
areas for a long time. It's crucial that every Federal dollar that goes 
to these communities is well spent, not duplicative, and gets sent out 
in a timely manner.
    What are some of the challenges for better coordinating Federal 
resources and efforts to further deploy high-speed broadband?
    Answer. There are a number of Federal resources dedicated to the 
deployment of high-speed broadband. The FCC is responsible for the 
high-cost universal service program, which distributes over $4 billion 
each year to promote to promote and maintain modern communications 
networks in rural areas. In addition, the FCC is responsible for 
wireless licenses and can require build-out of spectrum secured via 
auction. These requirements can be designed to increase the likelihood 
that deployment takes place in both urban and rural communities. 
Meanwhile, the Rural Utilities Service at the Department of Agriculture 
has a mix of loan and grant programs for underserved rural areas. These 
include Community Connect Grants, Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Grants, Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantees, and 
Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Guarantees. In addition, 
the Rural Utilities Service has been appropriated funding for a 
Broadband Pilot Program. Taken together, these programs at the 
Department of Agriculture provide hundreds of millions of dollars in 
additional resources to extend the reach of broadband.
    Despite all of these programs and efforts, the FCC's latest data 
demonstrate that 19 million Americans in rural communities remain 
unserved by broadband. This is unacceptable. With so many Federal 
resources dedicated to deployment, it is imperative that we improve 
coordination so that our limited dollars can do more. Agencies across 
the Federal Government should work hand in hand when it comes to the 
distribution of these funds and the areas to which those funds are 
targeted. To this end, I believe the FCC should enter into a Memorandum 
of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and any other 
Federal entities responsible for infrastructure programs that expressly 
support broadband--in order to ensure that efforts are not in conflict 
with one another or unnecessarily duplicated.

    Question 4. Do you consider current tools, such as working groups, 
sufficient to improve efforts to curb overbuilding and duplication?
    Answer. Across the government, there should be a premium to devote 
scarce resources to first bringing service to rural areas where it does 
not exist. To this end, working groups should be a helpful tool, 
however, additional efforts should always be encouraged to facilitate 
cost-effective policy solutions. This includes developing a more 
accurate and timely picture of where broadband service exists as part 
of an improved national broadband map.

    Question 5. Robocalls are one of the top complaints received by the 
FCC. Protecting consumers from these calls will take technological as 
well as enforcement efforts.
    Do you believe enforcement efforts could offer further deterrence 
for people making illegal calls?
    Answer. Yes. In addition, to increase deterrence Congress may wish 
to authorize higher fines under the Communications Act for persistent 
and high-volume robocall fraud.

    Question 6. Are fines enough to crack down on the worst offenders?
    Answer. No. The FCC and other authorities need to do more to combat 
the robocalling epidemic. These efforts should include using every 
enforcement tool at our disposal. However, it is also important that 
the FCC set smart policies, consistent with the law, that constrain 
unlawful robocalls.

    Question 7. As you are aware, the Trump administration has 
suggested that nationalizing the 5G network could be necessary for 
national security.
    Do you believe that the private sector is best positioned to move 
forward with 5G?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 8. Nevada is one of the Nation's leaders in school 
broadband thanks to E-Rate modernization. Since the modernization order 
in 2014, we have seen 100 percent of our students reach the FCC's short 
term bandwidth goal--this is quiet eh achievement in some of our very 
rural counties. But there is still work to be done--in our state alone, 
over 3,400 Native American students still lack scalable broadband 
infrastructure. This year, Nevada school districts have requested E-
rate funding to bring nearly $1.5 million in new fiber ``special 
construction'' to schools. Our state leaders have established an E-rate 
matching fund to accelerate these fiber builds as well. However, 
funding decisions have been delayed, leading to uncertainty.
    Can you commit to working with my office and Congress to provide 
certainty to E-rate funding decisions to help bring broadband to our 
most rural areas?
    Answer. Yes, absolutely.

    Question 9. The FCC has moved quickly to revise child television 
rules under the Children's Television Act, arguing that new modes of 
watching require updating the rules. In the proposed rulemaking, you 
propose to eliminate the requirement that broadcasters air their 
programming on main program steams, which would allow them to move to 
multicast streams. Low income kids really rely on this programming for 
education, so it's very important we get this right.
    Do you believe the FCC should first issue a Notice of Inquiry, to 
fully examine the issue rather than move forward on such an aggressive 
timeline?
    Answer. Yes. I asked my colleagues to convert the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to a Notice of Inquiry so that the FCC could 
collect data to fully understand the impact of changing these rules on 
kids and their families. However, they did not accept my request. For 
this reason, I dissented.

    Question 10. Multicast streams have 10 percent of the viewership as 
a main feed, do you think a move to these streams will be hugely 
disruptive to the current system?
    Answer. I am concerned about the proposed movement of children's 
television content from primary programming to multicast streams. Many 
multicast streams reach only limited audiences. As a result, such a 
change could undercut the availability of quality educational and 
informational programming for children.

    Question 11. One exciting technology that will be enabled as we 
move to the Internet of things and 5G is wearable technology and the 
possibilities for better health outcomes, including for rural 
Americans.
    Can you point to an example you have seen about how this technology 
is being deployed in a way that improves people's lives?
    Answer. The United States is the only industrialized economy with 
an increasing rate of maternal mortality. This is a trend that merits 
serious study. One possible cause is the decline in obstetric care in 
rural communities. During the past decade and a half, 179 counties have 
ceased to provide obstetric care in their hospitals. As a result, 54 
percent of rural counties no long have a hospital with a maternity 
ward.
    In practice, this means that many women who are pregnant in rural 
communities drive long distances for routine care in advance of giving 
birth. Regular meetings with health care professionals to monitor 
everything from blood pressure to blood sugar may involve a full day 
off from work, forgone wages, and special arrangements for childcare. 
Yet failure to monitor the small things during pregnancy can have big 
consequences, resulting in serious problems in childbirth.
    Technology may be able to assist with these challenges. For 
example, the Mayo Clinic has tested a program that made available 
handheld fetal heart rate monitors and a text-based smartphone 
application to communicate at regular intervals with health care 
professionals. Initial results have been promising, with researchers 
concluding that this approach could result in a more desirable and 
participatory experience for expectant mothers while also providing 
high-quality care at low cost.

    Question 12. How can Congress help assist the FCC in ensuring the 
deployment of this technology in the future?
    Answer. Your August 27, 2018 letter to the FCC encouraging the 
agency to explore the intersection between new telemedicine technology 
and challenges specific to maternal health care was extremely helpful. 
It is my hope that Congress will continue to press the agency to 
address this subject and seek the assistance of others across 
government, including the Department of Health and Human Services, to 
work collaboratively on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question. I understand the FCC is working on a rule to assess 
whether to establish a program under which spectrum licensee may 
partition and sublease the license to an unaffiliated carrier to serve 
a rural area. What is the status of that rule? What other steps are you 
taking to make sure rural carriers that want to buildout in rural 
America have access to spectrum?
    Answer. I am concerned that too many rural communities may be left 
behind as more urban areas race to newer and newer wireless 
technologies. To prevent this from happening the Federal Communications 
Commission needs to get creative. To this end, it must consider options 
beyond using its universal service programs to support wireless 
deployment--and explore how licensing policy can facilitate greater 
build out in rural America.
    To this end, in the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress directed the FCC to 
initiate a rulemaking to determine how and whether to develop a system 
permitting exclusive-use licensees to partition or disaggregate 
licenses through either secondary market sales or leases. Such an 
effort may make it possible to increase the availability of unused 
spectrum to unaffiliated, small carriers serving rural areas. This idea 
merits serious consideration and I support kicking off this proceeding 
expeditiously. The decision regarding when to do so, however, rests 
with the Chairman of the agency.
    In addition, the FCC should explore other options for delivering 
wireless service to rural communities. These include identifying how 
unlicensed spectrum, including white spaces, may be used to bridge the 
wireless divide between urban and rural areas. The agency should also 
consider how smaller license sizes in spectrum auctions may make it 
possible for more rural entities to bid and offer service. Furthermore, 
the FCC should consider how geographic-based buildout obligations 
(instead of population-based standards) may be used to extend the reach 
of wireless service to more remote communities.

                                  [all]