U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–469 PDF 2015

#CommActUpdate: PERSPECTIVES FROM FORMER 

FCC CHAIRMEN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 15, 2014 

Serial No. 113–112 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 7 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES

Richard E. Wiley, Chairman, Wiley Rein LLP ...................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 77 

Reed E. Hundt, Principal, REH Advisors .............................................................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Michael K. Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cable 

and Telecommunications Association ................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Michael J. Copps, Special Advisor, Media and Democracy Reform Initiative, 

Common Cause ..................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

(1) 

#CommActUpdate: PERSPECTIVES FROM 

FORMER FCC CHAIRMEN 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Terry, Rogers, Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, 

Pompeo, Kinzinger, Long, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, 

Matsui, Braley, Lujan, Dingell, Pallone, Matheson, and Waxman 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum, Senior 

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Andy 

Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Gene Fullano, FCC Detailee; 

Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; 

Sean Hayes, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Grace Koh, 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; Gib Mullan, Chief 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; David Redl, Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative 

Coordinator; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jessica 

Wilkerson, Staff Assistant; Shawn Chang, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy, Professional Staff 

Member; Kara van Stralen, Policy Analyst; and Patrick Donovan, 

FCC Detailee. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I will call to order the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and thank our witnesses for being here 

for this first of what will be many hearings as we look to update 

the Communications Act. Few sectors of our economy are equal to 

the communications and technology sector when it comes to innovation, investment in the American economy, and job creation. In 

these tough economic times, we as policy makers should be committed to fostering this critical sector of the economy. Yet, the laws 

that regulate the industry are outdated at best, and some are affirmatively damaging. This is why Chairman Upton and I, along 

with members of this subcommittee, have decided to undertake the 

difficult task of updating the Communications Act of 1934. In the 

2 

eight decades since its passage, Congress’ have come and gone. 

Some have even made substantial though targeted changes to the 

law. But none have undertaken to rethink the act for the environment of convergence and innovation in which we live today. It is 

time for our laws to reflect our modern technological landscape, one 

grounded in the networks and services of our past and driven by 

our IP and mobile future. 

Just yesterday, the DC Circuit issued its decision in the net neutrality case, striking down the rules ordered by the Federal Communications Commission. I for one was pleased to see the Court remove the Government from the business of making management 

judgments and give providers the freedom to make decisions that 

are pro-competitive and pro-consumer. While this decision benefits 

consumers and providers alike by keeping the Internet free from 

Government interference, the rationale highlights the ongoing confusion regarding regulation of different services. This is yet another 

example of why it is vital that we take a hard look at the laws in 

this space and reconcile them with the realities of technology. The 

answer is not to subject new technology to outdated regulations, 

but rather to craft laws appropriate to innovative services and platforms. 

As we embark on this effort, it should come as no surprise that 

I am focused on ensuring that we engage in a transparent and collaborative process, not just with our colleagues here in the Congress but also with the many stakeholders outside of these halls. 

All we want is a dialogue. 

Last week, the committee released the first of what will be a series of white papers seeking input from the public. And I hope that 

interested parties will take the opportunity to make their voices 

heard to us. 

Today’s witnesses provide a unique and valuable perspective on 

the Communications Act. As Chairmen of the agency tasked with 

carrying out Congress’ will in implementing the act, the four witnesses today have had a front row seat to witness the act in the 

real world to see where it works and where it doesn’t. These Chairmen have varied experiences and viewpoints that in many ways 

represent the evolution of modern communications. 

When Chairman Wiley led the agency, telephone service was a 

Government-regulated monopoly. Consumers got their news from 

broadcast television and print newspapers, and the Internet was 

still years away. Sixteen years later, when Reed Hundt took the 

reins, the Internet was coming into full force and mobility was beginning to take off. Chairman Powell’s tenure saw the convergence 

of services towards the bundled offerings we see today, as well as 

the deployment of broadband to Americans. And in the 4 years 

since Michael Copps served as Acting Chairman, there have been 

dramatic changes to the way we communicate and the technology 

that powers our lives. For example, the title of today’s hearing contains a hashtag. Twitter, then with no vowels in its name, had yet 

to be ‘‘discovered’’ by—at South by Southwest. 

Neither we nor the august panel before us can predict the future 

and what technological changes it will bring. But by learning the 

lessons of the past, we can do our best to create a legal and reguVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
3 

latory environment that will foster innovation and competition, encourage consumer choice and optimum services. 

So again, I want to thank you for—to our witnesses for this impressive panel. We look forward to hearing your testimony. And we 

appreciate your public service. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Few sectors of our economy are equal to the communications and technology sector when it comes to innovation, investment in the American economy, and job creation. In these tough economic times, we as policymakers should be committed to 

fostering this critical sector of the economy. Yet the laws that regulate this industry 

are outdated at best and some are affirmatively damaging. This is why Chairman 

Upton and I, along with the members of this subcommittee, have decided to undertake the difficult task of updating the Communications Act of 1934. In the eight decades since its passage, Congresses have come and gone. Some have even made substantial, though targeted, changes to the law. But none have undertaken to rethink 

the act for the environment of convergence and innovation we live in today. It’s time 

for our laws to reflect our modern technological landscape—one grounded in the networks and services of our past and driven by our IP and mobile future. 

Just yesterday, the DC Circuit issued its decision in the net neutrality case, striking down the rules ordered by the FCC. I was pleased to see the court remove the 

Government from the business of making management judgments, and give providers the freedom to make decisions that are pro-competitive and pro-consumer. 

While this decision benefits consumers and providers alike by keeping the Internet free from Government interference, the rationale highlights the ongoing confusion regarding regulation of different services. This is yet another example of why 

it is vital that we take a hard look at the laws in this space and reconcile them 

with the realities of technology. The answer is not to subject new technology to outdated regulations, but rather to craft laws appropriate to innovative services and 

platforms 

As we embark on this effort, it should come as no surprise that I am focused on 

ensuring that we engage in a transparent and collaborative process, not just with 

our colleagues here in Congress, but also with the many stakeholders outside these 

halls. What we want is a dialogue. Last week, the committee released the first of 

a series of white papers seeking input from the public, and I hope that interested 

parties will take the opportunity to make their voices heard. 

Today’s witnesses provide a unique and valuable perspective on the Communications Act. As Chairmen of the agency tasked with carrying out Congress’s will and 

implementing the act, the four witnesses today have had a front row seat to witness 

the act in the real world; to see where it works and where it doesn’t. These Chairmen have varied experiences that in many ways represent the evolution of modern 

communications. When Chairman Wiley led the agency, telephone service was a 

Government-regulated monopoly, consumers got their news from broadcast television and print newspapers, and the Internet was still years away. Sixteen years 

later, when Reed Hundt took the reins, the Internet was coming into full force, and 

mobility was beginning to take off. Chairman Powell’s tenure saw the convergence 

of services towards the bundled offerings we see today, as well as the deployment 

of broadband to Americans. And in the 4 years since Michael Copps served as Acting Chairman, there have been drastic changes to the way we communicate and the 

technology that powers our lives. For example, the title of today’s hearing contains 

a hashtag. Twitter, then with no vowels in its name, had yet to be ‘‘discovered’’ at 

South by Southwest. 

Neither we nor the august panel before us can predict the future and what technological changes it will bring. But by learning the lessons of the past, we can do 

our best to create a legal and regulatory environment that will foster innovation and 

competition, encourage consumer choice, and optimum services. Again, thank you to 

our impressive panel of witnesses today—we look forward to hearing your testimony 

and we appreciate your public service. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I would yield to the vice chair of the 

subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for any opening comments he may have. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you very much to our panel of distinguished witnesses for 

testifying before us today. I appreciate you all being here. 

Since 1996, we have witnessed an unprecedented technological 

evolution in the communications industry. The rapid emergence of 

new and innovative technologies has fostered increased investment 

throughout the industry and the development of a vibrant, competitive communications marketplace. As we move into the future, it 

is important to examine the Communications Act to ensure that 

our public policy continues to encourage this kind of growth and innovation that is essential to fueling our economy. Reforms to current law should reflect the technology we enjoy today and be able 

to adapt to the technology of tomorrow without further Government 

intervention. Our efforts should be dedicated to ensure that the 

laws governing the communications marketplace do not stifle current and future investment, innovation, economic growth and consumer choice in this dynamic and converging digital age of communications. 

I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today. And 

again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Now, I 

turn to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, for her opening comments. Good 

morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you, 

to all of the members and the warmest welcome to each of the witnesses that are at the table. Your combined public service is—really stands as a hallmark of devoted service to our country, but also 

to move the country forward in one of its most important economic 

sectors. So welcome to you. It is wonderful to see all of you at the 

same time at the table. 

With news of the Court’s net neutrality decision, today’s hearing 

I think is a timely opportunity to hear from each one of you who 

have led the expert agency, the FCC. And combined, it represents 

over 4 decades of services. That is nothing short of extraordinary. 

And each of you have had a hand in really I think changing our 

Nation’s communications and technology landscape. So not only 

kudos to you, thank you to you, but a recognition of what each one 

of you accomplished. 

When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it 

was my second term in Congress, my first term on the committee. 

And there were just 11 references to the Internet—the word Internet, and only one mention of broadband across a 128 page bill. 

Many proponents of updating the act have cited this as evidence 

that the act is outdated and unable to keep up with changes in 

technology. 

5 

But as Chairman Wheeler affirmed last week, the Communications Act continues to provide the FCC with ample authority to exercise its role in this new environment. The Court’s decision yesterday I believe furthers this argument by upholding the FCC’s existing authority to oversee broadband services. And I think that is 

very important for consumers across the country. 

I make these points not to discourage the subcommittee’s review 

of the act. I join with the chairman to review this. I think that it 

is a worthy exercise. But rather, we need to ensure that we know 

what problems we are trying to fix before undertaking a multi-year 

examination that include hearings, stakeholder meetings, white papers, and such. 

Since the ’96 act was enacted, hundreds of new entrants of 

emerged, and more than $1.2 trillion has been invested by U.S. 

telecommunications companies. I want this success story to be an 

unending one. And I think that is the goal of everyone on this wonderful subcommittee. 

So to that end, my goal throughout the subcommittee’s review 

will be to see more competition, greater consumer choice and more 

innovation. I am so proud, as the Chairman was making his opening remarks, that so much of this has been born in my congressional district. And so, innovation, innovation, innovation. And 

these goals were imbedded in the ’96 Act, and they remain just as 

important today. 

At the same time, our process of examining the Communications 

Act should not derail, in my view, a more immediate update of our 

video laws, a view shared by a majority of the witnesses at a September subcommittee hearing. Recurring TV blackouts, coupled 

with the rising cost of broadcast television programming with limited choice has left consumers frustrated and looking to Congress 

and the FCC for answers. I believe that working together on a bipartisan basis, we can make this happen in 2014. 

So, Chairman Walden, thank you for holding today’s hearing on 

the Communications Act. I welcome the review, and I look forward 

to hearing the unique insights from the top experts from our country who have given so much in terms of their leadership in leading 

the expert agency. And with that, I have 34 seconds to yield to 

Congresswoman Matsui. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Ranking Member. And I want to welcome all the former Chairmen. We welcome you here for your ideas 

and experience that provide a basis for discussions moving forward. 

As technology evolves, I believe it is important that we consider 

appropriate updates to the Communications Act that with goals 

that promote competition and innovation in the marketplace. To 

that point, I am pleased that yesterday, the DC Circuit affirmed 

the FCC’s authority to oversee broadband services. In my opinion, 

that was the crux of the debate, and the FCC’s argument prevailed 

on the question of authority over broadband. The FCC will need to 

exert its authority to ensure now that all Americans have access 

6 

to a free and open Internet. A competitive marketplace with checks 

and balances will fare well for all Americans. 

I look forward to the hearing today, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished member from Michigan, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for opening 

comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last month, you and I announced our plans for a comprehensive 

update to the Communications Act of 1934. And the changes in 

technology since the last update in ’96 have been dramatic, and existing laws have failed to keep pace with the vibrant and dynamic 

telecommunication industry. 

Communications and technology sectors have consistently been 

areas of American leadership, innovated—innovation and job creation, certainly. But the Communications Act is showing its age, 

and our continued international leadership is indeed at stake. 

Yesterday’s net neutrality decision, while a victory for consumers 

in the economy, illustrates the uncertainty flowing from the current statutory scheme and the need for this action. It is time to revamp these laws to reflect the new competitive landscape and 

changing consumer expectations. And as we begin the open process 

leading to a Comm Act Update, we are looking for input—yes, we 

are—from all of the stakeholders in the communications and technology world. Where better to start than with our distinguished 

panel of former leaders of the FCC? These leaders served during 

diverse times in the evolution of the communications sector, and 

they have seen the market operate under the strong hand of the 

U.S. Government and the challenges with them divorcing the Government from its heavy regulation of the communications sector 

from times before. They have seen cable grow from its stages of 

struggling startup. They have seen satellite services succeed in 

bringing competition to the video market, and failed to find success 

as a competitor to mobile phone service. And they have seen the 

Internet grow from a DOD project to a tool for research universities, and now as the commercial economic force that we know 

today. 

Throughout the many nuanced iterations of Communications Act, 

today’s witnesses have firsthand seen the act at its finest, and also 

when its inability to keep pace with technological innovation has 

impacted those vital economic issues. So I want to thank the witnesses for taking their time to share their experiences with us. We 

value indeed their expertise and welcome their thoughts on how we 

can ensure the Communications Act fosters our communications 

and technology sectors well into this century. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

In December, Chairman Walden and I announced our plans for a comprehensive 

update to the Communications Act of 1934. The changes in technology since the last 

7 

update in 1996 have been dramatic and existing laws have failed to keep pace with 

the vibrant and dynamic telecommunications industry. The communications and 

technology sectors have consistently been areas of American leadership, innovation, 

and job creation, but the Communications Act is showing its age and our continued 

international leadership is at stake. Yesterday’s net neutrality decision, while a victory for consumers and the economy, illustrates the uncertainty flowing from the 

current statutory scheme and the need for this action. It’s time to revamp these 

laws to reflect the new competitive landscape and changing consumer expectations. 

As we begin the open process leading to a #CommActUpdate, we are looking for 

input from all of the stakeholders in the communications and technology world. 

Where better to start than with our distinguished panel of former leaders of the 

Federal Communications Commission. These leaders served during diverse times in 

the evolution of the communications sector. They’ve seen the market operate under 

the strong hand of the U.S. Government and the challenges with then divorcing the 

Government from its heavy regulation of the communications sector. They’ve seen 

cable grow from its days as a struggling startup. They’ve seen satellite services succeed in bringing competition to the video market—and fail to find success as a competitor to mobile phone service. And, they’ve seen the Internet grow from a DoD 

project, to a tool for research universities, and now as the commercial economic force 

that we know today. Throughout the many nuanced iterations of the Communications Act, today’s witnesses have seen firsthand the act at its finest and also when 

its inability to keep pace with technological innovation has impacted these vital economic sectors. 

I thank the witnesses for taking time to share their experiences with us. We value 

their expertise and welcome their thoughts on how we can ensure that the Communications Act fosters our communications and technology sectors well into the 21st 

century. 

Mr. UPTON. And I yield the balance of my time to the vice chair. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I had 

my iPhone in my hand, I would hit re-tweet for everything that he 

has just said. 

We do appreciate that you all are here. We do want to take advantage of the perspective that you have had. Think about what 

has happened in the past 17 years since ’96 and the changes that 

we have seen, not only in how we communicate but the rapidity of 

those communications and entertainment and how we access that, 

how we take it with us, how we consume it. So we know that the 

pace of change means that we have to be very judicious and careful 

as we look at a rewrite. We know that there are issues that are 

going to come on the plate that we are going to have to discuss also 

as we look at not only the telecom rewrite but at the use of the 

virtual space, privacy, data security, the way the virtual marketplace is used and the way our constituents want to have a toolbox 

to protect, as I call it, their virtual you online. 

So we appreciate your time, your willingness to be with us this 

morning. And I yield back to the chairman of the committee. 

Mr. UPTON. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, will use 

some of that time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 

served on this committee since 1986. I have served with three of 

the four former Chairmen. Mr. Wiley preceded me. We have had 

8 

some agreements. We have had some disagreements. So it is good 

to have all four of you gentlemen here today. 

When I was chairman of the full committee back in 1996, my 

committee introduced a bill we call the COPE Bill, the Communication Opportunity Promotion Enhancement Act of 2006. It dealt 

with national franchising, net neutrality, public educational and 

governmental access, E911 and what we now call VOIP. It passed 

this committee 42 to 12, and passed the House 321 to 101. But it 

didn’t come up for a vote in the Senate. I voted for the Telecommunications Act of ’96 and the Cable Act of ’92. And I hope this 

year to get to vote for another major bill that comes from the leadership of Mr. Upton, Mr. Walden, Mr. Waxman and Ms. Eshoo. 

This is a good thing to be doing. And we are going to get some good 

information from you gentleman. And we appreciate you being 

here. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I appreciate his 

comments. We will now go to the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman, for opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your convening this morning’s hearing and launching the subcommittee’s examination of potential updates to the Communications Act. And I want to thank our distinguished panel for being 

here to help us think through these ideas. And I think I have been 

in Congress during the time that all of you have been the heads 

of the FCC. 

Technology has changed at a blistering pace since the enactment 

of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 18 years ago. The communications and technology industries are a thriving sector of our economy. As broadband plays an increasingly central role in the daily 

life of our Nation, having a strong Federal Communications Commission to oversee its successful growth is more critical than ever. 

Yesterday, the DC Court affirmed what never should have been 

in question. The FCC is the expert agency charged by Congress to 

oversee broadband networks. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that 

the FCC has broad, flexible authority to regulate in the broadband 

and digital age. However, while the Court recognized the FCC’s jurisdiction, it also overturned the specific rules the Commission had 

adopted in the open Internet order. I believe the FCC now has an 

opportunity, as well as a duty, to exercise the authority the Court 

recognized yesterday and reinstate the no-blocking and nondiscrimination rules. An open Internet is critical to the continuing 

growth of this economic sector. 

The Internet is a vibrant platform for commerce, innovation and 

free speech. Having enforceable, open Internet rules of the road 

means that consumers are in control of their experience online. I 

am pleased that Chairman Wheeler has stated his intention to expeditiously adopt a new set of rules following the Court’s guidance. 

And I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues in Congress to make sure these pro-consumer, pro-competiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
9 

tion policies will continue to guide the expansion of broadband 

services. 

This subcommittee is now embarking on a journey to update the 

Communications Act. And regardless of the advancements in network architecture or transmission protocol, the principles of competition and consumer protection remain as sound today as they 

were in 1934. I know Chairman Wheeler recognizes the importance 

of these values and the action of the FCC that plans to take later 

this month to initiate technology transitions trials reflects that. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what Congress can do to help the FCC meet the challenges of the broadband 

and digital age. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to yield the balance of my 

time to Mr. Doyle. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for holding this hearing. And thank you to this distinguished panel. 

It is good to see all of you here in front of the committee. 

I just want to briefly concur with Mr. Waxman in light of yesterday’s decision by the DC Circuit that I want to encourage Chairman Wheeler to work quickly to ensure that the Internet remains 

an open platform for innovation, competition and economic growth, 

which the FCC now clearly has the authority to do. I look forward 

to working with the Commission and the stakeholders to put in 

place a robust framework that sustains an open Internet. 

Mr. Waxman, I thank you for your courtesy. And I would yield 

back to you if someone else needs some more time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Would—like a minute? If not, I yield it back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

We will proceed now to our distinguished panel of witnesses and 

begin with Chairman Richard Wiley who was nominated by President Nixon and served as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1970 to 1977. As Chairman for most of the 

’70s, Chairman Wiley’s tenure at the Commission predates many of 

the major changes in the communications sector. Chairman, we are 

glad to have you here today. Pull that microphone up close, and 

then we are good to go. Thank you for being here. You need to push 

the button on the microphone there one time. 

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD E. WILEY, CHAIRMAN, WILEY REIN 

LLP; REED E. HUNDT, PRINCIPAL, REH ADVISORS; MICHAEL 

K. POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL J. COPPS, SPECIAL ADVISOR, MEDIA 

AND DEMOCRACY REFORM INITIATIVE, COMMON CAUSE 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. WILEY 

Mr. WILEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden, Ranking 

Member Eshoo and other subcommittee members. Thank you for 

the invitation to testify today. 

10 

While I know it is not going to be self-evident due to my youthful 

appearance, I have been involved for nearly 45 years in Federal 

telecommunications policy. And from my own standpoint, what has 

occurred during that period is simply amazing. When I was at the 

FCC in the 1970s, the average American enjoyed just three broadcast television stations, and one local and long distance telephone 

provider. And the Department of Defense had just begun to explore 

a revolutionary computer project known as ARPANET. But today, 

our citizens have access to hundreds of video channels delivered by 

countless providers and transmission technologies, dozens of voice 

and tech services, numerous wire line and wireless companies. 

And, of course, ARPANET has morphed into the Internet, which 

has become a universal medium of communications. 

Interestingly, the bulk of this stunning technological metamorphosis has emerged since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was 

passed. That legislation significantly altered the rules governing 

virtually every aspect of communications. The act’s purpose was as 

simple in theory as it was complex in implementation. That is to 

provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate the deployment of advanced services 

and open all telecom markets to competition. 

To this end, the statute sought to eliminate cross-platform barriers and to encourage competition among service suppliers, previously treated as monopolies or oligopolies. Now to the credit of 

the drafters, the 1996 act helped to bring about the vibrant competition that consumers enjoy today in a variety of communication 

sectors, be it voice, data or video. Whether delivered by twisted 

pair coaxial cable, optical fiber or the electromagnetic spectrum, 

myriad providers today are offering their customers suites of advanced services in a marketplace that really could not have been 

imagined 18 years ago. 

In my view, where the statute and indeed FCC implementation 

has succeeded is when a lighter regulatory touch has been applied 

to markets such as mobile and information services. The result has 

been that these sectors have thrived. For example, in the robustly 

competitive wireless marketplace, there are now more wireless subscriber connections than the population of the United States. Just 

think of that. And mobile broadband has spawned an entirely new 

industry. Mobile apps, one that is estimated to employ more than 

500,000 developers and related jobs, and contributes billions to the 

economy. 

A similar success story is unfolding in the delivery of digital content where seemingly unlimited video streaming Web sites have developed to compete against traditional MVPDs offering an eagerly 

waiting public new ways to consume video. This marketplace, I 

would suggest, is emerging because of innovation and competition 

and not because of Government regulation. 

Conversely, where the Government has been less effective in 

maintaining is in maintaining highly restrictive regulations on traditional industries like, for example, wire line telephony and broadcasting. The end result has been to disadvantage these sectors, 

even though they may be providing services that are often equivalent to those offered by their less regulated competitors. In the developing IP centric world, all types of providers should be able to 

11 

market all kinds of services, employing the same computer oriented 

language that defines digital communications. 

And yet, the 1996 act continues to regulate communications markets differently based on the conduit used to reach the customer, 

as well as the geographic location where traffic originates and terminates. Now, the underlying problem is not a failure of Congressional or FCC vision. Instead, the reality is that the Government 

has great difficulty in writing laws or promulgating regulations 

that can keep pace with advancing technology, and especially so in 

a dynamic and ever changing industry like communications. 

Thus, I would suggest that the objective of a statutory rewrite 

should not be to legislate premised on the current state of the marketplace, or even on predictions of what it may look like in the future. Instead, Congress may want to consider a flexible and technologically neutral framework that will be capable of adapting to 

technical invention and innovation, whatever that may prove to be. 

In this regard, let me close by setting forth a few principles that 

might guide the drafting of a new statue. First, the industry’s silos 

embedded in the 1996 act should be abolished. And, instead, functionally equivalent services should be treated in the same manner, 

regardless of who provides them or how they are delivered to consumers. Second, the traditional dichotomy between interstate and 

intrastate services should be eliminated, because regulatory classifications based on geographical end points no longer makes sense 

in an IP environment. Third, legislation should be focused on maintaining consumer protection and public safety regulations. Conversely, economic regulations should be considered in the case of 

noncompetitive markets or in the event of demonstrated market 

failure. And, fourth, new regulations should be instituted with a 

lighter touch, as I said, accompanied by sunset provisions so that 

the rational for continued Government intervention can be reviewed on a regular basis. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiley follows:] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Wiley, thank you very much for your 

learned comments. We appreciate your counsel. We go now to 

Chairman Reed Hundt who was nominated by President Clinton 

and served as Chairman of the FCC from 1993 to 1997. Chairman 

Hundt’s tenure at the Commission saw the passage of the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation of ’93, which granted the Commission the authority to auction spectrum licenses, and the Telecommunications 

Act of ’96. So, Chairman Hundt, thanks for joining us today. We 

look forward to your comments as well. 

STATEMENT OF REED E. HUNDT 

Mr. HUNDT. Thank you, Chairman Walden. Thank you for inviting me. Good morning to Ranking Member Eshoo and to all the 

other members of this distinguished committee. I am very proud 

that many of you have become lifelong friends. And it is a pleasure 

to be here with you. 

I also want to thank the DC Circuit for giving me a flashback 

to law school so that I was late last night scrambling to read the 

key case right before this class. I have a feeling I am not the only 

person here who did that, but I also want to note I didn’t have any 

staff or classmates. So I apologize if I haven’t read it correctly, but 

I thought that I would throw away my remarks and, for whatever 

it is worth, offer you my reading of the case. 

In my view, the DC Circuit has written, first, a very, very wellreasoned and very important case. There is no question that this 

reflects that Circuit’s experience in these topic areas, and that they 

have brought that experience to bear in a bipartisan way to express 

a view about how the United States looked to grant the authority 

to create the legal culture that governs broadband. 

What have they said? I believe the Court has vindicated the wisdom of Congress in the 1996 act. Specifically, the Court has said 

that when Congress, in that act in Section 706 conveyed to its expert agency the ‘‘authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure.’’ In doing that, according to 

the DC Circuit, Congress said the FCC, you will be our instrument 

for creating a flexible and a supple legal culture that will change 

over time as the market changes and as technology changes, but 

that can always be used to protect competition, to protect consumers and, fundamentally, to make sure that absolutely everybody in America is participating in the common medium of the 

Internet, and that absolutely everybody in America is able to use 

it to publish their views and to review all the views of everyone 

else. Not all those words are in this decision, but almost all those 

words are actually in this decision. 

Section 1706, of course, is just one part of the 1996 act. But I 

know I don’t have to remind many of the Members here. Maybe I 

don’t have to remind any of the Members here. That was passed 

by a very large bipartisan vote in the Senate and in the House. We 

all were—those of us who were in public service then remember 

being in the Library of Congress when President Clinton, the 

Democratic President, passed this law that was passed by a Senate 

controlled by the Republicans and a House controlled by the Republicans. And all came together and said we have a common vision. And that is that there will be networks. We did not know 

17 

technically speaking what they would all exactly look like, but that 

there would be networks that would connect all of us to each other 

and to all of the resources of information that in fact would be utilized for entrepreneurship, for innovation and for learning. And I 

have to say, this is what has happened. 

Now, no one here thinks the Government built these networks. 

No one thinks the FCC built these networks. But everyone should 

know that the legal culture that was created by Congress and its 

expert agency, through the terms of Republican and Democratic 

Chairs, the legal culture is the legal culture that is regarded all 

around the world as the absolute best legal culture for governing 

the Internet. Any one of us knows 12 things that we think should 

be done differently, or maybe two dozen. But we ought to recognize, 

just for a little while, that we as a country should pat our country 

on the back and say, for the last 20 years, the legal culture that 

has been created that has governed the Internet has really created 

the best possible environment for innovation, for entrepreneurship 

for consumers. That is what has actually happened. And this Court 

has said and that law still exists. This Court has said, already, 

Congress has enacted the law that gives the FCC the authority to 

protect competition and consumers. And that authority, according 

to this Court, lies in Section 1706. And the Court also said that 

Congress can—that the FCC can, if it choose, classify broadband as 

a common carrier. It could use either of these methods. It could use 

one of these methods. But it can accomplish the goals that are stated in the act and that have repeatedly been restated by this Congress. 

The only thing the Court said is if you are going to pass rules 

that look like common carrier rules, and you are going to classify 

broadband as an information service, then you are going to be creating a contradiction that we won’t permit. You can’t call it an information service and then pass rules that look like common carrier rules, because if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So that 

is why it was sent back. 

I read a lot of articles that said that this was a victory for 

Verizon. This is a victory for Congress. If it was a victory for 

Verizon, it was a Pyrrhic victory. It was the most perfect example 

of a Pyrrhic victory since Pyrrhus. So I just want to compliment 

this Congress on passing a supple law that has worked well, and 

this Court has just said still will permit you to achieve your goals 

through the expert agency. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hundt follows:] 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

VOICE. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Chairman Hundt. We appreciate your 

comments and your staying up all night to cram for our hearing. 

We will now turn to Chairman Michael Powell who was nominated 

by George W. Bush and served as Chairman of the FCC from 2001 

to 2005. During Mr. Powell’s Chairmanship, they saw a significant 

increase in the deployment of broadband to American homes, as 

well as convergence of services toward the bundles of services that 

are common today, among many other things. Chairman Powell, 

thank you for joining us today. And please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL 

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a former Chairman, I am happy to be sitting around with a bunch of these other 

Chairmen offering, as best we can, our historic perspectives on how 

to prudently go about rewriting the act, should that be your intention. And I am pleased to be with Ranking Member Eshoo again 

and all the distinguished members of the committee. 

I think it goes without saying, and all of us will say it in different ways that the world has changed quite radically from 20 

years ago in terms of markets and services. But don’t ask us, ask 

your kids. Ask them to name three broadcast networks, if you will. 

Ask them to do without the Internet for a week. And for God sakes, 

ask them to put their phone down at dinner and see what reaction 

you get. I think you will be convinced. 

That transformation has taken place largely because of an enormous revolution in network architecture in the form of the Internet, which has unleashed a form of intermodal competition that 

heretofore wasn’t really possible. And it has really introduced an 

exciting world. And we should remember, gave birth to a host of 

companies and opportunities that never were envisioned before, the 

companies that aren’t here—Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, 

Twitter, Instagram, you name it—all able to be born and flourish 

because of this transformation. 

I would say that any consideration of the act should start with 

not only cataloging its ills but cataloging its success, as much as 

Reed was alluding to. I think it is really important to note that 

over this period, we have seen the most stunning amount of investment in infrastructure and architecture that we have ever seen. We 

have reached 90 percent of Americans faster than any other technology in world history. Innovation and growth have continued at 

exponential rates with broadband increasing over 19 times just in 

the last decade, doubling basically, increasing about 50 percent annually. That is a stunning achievement and something we should 

make sure we keep going. So I think, you know, being guided by 

the old maxim of do no harm is an important cautionary tale. 

As I thought about how you might think about architecting a 

new regime, I am guided by the idea of the Internet itself, which 

is the fundamental principle of simplicity as a design principle. It 

has been a very, very powerful one in the Internet. And I think it 

offers some guidance in this space as well. 

So I would like to, toward that end, offer—I am going to see Mr. 

Wiley’s four principles and do them three better and offer you 

seven as briefly as I can. The first is we have heard a lot about 

31 

innovation. I do think the principle goal of the Government should 

be to nurture that innovation. This is the kind of formenting 

change we have never been able to harness as fully as we are 

today. Innovation has allowed us to bring completely new products 

and services and network changes to the market. It has created a 

form of creative destruction that keeps the market energetic and 

keeps a monopoly in check. And I think it has created new kinds 

of transparency for the American consumer through crowdsourcing 

and visibility. And we should study the conditions that go into innovation and make sure we harness them. I think three are critical. Innovations really do require freer markets. And a market 

that moves at Moore’s Law speed, the pace of adaptation, transformation and change are incredibly fast. And there needs to be a 

constant and intense dialogue between producers and consumers. 

And we should be careful to protect that. 

Innovation requires risk taking. And ask we know, most new adventures fail. There has to be room in Government policy for failure. There has to be room in Government policy for encouraging 

taking those risks. And innovation requires stability. Investing 

more than a trillion dollars, as Congressman Eshoo was talking 

about earlier, since 1996 is stunning. But it requires a stable regulatory environment to provide that uncertainty. Because if investment slows, innovation will slow with it. 

The second rule of simplicity I think is once you have created a 

lighter regulatory environment by trying to pursue the maxim of 

less is more, organize it better. We certainly have heard about the 

challenges of silos and buckets. Clearly, that had its place in another time when these technologies, applications and type of companies were deeply intertwined, were not able to provide alternative services in other spaces. That day has moved on, and we 

certainly crave a more unified, integrated kind of legal regime that 

doesn’t make those sorts of distinctions. In fact, as I have heard 

mentioned today, I think yesterday’s court decision in the multiyear debate on net neutrality that illustrates the almost torturous 

challenges, sometimes, of addressing a modern circumstance in 

using provisions of last century’s rules. I think there is certainly 

widespread agreement on core principles around an open Internet. 

After somewhat kludge past we have had to follow in an effort to 

implement them has made the matter, I believe, infinitely more 

complex and controversial than necessary. And the threat of radically upending the longstanding light regulatory foundation of 

broadband on which massive investment and growth have been 

built with good effect, to implement one set of rules seems distressing. Any shift of that magnitude, I do think would require 

Congress’—the people’s representatives to weigh in on. 

A third principle, give regulators the ability and obligation to address changing markets. As we have said, the markets move drastically. And the FCC often has limited ability to make those migrations. Yes, in places they have. There are other instances in which 

they have not been able to, even when they concede that the fundamental circumstances are changed. 

Fourth, the law should ensure competitive parity and technical 

neutrality. There is a hodgepodge of applications of statutes I could 

point out in which certain rules apply to one sector of a service and 

32 

not to other sectors. This has just really been an outgrowth of the 

passage of years and the changing nature of companies. But there 

are many rules that apply to cable, for example, that don’t apply 

to DBS for no discernible reason. One very valuable thing for the 

committee to do is prune through the statute to try to harmonize 

those differentiated treatments as best as possible. 

Fifth, the FCC should police markets, not create them. I think 

this is genuinely well understood. But there is a role for a cop on 

the beat. What I don’t think there should be is a master chef who 

believes it is the Commission’s objective to make markets or create 

the conditions and circumstances for them. 

And, finally, the last two, timeliness. If you are working in 

Moore’s Law, you need timely and prompt decisions from the Government. 

Lastly and most importantly, the law still needs to preserve important societal values and protect consumers from harm. And the 

FCC and the Government will always have a sacred responsibility 

in that regard. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:] 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman, thank you. Speaking of cops on the 

beat—— 

Mr. COPPS. Here I am. 

Mr. WALDEN. We will now go to Michael Copps, served as Acting 

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from January to June of 2009, and served as Commissioner from 2001 to 

2011. Prior to joining the Commission, Commissioner Copps 

worked right here on Capitol Hill and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Commissioner Copps, Chairman Copps, thank you for being 

with us. And we look forward to your comments to round out our 

panel. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. COPPS 

Mr. COPPS. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Chairman Upton, Ms. 

Eshoo, Mr. Waxman, vice chairmen, former chairmen, and all the 

members of the committee. I am delighted to be here. 

We are here today to review whether the Communications Act 

needs to be updated or otherwise reformed. I have heard some say 

that simply because the act is old, it must be obsolete, that no matter how well it has served us, an act written 18 years ago cannot 

have relevance in today’s altered world. Now, as someone only a little younger than the original act of 1934, I would raise a caution 

flag or two. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution 

were written long ago, too. Yet, we still find them critically relevant in our lives. While it is praiseworthy to ponder changes to 

the law, I would suggest firstly that the framework of the current 

statute remains in many ways strong, and secondly that the current act’s provisions can still do much to improve our communications landscape to enlarge economic and social opportunity for all 

of us and nourish the kind of civic dialogue upon which successful 

self-government inevitably rests. 

In an ideal world, most of us would welcome an up-to-the-minute 

rewrite of the law to reflect how we believe it could be improved. 

The last such revision in 1996 was born of a unique political moment that aligned a sufficient and sundry number of stakeholders 

across sectors and constituencies who were able to negotiate a compromised statute that, while far from perfect, at least envisioned 

delivering to every American, no matter who they are, where they 

live or the particular circumstances of their individual lives, the 

most advanced communications, technologies and services feasible 

at reasonable and comparable prices, replete with consumer protections, rights of privacy, assurances of public safety and utilizing 

competition to help achieve these goals. Putting the statute to work 

to deliver these benefits was my mission at the FCC, working with 

some of the most amazing public servants anywhere. Nowadays, I 

carry out my public interest mission in the nonprofit sector at Common Cause. 

In the immediate wake of the new law’s passage, the Commission 

indeed made important strides to carry out these congressional 

mandates. But, alas, things changed. Some of the very interests 

who helped negotiate the new Communications Act spend more 

time undermining the statute than implementing it. Such efforts 

continue to this day, as we saw in yesterday’s court decision that, 

44 

left unaddressed, will seriously jeopardize the future of the open 

Internet. 

I appeared in front of this panel many times over the years to 

voice my dissent on Commission decisions involving the reclassification of communication services, industry consolidation across 

both our telecom and media sectors, the elimination of policies that 

had long safeguarded the public interest, and the heavy toll thereby exacted on consumer choices, consumer prices, and slowing the 

deployment of competitive, low-cost, high-speed broadband—this 

century’s most important infrastructure. 

We can I know debate for hours, but a record of these hearings 

needs to show that many people do not share the easy optimism 

that others express about the state of America’s communications 

readiness. As you consider legislation in the coming months, some 

will tell you that America is a veritable broadband wonderland, a 

triumph of free market entrepreneurship that puts us at the front 

of high-tech nations. But there are stubborn facts we must never 

avoid. The United States, originator of so much of the technology 

behind the Internet, has fallen from leader to laggard in broadband 

penetration. According to the OACD, our country is 16th in wired 

broadband connections for 100 residents. Worse, comparative research shows that Americans are paying more and getting less 

than wired broadband consumers in competitor countries. The Department of Justice has noted that the local wireless marketplace 

offers consumers little in the way of choice, even as mobile data 

plans are saddled with data caps that harm consumption and innovation alike. And once again, for the third time, the FCC found 

itself unable to certify that we enjoy a competitive wireless marketplace. Surely, the time is now for proactive and pro-consumer 

measures to make quality broadband universally affordable once 

and for all. 

While we are not gathered here this morning to rehash those decisions, I do think it is important to understand that many of the 

faults attributed to the current statute are more the result of powerful industry efforts to undermine it and of Commission decisions 

that too often aid and abet the effort. So while we open discussions 

on revising communications law, let us recognize that our present 

statute has been interpreted and implemented in ways not originally intended, and that many of its constituent parts are still relevant, workable and consumer-friendly. There is a statute to enforce, and putting that job on hold while we consider changing it 

is not a good option. 

Additionally, I think most of us here this morning understand 

that finding a new correlation of interest that can come together 

to forge the Communications Act of 2015 or 2020 would be even 

more challenging than the jockeying that gave birth to the current 

law. 

As the world races ahead, we have a duty to make the best possible use of the laws we have in order to achieve the ongoing goals 

that Congress laid out. These remain powerful interests. A statute 

that invokes the public interest over 100 times, that highlights the 

universality of service, competition, and consumer protection, and 

that underlines the necessity for media that informs communities 

and engages citizens cannot be all bad. Would I have some prefVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
45 

erences for a reworked statute? Of course, although a good part of 

it would be making sure the Commission and the industry follow 

through on what is already on the books, to foster competition and 

consumer protection, to deliver on public safety, to preserve privacy 

in this age of massive intrusion, to avoid never-ending industry 

consolidation, to put the brakes in gatekeeping in our media, both 

traditional and new, and to provide the FCC with the resources it 

needs to discharge its responsibilities. 

My greatest disappointment at the Commission is that we didn’t 

do enough to encourage media that truly reflects the diversity of 

our people. Can you believe that today there is no African-American-owned full-power commercial television station anywhere in 

the land? America is diversity. And if our media fails to represent 

diversity—diversity of providers and content and viewpoint and 

ownership—it fails us. The sad plight of communications across our 

native lands needs to be addressed with renewed urgency and additional resources. Imagine that there are still areas where the majority of first Americans cannot access even plain old telephone 

service, let alone the kind of high-speed broadband that is the most 

powerful tool they could have to create opportunity where there is 

so little opportunity now. 

I would hope we could find ways to stimulate basic communications research by private-public partnerships. I am not talking 

about the next glitzy app, but the basic fundamental research that 

will determine who wins and loses in the global sweepstakes. 

I am for making the Commission more efficient, like doing away 

with the closed-meeting rule that prevents more than two Commissioners from even talking to one another. And I hope that reform 

needs to go forward, whether or not it is accompanied by more farreaching revisions. And I believe that when three Commissioners 

have something they want to do at the FCC, that item should go 

on the agenda. 

My list could go on, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss 

such things today. But I always come back to democracy, because 

that is what concerns me most. Our country is in trouble, reminiscent in many ways of the severity of the economic, global, and social crises it faced in the 1930s, and there are no guaranteed happy 

outcomes. I just do not see how citizens can be expected to navigate 

through all these issues and come out with smart decisions for our 

Nation’s future when the telecommunications tools we need are not 

available to all and in a media environment where community outlets have been short-circuited, investigative journalism hangs by a 

thread, and wherein we expect some invisible hand to produce 

those things that the market itself no longer produces and which 

in fact the market alone has never produced. 

Communications are vital to our economy, but they are the lifeblood—the lifeblood of our democracy. They must be available to 

all, open to all, never the exclusive province of the affluent or the 

few, always alive to the common good. We shouldn’t see our communications world as part telecom, part media or part traditional 

media, part new media. We have one communications ecosystem. 

And our job is to make it work for everyone. And I know of no 

greater challenge that confronts the Congress, the Commission or 

the country. 

46 

Thank you for holding this hearing today and for inviting me to 

be a part of it, and I look forward to our discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Copps follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Copps, thank you for your thoughtful 

presentation. We appreciate it. And as you know, our subcommittee 

has moved forward on some of these initiatives, and we welcome 

encouragement over on the other side of the building on Sunshine 

Act and a few other things. 

So I would like to open up the questioning process now with the 

questioning of Chairman Powell. Since you have presided over the 

Federal Communications proceedings that classified cable and 

telco-delivered broadband services as information services, do you 

think we would have seen the same level of broadband investment 

during the past decade had the FCC classified these services as 

common carrier communication services? 

Mr. POWELL. I think in short, my judgment is no. I think the 

Internet at the time that that classification decision was made was 

more unknown than known. I think it was a period of rampant experimentation. I think the capital required to drive and produce 

the broadband networks that were not in place needed conditions 

that allowed them the flexibility to make those choices without the 

risk that they would be put back into kind of the monopoly era regulatory model. So I think it was an important component, disbursing that investment. 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Wiley, does the Federal Communications 

Commission need to continue to have broad discretion over mergers 

and acquisitions, or should the Department of Justice anti-trust review be enough? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, I think there has been duplication from time 

to time. Although I would point out that the Justice Department 

is looking at anti-trust aspects, and the FCC has got a broader 

public interest standpoint. I think the two agencies need to work 

together, and I think they have worked together through the years. 

So I think the process is appropriately developing. But I do worry 

sometime that we see great delays in the handling of these consolidations and mergers, which I think is contrary to the best interest 

of the companies involved, and also contrary I think to the public 

interest and consumers. 

Mr. WALDEN. And to both Chairman Powell and Chairman 

Wiley, can the FCC ever really future proof regulations given how 

rapidly technology is changing? And are elements of the Communications Act holding the Commission back from flexibly addressing 

new technologies? 

Mr. POWELL. No, I don’t think any agency can future proof the 

regular environment, no more than Congress could write a statute 

that wouldn’t overtime fray in its relevancy in a market that is 

driven by technological change. I do believe though that there are 

tools to give greater flexibility and not more prescriptive constraints that we have seen in some regulatory vehicles. So no, they 

can’t future predict. And I thought—I think the other guidance is 

I think asking the Commission to engage in anything that requires 

predictive judgment about future outcomes should be avoided 

where possible. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, and that is why I suggested in my prepared testimony that we ought to have an opportunity to have a light touch 

here and have the Government—in your statute, have a very flexible technology-neutral type of approach to this, because it is very 

52 

hard to predict. And the 1996 drafters did not really foresee the development of the Internet to become a universal medium. And I 

don’t think they predicted broadband to be what it is today. So I 

think you have to step back a little bit and I think allow the technology to develop and to allow innovation—invention to occur without stifling it. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. I am going to start with Chairman Powell, and 

then each of you can take this one in the minute and a half I have 

left. Should the Internet be regulated as a common carrier under 

Title II? 

Mr. POWELL. Well, for me, that is easy. No. I think one of the 

things I would like to say about that though is that people should 

fully understand what that means. Even if that were able to give 

you a better basis for recovering these two components of the rules, 

it would be the instant application of thousands of pages of decades 

old regulations instantly to the Internet where they heretofore 

have not been, both through—on a bipartisan basis, we have had 

a much more regulatory environment. The shatter to investment 

backed expectations that would result I think would be exceedingly 

damaging and more than most people realize. 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Hundt, do you care to comment on that? 

Mr. HUNDT. Just two points. The 1996 act was shorter than the 

rules for Little League Baseball, meaning Congress does not necessarily have to write thousands of pages. And in its wisdom, it did 

not do so in 1996. And that act now has given the FCC the ability 

to achieve the fundamental goals. As I mentioned earlier, it can 

choose to use the specific methods that are dictated by the Common Carrier Treatment. But it absolutely does not have to use very 

many of these methods to accomplish its goals. In fact, the Court 

on page 61 outlined its view of what the FCC should do—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. HUNDT [continuing]. And said you can treat it as common 

carrier and have about 30 words that establish the principles. I am 

not saying they should do that. I am saying they can do that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you think they should? 

Mr. HUNDT. I think what they should do—and I hesitate to say 

to the current Chairman what he ought to do, but since you asked, 

I think they ought to take a fresh look at all the facts and law as 

exist right now, and they also ought to be down here listening to 

you all and having a robust discussion. But the key point is they 

have the authority. 

Mr. WALDEN. Got it. Real quickly, the two remaining, because I 

have gone over my time—violated the rule. Conclude. 

Mr. WILEY. I think—OK. 

Mr. WALDEN. No, go ahead. 

Mr. WILEY. All right. I think it would be a big mistake to turn 

away from the information service pathway that we have started 

and go back to common carrier regulation however that might be 

defined. I think we want to provide an environment where there 

is I think opportunities for investment, encouraging innovation, allowing businessmen to try to experiment and try to find ways to 

serve the customer. And I think to go back to a 1934 style common 

carrier regulation, which was really based on regulating the railroads, I think doesn’t make any sense at all. 

53 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Copps, real quick? 

Mr. COPPS. My answer is yes, I do. The Court says we have the 

authority to do that. Whatever we do, we need to do it quickly, 

promptly and provide some certainty in the marketplace. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. COPPS. I have always stressed the importance of that reclassification. People talk about Section 706. I have always said that 

there is authority there to do a lot of things. But what—we don’t 

need now to get into months of third ways and fourth ways and 

fifth ways to thread this needle. We need some clarity. Business 

needs clarity. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. COPPS. Consumers need clarity. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes—— 

Mr. COPPS. The Commission needs clarity, too. And we have to 

make sure whatever we do that things like interconnection and 

those things, consumer protections, are provided. 

Mr. WALDEN. Appreciate that. I thank the indulgence of the committee. I turn now to the Ranking Member, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to each one of our 

distinguished witnesses. What a rich, rich hearing with your testimony. Thank you very, very much. To Chairman Hundt, thank you 

for your eloquent summation, without any staff or other counsel to 

assist you late last night. 

In your testimony, you discussed the importance of the decision 

that this country made to allow Internet service providers full use 

of the existing telephone network without paying the owners anything. It was a very, very—I mean one of the essential platforms 

in the success of the Internet. So, essentially, we said the incumbents could not be gate keepers that charge a toll for getting online. In your view, does yesterday’s circuit decision reverse that 

longstanding policy? 

Mr. HUNDT. No, it doesn’t. And I think, Congresswoman, that 

you have put your finger on the central issue, if I may say. Yes, 

Internet service providers are gate keepers. And they also are twosided networks—or two-sided gate keepers, like any gate keepers. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. There is somebody on one side and somebody on the 

other side. 

Ms. ESHOO. On the other—um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. And so the situation then is very similar to the credit card industry. So we all have credit cards. And then there is the 

credit card company. And then on the other side of that, there is 

the restaurant. And it is very useful for restaurants that we all 

have credit cards. And it is useful for us that all the restaurants 

will take them. But it is not so useful if the gate keeper says now, 

some of these restaurants, we are not going to allow them to participate in the system. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. Translating that to the present, if the Internet service provider were to say, you know, not all the people that are putting the content on their computers, we don’t want all of them to 

be able to have access to all of the users. 

54 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. That is a problem if the gate keeper behaves that 

way. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUNDT. That is the central issue. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, thank you very much. To Chairman Powell, it 

is wonderful to see you again. As you know, under current law, 

cable subscribers are required to buy the so called broadcast basic 

tier as a condition of getting access to any other cable programming. As we transmission consent fees continue to rise and are inevitably being passed on to consumers in the form of below the line 

fees—I mean, I don’t think it is a sustainable business model, most 

frankly. I just don’t think that it can continue to work this way. 

Do you think that the so called must buy requirement makes any 

sense? Shouldn’t consumers have the ability to lower their bills by 

electing to receive broadcast channels over the air? 

Mr. POWELL. I don’t. I think it should be an extraordinary circumstance in which the Government tells the consumer you have 

to buy a television package as a prerequisite of buying more of 

what you want, which is essentially what the rule does. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. 

Mr. POWELL. The other grounds on which I think it is fatally 

flawed is only cable subscribers have that obligation. DISH and direct satellite subscribers do not have that obligation. And they are 

the second and third largest MVPDs in the United States. Yet, a 

consumer who subscribes to DirecTV does not have to, under a 

must-buy rule, purchase those programming. But if they switch to 

Comcast or Time Warner Cable, they do. That is the parity point 

that I was making, and I think is a perfect place for harmonization. 

Ms. ESHOO. Um-hum. Thank you very much. Chairman Copps, 

thank you for being here today, the man with real wisdom, the 

man that we always count on to put—place Democracy front and 

center of everything. 

Mr. COPPS. Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. You know so well that since Citizens United, the last 

two election cycles that have set records for money spent, including 

hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources, the bulk 

of this so called dark money spending by outside groups that hide 

their donors go toward negative TV ads. We all know that. Would 

you recommend changes to the Communications Act to ensure that 

voters are informed about who exactly is behind these anonymous 

TV ads, and is there anything in your view that the FCC can do 

on its own without Congressional intervention? 

Mr. COPPS. I would recommend enforcing the statute that we already have. And if you take a close look at Section 317, which has 

to do with sponsorship identification, and which goes back even before the Telecommunications Act of 1934 was written. It goes back 

to 1927—ensuring that listeners and viewers, more recently, know 

by whom they are trying to be persuaded, whether it is a commercial product or a political product. Those rules were last revisited 

in a meaningful way by the FCC in the 1960s, which repeated that 

people have a right to know by whom they are being persuaded. 

Since then, we have all these new avenues of dark money and 

super PACs and all of the rest. But we also have the authority, reVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
55 

cently reemphasized by the Government Accountability Office, the 

recommendation that the Commission update those rules and get 

on with the job. So we can have this kind of information available 

to consumers so that when you see that negative ad, and it says 

brought to you by citizens for Purple Mountain Majesties and 

Amber Waves of Grain, and it is really a chemical company dumping sludge into the Chesapeake Bay, potential voters—citizens have 

a right to know that and will know that. That is basic information 

that you need to have if you are going to have a viable civic dialogue. So this is something the FCC can do. It doesn’t await a 

President to making a proposal to do this. It doesn’t involve Congress having to pass a law. It involves the Federal Communications 

Commission doing its job. And it could do this within 90 to 120 

days and update the rules to take mind of the new dark money 

avenues that I was talking about earlier. So this would be a real 

way to shine a little bit of sunlight on the dark world of TV political advertising. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Wiley, thank you for 

your wonderful distinguished public service. I will submit my questions to you in writing. All right? 

Mr. WILEY. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. We will now turn to the vice chair of 

the full committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for the time this morning. I want to pick up where the subcommittee chairman left off talking about the responsibility of the 

FCC and what it would look like going forward. I think that it is 

fair to say—and, Mr. Powell, I will address this to you, because I 

have heard you say, you know, AOL was on top at one point when 

you were on top of the game. And where are they now I think was 

the comment. But anyway, looking at what the FCC would be, and 

as we look at the Telecom Act, should be begin to think in terms 

of the FCC being more as enforcement rather than regulatory in 

its scope? Mr. Powell, and then Mr. Wiley, I would like to hear 

from you. 

Mr. POWELL. I think some aspects of that deserves a fresh examination. You know, the FCC, which I am a huge supporter of. I 

have served there with great people, and I think it does an enormously great public service and that we functions that are critical 

to it in spectrum management and many other things. But it is one 

of the last of the New Deal era agencies that actually has affirmative economic regulatory power, that is the ability to set the prices, 

terms and conditions of market activity as opposed to having a 

more significant enforcement, policing or consumer protection role. 

Not to say that some of that may or may not still be warranted, 

but I do think that is a kind of holdover from judgments of different administrative eras. And I would recommend, you should 

look at the dichotomy and the balance of that role. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Look at the balance? 

Mr. POWELL. I do think good leaders, and many of the sitting at 

this table have migrated more toward that more defensible role. 

56 

But many of those provisions still remain. And I think they are 

worthy of second consideration. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Wiley? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes. I would agree with—largely with what Chairman Powell has suggested. I think the Commission does have 

strong enforcement efforts today. And some would say almost too 

strong in some instances. But I think frankly a lighter touch is the 

way to go in this area. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Let me ask you this, privacy data security, 

it is front-page news right now. It is going to be. Do you think that 

now is the time for the FCC to focus on its core competencies, or 

should it move over and look at privacy data security, or leave that 

to the FTC, Mr. Wiley? 

Mr. WILEY. I didn’t hear that one. I didn’t hear it. I am sorry. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Oh, privacy data security, leave it to the FTC 

and the FCC focus on its core mission, or what is your thought on 

that? 

Mr. WILEY. I think so. 

Ms. BLACKBURN. You think so. 

Mr. WILEY. I would agree with that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Powell, coming back to you, 706, we 

are hearing a lot about that today. And you may have had others 

who think that, you know, the FCC—that 706 is an invitation to 

come in and regulate Internet services. So as you look at 706, do 

you agree that the provision was intended to give the FCC the ability to forebear from regulations that would stifle broadband investment and innovation? 

Mr. POWELL. I agree that the decision certainly gives them the 

power to forebear. And for many years, many people interpreted 

706 as principally deregulatory. It speaks of removing barriers and 

removing obstacles, less so than introducing them. I certainly was 

serving at a time where the Commissions had held that that was 

not a separate basis of authority. And in fairness to the facts, every 

Commission had so held until recently. So that was the position of 

the law when I was there at least. I will say though that I think 

if the Commission is going to have a role in broadband, I highly 

would prefer that be under the construct of the light regulatory information services definitions that reside around with 706 than to 

make a radical transformation to Title II as a regulatory framework for those questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I 

will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the 

committee on the Democrat side, Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My colleague, Ms. Blackburn, suggested the FCC needs to act more like 

the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC does important consumer 

protection work, but I believe we need an agency like the FCC that 

can write forward-looking rules of the road for industry and consumers. Chairmen Hundt and Copps, do you agree with that? 

Mr. HUNDT. Absolutely, Mr. Waxman. Forward looking is—here 

is the best example of a useful forward looking law. It is in the incentive auction legislation that you passed where this Congress 

57 

said we want the FCC to establish, before the auction, a generally 

applicable rule about how much spectrum anybody can buy. That 

has to be forward looking. You don’t want to go into the auction 

with your money and not know whether or not you are going to be 

permitted to win in the—keep the license that you thought you 

were the high bidder on. That has to be forward looking. So that 

is a great example of you all asking for a forward looking rule and 

really deserving a forward looking rule. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. And, Mr. Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. Absolutely. I concur. We all talk about how rapidly 

the telecommunications, technology and services are changing. The 

Commission has to be aware of that, have the flexibility to react 

to that, and certainly to fulfill its responsibilities to look into the 

future and try to determine how best to fulfill its mission, which 

includes consumer protection, includes privacy and includes ubiquity of services. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. Mr. Powell, in light of yesterday’s decision, the DC Court circuit recognized the authority granted by Congress to the FCC in the ’96 act. Do you believe that the Agency can 

properly oversee the growth of broadband infrastructure services? 

Mr. POWELL. I do. For a matter of record, as Chairman of the 

FCC and the Commission that classified broadband the way that 

it is today, we quite pointedly recognized that the importance of 

that continuing role to a degree. And we believe that the authority 

existed within that Title I framework to take care of those circumstances. Whether you agree or disagree, the Court certainly 

validated yesterday, from a judicial standpoint, that Title I and 706 

do provide that flexible authority. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. And, Mr. Wiley—— 

Mr. WILEY. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. If you agree the FCC has the authority, do you think it ought to use it? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, the Court said that the Commission could have 

authority in this area. I would strongly advise, in my own view, the 

Commission to let the marketplace develop and if problems do 

exist, then to step in. There are avenues—if we find blocking, if we 

find discrimination, there are avenues that can be taken. I think 

the problem is sometimes we are in search of a problem here that 

may not exist. I think if you look at all the suggestions of the carriers that have come out of the decision from yesterday, all want 

to keep the marketplace open, all want to give consumers access 

to various kind of content. And I take them at their word. I think 

that is going to develop. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. Mr. Hundt, if we want to keep the marketplace open, isn’t it reasonable to anticipate that some of the 

players will not want it to be so open if it is to their financial advantage? Shouldn’t the FCC play a role to make sure prospectively 

that we have an open, competitive market with the consumers 

being in charge? 

Mr. HUNDT. I completely agree. And if I might, I think it is important—well, let me say this. I have the view that the case and 

the statute have the following meaning. Section 1706 gives the 

FCC the authority to accomplish the goals you just stated, without 

also requiring the FCC to make a classification decision. 

58 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. That is to say it can make a classification decision 

and act with the authority that would come from that, but it 

doesn’t need to do that in order to pass rules that are authorized 

under Section 1706. Meaning 1706 and the common carrier provision are two independent bases for FCC action. That is why the 

FCC can choose both or either in order to have a—making that 

would accomplish the goals you described. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Didn’t the Court say that the FCC made the wrong 

choice and they have two titles they can rely on? You are saying 

they don’t need either title, they can just go ahead and think about 

regulation? 

Mr. HUNDT. Yes, I think what the Court said is if you do choose 

the information services classification, then you are bound by the 

restrictions in that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. But you don’t need to make that choice in order to 

accomplish the goals that you are desiring, which the Court has 

said that it approves of the goals. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. And you don’t need to be a—regulate as 

a common carrier either? 

Mr. HUNDT. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. WAXMAN. You don’t have to regulate it as a common carrier 

either? 

Mr. HUNDT. The Court has said you can choose that, or you can 

choose 706 or you could choose both. The only thing you can’t do 

is choose information services classification and pass common carrier like rules. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. I see. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. And the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the former chairman of the full committee, 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to our 

testimony and our questions so far. I am going to make a brief 

statement before I ask a question. 

I was here in 1996. And that act was a philosophical change from 

where the committee had been and, to some extent, where the 

country had been in terms of telecommunications policy. You had 

a Republican Congress, House and Senate for the first time in over 

50 years, maybe 60 years. You had a Democratic President, Mr. 

Clinton, who came from a kind of conservative pro-business background down in Arkansas. And the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey and some 

of those folks, had a very regulatory approach, although not totally 

so, and the Telco Act of ’96, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Fields, we went— 

we decided to go with a market approach. And, Mr. Copps, as he 

has pointed out, markets don’t always work. But, generically, if 

they are open and transparent, unless there is a natural monopoly, 

they do give a lot more choice to people. And that is what the Telco 

Act of ’96 did. It rejected the philosophy that the Government 

knows best, that the regulatory knows best, that people can’t—if 

they have access to appropriate information, can’t make choices 

that are good choices. And we see reflected today in some of the 

59 

questions that Mr. Waxman especially just asked, you know, that 

some of my friends on the Democrat side just don’t like a market 

approach. You know, how dare it be possible that under Title I, Informational Services, you can have an open, transparent Internet, 

and you don’t need the FCC to tell you what to do? My God, that 

is scary. We better get that FCC back on the job. They just 

maybe—you know, if they can’t do it under Title II as a common 

carrier, well, they are just going to have to figure out how to regulate under Title I. 

Well, you know, if you look at the explosion and what has happened, I mean, I had a young person, a very young person about 

9 years old, come into my office down in Texas and apparently did 

not know there was such a thing as a hard line telephone—did not 

know what that was on my desk. This young lady thought a phone 

was just something you carried around with you. And her parents 

were very young, and they didn’t have hard line phones in their 

home. And they worked out of his truck doing contracting and 

stuff. She didn’t know what it was. 

So, you know, this thing that Mr. Upton and Mr. Walden are 

starting to take a real comprehensive review, and working with 

Mr. Waxman and Ms. Eshoo, it is a good thing. But philosophically, 

I don’t want to go back to where I have to depend on the intelligence of Mr. Copps or Mr. Powell or Mr. Hundt or Mr. Wiley and 

the three or four other wise people at the FCC to know what is 

best for me in telecommunications policy. You know, I think if we 

set the ground rules—and I agree that you have to have a traffic 

cop. But I don’t agree that you got to be so prescriptive that the 

market just flat gets strangled before it even has a chance to get 

underway. 

So my question, and I throw it open to the panel: Is there still 

a need for a Title II in the telecommunication marketplace today, 

could we deregulate the telephone companies in totality because, 

you know, there really is no such thing as a natural monopoly anymore? 

Mr. COPPS. If we can find a way to assure that some of the qualities that people fought for long and hard in terms of privacy and 

public safety and consumer protection do not accompany the new 

tools of broadband and the Internet as the accompanied telephone, 

then I think we are in trouble. I like the market approach, too. And 

it was decided long ago that the telecommunications industry, the 

media industries would operate on the capitalistic system. And you 

don’t blame business for trying to seize market control or capture 

the market, or even to have gate keeping. But we have always, 

since very early in the last century, had protections against 

untrammeled building toward monopoly and duopoloy. 

I read the ’96 act, and I wasn’t as intimately involved with it as 

you were. But I followed it with some degree of interest. As being 

somewhat more proactive, I read that act as instructing the Federal Communications Commission to do what it needs to do to encourage bringing the most advanced telecommunications feasible to 

all of our citizens, no matter where they live at reasonably comparable prices, reasonably comparable services, allowing them to 

access media that serves communities and provides information 

that are necessary to exercise a citizen’s responsibilities in a DemoVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
60 

cratic society. So I think yes, a light touch where possible. But, you 

know, we set here and talk about well, we have to do away with 

these stove pipes and all. And I agree to that with some extent. 

But we have—in trying that—I mean, if we are going to say we are 

going to treat a telephone call you make in the Internet entirely 

different than we make a telephone call somewhere else, that is not 

functional equivalent. That is not treating technologies alike. So I 

think—— 

Mr. BARTON. I know my time is way over. But it is something 

to think about, because we have got a real chance in the rest of 

this Congress and the next Congress to build on what we started 

in ’96. 

Mr. WILEY. I would just like to say that I agree with much of 

what you say. I think in a competitive marketplace that we see 

today with the kind of IP centric world, I think economic regulation 

has to be considered with some skepticism. Because if the markets 

are competitive, if you don’t have market failure, then the question 

is why should the Government be stepping in? Consumer protection, E911, you know, those kinds of things, that is a different 

story. 

Mr. BARTON. Right. 

Mr. WILEY. But we are talking about economic regulation here. 

And I think it is more questionable. And I certainly wouldn’t be 

thinking about going back to common carrier world in an information services environment. I don’t think that makes sense. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, thank you to 

our witnesses for your testimony today. We have talked a lot about 

net neutrality in the court decision. So I would like to maybe go 

to a couple different topics and ask Chairman Hundt and Chairman Copps about special access. How can the FCC enhance competition in the special access marketplace? And is new statutory 

authority necessary, or do you think the Commission has the sufficient authority to ensure that the markets are competitive? 

Mr. COPPS. On a special access, I think what needs to happen, 

yes, I think the Commission has the authorities for the FCC to 

make up its mind. I was before this committee, and I think you 

were here too. And perhaps it was Mr. Markey or somebody who 

asked us all back in 2007 to sign a letter saying we would have 

this problem resolved by September. And we all said whoopee, let 

us do that. And it hasn’t been done yet. All these 7 years have gone 

by. Enormous amounts of money are at stake here. The ability of 

competitors to enter the business and to compete is at stake here. 

I am pleased to—at some signs now that the FCC is beginning to 

move. And I want to especially commend you, because I know you 

were a big proponent of getting this data collection process going. 

And that is the prerequisite of doing something final on this. The 

Commission also has to look at allegations of anti-competitive practices in special access, such things as loyalty mandates and excessive early termination and shortfall penalties. But getting this 

right is important. And each year that goes on is billions of dollars 

61 

going to maybe where they should go or maybe where they 

shouldn’t be going. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Commissioner Hundt? 

Mr. HUNDT. I echo Commissioner Copps’ remarks and would just 

add this is another example of a very useful forward looking rule. 

Or to put it another way, we could all use a forward looking rule 

on this topic. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Yes. And, Commissioner Copps, we have 

been waiting years and years and years. And I hope before my tenure in Congress is over that we will see the FCC do something on 

special access. 

Mr. COPPS. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. And I intend to be here a little bit longer. Commissioner Copps, the FCC recently closed a very successful low power 

FM application process, and is currently considering thousands of 

LPFM applications. And I want to personally thank you for your 

efforts in that regards, and ask you what other opportunities you 

see for the FCC to further empower communities in innovative 

ways? 

Mr. COPPS. Well, first of all, I want to thank you, because without you and the leadership of your colleagues here, this would not 

have happened. We wouldn’t have had that window, the first one 

opened since 2000. And it is a window of enormous potential. So 

number one, we want that to move forward with all dispatch and 

maybe go from 800 low power stations to maybe thousands of 

them. 

Going beyond that though, we just have to look at whatever kind 

of options we can think of to encourage community radio, to revivify the peg channels and make sure that they are not just cast 

aside as some of the big companies seem to want to do, look at new 

models for noncommercial media, nonprofit media. And that applies not just to media companies but to telecom companies, newspapers and so many other things. And there is a lot of potential 

here in a market that doesn’t seem to be able to provide all the 

tools that we need for media and for news for nonprofit media to 

step in. But they are also dragging its feet on making a lot of these 

determinations that it should be making. So low power, yes, looking at channels five and six are all sorts of options out there, put 

some special emphasis on using community radio and diversity in 

communities and native lands. It is just a field that is rife with potential if we can just step up to the plate and realize our responsibility to do it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for your insight 

today. We appreciate it here on the committee. And I will yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Thank you very much. The gentleman 

yields back the balance of his time. And the Chair now recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes. 

And, Mr. Powell, thanks again for you being here today. And if 

I could just start with some questions to you? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, it is kind of interesting, because I am reviewing 

your testimony and also Mr. Wiley’s. You both used very similar 

language in spots. And in your opening statement, you said that 

62 

this market requires a greater degree of business flexibility, fewer 

prescriptive rules and an assurance that any Government involvement is applied on a technology-neutral basis and creates a better 

investment climate. And I also saw that Mr. Wiley said in his testimony that the Government can’t keep up, and there is a need for 

flexibility and a technology-neutral framework in his testimony, as 

well. So, very similar language. 

But in your testimony, when you go through it—and I found it 

interesting, because when you are going through your seven 

points—and for simplicity—one of the things that you bring out— 

because you were also talking about flexibility and having a better 

business climate—you state in your testimony that since 1996, we 

have seen a trillion dollars invested in an Internet infrastructure. 

And then you also laid out that the simplicity has to be there. But 

in that simplicity, you said that practicing simplicity can be scary. 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. And it takes courage to discourage—discard old ideas 

and rules that are no longer needed. Could you give a couple examples of those? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. It is a great, challenging question. I think I 

might actually go back to some of what Mr. Barton was talking 

about. If you think about one of the wisest things that was done 

in the 1996 act, it has nothing to do with the individual rules. It 

was the fundamental judgment that the Government rejected the 

natural monopoly thesis and believed instead that competition was 

the more fruitful approach. But common carriage law inherently is 

about a Government-sanctioned monopoly. It is essentially the 

queen of the realm who grants an exclusive license to a ferry boat 

captain to go across the river and in exchange for all the privileges 

of that monopoly, they agree to be bound to serve all the citizens 

in a nondiscriminatory way and other things that the sovereign 

wishes to have as part of that exclusive benefit—mutual in some 

regards: The monopolist gets the exclusive profits, and the realm 

gets the benefits of serving all the citizens. 

In some ways, in 1996, the Government sued for divorce from 

companies through, you know, the notion of an exclusive monopoly 

and instead said, ‘‘Go compete, raise your own capital, no guaranteed return on investment, no guaranteed success.’’ But yet, the 

lingering notions of common carriage, which are still in the statute 

and, by the way, still being raised in the context of the net neutrality debate, still hover around our regulatory questions. To me, 

whether the country comes to some committed conclusion that even 

with its challenges and the need for oversight that we are really 

about competition and are really ready to let go of common carriage 

is a great example, a fundamental one, of how to make that decision. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And let me follow up with another question. When you are looking at assessing the competition in the communications industry, do you think updating the Communications 

Act should modify how the FCC currently conducts its competitive 

analysis? 

Mr. POWELL. I think so, only because I think there is some ambiguity there that when managed in responsible hands works fine. At 

times, it doesn’t. I am worried about the FCC merger review procVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
63 

ess in part because it professes to do a competitive analysis following essentially anti-trust guidelines administered by other departments. But under the public interest standard, which I do 

think is valuable, it turns into a competition of conditions. And as 

an anti-trust lawyer, I used to believe that the FCC, if they are 

doing something bad, shoot them. If they are not, don’t let them 

cure harm by how many good jelly beans you can put on the scale 

and to make the thing go away. And then by doing it in a way that 

it extracts these concessions as a voluntary proffer, you make sure 

that the case can’t be appealed to the courts, because you no longer 

have standing. I think insulating the review process from judicial 

review through the conditioning mechanism, and allowing the commissioning mechanism to be a vehicle by which the Commission 

can legislate beyond its authority can get companies to do things 

in the context of that proceeding it couldn’t pass laws about, borders on kind of administrative improbability. So does that happen 

every time? No. Do I think it happens sometimes? Yes. And I think 

Congress should at least examine the review process and see if 

whether better controls could be in place. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. And I see my time has expired. And the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 

of the former Chairmen for being here. This has been really an interesting and formative discussion. 

Under Section 254, carriers have certain obligations to provide 

universal access. In the DC Circuit’s decision yesterday, the Court 

made clear the FCC has a similar charge under 706 to ensure that 

all Americans have access to broadband and that the FCC has authority over broadband providers to meet that mandate from Congress. I have two questions for all of the Chairmen relating to the 

Court’s decision yesterday. 

The first, do you agree the FCC should and must promote universal access to broadband for all Americans, Mr. Wiley? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Ms. MATSUI. Sir? 

Mr. HUNDT. Yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Powell? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. 

Mr. COPPS. Absolutely. There is no way you can be a functioning 

member of society without access to this technology. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Then does the Court’s decision yesterday affirm 

the FCC’s authority to transition the universal service fund to 

broadband, Chairman Wiley? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, I think the FCC has done a good job in looking 

at that. I am concerned somewhat with the size and the growth of 

the universal service fund, and I think the Commission has got to 

look at the competency, the pay and the covering that and some 

issue that has got to be looked at, I think. 

Ms. MATSUI. But it is generally yes. Chairman Hundt? 

Mr. HUNDT. Yes. 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, I would commend Chairman Genachowski for 

migrating the fund toward broadband, and he did it on a theory of 

64 

706. So in that extent, I think seven—the ruling yesterday only 

strengthens the Commission moving in that direction. 

Ms. MATSUI. Good. 

Mr. COPPS. Yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Chairman Copps? That is great. I appreciate your 

views, because I believe that it is one of the potentially biggest unintended consequences avoided by the Court’s decision, because 

transitioning a USF to broadband is really a critical step toward 

achieving universal access and adoption in this country. 

Chairman Hundt, you said that yesterday’s circuit decision is a 

victory for Congress and the smart flexible approach of the 1996 

Telecom Act. How can we continue that success? Are there any unintended consequences we should watch out for as this committee 

starts the process of updating the Communications Act? 

Mr. HUNDT. Well, I think as a number of you have mentioned, 

of course the FCC on remand needs to commence a new proceeding, 

which I believe Chairman Wheeler has already said that he intends 

to do. 

Ms. MATSUI. Um-hum. 

Mr. HUNDT. And, naturally, that should be and will be an open 

proceeding. I am sure this committee will have an ample opportunity to express its views. I don’t myself have the ability to forecast where that will come out or should come out, because I think 

it is really, really important to examine all the new facts about 

emerging network architectures and about competition problems on 

both sides of the two-sided network. I would just say that is why 

it is so useful that the Court has said that the FCC’s authority is 

broad and powerful, because the technologies in the network architectures and the competition problems are constantly changing. 

And the FCC, in rulemaking, has the ability to adapt to those 

changes, sometimes eliminating rules, sometimes writing new 

rules. So this is a very, very workable process that we have here. 

And, as I said before, congratulations to this committee for the 

1996 act, which did create this legal culture. 

Ms. MATSUI. Um-hum. Chairman Powell, would you like to comment? 

Mr. POWELL. I am sorry. Can you refresh the question? 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, I really—— 

Mr. POWELL. Sorry. 

Ms. MATSUI. You know, we—as Chairman Hundt commenting 

that the Court decision he felt was a victory for Congress and for 

the smart flexible approach of the ’96 act, are there any unintended 

consequences that we should watch out for as we reexamine and 

update the Communications Act moving forward? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. Yes, I more or less would agree with Chairman 

Hundt. 

Ms. MATSUI. Oh. 

Mr. POWELL. I mean, I think to the degree that, you know, in 

some ways I saw a quote the other day that I thought summed it 

up great, which is it is not a victory for any side, but it might have 

been a victory for the debate. And that is that the Commission continues to have a meaningful role in the oversight and protection of 

broadband without crossing the line into the more dangerous concerns around common carriage. And if that is ultimately the outVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
65 

come, maybe that is workable. Unintended consequences, I do 

think the Court even struggled with them itself, which is 706 is an 

extraordinarily broad, unconstrained provision. How it is interpreted, and how responsibly it is interpreted and applied, I think 

is important, because I think, you know, Congress hasn’t spoken 

with much specificity about broadband regulation. And to take a 

provision as open-ended as vague as 706 and see that as the foundation for everything broadband going forward has potential risks 

and dangers, but I think that will be worked out over time through 

the—through its application and through dialogue with Congress. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. Chairman Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. While I am pleased that the Court recognized the authority of the Commission, I don’t know that I am ready to declare 

victory yet. If it is a victory for the debate, that is not necessarily 

a good thing, because we have had so many years of debate while 

the evolution of the Internet continues and gate keeping shows the 

rise of its ugly head. So it is a victory if the Commission reacts and 

reacts promptly and provides some certainty and some guarantees. 

But we have lost a couple of years looking for third ways and other 

ways, and I don’t want to lose a couple more years going down that 

road. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, I think it is an opportunity here. 

Mr. WILEY. Well, I was just going to say—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes? 

Mr. WILEY [continuing]. I think if it is a victory, I think it is a 

victory for technical innovation, a victory for investment, and ultimately a victory for the consumer. And I think that we ought to 

see how the marketplace develops in this area, and see where the 

problems, as I said earlier, really come about as some people predict. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, I think this is an interesting moment in time. 

And we have to provide a thoughtful way as we move forward. And 

I appreciate all your comments. Thank you very much, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome you all. It is 

good to have you. And I think it would be safe to say that no one 

envisioned this world in which we live in technologically, no one 

envisioned in ’96. So really, the basic first question is, in a rewrite 

for public policy elected officials, or even folks in a Commission to 

envision what the world will be like 10 years after a rewrite, that 

is going to be—that is impossible to do, is that—most people view 

that as correct? No one knew what ’96 would come. So that talks 

about what these basic premises that I enjoy, Democracy, freedom, 

marketplace, capitalism. The one thing that hasn’t really been addressed is consumer choice, and how that really does drive innovation and drives—and it is that marketplace that—and I remember 

going to the consumer electronics show, and the MP3 was being 

unveiled. And I just was amazed at how much capital flowed for 

just music in this space, in the technology space. And that is the 

same thing now with Internet, broadband, downloads, Pandora, 

you name it. It has all migrated to that. So we don’t ever want to 

lose the aspect of the power of the individual consumer in this deVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
66 

bate, you know, versus what some people would say would be the 

power of a governmental regulatory arena or agency. And, Mr. 

Copps, I think that is true for these segments of society that feel 

they don’t have access. I think that you can pull together, based 

upon technology, ability to get the word out through broadband information, newsletters and the like. I mean, the technology has allowed us to really—there is really no excuse for people not to have 

access to information flow today, even if they go through a universal service fund or they go to the library, they get on broadband 

through what we have been able to do through the E–Rates and 

all that other stuff, which we talked about a lot in your day, Mr. 

Hundt. So here is the basic question I have, because I—and a couple of you, in your opening statements, talk about silos. You were 

all members of the Commission, and you all were Chairmen, which 

is a different position than just being a standard Commissioner, because you had the responsibility for the whole body of workers 

within the FCC. So we have got consumer—we have got the bureaus and other things other than the bureaus. I only talk about 

bureaus. But you go on the Web site, you see all these other little 

offices and stuff, consumer and government affairs, enforcement, 

international media, public safety, wireless and wire line. So in a 

rewrite of the ’96 act, should there not be some discussion on how 

we reform the Commission itself based upon what current technology is today? And I think, Mr. Wiley, you kind of talked about 

this a little bit. And just a guess at where it might head in the future? I mean, there is a future look, right, Mr. Copps? There is a 

future. But how do we reform the FCC itself and start tearing 

down some of these silos, which some of you have addressed are 

a problem? And if we can go from left to right? Mr. Wiley, if you 

want to go first? And that will be the end of my questions. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes. I think what has changed in the Internet world 

is that you find different parties doing the same kinds of services, 

providing the same kind of activities that you wouldn’t have 

thought of before. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. WILEY. You wouldn’t have thought of broadcasters being in 

the technology end, or cable being in the wire line field. But this 

is happening now. And I think therefore the Commission probably 

does have to change its internal structure. In a digital world, if you 

have functionally equivalent services being provided by different 

parties, I think they should be regulated in a functionally equivalent way. And that is not the way the Commission has done it 

through the years. It is not the way they are organized. It is going 

to take some change. I—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Mr. Hundt? 

Mr. HUNDT. You know, the French say well, that works in practice, but, you know, maybe it doesn’t really work in theory. And I 

think it is really, really important to focus on practice. The current 

structure allows the FCC Chair, in what I will definitely describe 

as an open process, to reorganize the FCC to meet the objectives 

that are set by any particular Congress in any particular situation. 

And that is a good thing. So when this Congress had the wisdom 

to ask the FCC to auction spectrum in 1993, I was allowed—thanks 

to you—but not because of a statutory mandate, but because of 

67 

flexibility, I was allowed to create a wireless bureau which previously did not exist. At any given moment, it is hard to say exactly 

what the administrative structure ought to be. And I think the current system, which tells the Chair, ‘‘Figure it out, tell us what it 

is, you are held accountable.’’ That is a good system. 

Mr. POWELL. I do think form follows function. And I think certainly when I was Chairman, we merged few bureaus. Cable was 

a separate bureau from broadcasting. Today, it is the media bureau 

now with changes we made to try to reflect. I think a common principle is organize around the way it is seen through the eyes and 

the ears of consumers. And, you know, to me, at the time, television was television to most Americans. And making sure you had 

cross- pollenization of the bureaucrats, professionals who—the bureaucracy and the professionals who manage that I thought was 

important so that they saw their functions through the same eyes 

of our constituents. And I think that is one principle you can follow. I do agree with Reed. I think the Chairman is also CEO. The 

statute assigns them that responsibility. I don’t think we talk 

enough about the CEO role and the management of that operation. 

But I think there is plenty of flexibility to respond to that, if it is 

clear what it is we are trying to execute. 

Mr. COPPS. I don’t think there is any magic formula. Certainly, 

there have been times when the stove pipe approach has been too 

much in presence. I think Michael tried to work against that and 

go towards a little more holistic type of view. So did Chairman 

Genachowski. That being said though, you need the experts in 

these specific bureaus. There is a specific telecom expertise in the 

wire line and the wireless and all the details of that, and special 

access and everything else we are talking about. So I think you 

still have to have those bureaus. But if you can have—I think 

Chairman Genachowski established a consumer taskforce whose 

job it was to go across those agencies and look at whatever—or 

those bureaus—at whatever those bureaus were doing to assess the 

impact on consumer wellbeing. So I think that is a good approach. 

But it is a management thin and something that I think is the 

product of good leadership at the Commission and good oversight 

by the committee. 

VOICE. Mr.—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We need to move on to Mr. Dingell, I think, for the 

next 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DINGELL. I want to commend you for this hearing. I think 

this has been an important hearing. In the events of this week, you 

tell us that it is time that the committee is going to have to start 

looking at what we are going to do about bringing the ’96 act up 

to date. I have enjoyed the comments that my dear friend, Mr. Barton, made in announcing my position as being strongly regulatory. 

Sometimes I have a hard time recognizing my position when it is 

set forth by other members. In any event, that is not important. 

But I would just like to remind everybody that this business of the 

’96 act started when we began to try and get Judge Greene out of 

the business of regulating the telecommunications industry. It also 

started when we started trying to get the amount of spectrum that 

was held out of use by industry and business and government, and 

get that available to people, and to see to it that we had a fair proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
68 

gram for dealing with our legislation and a fair program for dealing 

with these matters. I would like to welcome our friends, the Chairmen here for their appearance and for their assistance to us, and 

for what it is that they have done with us over the years. 

If there is an attempt made to update the Communications Act, 

I will offer my support. Yesterday’s court decision vacating the 

anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules of the Federal Communications Commission open Internet order is proof that the Congress needs to bring our communication laws into the 21st century. 

Only clear direction from Congress will strengthen consumer protections, promote competition and give industry the regulatory certainty it needs to innovate in the future. 

Now, as we go about this important work, I caution that we do 

so with great care, and on the benefit of a carefully collected and 

substantial body of evidence. This is going to require a rigorous 

oversight by the committee and considerable work to get the information that we have need of so that we can legislate properly. And 

I hope that the undertaking will be bipartisan in order so that any 

final product that we complete here moves through the Senate and 

to the President’s desk for signature. 

We have to resolve a number of very important high line and 

hard questions to inform our work as we move forward. I respectfully suggest that these questions included—or rather include but 

are not limited to the following. First, how do we improve and protect American’s access to content, while also preserving the ability 

of private companies to monetize their investments for future 

growth? Likewise, how do we best foster the ongoing development 

of future technologies that will ensure American leadership in the 

fields of technology and communications? And then we have to decide how we are to promote the more efficient and fair use of value 

and increasingly scarce commodities like spectrum, which we have 

not administered too well of late, and if administered at off times 

on the basis of perhaps the amount that we could get for it in 

money rather than how it would serve the Nation to allocate this 

spectrum? Lastly, we are going to have to decide how we will ensure that the Federal Communications Commission, the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, and other related bodies function smoothly, protect consumers and promote 

growth rather than hindering it. Regardless of these answers, and 

the answers to these questions and others, I submit that our work 

should proceed from the conviction that the public interest is still 

and always going to remain the central concern that we have with 

regard to the Communications Act. 

I have had the good fortune to be one of the authors of almost 

every major piece of telecommunications legislation passed by the 

Congress in the past three decades. And the public interest is in 

the heart of each, going back to the ’33 and ’34 act. I see no reason 

why that should be any different this time around. The only issue 

here worth exploring is what that standard has meant in years 

past, and whether there is any reason to give the Commission different guidance for the future in interpreting it as we address the 

other questions I have just outlined. 

Mr. Chairman, I wish you Godspeed in this endeavor. And I offer 

you my support. And I am delighted that the Chairmen of the 

69 

Commission who have been here this morning to assist us in beginning this process, which I hope will go forward with reasonable 

speed, with great care and again, with great attention to the public 

interest. I thank you all for listening to me. 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Dingell, thank you for your kind comments and your always generous words and willingness to work to 

improve our communication and other laws. We look forward to 

working with you. My only disappointment is you did not have a 

list of yes-or-no questions for this panel. 

VOICE. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now, with that, we will turn to Mr. Terry from Nebraska. And we look forward to your comments and questions, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, you do. Thank you. And I just, for our esteemed 

guests here today, I want to follow-up on what my friend from California, Ms. Matsui, began. And that is with high cost areas. But 

I want to take it from a little bit different angle and get your input. 

As kind of mentioned here, we have seen a convergence of technologies and services that are all kind of being wrapped into one 

anymore. And the same as—we talked about it in my early days 

on this committee in voice, and Barton brought that up. Well, now, 

it is in video. And so when we talk about a rural telecom and the 

Internet as a basis of delivering video today, it is kind of making— 

well, it is altering the way that rural telecoms used to work. And 

so we have a current legal structure with this QRA, and a mindset 

of—on treating rural telecoms like old copper wires, which a lot of 

them still are using. So I just want to ask your opinions about in 

Reform 4—or within the FCC, should rural and high cost areas— 

so, Mr. Copps, it even comes back to inner-city where you have lowtake by high-cost. How do we think about this differently in making sure that if you live in rural America, or you are setting up a 

wind farm where you want to continuously oversee but remotely, 

thereby requiring broad broadband for all of that data? Do we need 

to think about things differently than high-cost, rural high-cost, 

inner city? Mr. Wiley, why don’t we start with you? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, I am not an expert in the rural telephone area. 

But I still think there is a concern that is different than in the big 

cities. And I think, therefore, high-cost funds still are something 

that have to be part of the full equation, in my opinion. And you 

know that better than anybody in Nebraska. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Mr. WILEY. So I don’t have any huge input to you today as to 

how to change the system. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. And later, I guess to clarify, since video and 

Internet are becoming the same, and your telecom is really maybe 

your sole provider of that, it is all meshed together. Does that 

change anything, Mr. Hundt? 

Mr. HUNDT. I think that many people have said we really want 

broadband to be the network for everyone in the country. In rural 

areas, as I am sure you know, Congressman, there are many places 

where the cable broadband penetration is as low as 15 and 20 percent, not anything nearly as high as it is in Washington DC or in 

the suburbs. Now, that is a problem that the FCC really does need 

to think about in conjunction with the industry that Michael represents so ably. And in particular, not to touch too many other butVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Feb 23, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-112 #COMMACT - 2ND ASK OK 2-13-15\113-112 #COMMACT PDF MADE WAYNE
70 

tons, the recent increases in the prices of the content have a disproportionate impact in rural America. Because when those content 

price increases are passed on by the cable industry, they are taking 

a lot of money out of the wallets of the people in those areas, and 

those are the same areas where broadband is expensive. And so as 

people are paying more for the broadcast content and the cable 

channel content, they have less available to purchase broadband. 

This is a problem that is real and existing right now. And this also 

gives me a chance to pass the solution over to Chairman Powell. 

Mr. POWELL. Congressman, I think you make a couple of important points that we should just put top of mind, which is the challenge of reaching that last five to seven percent is because under 

traditional market fundamentals, they are uneconomic. And if they 

are uneconomic, the only way to cure something is you have to 

change the economic equation. This is why I have always had no 

problem understanding and respecting the Government has a 

meaningful and significant role in terms of our ubiquity objectives 

in universal service, of universality and affordability, to play a role 

through either the universal service program or any other properly 

constructed program to try to change the economic equation that 

attracts the infrastructure that those communities deserve. 

I think it is a more optimistic scenario in the modern world than 

it was before. Because in the old world, we had a single technology 

that tried to string twisted copper wire between two farms 300 

miles apart, and that was enormously and hideously expensive. 

One of the things I think really opens up an opportunity today is 

because of a common IP platform, we can essentially deliver almost 

any kind of service over almost any kind of network. So that means 

that wireless and probably its companion of satellite available services have real hope and promise for rural America. That is they 

have very dynamically different cost characteristics. A satellite at 

28,000 feet sees rural Nebraska no differently than it sees Manhattan. Wireless has a much lower cost infrastructure for some of 

those areas. So I think that isn’t a complete answer. But putting 

a lot of energy and investment into how those services will solve 

those problems is useful. And I think as the Chairman of the FCC 

is moving toward and IP network common regulatory proceeding, 

that convergence you are talking about also can get harmonized 

and the universal service program get harmonized along with it. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Agree. 

Mr. COPPS. I have a little different answer. Reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable prices is the injunction 

and the charge of the Telecommunications Act. Reforming USF, 

which the Commission is in the process of doing with lots of wrinkles and problems to work out, no question about that, is certainly 

an important part of the equation. But anybody who thinks that 

the universal service fund alone is going to bring this country the 

kind of high speed low-cost broadband that we need to have to be 

competitive in the world arena in the 21st century, I think is not 

looking at the situation as it is. This has to be an infrastructure 

mission. Our country has had infrastructure missions before when 

we came together to build highways and railroads and rural electricity, and so on and so forth. And that is what we need now. We 

are not going to be competitive. We are not going to get out of the 

71 

holes that we are in unless every citizen in this country has that 

access. And, yes, it is reaching that last five to seven percent. That 

is extremely important. But way more than half of our homes don’t 

have the kind of high speed, low-cost broadband, fiber broadband, 

that we are going to really need to be competitive. So we need to 

look at that, not just as an FCC problem but as a problem confronting our Government and our society, and act upon it and figure out whether we are really serious of being competitive in the 

global sweepstakes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. I look to the gentleman 

from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for 5—— 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I must 

say, I was concerned with some of the approach that was being 

taken in the line of questioning leading up to those last responses 

to my colleague where for the first time I heard the importance of 

rural America. Coming from a western State, a congressional district that represents 17 of New Mexico’s 22 tribes and the sprawling nature associated with what the west brings us, many parts of 

rural America where our food is grown, where energy is generated, 

critically important to be able to get coverage to these areas. And 

as I joked with Chairman Wheeler when we had him in front of 

us a couple of weeks ago, I explained to him that, you know, these 

last flights home, it has been great to see the TSA debating whether we can make phone calls at 30,000 feet. I know that I have 

streaming video content at 30,000 feet. I can communicate with my 

office and anyone else that I so choose to. So if I can communicate 

with constituents and get the video content that I want at 30,000 

feet, why can’t I do it on the ground in rural America? The technology is here. And there is no reason that we can’t push it out. 

To the three responses, I just can’t say thanks enough for that. 

Chairman Copps, with the response associated with the very aggressive push to infrastructure investment in America, it is absolutely needed. And we shouldn’t forget, especially as we talk about 

different ideals and philosophies that we have on this committee, 

and even in this Congress and across the country, that it was in 

many conservative and rural parts of America that benefited from 

Government investment with rural electrification, with major 

water projects that provide us power now that could be in question 

because of water flows—a whole other topic of conversation, but 

nonetheless that we need to make sure that we are addressing. 

So, Chairman Powell, you talked about twisted pairs and what 

that brought us, decisions that were made as a result of the ’96 act. 

And looking at Section 706(a), I am not certain what we are arguing about with concerns in that particular area. It is encouraging 

deployment of reasonable and timely basis on advanced telecom, especially for educational purposes. There may be some concerns with 

some of my colleagues on a price cap regulation. But regulatory for 

bands, measures that promote competition in local markets. This 

could be read by any member on this committee, encouraging 

ideals that I think that we all share. 

But one thing that hasn’t been talked about very much—and 

even given the fact that there was a huge data breach with Target, 

70 million customers that were impacted, is the security of this 

72 

network. I would hope that—and I would like to get your opinion 

if 706(a) provides us the necessary standards to be able to bring 

safeguards, or if you think that that is something that needs to be 

addressed? And I would like to invite comments from each of you. 

Mr. Hundt? 

Mr. HUNDT. As Chairman Powell said, Section 1706 is very 

broad. And I think that it is an opportunity and a duty for the FCC 

to dig into it and to create an appropriate framework, with the help 

of this committee and its counterpart in the Senate. If I might continue your point—your theme of rural America, there are a number 

of other provisions as well in the ’96 act that the FCC can use to 

try to achieve the goal of completely widespread broadband, even 

in rural and high cost areas. And one that I would identify is the 

current proceeding to re-imagine the E–Rate. 

The E–Rate, if we went—I just recently met with the chief librarian in Pima County, Arizona, which isn’t very far away from you. 

And you know the geography is not dissimilar. They have a fantastic system of broadband for not just the central library in Tucson, but all the branch libraries. All over this very, very sparsely 

populated geography, the library is the number one public Internet 

access point in southern Arizona. Therefore, it is the proper focus 

of extra E–Rate support, and the proper focus of the combination 

of network architectures that might well resemble what Chairman 

Powell was talking about. We shouldn’t decide that part. But we 

should decide that is a very flexible tool, also, that can be used to 

deliver the right participation in the American community to rural 

America. 

Mr. LUJAN. Chairman Powell? 

Mr. POWELL. Congressman, I really would like to put a punctuation on what you raise. Because I think it goes to the committee’s 

desire, I hope, to try to harmonize and see the communication landscape as a single ecosystem. All the wonderful benefits we are 

bragging and celebrating are continuously and daily at risk. I think 

cyber threat, data retention, breach are all issues that are the 

Achilles Heel of all the promise of the network that we are celebrating. But they require very complex solutions that look through 

an entire ecosystem. 706 is no more—is not particularly up to that 

job. Why? Even for no other reason that you can’t have a discussion 

without software involved. The cyber security question on a global—ecosystem basis means a conversation with every element of 

that massive connective chain. And that is the web companies, the 

infrastructure companies, wireless companies, content companies, 

there is just no way, in my opinion, even with its breadth that one 

could look hopefully to that as the single point of authority to make 

the most meaningful impact on this issue, mostly because 50 percent of that ecosystem aren’t even implicated by that provision. 

Mr. LUJAN. Chairman? 

Mr. COPPS. I hope 706 is up to the job. I think it does confer a 

lot of authority. But I don’t want this to become just a solution de 

jure and we talk about 706 for the next 2 years. And then another 

court somewhere strikes that down or whatever. I do want to highlight one thing that you mentioned in terms of getting broadband 

out. And I commend you for your interest and your work with native lands and Native Americans. And one area where I think 

73 

maybe a rewrite would help would be to more formally institutionalize—put some flesh on the bones of the trust relationship and 

the consulted—consultative mechanisms that we have between the 

Commission and Native Americans. It is not—it is working better 

than it has. I think there has been more emphasis in recent years. 

Obviously, back in Chairman Kennard’s time, who is not here 

today, there was an interest in moving us forward and getting us 

into a new trust relationship. But that is 13 or 14 years ago. And 

the situation, as you point out, is so dire when one member of a 

tribe can’t call somebody else, but you can make the call from 

30,000 feet. That is something wrong there. But that might be a 

concrete area where the Commission can—or where the Congress 

can actually lend a hand. 

Mr. LUJAN. Appreciate that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Appreciate that. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will now go to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the distinguished 

panel, this is among the most interesting hearings in which I have 

ever participated. And it is my honor to be able to meet all of you. 

I gather there is a consensus from the distinguished panel that 

the 1996 legislation needs, to some extent, statutory update and revision, is that accurate, from the panel? 

VOICE. I would agree. 

Mr. HUNDT. I don’t agree. 

Mr. LANCE. And, Chairman Hundt, if you would indicate why 

you do not agree there needs to be statutory update? 

Mr. HUNDT. I think that the DC Circuit has made it very clear 

that the ’96 act has given the authority to the FCC to address all 

the economic and social problems that this committee, in recent 

years and in past years, has asked the FCC to address. 

Mr. LANCE. Other distinguished members—— 

Mr. COPPS. I basically concur and agree with what Chairman 

Hundt has said. 

Mr. LANCE. Um-hum. 

Mr. COPPS. Sure, it is always nice to have some additional clarity. But time is of the essence here. We have a statute that I think 

can deliver on a lot of the things that need to be delivered, and we 

should be about that job. I just—it is so difficult to see the correlation of forces coming together to give birth to an act after what we 

went through in 1996. And I don’t think it is going to be any easier 

in 2014 to do that than it was 18 years ago. 

Mr. LANCE. Chairman Powell? 

Mr. POWELL. I think, by any measure, a deliberative process in 

the legislature would take a meaningful number of years, as the 

chairman—as Chairman Walden himself has recognized in setting 

out a multi-year process. I do think there are sufficient conditions 

to justify the institution of that kind of examination over that period of time, because I think the market is radically different and 

the relevancy of law as applied to reality should be a core principle 

of governance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. WILEY. I think the very fact that you didn’t have the Internet really developed, you didn’t have broadband, you didn’t have all 

74 

the technological changes that have occurred since 1996, really 

gives I think substance to taking another look. And I think that 

gives Congress an opportunity I think to perhaps make some suggestions to the regulatory body that I think would be very helpful. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman Wiley. Am I accurate—I have 

not read the decision. I have reviewed its consequences, but I have 

not read it. And I certainly will read yesterday’s decision. Am I accurate that the FCC decided in 2004 that Internet access services 

would not be classified as telecommunications services? Is that 

true, Chairman Powell? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. LANCE. And if that decision were to be revisited, that could 

be revisited by the administrative agency, is that accurate as to 

how it could proceed? 

Mr. POWELL. It is accurate. It could. 

Mr. LANCE. And if there were to be a revisiting of the 2004 decision that this is not classified as telecommunications services, then 

there would have to be an extensive period of review, and there 

would have to be some sort of high level determination as to why 

a different decision were to be made. Is that the way it would 

work? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. Under administrative law, even with deference, the Agency has to provide a reasoned explanation for its 

change in policy. It would require a notice and comment proceeding, which is open. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. 

Mr. POWELL. And I wouldn’t—you know, the suggestion has been 

made that somehow that would lead to instant clarity. It would 

lead to another 3-to-4-year period of conflict and litigation—— 

Mr. LANCE. And litigation. And, Chairman Copps? 

Mr. COPPS. But I would just say I don’t think it would take forever to compile that record. I and a lot of other people I know 

would be happy to contribute to the rational for that sort of action. 

So it is not really starting at—on the tabula rasa. I think a lot of 

that information is out there. It was just a route not taken. And 

now we need to go back and look at it. 

Mr. LANCE. And the FCC’s reclassification would be considered 

arbitrary and capricious unless there were a period of comment 

and refreshing the record, and some sort of heightened standard, 

is that accurate legally? 

Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. They have to follow the Administrative 

Procedure Act obligations. 

VOICE. And I am certain they would. 

Mr. LANCE. I would presume that would be the case. And, finally, 

the decision that yesterday possibly could be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it is not clear whether or not either side is likely 

to do that. 

VOICE. That is correct. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. Now, I turn to Mr. Long 

from Missouri. I think our last member to ask questions. Please go 

ahead. 

75 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Chairman. And, Chairman Hundt, last 

night you said that you spent quite a bit of time trying to go 

through the court ruling of yesterday. And most of the congressmen 

were home trying to read through a 1,562 page bill that we are 

going to be voting on this afternoon. So I have ordered my staff to 

bring a copy of that to you. And if you could peruse that over your 

lunch hour and kind of decipher it for me, I would appreciate it. 

Earlier in your testimony, Chairman Hundt, you said that—and 

I didn’t get—understand your point, I don’t think, concerning the 

auction. You said, if I remember right, that we need a cap so people know what they are buying. Can you kind of tell me what you 

were—in full disclosure, I come from a 30-year career as an auctioneer before I came to Congress a few years ago. So I have got 

a lot of interest in how an auction operates and try and make it 

operate the best it can for the public and the taxpayers. 

Mr. HUNDT. I remember very well that in our first auction, we 

had Senator Burns who had a—— 

Mr. LONG. Conrad Burns, you are right. 

Mr. HUNDT [continuing]. Come and conduct the very first auction. 

Mr. LONG. He is from Missouri. Now, he served from Montana, 

but he is originally from Missouri. So that is two of us. 

Mr. HUNDT. He did claim that particular heritage. And he did a 

great job. And I would recommend to Chairman Wheeler that he 

should come and ask you to conduct the next auction. 

Mr. LONG. I am not worried about conducting as much as I am 

the—you know, how it is put together. And that is what I have 

been trying to drill down on. 

Mr. HUNDT. Well—— 

Mr. LONG. But what was your comment? I didn’t understand you 

said that we need a cap so people know what they are buying. 

What exactly did you mean? 

Mr. HUNDT. So in any auction, when folks come in, you want the 

high bidder to be able to walk away with whatever was auctioned. 

And the way to do that I believe is to make sure that everybody 

bidding in that auction knows the following, what are the rules 

about how much you can buy. It doesn’t have to be a cap. It could 

be—some people think it should be an aggregation level. There is 

many different ways to define it. But people ought to know as they 

are about to take the money out of the wallet, as they are about 

to raise the hand and say that they are putting in the high bid, 

they ought to know that they can walk away with whatever they 

can buy, instead of having to have another proceeding where they 

ask the FCC or the Department of Justice later, am I permitted to 

walk away with this, because I don’t know whether or not I have 

violated any of your aggregation rules. So this Congress, in the Incentive Auction Rule, did say that the FCC should create a generally applicable aggregation rule. And I think that was a very 

wise thing to do, that way everybody going into the auction can estimate in advance whether or not what they buy is what they— 

what they bid on and win on is what they can walk away with. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Talking to the interested parties that are interested in buying this spectrum, they have told me—and this is probably a topic for another day. But they said if they can buy A, B 

76 

and C spectrum, then maybe they want to buy L, M, N, O, P later 

in the auction. Or if they can’t buy A, B and C, L, M, N, O, P 

doesn’t—if they can’t but that too, then the first three things that 

they bought—so it is a very confusing situation. So do you any of 

you have any staff—anybody you want to get with my staff that we 

can talk about to kind of sort that out, I would appreciate it. 

I want to move to Chairman Wiley for a minute. If you turn on 

the TV at night, the only reason it is not 100 percent phone company ads and the cellular companies and things is because it is 

interspersed with auto insurance ads. So there would be more—so 

it seems like there is quite a bit of competition out there now. And 

as far as the auction that I was talking about with Chairman 

Hundt, the wireless market I think appears to be extremely competitive. And you do have larger companies, AT&T, Verizon, T–Mobile, Sprint. And given that, doesn’t it make sense that the FCC— 

why will they—should they not—they shouldn’t handicap bidders, 

should they, to get the most money for the taxpayers and have the 

best auction they can where either some people are wanting to 

limit who can buy what? Can you kind of walk me through that? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, my view is that the auction ought to be available, open to all. I think if Congress really wants to see the maximum amount of revenue derived in order to support the public 

safety network we are going to have to pay the broadcasters, it is 

a very complex process. And I do—I am concerned about the fact 

that we start to begin to limit people in this that you are going to 

find you are going to have less revenue than might be otherwise 

anticipated. I think a free auction ought to be open to all. 

Mr. LONG. All right. When people would attend my auction, I 

was always interested in having the most people there and having 

them spend the most money that they could. And if they didn’t 

want to bid, I would bid for them. I would tell them just to hold 

their hand up in the air. And when they paid enough, I would tell 

them to take it down. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

VOICE. That is quite an auction. 

Mr. WALDEN. I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnessed, both for your prior Government service and your continuing 

involvement and interest in public policy to assist us in our mission 

and goals in updating the Communications Act. I draw attention 

to those who are observing our hearing. They can go to our hashtag 

at CommsActUpdate. I think it is right in front here—and give us 

your information. A lot of people have been doing that during the 

hearing. We appreciate that. Another reflection of how technology 

is changing the world, and we need to keep up with it. So thank 

you for your participation. Our subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

77 

78 

79 

80 

Æ