U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–951 WASHINGTON : 2019

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 25, 2018 

Serial No. 115–159 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, prepared statement ................................................................................. 3 

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

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Susan W. Brooks, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Indiana, prepared statement ............................................................................... 84 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 85 

WITNESSES

Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 122 

Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ........... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 152 

Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ............... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 156 

Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ..... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 158 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Credit Union National Association, submitted by Mrs. 

Blackburn ............................................................................................................. 86 

Statement of the Utilities Technology Council, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .. 88 

Letter of July 23, 2018, from the the Committeee to the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .............................................. 90 

Statement of USTelecom, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ..................................... 93 

Letter of July 10, 2018, from Mr. McKinley to the Federal Communications 

Commission, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ....................................................... 95 

Statement of Anthem, Inc., submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .................................. 96 

GAO report 1, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn 

Letter of July 23, 2018, from wireless ISPs to the Federal Communications 

Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle ................................................................. 99 

Tweet from Chairman Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle ............................................. 108 

Article entitled, ‘‘Ajit Pai gets message from his hometown ISP: Don’t hurt 

us small ISPs,’’ Ars Technica , submitted by Mr. Doyle ................................... 109 

Letter of July 18, 2018, from the United States Department of Commerce 

to the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle .......... 116 

Page

IV 

Letter of May 8, 2018, from Senator Wyden to the Federal Communications 

Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle ................................................................. 120 

1 The information can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/ 

20180725/108599/HHRG-115-IF16-20180725-SD010-U10.pdf. 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta, 

Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, 

Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, 

Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex 

officio). 

Staff Present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator, C&T; Samantha 

Bopp, Staff Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Kristine Fargotstein, 

Detailee, C&T; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff Member, C&T; 

Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director 

of Outreach and Coalitions; Brighton Haslett, Counsel, O&I; Elena 

Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, 

DCCP; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, DCCP; Tim Kurth, Deputy 

Chief Counsel, C&T; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, C&T; Drew 

McDowell, Executive Assistant; Brannon Rains, Staff Assistant; 

Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, C&T; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, DCCP; 

Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jennifer Epperson, Minority 

FCC Detailee; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; 

Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; and C.J. 

Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology will now come to order. I want to thank our witnesses 

for being here. We appreciate having you before us today. And I 

recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening. 

And welcome to this hearing on Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission. Today’s hearing marks the first time in 

28 years that the FCC has appeared before this subcommittee having been reauthorized by Congress. So I am delighted to welcome 

2 

the recently reauthorized Commission here today. This reauthorization effort reflects bipartisan, bicameral support of the FCC and 

the important work it carries out each day to enhance public safety, technologies and alerts, strengthen our national security, increase broadband deployment, and protect consumers while fostering competition and innovation in the communications marketplace. 

I hope today also demonstrates the importance of being reauthorized as each of the commissioners articulates how that action benefits the organization. I know we can deliver the same bipartisan accomplishment for your colleagues at the NTIA. 

While the FCC is charged with many important tasks, one of the 

most critical roles it plays revolves around public safety, from 

working to ensure it that alerting technologies warn the public of 

impending emergencies to aiding in the restoration of communication networks and services following emergencies, the FCC is responsible for making sure our communication systems are there 

when Americans are most in need of lifesaving information. This 

work is furthered through the Nation’s 9-1-1 service platform. With 

this year being the 50th anniversary of the first 9-1-1 call, we here 

in Congress have been actively working with both the FCC and the 

NTIA to improve the country’s 9-1-1 systems and facilitate the 

transition to Next Gen 9-1-1 services. I am looking forward to hearing more today about the FCC’s work to advance public safety before, during, and after emergencies the FCC has also worked closely with this subcommittee in our shared goal of promoting 

broadband access and closing the digital divide. We all agree on the 

importance of bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans, 

and this is especially true in rural America. RAY BAUM’S Act included a number of bipartisan provisions for members of this subcommittee and members of the full Energy and Commerce Committee that will help the FCC in removing Federal barriers to 

broadband deployment, increasing the amount of available spectrum in funding broadband. And just last week on a hearing on 

rural broadband, we heard from a variety of stakeholders on the 

impact of that legislation. I look forward to hearing more today on 

how the FCC has begun to implement the legislation. 

I also look forward to hearing the Commission’s recommendations on how we can improve connectivity for communities that are 

in desperate need of improvements to their education and 

healthcare services. It is this committee’s primary role to conduct 

oversight of all the programs and policies overseen by the FCC, and 

I remain focused on our key priorities so we can focus the work of 

this commission. 

And at this time, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance for 

an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Today’s hearing marks the first time in 28 years 

that the FCC has appeared before this Subcommittee having been reauthorized by 

Congress. So, I am delighted to welcome the recently reauthorized Commission here 

today. 

3 

This reauthorization effort reflects bipartisan, bicameral support of the FCC and 

the important work it carries out each day to enhance public safety technologies and 

alerts, strengthen our national security, increase broadband deployment, and protect consumers while fostering competition and innovation in the communications 

marketplace. I hope today also demonstrates the importance of being reauthorized, 

as each of the Commissioners articulates how that action benefits an organization. 

I know we can deliver the same bipartisan accomplishment for your colleagues at 

the NTIA. 

While the FCC is charged with many important tasks, one of the most critical 

roles it plays revolves around public safety. From working to ensure that alerting 

technologies warn the public of impending emergencies, to aiding in the restoration 

of communications networks and services following emergencies, the FCC is responsible for making sure our communications systems are there when Americans are 

most in need of life-saving information. This work is furthered through the Nations’ 

9-1-1 service platform. With this year being the 50th anniversary of the first call 

to 9-1-1, we here in Congress have been actively working with both the FCC and 

the NTIA to improve the country’s 9-1-1 systems, and facilitate the transition to 

Next Generation 9-1-1 services. I am looking forward to hearing more today about 

the FCC’s work to advance public safety before, during, and after emergencies. 

The FCC has also worked closely with this Subcommittee in our shared goal of 

promoting broadband access and closing the digital divide. We all agree on the importance of bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans, and this is especially true in rural America. RAY BAUM’S Act included a number of bipartisan provisions from members of this subcommittee and members from the full Energy and 

Commerce committee that will help the FCC in removing federal barriers to 

broadband deployment, increasing the amount of available spectrum, and funding 

broadband. And, just last week in a hearing on Rural Broadband, we heard from 

a variety of stakeholders on the impact of that legislation. I look forward to hearing 

more today on how the FCC has begun to implement this legislation. I also look 

forward to hearing the Commission’s recommendations on how we can improve 

connectivity for communities that are in desperate need of improvements to their 

education and health care services. 

It is this Subcommittee’s primary role to conduct oversight of all the programs 

and policies overseen by the FCC and I remain focused on our key priorities so we 

can focus the work of the Commission. 

At this time, I will yield to the remainder of my time to Mr. Lance for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Chairman. This is the most 

important responsibility we have on this subcommittee, and certainly we believe that it is incredibly important that the Commission, which does such fine work, is responsive to our concerns. I 

commend all of the Commissioners for your work. It has been my 

honor to work with every member of the Commission. I want to 

continue to do so in as strong a capacity as possible. And moving 

forward, we have to make sure that we work in bipartisan cooperation on the issues so important to the American Nation. 

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE

Thank you Chairman Blackburn and thank you to Chairman Pai and the rest of 

the Commissioners for appearing before us today. 

I commend the Commission and the members of the subcommittee for the good, 

bipartisan work that has occurred over the past year and a half. Much of the coverage on telecom issues focuses on a few politically divisive issues; however, I believe these are the exception not the rule. From closing the digital divide, to ensuring public safety, there is much we can agree on. 

Just last night we secured passage of four bipartisan public safety and broadband 

access bills including two I worked on with Congressman Tonko, the PIRATE Act 

and ACCESS BROADBAND. Our greatest bipartisan achievement this congress was 

RAY BAUM’S Act, which finally reauthorized the FCC and included an array of 

other bipartisan legislation. 

4 

Another thing we agree on is the importance of the US winning the race to 5G, 

which is why Ranking Member Doyle and I introduced the AIRWAVES Act early 

this year and have secured over fifty bipartisan cosponsors, a majority of which are 

on this Committee. 

I look forward to discussing important issues such as these with the Commissioners today, and hope to continue to work with all of you on ways to serve best 

the public, despite our differences. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the subcommittee’s ranking member, 

Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

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

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this very, very 

long overdue hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for, finally, 

after 9 long months, coming before this committee once again. 

In the 9 months since our last hearing, the FCC has continued 

to expand its track record of anti-consumer, anti-small business, 

anti-innovation policies. It seems that at almost every opportunity, 

the Commission has chosen corporations over consumers and failed 

in its duty to uphold the public interest. In December of last year, 

the Commission voted to eliminate net neutrality protections that 

are supported by the vast majority of Americans from all sides of 

the political spectrum. Chairman Pai’s comments regarding the 

quote/unquote, chicken littles who were concerned about the repeal 

should take a look at the public opinion polls that show the vast 

majority of his own party is opposed to the Commission’s action. 

These rules protected consumers and small businesses, as well as 

entrepreneurs and innovators. I am happy to say that the Senate 

has already passed a resolution restoring these rules. And we hope 

that we have a vote on our own bipartisan resolution here in the 

House. 

The rest of the Commission’s agenda has been no better. They 

have proposed gutting Lifeline Program, which is an essential communications tool for millions of Americans, including veterans and 

seniors. The Commission has made a series of decisions to encourage consolidation among broadcasters, from eliminating the main 

studio rule to reinstating the UHF discount, weakening the kid vid 

rules, and proposing to change the congressionally established National Ownership Cap. It seems that each of these actions benefit 

broadcast corporations, and it leaves the public worse off. 

The Chairman has claimed that he cares about rural broadband 

deployment, but the Commission in its zeal not to burden major 

wireless carriers with reporting where they have wireless service 

deployed imposed as part of Mobility Fund II a bizarre and onerous 

challenge process that requires rural providers to hire people to 

walk through cornfields and backyards trying to prove that communities don’t have wireless service. And if those companies can’t afford to send people up, the Commission will assume these communities are connected. Now tell me, how does that help the 24 million Americans without access to high-speed broadband? 

In the same vein, how does making changes to the CBRS ban to 

make it less accessible to rural wireless providers who are deploying broadband in hard-to-reach communities enhance the CommisVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
5 

sion and this committee’s shared goal of closing the digital divide? 

Well, it doesn’t. This Commission’s reckless actions are on 

broadband data services and copper retirement were so corporate 

friendly that NTIA, the White House’s adviser for telecommunications policy, recently said that they remain ‘‘concerned, however, 

that streamlined regulatory requirements may place on Federal departments and agencies that rely on services subject to discontinuance in the untenable position of losing access to critical national 

security and public safety communications functionality.’’ 

How is the Commission putting the convenience of carriers above 

our Nation’s national security and public safety needs? And that is 

besides the impact that these policies have on schools, libraries, 

hospitals, small businesses, and competitors that also rely on these 

services. What about Americans’ privacy? Senator Wyden’s office 

recently found that wireless carriers had been sharing the realtime location data of hundreds of millions of cell phones with third 

parties without consent from their users. That included sharing information with law enforcement agencies that used this data to illicitly look up Americans’ location data without a warrant or due 

process. And we don’t even know the scope of this problem because 

the Commission was asleep at the wheel. I understand that the 

Commission is now investigating, but how are you so in the dark 

on an abuse that was a widespread industry practice? And what 

confidence can this committee have that the Commission will take 

appropriate enforcement action against carriers who have so recklessly shared our location data without our consent? Again and 

again, the Commission has failed in its obligations to uphold the 

public interest and has instead repeatedly sided with corporations 

over consumers. And in waiting 9 months to do this oversight hearing, this committee has been complicit in the Commission’s action 

by turning a blind eye and being derelict in our responsibilities to 

provide oversight for this agency. 

I would just add that, while I am pleased the Commission issued 

a hearing designation order for the Sinclair merger and in doing 

so acknowledged the near universal concerns about Sinclair’s honesty and candor, I am extremely concerned that the President has 

weighted into this issue. I hope, Chairman Pai, that you can assure 

us the President’s tweet last night will not cause the Commission 

to change course or affect the proceedings of an administrative law 

judge. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this very, very long-overdue hearing, 

and thank you to the witnesses for finally—after 9 long months—coming before this 

Committee once again. 

In the 9 months since our last hearing the FCC has continued to expand its track 

record of anti-consumer, anti-small business, and anti-innovation policies. It seems 

that at almost every opportunity the Commission has chosen corporations over consumers—and failed in its duty to uphold the public interest. 

In December of last year, the Commission voted to eliminate Net Neutrality protections that are supported by the vast majority of Americans from all sides of the 

political spectrum. 

6 

Chairman Pai’s comments regarding the ‘‘chicken littles’’ who were concerned 

about the repeal should take a look at public opinion polls that show that the vast 

majority of his own party is opposed to the Commission’s actions. 

These rules protected consumers and small businesses as well as entrepreneurs 

and innovators. I’m happy to say that the Senate has already passed a resolution 

restoring these rules, and we hope to vote on our own bipartisan resolution here 

in the House. 

The rest of the Commission’s agenda has been no better. They have proposed gutting the Lifeline program, which is an essential communications tool for millions of 

Americans, including veterans and seniors. 

The Commission has made a series of decisions to encourage consolidation among 

broadcasters—from eliminating the main studio rule to reinstating the UHF discount, weakening the Kid-Vid rules, and proposing to change the Congressionally 

established National Ownership Cap. 

It seems that each of these actions benefits broadcast corporations and will leave 

the public worse off. 

The Chairman has claimed that he cares about rural broadband deployment. But 

the Commission—in its zeal to not burden major wireless carriers with reporting 

where they have wireless service deployed—imposed, as part of Mobility Fund 2, a 

bizarre and onerous challenge process that requires rural providers to hire people 

to walk through cornfields and backyards trying to prove that communities don’t 

have wireless service. And if those companies can’t afford to send people out, the 

Commission will assume these communities are connected. How does this help the 

24 million Americans without access to high speed broadband? 

In the same vein, how does making changes to the CBRS band to make it less 

accessible to rural wireless providers—who are deploying broadband in hard-toreach communities—enhance the Commission and this Committee’s shared goal of 

closing the digital divide? It doesn’t. 

This Commission’s reckless actions on Broadband Data Services and copper retirement were so corporate-friendly that NTIA, the White House’s Adviser for Telecommunications policy, recently said that they remain quote—‘‘concerned, however, 

that streamlined regulatory requirements may place federal departments and agencies that rely on services subject to discontinuance in the untenable position of losing access to critical national security and public safety communications 

functionality’’—unquote. Why is the Commission putting the convenience of carriers 

above our nation’s national security and public safety needs? That’s besides the impact these policies have on schools, libraries, hospitals, small businesses, and competitors that also rely on these services? 

What about Americans’ privacy? Senator Wyden’s office recently found that wireless carriers had been sharing the real-time location data of hundreds of millions 

of cell phones with third parties without consent from their users. That included 

sharing information with law enforcement agencies that used this data to illicitly 

look up Americans’ location data without a warrant or due process. 

We don’t even know the scope of this problem, because the Commission was 

asleep at the wheel. I understand that the Commission is now investigating, but 

how were you so in-the-dark on an abuse that was a widespread industry practice? 

And what confidence can this Committee have that the Commission will take appropriate enforcement action against carriers who have so recklessly shared our location data without our consent? 

Again and again the Commission has failed in its obligations to uphold the public 

interest—and has instead repeatedly sided with corporations over consumers. And 

in waiting 9 months to do this oversight hearing, this Committee has been complicit 

in the Commission’s actions by turning a blind eye and being derelict in our responsibility to provide oversight for this agency. 

I will just add, that while I am pleased the Commission issued its hearing designation order for the Sinclair merger—and in doing so acknowledged the near universal concerns about Sinclair’s honesty and candor—I am extremely concerned that 

the President has waded into this issue. I hope, Chairman Pai, that you can assure 

us the President’s tweet last night will not cause the Commission to change course 

or affect the proceedings of the Administrative Law Judge? 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Walden, the chairman of the full committee, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

7 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank 

you for your leadership on these topics. Specifically, I want to 

thank you for highlighting the improving emergency alert and 9- 

1-1 services, as well as your outreach to the minority on the NTIA 

reauthorization. We have reauthorized the FCC for the first time 

in what 28 years on the RAY BAUM’S Act. In fact, I think that 

is the last time you were here to testify before us, Mr. Chairman. 

The Commission’s efforts in wildfire and hurricane response, its 

focus on emergency alerts and implementing improved call routing, 

location accuracy are key priorities for all of us. When we reauthorized the FCC for the first time in two decades, we appreciated the 

Commission’s input on our work. And thanks to the hard work of 

everyone on the Committee, we were able to incorporate provisions 

from 18 bipartisan bills that now form RAY BAUM’S Act that is 

law. So here we do try to work together whenever we can on these 

issues, 18 bipartisan bills, the RAY BAUM’S Act, and I think we 

did 57 bills on opioids, virtually all of which were bipartisan. 

So I look forward to hearing about the FCC’s progress in implementing this important law, such as the broadcast repack. The 

Commission has been very busy doing good work on the repack. We 

provided an extra billion dollars and fixed some of the issues that 

were there to make sure that translators and FM radio stations 

could get their antennas moved, their equipment moved, so we can 

free up that spectrum. 

And I know the Commission, under your leadership and others, 

successfully pulled off the biggest reverse auction in history. You 

brought to our attention, Mr. Chairman, the issue involving the illegality of the funds that came to the Commission. You couldn’t put 

them anywhere legally, even though your predecessor did. And so 

we fixed that, and I think that was important to take care of. 

I want to thank you for coming out to my district last month, and 

we traveled around, we saw a health clinic and what telehealth 

means. I want to commend the Commission for the decision to lift 

the cap on the rural health telemedicine piece. That made a huge 

and positive difference for our rural clinics, when you added $171 

million over the $400 million cap. You heard it firsthand when you 

were out there meeting with the clinic, and I appreciated the discussion we had with the broadcasters, the small ISPs. I think you 

got a taste for what the seventh or eighth largest congressional district in the country is, even though we never got out of one county, 

but we were there all day. 

Commissioner O’Rielly and I have recently had conversations 

about the uphill challenge facing our radio industry, which I have 

some experience. My colleagues say I have a great voice for radio 

and a face for it too. They are not very nice people. Radio, as you 

know, was my original story, and my father’s as well. And I think 

it is a really important part of our country’s framework and fabric 

of sharing information and entertainment. That fraternity of voices 

is sharing the same fate as newspapers unfortunately, which never 

gained the benefits of cross-ownership relief under the Commission 

for some 15 years. Entities captured once again by regulations from 

another time. We seem trapped in this constant time warp that 

8 

regulations of the seventies or the 1930s for that matter somehow 

work for the present day or beyond. And some obviously want to 

take us back to the regime of the 1930s. 

We will discuss the changing media landscape today as well. Another sector that edge providers are disrupting, which is great 

news. It is yet another example of why I put the call out a year 

ago and then a few months ago inviting the CEOs of some of America’s greatest innovative technology companies to please come here 

and share with us before this committee their concerns and recommendations on a wide range of topics. 

The rhetoric around these issues has become like watching the 

opening of an old television show, waiting to get to the main programming. We sit here and listen to the same old falsehoods, that 

we ripped away privacy and net neutrality protections, while the 

reality is all we have done is restore bipartisan equilibrium and 

regulatory framework that existed just 3 years ago. Little momand-pop startups kind of found their way through a light-touch regulatory framework. Though we now know those as old Facebook, 

Google, Netflix—you name it—all grew up in a light-touch framework, not with the 1930s way we regulated telephones. 

In this committee room, we do have the benefit of hearing our 

critics speak out loud, though unlike other corrosive voices that 

seek to destroy our daily discourse. 

As Chairman Pai knows all too well, be fearful if you are conservative and let your views be known. I am sorry for what you 

and your family have gone through. Whether you are on the right 

or the left, somewhere here we have to get back our humanity 

where we are not shouting at each other and threatening each 

other, but instead trying to work out our differences. We do that 

a lot in this committee. And we will continue to. 

So, with that, Madam Chair, thank you for this hearing. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Thank you, Madame Chair, 

I want to thank you for your leadership on these topics. Specifically, I want to 

thank you for highlighting the improving emergency alert and 9-1-1 services as well 

as your outreach to the minority on the NTIA reauthorization. We’ve reauthorized 

the FCC for the first time in 28 years under the RAY BAUM’S Act, in fact, I think 

that’s the last time you were here to testify before us Mr. Chairman. 

The commission’s efforts in wildfire and hurricane response, its focus on emergency alerts and implementing improved call routing, location accuracy, are key priorities for all of us. We reauthorized the FCC for the first time in two decades. We 

appreciated the commissions’ input on our work, and thanks to the hard work of 

everyone on the committee, we were able to incorporate provisions from 18 bipartisan bills that now form RAY BAUM’S Act. That is law. So, here we do try to work 

together whenever we can, on these issues -18 bipartisan bills, the RAY BAUM’S 

Act, and I think we did 57 bills on opioids- virtually all of which were bipartisan. 

I look forward to hearing about the FCC’s progress in implementing this important law, such as the broadcast repack. The commission’s been very busy doing good 

work on the repack. We provided an extra billion dollars and fixed some of the 

issues that were there to make sure that translators and FM radio stations could 

get their antennas moved or equipment moved so that we can free up that spectrum. I know that the commission under your leadership and others successfully 

pulled off the biggest reverse auction in history. 

You brought to our attention, Mr. Chairman, the issue involving the illegality of 

the funds that came to the commission—you couldn’t put them anywhere legally— 

9 

even though your predecessor did, and so we fixed that. I think that was important 

to take care of. I want to thank you for coming out to my district last month, we 

traveled around, we saw health clinics and what telehealth means. 

I want to commend the commission for the decision to lift the cap on the rural 

health telemedicine piece. That made a huge and positive difference for our rural 

clinics, when you added $171 million over the $400 million cap. You heard it firsthand when you were out there meeting with the clinic, and I appreciated the discussion that we had with the broadcasters, the small ISPs, and I think you got a taste 

for what the 7th or 8th largest congressional district in the country is even though 

we never got out of one county, but we were there all day. 

Commissioner O’Rielly and I have recently had conversations about the uphill 

challenge facing our radio industry, which I have some experience. Radio, as you 

know, was my original story and my father’s as well and I think it’s a really important part of our country’s framework and fabric of sharing information and entertainment. That fraternity of voices is sharing in the same fate as newspapers, unfortunately, which never gained the benefits of cross ownership relief under the Commission for some fifteen years—entities captured once again by regulations from another time. We seem trapped in this constant time warp that regulations of the 

1970s, or the 1930s for that matter, somehow work for the present day or beyond. 

And some, obviously, wanted to take us back to the regime of the 1930s. 

We’ll discuss the changing media landscape today as well, another sector that 

‘edge providers’ are disrupting, which is great news. It’s yet another example of why 

I put the call out a year ago, and then a few months ago, inviting the CEOs of some 

of America’s greatest innovative technology companies to please come here and 

share with us, before this committee, their concerns and recommendations on a wide 

range of topics. 

The rhetoric around these issues have become like watching the opening of an old 

television show, waiting to get to the main programming. We sit here and listen to 

the same old falsehoods that we ripped away privacy and net neutrality protections, 

while the reality is, all we have done is restore a bipartisan equilibrium and regulatory framework that existed just three years ago. 

Old ‘‘Mom and Pop’’ startups kind of found their way through a lighttouch regulatory framework. We would now know those as, oh, Facebook, Google, Netflix—you 

name it—all grew up in a light touch framework, not with the 1930s way we regulated telephones. In this committee room, we do have the benefit of hearing our critics speak out loud, though, unlike other corrosive voices that seek to destroy our 

daily discourse. As Chairman Pai knows all too well, be fearful if you are a conservative and let your views be known. 

I’m sorry for what you and your family’s gone through. Whether you’re on the 

right or the left, somewhere here we have to get back our humanity where we’re 

not shouting at each other and threatening each other, but instead trying to work 

out our differences. We do that a lot in this committee and we will continue to. 

So, with that, Madame Chair, thank you for this hearing, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent 

agency created by and accountable to Congress. Congress gave the 

agency broad powers and the responsibility to protect consumers, 

advance competition, promote universal service at reasonable rates, 

and enhance public safety. In other words, to work in the public 

interest. As the FCC’s oversight committee, it is our duty to ensure 

the Commission’s actions advance those goals and hold the Chairman and Commissioners accountable when the agency does not. 

Unfortunately, the Republican majority of this committee has 

been unwilling to follow through on its promise to hold quarterly 

10 

oversight hearings with the FCC. This is the first oversight hearing 

in 9 months and only the third this Congress. 

During that time, the Commission has repeatedly acted contrary 

to its core mission. In a series of partisan votes, the agency dismantled protections for consumers and initiated numerous proceedings designed to benefit big corporations to the detriment of 

working class Americans and local communities. 

By far the most high-profile and controversial decision was the 

elimination of the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Those safeguards protected consumers, protected small businesses, and protected free 

speech. Chairman Pai ignored the vast majority of the 24 million 

comments from individuals and businesses supporting net neutrality. 

It is not surprising that Chairman Pai’s order faces massive consumer opposition. Public outrage from startup companies, working 

families, educators, healthcare professionals, veterans and so many 

others at townhalls and community centers have driven congressional action. In May, the Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation that would reinstate net neutrality. Ranking Member 

Doyle is now championing that legislation here in the House. And 

it is not too late to stand with the American people and restore net 

neutrality. And I urge Speaker Ryan to bring this legislation up for 

a vote and stand with the bipartisan Members that have signed the 

petition to force one. 

Sadly, the FCC’s disregard for consumers does not end there. At 

a time when other agencies are separating children from their families at our borders and violence in schools is far too commonplace, 

the Trump FCC wants to roll back rules that limit advertising to 

children and requires stations to air educational programming for 

kids. And this doesn’t make sense. If the agency was serious about 

focusing on consumers, it would want to help parents searching for 

quality educational programming and shield children, not make 

them easier targets for big business. 

In another example of siding with corporations over consumers, 

Chairman Pai’s changes of the FCC’s media ownership protections 

undermine competition, localism, and diverse viewpoints in favor of 

corporate consolidation. While the Commission rightfully acknowledged that Sinclair’s proposed merger and related divestitures may 

violate the law, the rollback of the media ownership rules opens 

the door for the next Sinclair. 

Universal service, critical to the most vulnerable populations, 

also has been undermined under Chairman Pai’s leadership. The 

FCC’s proposal to revise the Lifeline Program is a particularly 

egregious example. If adopted, this proposal could cut phone or 

internet service for approximately 8.3 million people. These are single mothers struggling to get by, veterans searching for jobs, and 

seniors on fixed incomes. They are at risk of being left behind. The 

FCC should be looking for ways to help these struggling participants in our economy and community and not just cut them off. 

And, finally, while the Commission has worked to update the 

Emergency Alert System, advance Next Generation 9-1-1, and implement the SANDy Act, it has fallen short in making cybersecurity a priority. The agency has retreated from the efforts of preVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
11 

vious administrations at a time when cyber criminals, foreign and 

domestic, are becoming more aggressive. 

Today’s communications networks connect businesses, consumers, and government agencies. And these networks drive a 

modern economy. But those same networks provide a target for 

cyber attacks by criminal gangs and nation-states. As the agency 

charged with promoting public safety, the FCC should work with 

and encourage companies to develop best practices, address 

vulnerabilities, and prepare for cybersecurity attacks. 

Since the FCC is shirking its responsibility, Congress should be 

conducting more oversight in the future. 

So I want to thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before us today and look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency created by 

and accountable to Congress. Congress gave the agency broad powers and a responsibility to protect consumers, advance competition, promote universal service at reasonable rates, and enhance public safety. In other words, to work in the public interest. As the FCC’s oversight committee, it is our duty to ensure the Commission’s 

actions advance those goals and hold the Chairman and Commissioners accountable 

when the agency does not. 

Unfortunately, the Republican majority of this committee has been unwilling to 

follow through on its promise to hold quarterly oversight hearings with the FCC. 

This is the first oversight hearing in nine months, and only the third this Congress. 

That is an embarrassment. 

During that time, the Commission has repeatedly acted contrary to its core mission. In a series of partisan votes, the agency dismantled protections for consumers 

and initiated numerous proceedings designed to benefit big corporations to the detriment of working-class Americans and local communities. 

By far the most high profile and controversial decision was the elimination of the 

FCC’s net neutrality rules. Those safeguards protected consumers, protected small 

businesses, and protected free speech. Chairman Pai ignored the vast majority of 

the 24 million comments from individuals and businesses supporting net neutrality. 

It’s not surprising that Chairman Pai’s order faces massive consumer opposition. 

Public outrage from start-up companies, working families, educators, health care 

professionals, veterans, and so many others at townhalls and community centers 

have driven Congressional action. In May, the Republican-controlled Senate passed 

legislation that would reinstate net neutrality. Ranking Member Doyle is now championing that legislation here in the House. It is not too late to stand with the American people and restore net neutrality. I urge Speaker Ryan to bring this legislation 

up for a vote and stand with the bipartisan Members that have signed a petition 

to force one. 

Sadly, the FCC’s disregard for consumers does not end there. At a time when 

other agencies are separating children from their families at our borders and violence at schools is far too commonplace, the Trump FCC wants to roll back rules 

that limit advertising to children and require stations to air educational programming for kids. This does not make sense. If the agency was serious about focusing 

on consumers, it would want to help parents searching for quality educational programming and shield children, not make them easier targets for big business. 

In another example of siding with corporations over consumers, Chairman Pai’s 

changes to the FCC’s media ownership protections undermine competition, localism, 

and diverse viewpoints in favor of corporate consolidation. 

While the Commission rightfully acknowledged that Sinclair’s proposed merger 

and related divestures may violate the law, the rollback of the media ownership 

rules opens the door for the next Sinclair. 

Universal service-critical to the most vulnerable populations-also has been undermined under Chairman Pai’s leadership. The FCC’s proposal to revise the Lifeline 

program is a particularly egregious example. If adopted, this proposal could cut 

phone or internet service for approximately 8.3 million people. These are single 

mothers struggling to get by, veterans searching for jobs, and seniors on fixed-inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
12 

comes. They are at risk of being left behind. The FCC should be looking for ways 

to help those struggling participate in our economy and community—not cut them 

off. 

Finally, while the Commission has worked to update the emergency alert system, 

advance next generation 9-1-1, and implement the SANDy Act, it has fallen short 

in making cybersecurity a priority. The agency has retreated from the efforts of previous Administrations at a time when cyber criminals—foreign and domestic—are 

becoming more aggressive. 

Today’s communications networks connect businesses, consumers, and government agencies. These networks drive the modern economy. But those same networks 

provide a target for cyber-attacks by criminal gangs and nation states. As the agency charged with promoting public safety, the FCC should work with and encourage 

companies to develop best practices, address vulnerabilities, and prepare for cybersecurity attacks. 

Since the FCC is shirking its responsibilities, Congress should be conducting more 

oversight in the future. 

I thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before us today and look 

forward to your testimony, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

And that concludes the member opening statements. 

I remind all members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 

member’s opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

And we are going to try to get through our opening statements 

before votes are called around 1:40. So I want to thank all of you 

for being here today. Today’s witnesses will have the opportunity 

to give their opening statements. It will be followed by a round of 

questions from members. Our panel today includes Chairman Pai, 

Commissioner O’Rielly, Commissioner Carr, and Commissioner 

Rosenworcel. We appreciate that you are here and that your testimony was prepared and submitted on time. We will go in order of 

seniority, which is the tradition in this subcommittee, and I begin 

with you today, Chairman Pai. You are recognized for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL O’RIELLY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; 

BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member 

Doyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding 

this hearing. I appreciate this chance to update you on the FCC’s 

work. But before I do, I would like to thank this subcommittee for 

its vital assistance. The RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018, which originated in this subcommittee, contained a host of provisions that are 

already having a positive impact on the FCC’s work. Perhaps most 

importantly, it corrected a technical problem involving deposits for 

spectrum auctions. With this fix in place, the FCC is moving forward aggressively to hold auctions and move a substantial amount 

of high band spectrum into the commercial marketplace. 

This year, we are commencing the 28 gigahertz band option, followed immediately by an option of the 24 gigahertz band. In the 

second half of 2019, we intend to hold an auction of spectrum at 

37, 39, and 47 gigahertz bands. Combined, these options will make 

13 

almost 5 gigahertz of spectrum available and advanced America’s 

global leadership in 5G, the next generation of wireless 

connectivity. None of this would have been possible without the 

subcommittee’s leadership. 

The FCC has also benefited from the subcommittee’s support in 

carrying out our top priority, closing the digital divide. Yesterday, 

the FCC kicked off its Connect America Fund Phase II reverse auction, which will provide up to $2 billion over the next decade to 

bring fixed broadband to unserved areas across rural America. Earlier this year, we dedicated $500 million in additional funding 

to assist small carriers deploying rural broadband. We proposed 

over $1 billion to restore and improve communications networks in 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands following the devastating 2017 

hurricane season. And we boosted telemedicine’s promise by extending funding in our rural healthcare program by 43 percent, or 

$171 million. 

Funding aside, we are also modernizing our rules, cutting 

through the regulatory red tape and making it easier for broadband 

providers to invest in next generation networks. We have exempted 

small cells from the Federal historic preservation and environmental review processes that were designed for traditional cell towers. We have updated our Business Data Services regulations. We 

have reformed our network transition rules to make it easier for 

companies to upgrade from the fading networks of yesterday toward the resilient networks of tomorrow. We are making it easier 

and cheaper for providers, including competitive entrants, to get 

access to utility poles with One Touch Make Ready rules as proposed by our Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. And we 

have returned to the successful light-touch regulatory framework 

under which the internet flourished in the United States from 1996 

until 2015. 

I am pleased to report that our policies to promote broadband deployment are working. According to a recent study in 2017, more 

commercial buildings in the United States added fiber connections 

than in any year since at least 2004. And according to figures released just today, it appears that broadband network investment in 

the United States increased by between $1.5 billion and $3 billion 

in 2017, reversing the declines that occurred during the last 2 

years of the prior Administration. This increased investment is 

having a tangible and positive impact on American consumers. 

I will give you just one example. VTel is a small internet service 

provider based in Springfield, Vermont. The company reported recently that because of recent FCC policies it ‘‘committed $4 million 

to purchase equipment and services to upgrade its LTE core to enable voice roaming and remedy Wi-Fi calling to all of Vermont 

rural subscribers and to simultaneously begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start our transition to 5G.’’ VTel concludes, and I quote again, ‘‘it is quite optimistic about the future, 

and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.’’ 

In short, we are on the right track, and I am confident that we 

will continue to see more positive results in the months ahead as 

more of our policies take hold. 

I am also pleased by the amount of bipartisan cooperation we 

have seen at the FCC. This year, for example, fewer than 6 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
14 

cent, or 1 in 16, of our over 100 votes have been party line. Of 

course, there will be times when we disagree. But my hope is the 

debate will be based on facts, consistent with law, and grounded 

in reality. 

I will close on a personal note. I love this agency. I have worked 

at the FCC for most of the past 11 years, first as a staffer and then 

as an appointee. It has been a tremendous honor to lead this commission over the last 18 months. A major reason why is because 

I get to work alongside and have gotten to know the FCC’s fantastic staff, those who race toward hurricane-hit areas to help, 

those who strive to make technologies available to Americans with 

disabilities, those who devote countless hours to representing our 

country abroad, and more. 

As for me, the issues I have faced are challenging. The decisions 

I have made haven’t always been easy, but so long as I have the 

privilege of serving as the Chairman of the FCC, I am going to find 

the facts, I am going to follow the law, and I am going to call ’em 

like I see ’em. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the 

subcommittee, thank you once again for holding this hearing. I look 

forward to answering your questions and to continuing to work 

with you and your staffs in the time to come. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:] 

15 


35951.001

STATEMENT OF 

CHAIRMAN AJIT PAl 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

HEARING ON "OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION" 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JULY 25,2018 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

holding this hearing. I appreciate this opportunity to update you on the work of the Federal 

Communications Commission to advance the public interest. 

But before doing so, I'd like to thank this Subcommittee for the vital assistance that it has 

provided the FCC. Earlier this year, the RAY BAUM'S Act of2018 was enacted into law as part of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act. That legislation, which originated in this Subcommittee, contained a 

host of provisions that are already having a positive impact on the Commission's work. Perhaps most 

importantly, the RAY BAUM's Act included a provision which corrected a technical problem involving 

deposits for spectrum auctions that prevented the Commission from moving forward with large auctions. 

United States Leadership in 5G.-With this fix in place, the FCC is moving forward aggressively 

to hold auctions and move a substantial amount of spectrum into the commercial marketplace. On 

November 14, we plan on beginning our 28 GHz band auction, which will be quickly followed by our 24 

GHz band auction. Then, in the second half of 2019, I intend to hold a single auction of spectrum in the 

37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands. Combined, these auctions will make 4.95 GHz of spectrum 

available to the private sector and advance America's global leadership in the deployment of the next 

generation of wireless connectivity, or 5G. None of this would have been possible without this 

Subcommittee's leadership. 

The FCC is also moving forward on other fronts to ensure that our nation is a pioneer in SG. 

Earlier this month, we proposed to make more mid-band spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for 

flexible terrestrial use. In June, we proposed making spectrum in the 26 and 42 GHz bands available for 

flexible terrestrial use. In May, the Commission proposed to allow more efficient and effective use of 

spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band by increasing flexibility for existing Educational Broadband Service 

licensees and providing new opportunities for educational entities, rural Tribal Nations, and commercial 

entities to access unused portions of the band. Earlier this year, we proposed in our Spectrum Horizons 

proceeding to allow for greater experimentation in very-high spectrum bands above 95 GHz. 

Commissioner O'Rielly is taking the lead in working with staff to conclude the 3.5 GHz proceeding in the 

coming months. And I've committed to putting forth a proposal in the fall to make greater use of the 6 

GHzband. 

With respect to low-band spectrum, the transition in the 600 MHz band following the incentive 

auction is proceeding apace. We've granted wireless licenses to the vast majority of auction winners, and 

T-Mobile has already started offering service in the band in more than 900 cities and towns in 32 states. 

Moreover, the additional funding that Congress recently provided the Commission in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act will ensure that we are able to fully reimburse full-power and Class A television 

stations for their reasonable relocation expenses and provide funding to LPTV, television translators, and 

FM stations that are adversely affected by the repack as well as funding for consumer education. 
16 


35951.002

Of course, American leadership in 5G is not just about spectrum policy; getting infrastructure 

policy right is critical as well. We can make all of the spectrum in the world available for 5G service, but 

it won't make a difference if the physical infrastructure isn't in place to carry this traffic. And the private 

sector will need to install a lot of physical infrastructure because we know that the wireless networks of 

the future will be much more densified than the networks of today. 

That's why I asked Commissioner Carr to lead the Commission's efforts to modernize our 

wireless infrastructure rules. Many of our regulations were designed for 200-foot towers, not small cells 

that can be the size of pizza boxes. That needed to change. And thanks to Commissioner Carr's 

leadership, that is changing. Earlier this year, for example, we decided that small cells would no longer 

have to go through the same federal historic preservation and environmental review processes that were 

designed for traditional large towers. This common-sense step will expedite the deployment of small 

cells, cut the cost of deployment, and allow for the faster rollout of 5G. I'd also like to thank 

Commissioner O'Rielly for his strong support of this important initiative. 

Our wireless infrastructure efforts dovetail with our initiatives to promote the deployment of 

wire line infrastructure, which is essential to carry the massive amounts of 5G traffic that we anticipate. 

I' II now turn to our wire line efforts. 

Closing the Digital Divide.-From the beginning of my tenure as head of the agency, I've made 

clear that my top priority would be to close the digital divide. I take this issue personally, having grown 

up in a small town in rural Kansas. And in order to inform our efforts on how to connect unserved areas, 

I've travelled to 33 states and two U.S. territories and have logged nearly 9,000 road miles to learn about 

rural communities around the country. I've seen places that are using the Internet to open new doors of 

opportunity as well as towns that are being bypassed by the digital revolution. In the time to come, I' II 

continue to visit these areas and keep the Commission's eyes focused on how we can find innovative 

ways to address this critical challenge. 

I'm pleased to report that the FCC has been taking significant steps to expand broadband 

deployment in previously unserved parts of our country. Yesterday, for example, the Commission kicked 

off its Connect America Fund Phase II reverse auction, which will provide up to $2 billion over the next 

decade to bring fixed broadband to unserved areas in rural America. Through this first-of-its-kind multiround reverse auction, a wide variety of providers, including rural electric cooperatives, fixed wireless 

providers, incumbent local exchange carriers, cable companies, and satellite providers, are competing for 

universal support funding to expand broadband deployment. The reverse auction mechanism will ensure 

that this money is distributed efficiently and that we get the most bang for our buck. A lot 9f work went 

into getting this auction off the ground, and I'd like to thank the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force 

for all its efforts on this essential project. 

· On the universal service front, we've also taken other significant steps. Earlier this year, for 

example, we provided about $500 million in additional funding to assist rate-of-return carriers in 

expanding broadband deployment in rural America and sought public input on the future steps we should 

take so that these carriers have sufficient resources to build out broadband. We also raised the cap in our 

Rural Health Care program by $171 million a year and agreed to adjust the cap in future years to account 

for the impact of inflation. And in August, we will examine a $100 million pilot program to expand 

connected care everywhere, spearheaded by Commissioner Carr. These steps will enable more rural 

patients to access telemedicine through high-speed broadband. 

Although reforming our universal service programs is an important aspect of closing the digital 

divide, that alone won't get the job done. We also have to cut through the regulatory red tape and make it 

easier for broadband providers to invest in next-generation networks. And that's exactly what we're 

doing. Among other things, we've modernized our rules to make it easier for companies to transition 

away from maintaining the fading copper networks of yesterday and toward investing in the resilient 

networks of tomorrow. We're also taking action to make it easier and cheaper for providers to get access 

2 
17 


35951.003

to utility poles and conduits. At our August meeting, for example, we will be voting on one-touch-makeready rules. This proposal was recommended by our Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, and if 

adopted, this initiative would substantially reduce the time and expense of preparing poles for new 

attachments. Many broadband providers, particularly competitive entrants, have told the FCC how the 

time and cost of attaching equipment to poles is a significant barrier to broadband deployment. Adopting 

one-touch-make ready rules would be a significant step toward solving that problem. 

The Commission has also given the green light to companies that want to send a large number of 

satellites into low-Earth orbit to provide high-speed broadband. These new networks promise much faster 

and more reliable satellite broadband services and could help us reach the hardest-to-serve areas. 

And finally, we've returned to the successful light-touch regulatory framework under which the 

Internet flourished in the United States from 1996 to 2015. Under the heavy-handed regulations adopted 

by the prior Commission in 2015, network investment declined for two straight years, the first time that 

had happened outside of a recession in the broadband era. But we've now abandoned that failed policy. 

In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was adopted last December, we stopped regulating the 

Internet with 1934 rules designed for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. We strengthened our 

transparency rules so that broadband providers are required to disclose more information about their 

network management practices. And we restored the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, our 

nation's premier consumer protection agency, to police the practices of Internet service providersauthority the prior Commission had stripped from the FTC in 2015. 

At the time that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order was adopted, there were many hysterical 

predictions of doom and gloom. We were told that it would be the destruction of the Internet, or as some 

outlets put it, "the end of the Internet as we know it." But the Restoring Internet Freedom Order has 

taken effect, and the sky has not fallen. Indeed, the only thing that has fallen is the credibility of the 

Chicken Littles who made such dire predictions. 

The bottom line is this: The Internet remains open and free, and we now have a regulatory 

framework in place that is encouraging the private sector to make the investments necessary to bring 

better, faster, and cheaper broadband to more Americans. This fact was brought home recently by Michel 

Guite, President ofVTel, a small Internet service provider based in Springfield, Vermont. He recently 

wrote: "I can assure that regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any 

incentives for VTel to invest in its broadband network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite 

effect." And as a result of recent FCC policies, VTel "committed $4 million to purchase equipment and 

services from Ericsson to upgrade its L TE core to enable voice roaming and Wi-Fi calling to all our 

Vermont rural subscribers and to simultaneously begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start 

our transition to 50." Mr. Guite concluded that VTel "is quite optimistic about the future, and the current 

FCC is a significant reason for our optimism." I have attached VTel's letter to this statement so that you 

can see for yourself the positive consumer impacts our decisions, including light-touch regulation, are 

having. 

Public SafeO>.-In recent months, the Commission has taken many important steps to improve 

public safety. A principal focus has been on improving our nation's alerting systems: the Emergency 

Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA). Earlier this year, for example, we adopted 

new rules to improve the geographic targeting ofWEA alerts. The Commission heard from many public 

safety officials that alerts being transmitted to an overly broad geographic area were undermining the 

efficacy of the WEA system. Either public safety officials were unwilling to send certain alerts because 

they could not be sufficiently targeted, or consumers were beginning to ignore alerts because too many 

they received were not relevant to them. In order to address this problem, we will require wireless 

providers participating in WEA to improve geographic targeting so that alerts do not overshoot the 

affected area by more than one-tenth of a mile. Participating wireless providers must also now support 

the use of"clickable" embedded links in alerts so that consumers are able to easily access additional 

3 
18 


35951.004

emergency information. And we have adopted rules to add a new "Blue Alert" to the EAS to notifY the 

public about threats to law enforcement and help apprehend dangerous suspects. 

As you know, in January, the nation received a stark reminder about the dangers posed by false 

emergency alerts when the State of Hawaii issued a false ballistic missile alert on a Saturday morning. 

Such false alerts are entirely unacceptable because they cause widespread panic and undermine public 

confidence in our alerting systems. Immediately following this false alert, our Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau leaped into action and launched a thorough investigation of what went wrong 

and what could be done to stop such an incident from happening again. Earlier this year, the Bureau 

issued a report that contained a variety of important recommendations for preventing false alerts and 

minimizing the impact of those that do occur. Since that time, the Bureau has been taking steps to make 

state and local alert originators aware of these recommendations. And earlier this month, the Commission 

adopted new rules implementing some of the Bureau's recommendations and seeking comment on others. 

Another important public safety priority is disaster response and recovery. Last year's hurricanes 

caused substantial damage in many parts of our country. And the impact was particularly severe in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The FCC immediately recognized that the situation on the islands 

would be unlike other hurricane recovery operations and therefore took unprecedented efforts to assist 

with the restoration of communications networks. Most notably, we made available over $70 million in 

frontloaded universal service funding for carriers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to expedite 

recovery efforts in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Earlier this year, the 

Commission voted to create two funds-the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVJ Fundto continue to provide much-needed funding for restoration efforts. In the short term, we agreed to make 

available another $64 million for the restoration of communication networks and to convert the advanced 

funding we provided last year into new funding by declining to recover those amounts from future 

universal service payments. We also sought comment on providing almost $900 million in medium-term 

and long-term funding to expand fixed and mobile broadband connectivity in Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. Our goal should not be just to restore the communications networks that served the 

islands prior to last year's hurricanes. Instead, we want to create networks that will be more resilient 

when future storms hit and to expand high-speed Internet access to more Puerto Ricans and Virgin 

Islanders. In March, I was pleased to visit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to meet with public 

and private sector leaders and see first-hand the status of recovery efforts. I look forward to continuing to 

coordinate the FCC's efforts with our partners in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as we keep 

working on this important issue. 

Finally, I want to mention the Commission's efforts to end 911 fee diversion atthe state level. 

Over this past year, Commissioner O'Rielly has taken the lead in highlighting the problem of9ll fee 

diversion-a practice that saps funding from the ongoing work of public safety answering points and first 

responders and undermines our nation's investments in next-generation 911. And his use of the bully 

pulpit has already gotten real results, leading some states to change their practices and others to grapple 

with the steps needed to end diversion. 

* * * 

Before concluding, I would like to thank the outstanding, professional, and hardworking staff at 

the Commission. In the year and a half that I've led the agency, the FCC has been exceptionally 

productive. For example, we've adopted 119 items at our monthly meetings, compared to 100 items in 

the three years before I became Chairman. None of this would have happened withoutthe hard work, 

expertise, and professionalism of our staff. Whether we are discussing making more spectrum available 

for advanced wireless services, reforming our infrastructure rules, closing the digital divide, protecting 

public safety, or promoting American leadership abroad, our staff are the ones who deserve the credit for 

all that we've been able to achieve in just 18 months. 

4 
19 


35951.005

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and the Members of this Subcommittee, thank 

you once again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to 

answer your questions. 

5 
20 


35951.006

May25, 2o.J8 

Senator Patrick Leahy 

· 437 Russell Senate Building . 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC20510 

Dear SCO!Itor Leahy, . 

r,--,;-~ 

. ........: ' . vre1 

· I hope this. riote finds you and Marcela well. 

. 

I feel oompelled to write after seCing a video clip of your·questions to FCC Chainnao Ajit Pai . 

during the recent Senate Appropriations Suboommittee hearing. While I understand your interest 

in scieking to quantifY the effects of the FCC's policies on broadband inves~CJ;~.t and deployment 

-no easy task to be sure.- I can offer the experiences ofVennont Telephone and VTel Wireless 

(collectively, VTel), which Chairman Pai mentioned in his testimony, lis a testament to thl: 

positive impacts of the current FCC's regulatory policies. · 

As you know, VTel was the first company to offer Internet access 1n V ennont We were first iti 

Vennont with OigE to homes. We built America's first 100% 4G LTE wireless bro!!dband 

network, integrating voice and data while also supporting E9ll. We routinely post SOille of the 

fasteSt Internet speeds and high~t customer satisfaction ratings in the State. 

Each year, Vrel must inv.est to operate and grow its wlrelilleand. mobile broadband n~orks. The FCC under Chainnan Pai's leadership has created a positive regulatory climate fur VTel to 

make such investments. For example, the FCC has taken steps to reduce regulatory ban:iers to 

the installation of cell towers and smaller cell sites. These policies encouraged VTel to commit. 

to build a new cell tower in March 2018, which will improve wireless broadband service to 

Whitingham, Vermont. Similarly, in April2018, VTel turned up three new 500 Mbps 

microwave paths to boost wireless baclthaul to Wardsboro and Dover, Vermont. 

Later this year, the FCC will coaduct its Connect America Fund Phase n reverse auction in 

which VTel seeks to. participate. If successful in that auction, VTel will be able to use auction 

funds to help subsidize the eost of extending the reach of its networks to deploy higher speed 

broadband and voice services in additional rural areas of Vermont that are otherwise uneconomic 

for most wired and wireless can:iers to serve. lmJ!OrtantlY, there are relatively few areas in rural 

~11!1eJi>n~Jnc. • 3~lliwrSII!It • ~~0515& • ~~·885·~ • Fu:002·88S·~ • ;._lltl~.axn ,.lifT fa IOH $1' fun ltl( Ill 101' ,4JI•(O¥Ht1UI. IIU'It:IIO fUU. WI 't•lll 14 UC~J Pll 10¥ t1 f,fi'U ,U·C 
21 


35951.007

Vermont where broadband service is not currently available, primarily because of the federal 

American Recovery and ReinvestmentActof2009 (ARRA), pursuant to which VTel received 

awBX!is allowin& the company to ·deploy stattH>f-the art wireline and mobile bfoadband networks 

where !nlch deployment would not otherwise be possible. . 

Chairman Pai 's FCC also hll!l eiitninAted the o~tharig associ4ted with a number of heavyhanded regulatory initiatives launched by the FCC under then Chairman Wheeler, !Ncb as 

regulating competitive business data services and imposing onerous service discontinUance .rules. 

These initiativi'S frustrated the deployment ofiP technologies and required that VTel spend 

signiticaDt sums on regulatory lawyers and personnel to ensure coinpliance- sums that would be 

unavailable to VTel to invest in its broadband network and services. · 

As far as net neutrality is concerned, which was a lnlbject of your questioning of Cha.irnian Pai, 

VTel is comn;ritted to an open Internet. However, whatever your views on the need for or 

wisdom of net neutrality rules, 1 can assure that regulating broadband like legacy telephone 

service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its broadband network. In fact, it 

would have precisely the opposite effect · 

. You asked Chairman Pai to give timgl.cle examples of investment into rural broadband as a fesult 

of recent FCC policies. I can tell you that, jUst days ago, VTel committed $4 million to purchBse 

equipment and services from Ericsson to upgrade its 4G LTE core to enable voice roaming and . 

Wi-Fi calling to all our Vermont rural s.ubscribers and to simultaneously begin rolling out filster 

mobile broadband that will start our transition to SG. This commitment represents VTel's largest 

single teclmology investment since the capital invested in connection with VTel's ARRA 

awards, and one of the largest in the history of our company. 

Ther~ is never enOugh capital, lllid. the chal.lexiges of competing against larger and ~re e8tablished companies in rural Vennont"remain enormous. However, VTel is quite-optimistic 

about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason fur our optimism. 

· 1 hope it is clear this note is sent with the deepest respect I have lo~g held for you personally, and 

for your decades of conimitment to the development of rural V enitont broadband. If you would 

like l? discuss any of these matters, it would be a pleasure to come toW~ at your convenj.ence. · · · 

Sincerely, 

~-Dr. Michel Guitc 

Cbainnim and CEO 
22 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. O’Rielly, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O’RIELLY 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Thank you. My thanks to Chairman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Doyle, and the members of the subcommittee for 

the honor to engage with you on so many important communications issues. At the outset, I would like to thank Representatives 

Lance, Tonko, and Collins and their cosponsors, many on the subcommittee, and the chairman and ranking member for their leadership on the PIRATE Act. 

Under Chairman Pai’s leadership, the Commission has made 

great strides in terminating unlawful pirate radioactivity, but without additional tools provided by Congress, we can only go so far to 

eliminate this harmful practice. 

Today, I would like to highlight a few critical issues that have 

been a focus of mine. First, I firmly believe that the ongoing problem of 9-1-1 feed diversion by certain States and territories must 

end once and for all. Such diversion, beyond deceiving ratepayers, 

has real consequences for the public safety community and the 

American people in need of critical emergency assistance at some 

of the darkest moments in their lives. 

The Commission’s ninth annual report to this committee, which 

relied on self-reporting by States and territories, showed five States 

diverted almost $130 million away from 9-1-1 enhancements and 

towards other unrelated purposes. Moreover, seven States and territories figured out that, instead of being labeled a diverter, they 

would rather just not submit the necessary paperwork. Take New 

York, a previously self-admitted diverter, which failed to respond 

to the Commission’s data collection inquiries, but sufficient public 

record information supported a finding that it is a substantial diverter of funds for non-public safety purposes. 

There is some good news to report in that several States and territories have clarified their reported diversion or made commitments to prevent a reoccurrence. These include Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Puerto Rico. However, not every State or territory has been a success story. Accordingly, I suggest additional 

Federal action, such as legislation proposed by Representatives Collins, Eshoo, and Lance, is necessary to address recalcitrant States 

and territories, like New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and 

Guam. Identifying and shaming these States has not adequately 

worked. 

Second, the Commission is focused on taking every necessary and 

appropriate step to provide all Americans the opportunity to access 

broadband services. At the same time, the Commission’s efforts 

should be examined in parallel with programs by other Federal 

agencies. Congress recently allocated as part of last year’s Consolidated Appropriations Act 2018 an additional $600 million for a new 

broadband pilot program to be administered by the Rural Utility 

Service, or RUS, and additional broadband funding is being considered as part of the Senate and House farm bills. 

While efforts to provide RUS with new Federal money are commendable, there is a potential for certain problems to arise. In particular, there is a significant possibility that RUS funding could be 

23 

used to subsidize areas that already have broadband or support 

providers in competition with those that currently receive FCC subsidies or may have build-out plans that require them to provide 

service in the future. Additionally, the RUS program could be used 

to allow providers to serve favored institutions without serving 

more costly nearby areas. 

Fundamentally, Federal funding should be targeted to addressing the $14 million plus Americans without any broadband today. 

I would humbly suggest that only the proper direction from the 

right leadership such as this subcommittee can prevent a bad outcome. As Congress concludes the farm bill this fall, I hope you will 

consider additional safeguards, including strict prohibitions on duplication with other existing programs, alignment of speed requirements, and a focus on the truly unserved. 

Lastly, turning to spectrum policy, the Commission has been 

hard at work ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available for next 

generation wireless services. I recognized years ago that there was 

a need for a solid mid-band play for wireless carriers to offer 5G 

services both domestically and internationally. The 3.7 to 4.2 

gigahertz band, or C-band downlink, is an attractive option for this 

purpose, as it provides significant continuous spectrum, and the 

largest satellite operators are receptive to reducing their spectrum 

footprint using a market-based spectrum reallocation approach. I 

also agree with Representatives Guthrie and Matsui, who recently 

noted to the Commission that the 6 gigahertz band is a necessary 

ingredient to address the need for more unlicensed spectrum and 

must be part of our final rules. 

With that, I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this 

hearing. And I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Rielly follows:] 

24 


35951.008

Statement of FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

"Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission" 

July 25, 2018 

Thank you for the honor to appear before you today. My thanks to Chairman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Doyle, and the members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to engage with you 

on many important issues and answer any questions you may have about the decisions and workings of 

the Federal Communications Commission. 

At the outset, I want to congratulate this Subcommittee on the passage of the RAY BAUM'S Act 

of 2018, which contains thoughtful communications policy reform in several areas. Of particular 

importance, the provisions confirm the commitment made by many of us in 2012 that broadcasters 

would be held harmless throughout the broadcast incentive auction repack process. With the additional 

$1 billion Congress allocated for this purpose, including $50 million for affected radio stations, 

broadcasters are in a much better position to relocate their systems without facing uncompensated 

expenses. The Commission is currently considering multiple rulemakings to implement the entirety of 

the related provisions in the law, including one scheduled for our August Open Meeting. 

let me also take this opportunity to applaud Representatives lance, Tonka, and Collins, along 

with their 11 cosponsors- many on this subcommittee- for their leadership on the "Preventing Illegal 

Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act," or PIRATE Act. This bill rightfully increases the penalties, 

requires regular enforcement sweeps, and augments the tools available to the Commission to stop 

illegal pirate broadcasters. Under Chairman Pai's leadership the Commission has made tremendous 

strides in terminating unlawful pirate activity. But, without additional tools provided by Congress, we 

can only go so far to eliminate the harmful practice of pirate radio. 
25 


35951.009

Additionally, I want to thank Representatives Brooks and Eshoo for introducing the National 

Non-Emergency Mobile Number Act. This is a commonsense bill that will bring uniformity to wireless 

short codes used today by states to redirect non-emergency calls on the highway away from 9-1-1 call 

centers and to state highway patrols. Just as we have one, unified number to call in times of need, it is 

logical to have one unified wireless short code to call when travelers see car malfunctions or suspected 

drunk drivers along the highway. This bill is an important first step in eliminating traveler confusion and 

potentially saving lives. 

Finally, I commend Representative Kinzinger for reintroducing the Federal Communications 

Commission Transparency Act. This legislation codifies the current and critical Commission practice, 

which I advocated for last Commission and Chairman Pai rightly instituted early in his tenure, of publicly 

posting items three weeks in advance of their consideration at monthly Commission meetings. As a 

result of this practice, unnecessary discussions of non-existent issues have been eliminated; 

conversations are more productive; Commissioners are still speaking their minds and negotiating 

internally on items; and work product has greatly improved. I have also seen comments from all 

Commissioner offices - Republicans and Democrats- in favor of the practice. Despite the broad 

support for this reform, I believe codifying this practice is important to ensure it will continue long after 

those of us here today depart the Commission. 

Federal Broadband Efforts & Potential Pitfalls 

The Commission is focused on taking every necessary and appropriate step to provide all 

Americans the opportunity to access broadband services. According to the last FCC report, at least 14 

million Americans do not have access to broadband of sufficient quality to meet our standards. From 

our subsidy programs to removing deployment barriers to reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, the 

Commission is working very hard to address these unserved households. 

2 
26 


35951.010

At the same time, the Commission's efforts should be examined in parallel with programs by 

other Federal entities. Today, there are three primary Federal agencies that provide funding to aid the 

private sector expansion or maintenance of broadband offerings: the FCC, the Department of 

Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS), and the Department of Commerce's National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). On an annual basis, the Commission 

provides, from ratepayer collected funds, over $4.5 billion for the Connect America Fund (CAF) to 

support direct and measurable broadband buildout in high-cost areas. Further, the Commission has 

authorized approximately $6.5 billion for our other three universal service fund (USF) programs that can 

facilitate the distribution of additional broadband services. Meanwhile, Congress recently allocated, as 

part of last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, an additional $600 million for a new 

broadband pilot program, governed by certain conditions, to be administered by RUS. Finally, additional 

broadband funding is being considered as part of both Senate and House Farm bills. 

While efforts to provide RUS with new Federal money are commendable, there is a potential for 

certain problems to arise. In particular, there is a significant possibility that the RUS program could be 

used to subsidize areas that already have broadband or fund providers in competition with those that 

either currently receive FCC subsidies or may have buildout plans that require them to provide service in 

the future. Additionally, the RUS program could be used to allow providers to serve favored institutions 

without serving more costly, nearby areas. Either situation could cause enormous financial strain on 

those existing providers trying to bring broadband to sparsely populated areas. 

Risk of harm from RUS spending exists for several reasons. Part of the problem stems from the 

potential to allow RUS funding to be used for fully served or what some consider underserved areas. 

Regrettably, "unserved" is essentially defined as an area already having service or multiple broadband 

providers. Having travelled this great nation, I have met with Americans in truly unserved areas as they 

3 
27 


35951.011

live with zero providers, not one or two existing ones hoping the Federal government will fund another. 

To accurately reflect this reality, I urge Congress to consider modifying this definition. 

Moreover, there is a major disagreement over what should qualify as broadband for purposes of 

Federal funding. I certainly would like for all Americans to have sufficient broadband speeds for 

whatever tasks they seek to accomplish. However, there is simply not sufficient funds to subsidize 

"fiber" broadband builds, either wired or wireless, to every household nationwide, which would cost 

hundreds of billions of dollars. This is why the Commission has focused its CAF funds on broadband 

projects with speeds above 10/1 Mbps, and even at that level there is tremendous demand to add 

additional budgetary resources to reach more households. Although not ideal, the intent is to, at least, 

ensure every household has this level of service before focusing on increasing speeds further. Allowing 

the different funding programs to have their own speed requirements greatly increases the likelihood 

that a tremendous effort will go to overbuilding areas with service today, including areas funded or 

expected to be funded by the Commission. 

Fundamentally, Federal funding should be targeted to addressing those 14 million-plus 

Americans without any broadband today. Among other ideas, I have advocated having RUS, NTIA, and 

the Commission coordinate actual implementation of the differing programs. In other words, the 

program rules need to be written with strict prohibitions on duplication with other existing programs, 

alignment of speed requirements, and a focus on the truly unserved. Unfortunately, some people see 

coordination as merely having discussions between bureaucrats. That is not sufficient. While I have 

little doubt that added dialogue between our three entities could be helpful, it does not solve the 

standing problem of these programs leading to duplication, wasted spending, or worse. Only the proper 

direction from the right leadership, such as this Subcommittee, can prevent a bad outcome. As 

Congress concludes the Farm bill this fall, I hope you will consider these safeguards. 

4 
28 


35951.012

9-1-1 Fee Diversion 

I firmly believe that the ongoing problem of 9-1-1 fee diversion by certain states and territories 

must be addressed. Such diversion has real consequences for the public safety community and the 

American people. Underfunding Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) can lead to significant public 

safety problems, including longer wait times, fewer or overworked personnel, or outdated or inferior 

equipment to handle the call loads. It can also prevent 9-1-1 call centers from modernizing to NG9-1-1 

technologies. At a minimum, allowing states to deceive consumers into paying fees for the 9-1-1 system 

and transferring the money elsewhere undermines the system's integrity. I thank my colleague, 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, for working with me to address this issue. 

In December, the Commission submitted its ninth annual report to this Committee showing 

that, in 2016, five states and territories diverted almost $130 million away from 9-1-1 enhancements 

and towards other, unrelated purposes. Unfortunately, the FCC must rely on self-reporting by states 

and territories. This can lead to underreporting or a complete failure to respond altogether. In fact, 

seven states and territories did just that. It seems some states have figured out that instead of being 

labelled a diverter, they would rather just be known as a state that didn't submit the necessary 

paperwork. Take New York, for example, which failed to submit a report in response to the 

Commission's data collection, but sufficient public record information existed to support a finding that 

New York diverted "substantial" funds for non-public safety purposes. Moreover, since looking into this 

matter, my office has uncovered that Puerto Rico and Guam -both of which failed to respond to 

Commission inquiries- diverted 9-1-1 funds in 2016. 

Fortunately, there is some good news to report. It turns out that Illinois, though labeled a 

diverter in 2016, actually did not divert 9-1-1 funding that year and has certified to my office that it does 

not plan to divert such funding in the future. Further, New Mexico, one of the largest diverters in 2016, 

has explained that such diversion was due to a unique situation in which the state faced extreme 

5 
29 


35951.013

insolvency that has since been resolved. New Mexico had not diverted funds prior to 2016 and has 

explained it will not divert these funds again. Oklahoma also confirmed to me that it did not divert 

funds in 2016, despite failing to submit initial documents to the Commission. Finally, Puerto Rico, in 

receiving additional USF support to rebuild its communications networks, has committed to rectify its 

diversion by the Commission's 2018 report. 

But, not every state has been a success story. While initial momentum in Rhode Island was 

encouraging, the state ultimately doubled down on its diversion practices and simply renamed its 9-1-1 

fee. Moreover, in New York and New Jersey, state officials have shown no interest in eliminating this 

practice. The result? As Representative Collins and I heard in New York, in the last five years Niagara 

County citizens with a wireless device paid $10.2 million in 9-1-1 fees, with only $2.2 million returned to 

the County PSAP center. Local budgets consisting mostly of property taxes had to make up the shortfall. 

And, in Guam, state officials appear more interested in debating the legality of their fee diversion than 

actually recognizing the harm diversion causes to its people and discussing ways to eliminate the 

practice. 

On this note, we must be more aggressive with recalcitrant states, as, for the most part, 

identifying and shaming such states has not sufficiently worked. That is why I would like to thank 

Representatives Collins, Eshoo, and Lance for their leadership in introducing the 9-1-1 Fee Integrity Act. 

In what is an important first step to correcting the problem, this legislation assigns the process to 

designate acceptable purposes and functions for 9-1-1 funds to the Commission, rather than the states 

as allowed under current law: This is key, as states like Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey, and 

territories like Puerto Rico and Guam, have passed statutes over the years actually requiring the 

diversion of 9-1-1 funds for non-public safety related purposes. In the case of New Jersey, lawmakers 

have claimed it will take a constitutional amendment to end the practice. This is absurd and highlights 

the importance of further Congressional action to bring consistency and clarity to this matter. 

6 
30 


35951.014

Spectrum Policy 

The Commission has been hard at work ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available for nextgeneration wireless services. More than two years ago, I started focusing my attention on the mid 

bands, after it became apparent that a global shift in spectrum policy had occurred and the world was 

eyeing these frequencies as a component for SG deployment. Thus, it became vital for the United States 

to have a serious mid-band play to complement our spectrum work in the low and high bands. 

As you are well aware, there are no greenfield mid-band frequencies available for SG. The 3.7 

to 4.2 GHz band, or C-band downlink, is attractive, however, because it provides significant contiguous 

spectrum and the largest satellite operators are receptive to reducing their spectrum footprint using a 

market-based spectrum reallocation approach. The Commission must conclude the proceeding for 

determining how to reallocate this band promptly given its importance both domestically and 

internat'ionally for future wireless offerings. In doing so, I believe that any reallocation plan must be 

completed fairly quickly; release a sufficient amount of spectrum, such as 200 to 300 megahertz or 

more; and ensure that current users of the C-band satellite services- primarily broadcasters and cable 

providers- will be accommodated on the remaining C-band, other satellite spectrum, or through 

different technologies. 

This plan must also permit unlicensed use of the C-band uplink spectrum, or 6 GHz band. As 

Representatives Guthrie and Matsui recently noted to the Commission, the 6 GHz band is a necessary 

ingredient to address the need for more unlicensed spectrum. While I wanted the Commission to 

pursue this issue in last month's mid-band spectrum notice of proposed rulemaking, the Chairman 

assured me that there would be a follow-up item in the fall. This spectrum, along with the potential 

opening of the 5.9 GHz band and combined with the existing 5 GHz band, will provide the unlicensed 

7 
31 


35951.015

community with access to a significant swath of spectrum, creating wide channels for Gigabit services. 

Moreover, it will enable us to meet our statutory obligations under the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018. 

The last piece of the mid-band puzzle is permitting additional wireless operations in the 

frequencies below 3.5 GHz. Fortunately, the review to ensure that the 3.5 GHz licensing structure is 

attractive to as many users and use cases as possible and the work on the databases that will enable 

maximum use of 3.5 GHz is wrapping up. We must now turn to 3450-3550 MHz, which NTIA is currently 

reviewing for reallocation for commercial wireless use. NTIA should complete this work expeditiously 

and clear this band. But, we also cannot stop at just 100 megahertz. We must look to those frequencies 

right below 3450 MHz, along with any others that can be put to more efficient use. 

To facilitate the reallocation of Federal government spectrum, I have suggested adding 

appropriate sticks to the current carrot approach contained in law and suggested by others. Besides 

Congress statutorily requiring agencies to surrender spectrum, which is always challenging, I have 

proposed establishing agency spectrum fees as a means to reduce the Federal government's spectrum 

footprint. Basically, if an agency must pay an annual price for its spectrum, impacting its budget, there is 

an incentive to minimize holdings and only pay for the spectrum used. I can think of few instances in 

which the Federal government is allowed to commandeer or stranglehold a resource while ignoring any 

budgetary implications. 

Since this view may not garner unanimous approval immediately, another option is to allow 

agencies to free up spectrum in exchange for budgetary relief. Under this approach, a federal agency 

could substitute the market value of their surrendered spectrum to offset budgetary limits or cuts or 

even expand its spending options. As an added benefit, this option could also incentivize agencies, such 

as the Department of Defense with its remaining statutory budget caps, to modernize their equipment, 

as the budgetary relief received from the resulting cleared spectrum would cover the cost of the new 

8 
32 


35951.016

equipment and generate a surplus that could be used elsewhere. Basically, it amounts to a spectrumfor-cash swap. 

At a minimum, as both Commissioner Rosenworcel and I have stated, there is an opportunity to 

put a market value on current federal spectrum holdings in order to ensure that they are appropriately 

quantified. Once implemented, it allows policymakers to make judgments based on an additional factor 

when considering and reviewing the spectrum holdings of the Federal government. I would argue that 

any valuations can rely initially on conservative estimates as they will be quickly adjusted over time by 

market forces. 

I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and look forward to any questions you may 

have. 

9 
33 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Carr, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I have had the honor of working with you and your staffs as 

a commissioner for nearly a year. It has been a tremendously rewarding and productive time. I am proud of the work that the 

agency has accomplished. And I want to commend this subcommittee on its own notable achievements, from identifying additional spectrum in the RAY BAUM’S Act, enhancing public safety 

through the SANDy Act, to encouraging broadband deployment, including through the Precision Ag Act. 

At the FCC, I focused on work we can do to help bring more 

broadband to more Americans. This has meant working closely 

with my colleagues at the Commission, but it has also meant 

spending time outside of D.C. to see firsthand how our policies impact communities across the country. 

Over the past 11 months, I have visited 17 States. I have benefited from perspectives gained on the road, whether at a townhall 

in Chelsea, Michigan; a roundtable in Stanton, Nebraska; or at the 

kitchen table of family that wanted better, faster broadband. I’ve 

also spent time with the construction crews that are doing the 

hard, often gritty, work that goes into deploying broadband networks. In fact, in Arcadia, Indiana, Congresswoman Susan Brooks 

introduced me to two Hoosiers, Mark and Scott; they are brothers. 

They run a small fixed wireless provider. They are a scrappy 

bunch, having climbed everything from barns to grain elevators to 

attach the antennas needed to bring broadband to Indiana’s farmlands. 

I have seen similar efforts in communities across the country. 

And it only underscores why the work of this subcommittee and the 

FCC is so important. We want every community to get a fair shot 

at next generation connectivity. One year ago, I noted the challenge 

we faced in extending American leadership in wireless as we 

moved from 4G to 5G networks. I testified about the need for the 

FCC to focus on two things: spectrum and infrastructure. The Commission has made substantial progress on both. 

I want to focus this afternoon on the second part, on infrastructure. I appreciate that Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC’s 

efforts on wireless infrastructure. We have already taken several 

steps to ensure our regulatory structures are 5G ready. As you 

know, 5G networks are going to look very different than the 3G 

and 4G deployments of the past. And the regulatory framework 

that worked for 100-foot towers won’t work for new small cell deployments. 

So we are working to modernize our approach. In March, we exempted small cells from certain Federal review procedures designed for those large 100-foot towers. This one step is expected to 

cut about 30 percent of the total cost of deploying small cells. This 

reform can help flip the business case for thousands of commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
34 

nities, particularly in rural areas that might otherwise miss out on 

next gen connectivity. 

And one place where increased deployment will pay off is in 

healthcare. For years, the FCC has been supporting broadband deployment to healthcare facilities, but there is a new trend in telehealth, a trend toward connected care everywhere. The delivery of 

high-tech, high-quality care is no longer limited to the confines of 

connected brick-and-mortar facilities. With remote patient monitoring and mobile health applications, we now have the technology 

to deliver healthcare directly to patients, regardless of where they 

are located. 

I saw this 2 weeks ago in the Mississippi Delta, which is ground 

zero for the country’s diabetes epidemic. The delta is also a place 

where connected care is already making a difference. It is where 

I met Ms. Annie. She noticed the first signs of diabetes when she 

woke up one morning with blurred vision. After seeing a little 

progress with traditional care options, Ms. Annie signed up for a 

remote patient monitoring program. She showed me the iPad and 

the Bluetooth-enabled blood glucose monitor that she uses to track 

her care on a daily basis. She can check her blood sugar levels, and 

an app gives her instant feedback, including the steps she can take 

that day to stay healthy. With this technology, Ms. Annie’s A1C 

levels have gone down, and she says she has never felt better. And 

research backs up Ms. Annie’s results, showing significant cost savings and improved outcomes with connected care. So we should 

align public policy in support of this movement in telehealth. 

That is why I am glad Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC’s 

new telehealth initiative, which we will consider at our August 

meeting. The connected care pilot program aims to provide up to 

$100 million to support connected care deployments for low-income 

patients. 

I look forward to working with all stakeholders as we seek comment on establishing the program. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, members of this committee, thank you again for 

holding this hearing. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:] 

35 


35951.017

TESTIMONY OF BRENDAN CARR 

COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

"OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION" 

JULY 25,2018 

Chainnan Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to testify this afternoon. It is a privilege to appear before you again. 

I have had the honor of working with you and your staffs as a Commissioner for nearly a year. It 

has been a tremendously rewarding and productive time. I am proud of the work the agency has 

accomplished. And I want to commend the Subcommittee on its own notable achievements-from 

identifying additional spectrum for consumer use in the RAY BAUM'S Act and enhancing public safety 

through the SANDy Act to encouraging broadband deployment in unserved areas, including through the 

Precision Agriculture and Connectivity Act. 

Over the past year, I have focused on the work the FCC can do to bring more broadband to more 

Americans. This has meant working with my colleagues at the Commission on the regulatory refonns 

needed to maintain the United States' leadership in wireless as we transition to next-generation 5G 

technologies. This has meant working to remove barriers to the deployment of the wire line and wireless 

networks needed to support this transition. And this has meant spending time outside of D.C. to see 

firsthand how our policies impact communities across the country. 

Over the past 11 months, I have had the chance to visit 17 states-from Massachusetts to 

California, from the Gulf Coast of Louisiana to the Great Plains of South Dakota. I have benefited from 

the diverse views and perspectives shared at these events, whether at a town hall in Chelsea, Michigan, a 

roundtable in Stanton, Nebraska, or on a tour of a manufacturing facility in Sioux City, Iowa. I have met 

with local officials about our common goal of promoting broadband deployment. I have sat at the kitchen 

table of a family that wanted better, faster, and more affordable broadband. And I have spent time with 

the construction crews that do the hard, often gritty work needed to bring more broadband to more 

Americans. 

These experiences have stuck with me. In Arcadia, Indiana (pop. 1,653), Congresswoman Susan 

Brooks introduced me to two Hoosiers, Mark and Scott. They are brothers, and they run a small fixed 

wireless provider called On-Ramp Indiana. They are a one-stop shop dedicated to bringing broadband to 

the rural communities of central Indiana. As their story makes clear, it sometimes takes the modern-day 

version of duct tape and bailing wire to get the job done in these hard-to-serve communities. Mark and 

Scott set up a series of small antennas and radios that ultimately create 30 miles of line-of-sight links from 

Arcadia all the way to Indianapolis, where the data can be offloaded to a fiber network. Mark and Scott 

used what was available to them. As they drove from Indy through farm towns and open fields, they 

looked for any tall structure they could climb to attach the next link in their wireless chain. Barns and 

grain elevators are among their favorite structures because they're often the tallest perch in town. 
36 


35951.018

Mark and Scott's hard work helped bring broadband to Beck's Hybrids, a family-run farming 

operation in Arcadia that dates back to 1901. 78-year-old Sonny Beck said that broadband is essential to 

his operation. It allows him to combine gigabytes of data--from connected tractors and drones to online 

soil histories and DNA files on crops-and then analyze all of this information in the cloud where 

algorithms help Beck's and other farmers make precision adjustments to seeding and real-time 

modifications in soil treatments. 

From little Arcadia to big city Philadelphia, broadband is giving families a chance to change their 

lives. Just a few weeks ago in Ph illy, I had the privilege of meeting someone who used her mobile 

broadband connection-and a whole bunch of grit and determination-to bring her family out of poverty 

and into a new life. Her name is Tommi. She's the mom to five kids, and there's no doubt that many 

people have had an easier path in life. Tommi grew up in public housing. She dropped out of high school 

after having her first child. For the next 16 years, she made calls for a debt collection agency, which she 

described as a "dead end job." Tommi knew that she could do more with her life. So she enrolled in 

Philadelphia's Orleans Technical College. It was "four years of peanut butter and jelly sandwichesoften made for me by my kids," she said. 

Tommi earned a perfect 4.0 GP A. She got a job at the Public Housing Authority, and she just 

bought her first home. Now she's starting a master's program in mental health so that she can give back 

to her community. None of this, Tommi told me, would have been possible without a mobile broadband 

connection. "Broadband is the backbone of a community-for finding a job, for education," she said. A 

mobile hotspot that she shared with her neighbors let her finish her homework, which she had to complete 

online. A mobile connection enabled her to apply for jobs and for admission to school. And a mobile 

connection enabled Tommi to stay in touch with her kids when they spent time with her family. 

Tommi is an inspiration. But in a lot of ways, Tommi's story is not unique. At the school in 

Philadelphia's Sharswood neighborhood where we met, I spoke with kids that are in much the same 

position Tommi was in just a few years ago. Today, the Public Housing Authority is partnering with a 

wireless carrier to give each student at that school a tablet and a mobile connection. The Public Housing 

Authority did this because digital literacy is no longer optional for the next generation. 

This is why the work of this Subcommittee and the FCC is so important. As legislators and 

regulators, we can help ensure that every community-from Arcadia to Philadelphia-has a fair shot at 

the opportunity that broadband can enable. This is particularly important as we make the transition to 

next-generation networks, which can unleash a new cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship in the 

country. We do not want to see any community get left behind. 

Indeed, one year ago, I talked about the challenge we faced in extending American leadership in 

wireless as we move from 40 to 50 networks. I testified about the need for the FCC to focus on two 

things: freeing up more spectrum and removing barriers to infrastructure deployment. The Commission 

has made substantial progress on both fronts. 

On the spectrum side, the Commission has taken a number of concrete steps in the past few 

months alone. In February, we paved the way for opening up spectrum above 95 GHz. In March, we 

sought comment on designating the 4.9 GHz band for flexible use. In April, we made progress towards 

bringing over 1.5 GHz of millimeter wave spectrum to auction. In May, we started a proceeding to put 

spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band to even more productive use. In June, we finalized rules for the 24 GHz 

2 
37 


35951.019

band and sought comment on opening up the 26OHz and 42 OHz bands for flexible use. Last month, 

Chairman Pai announced that we're moving forward with the auction of spectrum in the 37OHz, 39OHz, 

and 47OHz. And at our July meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to begin the process of 

clearing up to 500 MHz of mid-band spectrum for 50. 

On the wireless infrastructure side, I appreciate that Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC's 

efforts. And we have already made significant progress in ensuring that our regulatory structures are 50 

Ready. 

As you know, 50 networks are going to look very different than the 30 and 40 deployments of 

the past. While hundred-foot towers accounted for the lion's share of prior deployments, up to 80% of 

new cell sites will be small cells with antennas no larger than a backpack plus associated equipment. But 

a year ago, our regulatory structures were threatening to hold us back-to limit 50 deployments to only 

the most profitable to serve areas. The problem was that our regulations assumed that every new cell site 

was a hundred-foot tower. So in the intervening months, we have worked with stakeholders to update and 

modernize our approach-to ensure the United States wins the race to 50. 

In March, for instance, we adopted an order that exempts small cells from certain federal 

historical and environmental review procedures that were designed for those large, hundred-foot towers. 

This decision extended the same regulatory treatment to small cells that the Commission has always 

applied to the deployment of other types of infrastructure, including Wi-Fi routers and consumer signal 

boosters. This one step is expected to cut about 30% of the total cost of deploying small cells. In fact, an 

Accenture study determined that our action could save $1.56 billion, which could be used to deploy 

55,000 new cell sites and create more than 17,000 jobs. 

This reform alone could flip the business case for thousands of communities, particularly in rural 

and disadvantaged parts of the country. Almost no matter what we do, 50 and next-gen networks will be 

deployed in New York and San Francisco. But there are thousands of other communities that might lose 

out if we do not modernize our approach to broadband infrastructure. So the FCC is continuing to work 

with all stakeholders as we move to further update our approach to infrastructure deployment. 

We know that broadband deployment can create jobs, but it can also save lives. I have seen it in 

places like Beatty, Nevada, where a rural health care clinic is staying open because a new broadband 

connection allows patients to visit virtually with a doctor located in a much larger town. I have seen it in 

Lennox, South Dakota, where a skilled nursing facility is using a broadband connection to provide quality 

care to patients in their own community, rather than transferring them to a larger facility located miles 

away. For years, the FCC has been playing a key role in supporting the deployment of broadband to these 

facilities through our Rural Health Care Program. 

But there's a new trend in telehealth-a trend towards connected care everywhere. The delivery 

of high-tech, high-quality health care is no longer limited to the confines of connected, brick-and-mortar 

facilities. With remote patient monitoring and mobile health applications that can be accessed on a 

smartphone or tablet, we now have the technology to deliver high-quality care directly to patients, 

regardless of where they are located-places like the Mississippi Delta. 

The Delta is ground zero for the country's diabetes epidemic. It sees diabetes at rates that are 

about twice the national average. Ruleville, Mississippi (pop. 3,234) is no exception to this trend. In 
38 


35951.020

addition to having one of the highest rates of diabetes in the state, more than half of all children in this 

area live in poverty. That only adds to the challenge of finding and accessing affordable health care. But 

the Delta is also a place where remote patient monitoring technology is already making a difference. 

And it's where I met Ms. Annie, a patient of the North Sunflower Medical Center. Ms. Annie 

noticed the first signs of her diabetes when she woke up one day with blurred vision. After seeing little 

progress in managing her diabetes with traditional care options, Ms. Annie signed up for a remote patient 

monitoring pilot program. She walked me through the iPad & blue-tooth enabled blood glucose monitors 

that patients use in their homes to track and control their own care on a daily basis. The tablet chimes 

every morning as a reminder. Ms. Annie then pricks her finger and her AlC level is displayed on screen. 

Based on that, the app suggests appropriate actions-from a particular food or exercise, to watching a 

relevant video. If she forgets to enter her numbers that day, she' II get a phone call from a nurse. With 

this technology, Ms. Annie's A lC levels have gone down and she says she's never felt better. 

A few weeks earlier, at the University of Virginia's Children's Hospital, Dr. Karen Rheuban 

talked about the role that these new telehealth technologies are playing in saving lives. A connected 

tablet helps parents whose babies have heart problems. An app called Locus Health tracks a baby's 

weight, heart rate, and oxygen levels and sends the data to the hospital. The data provide early warning 

signs that can head off problems that might result in !CU stays and invasive procedures. 

Finding ways to use remote patient monitoring technologies to manage chronic diseases, which 

account for over 85% of direct health care spending, is a challenge that merits our attention. 

The relatively limited trials to date are showing significant cost savings: 

• A remote patient monitoring program run by the Veterans Health Administration costs 

$1,600 per patient-an 88% savings from VHA's home-based primary services. 

• Another telehealth project found that every $1 spent on remote monitoring resulted in a 

$3.30 return in savings. 

• The Mississippi Delta trial resulted in nearly $700,000 in annual savings due to reductions 

in hospital readmissions alone, which, assuming just 20% of Mississippi's diabetic population 

enrolled in this program, Medicaid savings in the state would be $189 million per year. 

And these connected care technologies are improving health outcomes: 

• A study of 20 remote patient monitoring trials found a 20% reduction in mortality and a 

15% reduction in hospitalizations related to heart failure. 

• The Veterans Health Administration's remote patient monitoring program resulted in a 

25% reduction in days of inpatient care and a 19% reduction in hospital admission. 

• Another remote patient monitoring initiative showed a 46% reduction in ER visits, a 53% 

reduction in hospital admissions, and a 25% shorter length of in-patient stay. 

4 
39 


35951.021

Given the significant cost savings and improved patient outcomes associated with connected care, 

we should align public policy in support of this movement in telehealth. At the FCC, we can play a 

constructive role by helping to support the connectivity and deployments needed to ensure that all 

communities get a fair shot at benefiting from new telehealth technologies. 

So I am glad that Chairman Pai asked me to lead the FCC's new telehealth initiative, which we 

will consider at our August meeting. The Connected Care Pilot Program would aim provide up to $100 

million for connected care benefiting low-income patients, including those eligible for Medicaid and 

veterans. It would support a limited number of projects over a two- or three-year period with controls in 

place to measure and verify the benefits, costs, and savings associated with connected care. It could take 

the results we've already seen in the limited trials to date and help replicate those results in communities 

across the country. 

From chronic disease management to pediatric cardiology, from PTSD to opioid dependency, this 

pilot has the potential to make a real difference for low-income individuals that currently lack access to 

quality health-care. I look forward to working with my colleagues at the FCC, federal and state partners 

that are active on these issues, Members of this Subcommittee, and all stakeholders as we seek comment 

on establishing the Connected Care Pilot Program. 

It has been an honor over the last year to work on connecting more Americans to opportunity and 

to each other. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you again for holding this hearing and for the invitation to testify. I welcome your questions. 
40 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Rosenworcel, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and the other members of this subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I believe 

the future belongs to the connected. No matter who you are or 

where you live in this country, you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st century success. Clearing the 

way for this connected future should be at the heart of everything 

we do at the Federal Communications Commission. 

It has been 9 months to the day since we last appeared before 

you for an oversight hearing. Nine months is a long time. It is the 

equivalent of a school year so let me offer the equivalent of a quick 

year-end report. Too many Americans still lack access to 

broadband. Let me put a number on it. Right now, 24 million 

Americans do not have access to high-speed service. That is not acceptable. We need to do better. Too often during the last 9 months, 

the agency acted at the behest of corporate forces that surround it, 

shortchanging the American people. You can see that clearly with 

our rollback of net neutrality. You see it too with our efforts to foster the deployment of new networks but failure to fully engage 

those who need a voice in our policies, the cities and towns that 

should be our partner in the process, the Tribal communities that 

are entitled to government-to-government consultation, and the Department of Commerce, which just last week expressed concern 

about how our rushed reform could harm national security and 

public safety services. 

Likewise, you see it in proposed reforms that undermine our lifeline program and the populations that rely on it, including those 

served by domestic violence shelters, military veterans, homeless 

youth, and the residents of Puerto Rico, who are still recovering 

from a harrowing storm and a grave humanitarian crisis. 

Too often our procedures fall short of what good governance requires. Our mapping practices for broadband do not accurately reflect the state of connectivity on the ground. Our claim that the 

agency suffered a distributed denial of service attack following 

John Oliver’s report on our net neutrality plan is just not credible. 

In the meantime, the agency has ignored the fact that this public 

docket is flooded with fraud, including half a million comments 

from Russia and 2 million individuals with stolen identities. I believe these things need to be fixed. 

So many people think that Washington is rigged against them. 

It saddens me when, on too many occasions during the last 9 

months, this agency proved them right. But good report cards do 

not only look to the past; they also offer an eye to the future and 

take on what is possible. 

I believe at this table, there is a desire to extend the reach of 

broadband service, lead the world in 5G wireless deployment, and 

bring the opportunities of the digital age to more people and more 

places. I see this same desire everywhere I go. In the last few 

weeks, I have been in rural New Mexico and urban New York. In 

both places, I have visited schools with students who lack 

41 

broadband at home and, as a result, struggle with nightly school 

work. There are 12 million children in every State across the country with this problem. They fall into a homework gap that is the 

cruelest part of our digital divide. 

But I also saw that these communities are trying to address their 

gap so that every student has a decent chance at digital age success. They are experimenting with connective school busses. They 

are looking at loaning out hotspots in library, and they are exploring public Wi-Fi in their communities. They deserve our support 

and a plan to address the homework gap so that know child is left 

offline. I still believe it is within our capability to produce one. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the agency’s recent decision regarding Sinclair broadcasting. When I last appeared 

before you 9 months ago, I alone expressed concern about how the 

agency had bent and twisted so many of its media policies to serve 

the business plans of this one company. This changed last week 

when the agency adopted an order designating the proposed Sinclair Tribune transaction for hearing. I want to thank my colleagues and the chairman in particular for the effort to reach consensus on this matter. 

Let me close by saying thank you for having me at this hearing, 

and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:] 

42 


35951.022

STATEMENT OF 

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

COMMISSIONER 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

JULY 25, 2018 

Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman 

Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. 

I believe the future belongs to the connected. No matter who you are or where 

you live in this country you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 

21st century success. Clearing the way for this connected future should be at the heart of 

everything we do at the Federal Communications Commission. 

It has been nine months-to the day-since we last appeared before you for an 

oversight hearing. Nine months is a long time. It's the equivalent of a school year. So 

let me offer the equivalent of a quick year-end report. 

Too many Americans still lack access to broadband. Let's put a number on it. 

Right now, 24 million Americans have no high-speed service. This is not acceptable. 

We need to do better. 

Too often during the last nine months the agency acted at the behest of the 

corporate forces that surround it, shortchanging the American people. You can see that 

clearly with our roll back of net neutrality. You see it, too, with our efforts to foster the 

deployment of new networks but failure to fully engage those who need a voice in our 

policies-the cities and towns that should be our partners in the process, the Tribal 

communities that are entitled to government-to-government consultation, and the 

Department of Commerce which just last week expressed concern about how our rush to 

reform could harm national security and public safety services. Likewise, you see it in 

proposed reforms that undermine our Lifeline program-and the populations that rely on 

it, including those served by domestic violence shelters, military veterans, homeless 

youth, and residents of Puerto Rico who are still recovering from a harrowing storm and 

grave humanitarian crisis. 

Too often our procedures fall short of what good governance requires. Our 

mapping practices for broadband do not accurately reflect the state of connectivity on the 

ground. Our claim that the agency suffered a Distributed Denial of Service Attack 

following John Oliver's report on our net neutrality plans is just not credible. In the 
43 


35951.023

meantime, the agency has ignored the fact that this public docket is flooded with fraudincluding half a million comments from Russia and two million individuals with stolen 

identities. 

I believe these things need to be fixed. So many people think that Washington is 

rigged against them. It saddens me when on too many occasions during the last nine 

months this agency proved them right. But good report cards do not only look to the 

past, they offer an eye to the future-and a take on what is possible. 

I believe that at this table there is a desire to extend the reach of broadband 

service, lead the world in SG wireless deployment, and bring the opportunities of the 

digital age to more people in more places. 

I see the same desire everywhere I go. In the last few weeks I have been in rural 

New Mexico and urban New York. In both places, I visited schools with students who 

lack broadband at home and as result struggle with nightly schoolwork. There are 12 

million children across the country with this problem. They fall into a Homework Gap 

that is the cruelest part of our digital divide. But I also saw that these communities are 

trying to address this gap so that every student has a decent chance at digital age success. 

They are experimenting with connected school buses. They are looking at loaning out 

hotspots in libraries. They are exploring public wi-fi in their communities. And they are 

pulling together information they can about low-cost service that can help low-income 

households get online. They deserve our support and a plan to address the Homework 

Gap-so that no child is left offline. I believe it is still within our capability to produce 

one. 

Finally, I would be remiss ifi did not mention the agency's recent decision 

regarding Sinclair Broadcasting. When I last appeared before you nine months ago, I 

alone expressed concern about how the agency had bent and twisted so many of its media 

policies to serve the business plans of this one company. This 'changed last week when 

the agency adopted an order designating the proposed Sinclair-Tribune transaction for 

hearing. I want thank my colleagues-and the Chairman in particular-for the effort to 

reach consensus on this matter. 

Let me close by saying thank you for having me at this hearing. I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 
44 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank each of you for your testimony, and we 

are now going to move into our questions. And I am going to begin 

and recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

And, Chairman Pai, I am going to come to you. Public safety is 

something that we are focused on in the emergency alerts and our 

9-1-1 systems. As you know, our Ranking Member Pallone’s 

SANDy Act was included in the RAY BAUM’S Act, and it is a good 

solid bipartisan initiative to help with Wi-Fi resources, bringing 

those to bear during an emergency. And while the EAS system is 

typically the primary tool, we saw the resiliency of cellular infrastructure in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey and the widespread use of the WEA alerts. And how will the addition of opening 

up Wi-Fi access points in times of emergency in addition to carrier 

location information and other inputs help a device create more 

precise location information to better enable our first responders to 

reach those that are in need of that emergency help? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for the question, and 

to you and to Ranking Member Pallone for your leadership on that 

legislation. One of the most critical elements of information that a 

first responder needs when a 9-1-1 call is placed is where is the 

caller. And I think that the addition of more Wi-Fi access points 

could help introduce even more detailed granular information 

about where that caller is. In combination with GPS information 

and cellular information, Wi-Fi access points can give a more textured view to 9-1-1 call centers and help them pinpoint exactly 

where somebody is to be able dispatch help quicker. 

Additionally, I think it is interesting that a lot of companies are 

thinking very forward, as is this subcommittee. For example, Apple 

recently announced in iOS 12 that it would incorporate the technology from a small startup called RapidSOS. One of my predecessors, Chairman Dennis Patrick, has talked about the fact that 

this technology could use things like Wi-Fi access points and other 

information to more accurately and quickly target people who are 

in a situation of need. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And then looking at States and localities using 

the WEA system, you think this is going to help—— 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. Encourage that? When you think 

about needing that help that quickly and responders who are working so diligently to get resources to people, one of the things is we 

have worked on this issue—and Ms. Brooks has worked on it some 

too with the Next Gen 9-1-1—is making certain that it is more reliable and more widely used. So—— 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. I will give one quick example of why that 

is so. Recently, I visited the D.C. Office of Communications that 

handles 9-1-1 calls that are common to the District. And Karima 

Holmes, the director, told me that, every year, the District of Columbia gets approximately 10,000 emergency calls that are more 

properly routed to Maryland, and vice versa, Maryland gets 10,000 

calls or more properly routed to the District because the caller is 

very near that border. 

Imagine ubiquitous Wi-Fi access points that could allow emergency responders to know when they have received that call in the 

9-1-1 call center: OK, we are getting a call from the District. We 

45 

don’t waste precious seconds trying to figure out exactly which jurisdiction needs to get that call. That could really save lives in a 

pinch. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I want to come to 

you on something. As you know, I have worked for years on the privacy issue, and I assume that you saw the letters that we sent to 

LocationSmart and Securus and 3C Interactive inquiring about the 

reports of the unauthorized disclosure of wireless subscribers’ realtime location information. And I am pleased that you all are investigating this as well as we all are concerned about protecting consumer privacy. And on this broader topic, last night, I received a 

letter from our friends at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and to quote from the letter, it says: It is clear that the FCC 

has the ability to enact internet privacy rules. The FCC has the authority to regulate companies such as Facebook and Google through 

ancillary jurisdiction. 

Do you agree with that assertion? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No, I don’t agree with that assertion. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Do you believe that section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act, or any other provision, gives the authority to the FCC to also regulate edge providers? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I don’t believe it clearly gives us that authority, no. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You do not. Thank you. 

The gentlelady yields back, and I yield back, and I recognize Mr. 

Doyle for 5 minute. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome back. It is good to see all of you. 

I want to talk a little bit about rural broadband. The Commission 

received a letter on July 23rd from a group of 182 fixed wireless 

providers regarding the CBRS band. And they noted that, ‘‘Without 

census track sized licenses, we will have virtually no ability to acquire protected spectrum in this band.’’ That would be an intolerable outcome that would harm our rural broadband businesses and 

inhibit our ability to grow. But worse, it would harm the millions 

of consumers for whom mid-band spectrum is the key to high-speed 

fixed broadband access. 

I would note that, Chairman Pai, you tweeted that your parents 

are served by Wave Wireless, and, Commissioner Carr, in your testimony you referred to the good work of On-Ramp Indiana that 

serves Ms. Brooks’ district. Both of these companies were part of 

the 182 companies that sent you that letter. So I would like to ask 

each of the Commissioners—and this is just a simple yes-or-no 

question—will you commit to maintaining census track licenses in 

this band? 

Mr. PAI. Ranking Member Doyle, I have delegated this issue to 

Commissioner O’Rielly. He has recently provided a lot of analysis 

on this question so I don’t want to presuppose what direction he 

wants to recommend for the full commission. 

Mr. DOYLE. As chair of the Commission, would you commit to 

having census track size license? 

Mr. PAI. Frankly, Member Doyle, we don’t want to presuppose 

the results. We are still studying the issue. And I am looking at 

the issue along with Commissioner O’Rielly. 

46 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Commissioner O’Rielly, he has dumped it on 

you, so what do you say? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. You do not support doing—I like that direct answer. 

I don’t agree with it, but I like it. 

Yes, Commissioner Carr? 

Mr. CARR. I haven’t made my decision up yet on how to cast a 

vote in this proceeding. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, we are going to need smaller license 

sizes if we want wireless providers to serve rural America with this 

band. 

Mr. DOYLE. So one yes, one undecided, one no, and one abstention or—— 

Mr. PAI. I am still looking at the issue, Congressman. 

Mr. DOYLE. Undecided. 

Mr. PAI. We haven’t reached the end points. We are still in the 

sixth or seventh inning. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Chairman Pai, I mentioned in my opening statement that many stakeholders, including the Federal Government, 

are very concerned about your plans regarding the discontinuance 

of service and changes to the BDS market could place our national 

security and public safety operations in an untenable position. Are 

you concerned that, in addition to the potential loss of service, that 

some BDS customers are telling us that they have had their bills 

increase by 175 percent? I am kind of concerned that it is not only 

putting the carriers interest over the public’s, but it is endangering 

our public safety, our national security, and leading to the huge 

rate increases for people to have this service. How do you respond 

to that? 

Mr. PAI. Sorry, Congressman, I was thrown off there. 

Mr. DOYLE. That was strange; is that a phone ring? 

VOICE. It is a rattlesnake. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is Mr. Olson trying to play with new technology in the Communications and Technology Committee. 

Mr. OLSON. Guilty as charged. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman apologizes. It is accepted. 

And, Mr. Doyle, you are reclaiming your time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Would you address some of the concerns that we are hearing 

about the BDS market? 

Mr. PAI. Sure, and I will try to address those in turn. So, with 

respect to NTIA, we certainly welcome the submission. That is part 

of the reason why we have an open notice and comment process to 

take public input. If you look at the overall tenor of the NTIA letter, it is quite supportive of our approach, unless we do want to 

take those concerns into account. 

Secondly, with respect to BDS overall, the price increases you described are precisely the reason why it was important to us in the 

BDS order last year to preserve FCC authority under section 201 

and 202, as well as the ability of private companies to complain directly to the FCC under section 208. We will adjudicate any complaints we get about price discrimination that might be in violation 

of our rules. 

47 

Thirdly, if you look at the overall gist of our BDS approach, the 

notion is that price regulation deters fiber deployment. It does that 

for two different reasons. Number one, if you are an owner of that 

infrastructure and there is heavy privacy regulation, you would 

have less incentive to build out additional infrastructure. Why 

would you? It is price regulated. Similarly, if you are a competitive 

entrant relying on that infrastructure, you would be less likely to 

build that infrastructure of your own. Why would you? The FCC 

has put a finger on the scale in terms of price regulation. 

Our goal is to preserve that ability of competitive entrants—people have complained to the FCC about unreasonable charges— 

while also promoting an incentive to get more fiber out. And the 

results speak for themselves. If you looked at my opening statement, for the first time, over 50 percent of mid and large size commercial buildings in the United States are connected with fiber. We 

want every one of those buildings to be connected with fiber. We 

think this light-touch, market-based approach that started with 

Chairman Kennard back in the late 1990s is the right way to go. 

Mr. DOYLE. Let me ask you one last question, Chairman Pai, you 

are aware of Senator Wyden’s letter to the FCC regarding the realtime location data and the company Securus Technologies. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. On May 18th, Senator Wyden called on you to recuse 

yourself from the investigation based on your past work representing Securus. Have you recused yourself? 

Mr. PAI. I have not, in consultation with the Office of General 

Counsel. 

Mr. DOYLE. And that was my next question, did you get an opinion from the FCC ethics office as to whether or not you should 

recuse yourself? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, I did. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Walden, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I appreciate again the Commissioners being here. And I believe 

we have sent a letter as well to companies regarding the same 

issue. Obviously, we all care about privacy and about data location 

issues, something we have been pursuing for some time. 

Chairman Pai, let’s switch to the C-band. It is our understanding 

the National Public Radio, commercial broadcasters, and cable companies depend on it for content distribution to about 100 million 

households. That is obviously a lot of people in every State, probably every congressional district. But one of the challenges to ensure noninterference with C-band downlinks is to know the exact 

location of hundreds and potentially thousands of unregistered receive-only Earth stations. What is the Commission doing to identify 

the location of these Earth stations and ensure they are protected 

from potential harmful interference? And what steps is the Commission taking to balance these two goals of ensuring we win the 

race to 5G, which requires for mid-band spectrum, and the protection of the downlink the broadcasters and cable companies depend 

upon? 

48 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Chairman Walden. And I 

think you have put your finger on the two goals that we need to 

pair in this proceeding. And we tried to address the concern you 

have identified about the need to figure out where the stations are 

in a few different ways. For example, we have reduced the fees that 

are required to file some of these reports. Additionally, we have extended the timeframe by 90 days. So I believe October 17th now 

is when the deadline is for reporting. 

In addition to that, we recognize that some of these entities are 

smaller; they might not have the resources to compile a full study 

that is required traditionally under FCC rules. And so it is important to me to streamline that process to allow them to get as much 

information as they can into the record. 

At the end of day, we are confident that steps like these will enable us to get a robust level of participation from those entities and 

enable us thereafter to make a fully informed decision about the 

appropriate disposition of the C-band. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. As you have heard from 

many members on both sides of the aisle up here, we need to do 

more as a country to connect each other with high-speed data and 

broadband connections. So what can you tell us, Chairman, about 

the work the FCC is doing today to close this digital divide? What 

should we look forward to going forward? And what do you need 

from us? 

Mr. PAI. Chairman Walden, I appreciate the question. We are 

doing a lot. And I don’t want to use the remainder of your time, 

but what I will say is with the two critical tools in the toolbox that 

we have—that is, modernization of our regulations and the wiser 

distribution of universal service funding—we are making major 

steps towards closing the digital divide: The $2 billion fixed 

broadband program that just started yesterday, the reverse auction 

for Connect America and Fund Phase II, the $4.5 billion Mobility 

Fund Phase II that will start next year, and some of the initiatives 

that may appear smaller, but I can tell you, when I am on the 

ground in places like Pendleton, Oregon, and Oldsmar, Florida, and 

McClure, Ohio, they are not small. Telemedicine, this is one of 

things that American people just understand, especially in rural 

communities where it is hard to attract a specialist, like my parents—who formerly were customers of Wave Wireless—it is very 

difficult in some cases to get specialists. The only way that some 

of these folks in rural communities will get adequate healthcare is 

through telemedicine. And you saw the response for yourself, as did 

I, at Mirasol health clinic in Oregon when the heard the news that 

we are proposing to increase by 40 percent the budget for the rural 

healthcare. If you remember, they broke out into applause—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. PAI [continuing]. Because they recognize that this is a lifeline, quite literally, for some of these communities. Pendleton and 

Hermiston are big cities in your district. There are a lot of smaller 

towns that will never see a specialist. I am really proud of the 

steps we have taken on the funding side to close the digital divide. 

In terms of modernization, too, we have done a lot to promote 

more infrastructure in rural areas, making it easier to build the 

towers, for example, in rural areas or lay fiber in cases where there 

49 

might be not be a business case for deployment. And I think often 

about some of the visits I have had, including your district. I 

popped into Baker City, Oregon, where GeoNet told me that some 

of the steps we are taking, in terms of making it easier to gain access to poles or get more spectrum, those are the tools that are necessary for the smaller companies in particular, the ones that don’t 

make the headlines, that nobody knows about; those are the things 

that will help them close the digital divide. 

Mr. WALDEN. And 5G, as it rolls out, what do we need to be 

doing there? 

Mr. PAI. I think for us that spectrum and infrastructure are the 

critical inputs. With respect to spectrum, I outlined some of the 

steps we are taking to move very quickly. And having just come 

from a couple of conferences, where I can tell you that my counterparts abroad are both envious and interested about how quickly we 

are moving on the 5G, the United States is in the lead in terms 

of spectrum leadership. 

As far as infrastructure goes, Commissioner Carr has done an 

able job in leading our wireless infrastructure efforts. We need to 

think nimbly and progressively about how to modernize our regulations. The world of a few very sparsely populated cell towers is fading away. The era of the small cell, hundreds of thousands of small 

cells being deployed, is almost here. And so our regulatory approach needs to be as nimble as the industry that we are seeking 

to regulate. 

Mr. WALDEN. My time has expired. 

Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing. 

And to all the Commissioners, thank you for your participation 

and counsel. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

For everyone’s awareness, votes have been called. Mr. Pallone is 

going to ask his questions. Then I will move to recess the subcommittee until we return from votes. 

Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman Pai, I was glad to see the Commission vote to send the 

Sinclair-Tribune transaction to an Administrative Law Judge for 

review, despite the wishes of the President. And I have long had 

serious concerns about this merger, including the sham agreements 

Sinclair used to try and hide the scope of this transaction. That is 

why Ranking Member Doyle and I wrote to the GAO 2 weeks ago, 

asking them to review how these sham agreements affect localism, 

diversity, and competition. However, last night, President Trump 

tweeted ‘‘So sad and unfair that the FCC wouldn’t approve the Sinclair Broadcast merger with Tribune. This would have been a great 

and much needed conservative voice for and of the People. Liberal 

Fake News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not 

Sinclair. Disgraceful!’’ 

The only thing that I find disgraceful is that the President is still 

trying to undermine the integrity of dedicated journalists by blatantly trying to enrich his friends and amplify his message at the 

expense of local news across the country. 

50 

So let me just ask you, yes or no—we are running out of time— 

if I can ask each of the panel, do you agree with the President’s 

tweet? Yes or no? We will start with the Chairman. 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I stand by our decision. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Congressman, that issue has been referred. I have 

to not answer that question. 

Mr. PALLONE. You don’t want to answer. OK. 

Mr. Carr. 

Mr. CARR. Congressman, thank you. I think the hearing designation order lays out the facts and the law as applied, in our view. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

And, Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I do not agree with that. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. 

Now, let me ask those questions of Chairman Pai. I know we 

only have 3 minutes or so. 

Given the President’s politicalization of the Sinclair merger, will 

you commit to ensuring that a comprehensive and thorough review 

is conducted by the ALJ, insulated from the President or anyone 

purporting to speak on his behalf, yes or no? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, we have already issued the hearing designation order, and my understanding is that it is now within the 

purview of the administrative law judge under our rules. 

Mr. PALLONE. But, you are going to ensure that a comprehensive 

and thorough review is conducted by ALJ? 

Mr. PAI. Consistent with the HDO. Those are the issues that 

have been referred to the ALJ, yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. If the President or anyone in the White House 

discusses or has discussed the Sinclair-Tribune merger with you or 

anyone at the FCC, will you commit to disclosing that in the public 

docket, yes or no? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, except, Congressman, we have ex parte rules, because this is now a restricted proceeding. We are limited in what 

information we can receive and what we can put on the record. But 

consistent with our restricted ex parte rules, we would be happy 

to accommodate to the extent we can. 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, basically. All right. 

The President cites the need for a conservative voice. That is the 

thing that is most disconcerting to me, because I don’t believe the 

FCC is supposed to make decisions based on what is conservative 

or liberal or Democrat or Republican or just be independent of the 

President. 

So does the FCC consider conservative or liberal viewpoints as 

part of its merger review? In other words, do you care whether it 

is a conservative voice or not? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I stick with the answer I gave on November 30, 2011, when I testified as a nominee. For every transaction 

that is before me, I will look at the facts, I will apply the law, and 

I will reach the judgment that is in the public interest. Nothing 

more, nothing less. 

Mr. PALLONE. I would just hope that we are not looking at this 

from an ideological point of view, which the President is trying to 

achieve. 

51 

The hearing designation order that the FCC unanimously voted 

to approve notes that Sinclair may have engaged in misrepresentations or a lack of candor in its statements to the Commission about 

the merger. Whether a licensee is lying to the Commission is a serious allegation and stations have had their license revoked for 

making misrepresentations to the FCC. 

So again to you, Chairman Pai, without commenting on the current proceeding, I am not asking you to do that, will the Commission conduct a factual inquiry into Sinclair’s lack of candor regarding the licenses it currently holds either now or at the time of the 

renewal, yes or no? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, we have referred certain issues to the 

ALJ in the HDO. I can’t comment, under advice of our General 

Counsel, on anything having to do with that. And I view your question as being inextricably linked to some of the issues that we have 

referred to the ALJ. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. So the answer is no. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, would you like to add anything to 

that? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I would point out that we have raised 

issues about the candor of this company before the FCC, the misrepresentations they made in the context of this transaction. And 

I think those are serious issues of character qualification under 

Title III of our statute. And to the extent that they have been identified as a problem here, we should be open to investigation in 

other contexts as well. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

The committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, in order to be the first in the world to deploy 5G, we need to set an aggressive schedule of auctions to make 

more low- and mid- and high-band spectrum commercially available. That is why Ranking Member Doyle and I have introduced 

the AIRWAVES Act, which does just that. 

However, it is my understanding that no matter how ambitious 

we are in setting a schedule, there may be certain technological impediments to auctioning off spectrum in a timely fashion. 

Is the FCC’s auction IT out of date? And, if so, what effect does 

that have on the Commission’s ability to keep up with the rest of 

the world in bringing more spectrum to market? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Thank you for the question. 

I don’t know if I would use the word out of date or just not as 

advanced as it should be. It has limitations. 

And to the question that Congressman Doyle raised regarding 

3.5, part of the reason why I had to answer no in terms of census 

tracts is because there was not going to be an actual auction that 

we were supposedly going to conduct on the census tracts. It was 

actually going to be a sealed bid for 74,000 licenses times 7, or half 

52 

a million licenses, which we were not capable of running with our 

auction software. 

And it gets to the question, to your point, number of bands, people have asked for 24, 28, 37, 39, 47 all at once. We weren’t and 

don’t have the capability to run all of those at once. 

The Chairman has done a yeoman’s job of scheduling spectrum 

auctions, and I appreciate the work he has done. We will auction 

two bands this fall and three next fall. That is great. But in terms 

of what we are capable of doing with auction software, it should be 

much more advanced for the money that we are spending on it. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Do other members of the Commission have thoughts on this? 

Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We all know that we want to lead the world 

in the wireless economy and in 5G, and I think it is a shame if our 

bureaucratic auction software doesn’t allow us to do that. If that 

is a problem, we need to commit time, energy, and resources to fixing it. We shouldn’t allow that to be an impediment. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAI. I couldn’t agree more with Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

That is why a few months ago I testified before the House and the 

Senate and asked for resources specifically devoted, in part, toward 

upgrading our IT infrastructure to allow us to do much more, much 

more quickly, with this software. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Chairman Pai, the Commission has had a petition from a New 

Jersey-based company, pdvWireless, and Enterprise Wireless Alliance before the Commission since the fall of 2014. The petition 

asks the Commission to update the rules around the lower 900- 

megahertz band to support broadband. 

To your credit, you put the item out as an NOI last August. I, 

of course, take no position on the merits of that, that is for the 

Commission to decide. But as we approach the 1-year mark since 

the NOI, can you, Mr. Chairman, commit to moving the item to notice of proposed rulemaking soon? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

I can say that I am working with our staff, and we are drafting 

a notice of proposed rulemaking to follow up on the NOI that you 

have inquired about. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, from a global competitiveness perspective, we 

need to ensure that the U.S. wins the race to 5G. We can all agree 

on that. However, at the same time, we need to ensure we are 

bringing connectivity to rural America as well. We have made great 

strides, but clearly more needs to be done. 

The AIRWAVES Act includes a rural dividend, setting aside 10 

percent of proceeds from future spectrum auctions to deploy wireless in unserved and underserved, often rural areas. If this rural 

dividend were in place for the last two auctions, over $6 billion 

would be used to fund rural deployment. And this funding would 

not come from taxpayers or be added to consumers’ telephone bills. 

Do you agree that this provides a creative solution to the challenges of deploying rural broadband? 

53 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I commend you for your leadership on 

that issue. I agree with you 100 percent, so much so that in September of 2016, I gave a speech in which I outlined my agreement 

with the rural dividend proposal. Redirecting that money to rural 

broadband could have a major impact on closing that digital divide. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I want to continue to work with all members of the Commission. I commend you for your public service. 

I apologize for leaving. Congresswoman Brooks and I are on the 

Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee is meeting now. Not 

about you, Congressman Shimkus, and not about me either. 

But I want you to know that I commend the work of this very 

fine Commission, one of the most important agencies of the Federal 

Government. 

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Welch is not here. 

So, Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is great to be here today with all these folks. 

It is good to see you back on the Commission, Commissioner 

Rosenworcel. I really appreciate the time when you came into Iowa, 

to Newton and Baxter, Iowa, to talk about rural broadband. That 

was really a great opportunity for me to have you there. 

I am happy to have the opportunity to have all of you here to 

testify, because I am always eager to discuss, of course, how we can 

build out rural broadband in Iowa and across the country and how 

we can improve mapping data—that is my big topic today—to ensure we are getting resources to the right places. 

I am sure you know my bill that I worked on with Representative Costello over here. The Rural Wireless Access Act passed into 

law earlier this year and it directs you folks to improve and standardize the way the FCC collects wireless coverage data so that 

maps will accurately reflect wireless coverage. 

We talked about this before when you were in northwest Iowa 

and some of the problems you had when you were losing coverage 

traveling to northwest Iowa. 

I always like to say that better data means better maps and better resources and policies for the areas that are truly in need. And 

this isn’t only about cell phones. Mobile broadband is particularly 

important in areas that lack fixed broadband services. With the 

passage of the Rural Wireless Access Act, Congress is speaking, I 

think, and we are saying that we need to get better maps and better data. 

So I am sure you all know that the FCC will have 180 days after 

the conclusion of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction to promulgate 

regulations in accordance with the Rural Wireless Access Act. But 

nothing really is stopping you from doing that now, I would argue, 

or at least sooner. And that is important, because the Mobility II 

auction will send more than $4 billion, I think it is about $4.5 billion out the door, and primarily to rural areas. 

So to me, this seems like a real missed opportunity. We have got 

to act now, it seems to me. The FCC has heard from industry that 

we need better maps. They heard from Congress that we need betVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
54 

ter maps. But the work to create better maps hasn’t happened yet, 

and I think there is some frustration out there about that. 

I understand that the Commission has agreed—I think this was 

back a couple months back maybe—to push back the Mobility Fund 

II auction by 90 days to allow the current data challenge process 

to continue. But I am concerned that because of the incredible burdens with that process, the FCC’s data still may not be fixed. 

And I can tell you, rural America needs this broadband funding 

as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree with that. 

Rather, I think the Commission could take this time to make the 

important fundamental reforms called for by my Rural Wireless Access Act ahead of schedule. 

And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, you say in your testimony that, 

‘‘Too often our procedures fall short of what good governance requires. Our mapping practices for broadband do not accurately reflect the state of connectivity on the ground.’’ And I think that is 

absolutely right. 

So my question is to you, really, Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

When working to advance good governance and best practices, do 

you think it makes sense for the FCC to move forward with a challenge process that isn’t working, or should we be making the real 

overhaul necessary to fix this problem in a more expedited way? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We have a problem with wireless service in 

rural America, and you cannot manage problems that you do not 

measure. 

Right now, the FCC’s mapping process for wireless service is basically asking the largest carriers whether or not they provide service in an area. And then we have invited local officials and small 

wireless carriers to contest that data. 

But the process of contesting that data is cumbersome, it is difficult, it is long. It entails setting up an account, downloading 50 

pages of information, getting multiple handsets, walking around in 

cornfields and elsewhere every half a kilometer and taking down 

information about signal strength and latency, then uploading that 

with the certification of an engineer and returning it to the FCC 

for our assessment. 

I am going to argue that that process is too burdensome for most 

wireless communities to undertake. And as a result, I am worried 

about our Mobility Fund mapping as it stands today. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And, Chairman Pai, I would like you to respond 

as well, give you that opportunity, if you would like to respond to 

that. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Congressman. 

The system we inherited when I came into office in January 2017 

was a free-for-all, frankly. Any carrier could use whatever technical 

standards it wanted to supply whatever information it wanted. 

That wasn’t good enough for me. If we were going to distribute 

$4.5 billion of funding, I wanted to close the digital divide to serve 

unserved areas. 

That is why, under my leadership, we started, on a unanimous 

basis, a bespoke one-time data collection for mobility to see exactly 

where coverage was and where it wasn’t, with a standardized set 

of rules. And that is why I appreciate the concept behind your legislation. 

55 

We have extended the deadline, as you pointed out, for the challenge process, to give all types of entities the ability to challenge. 

We have broadened the categories that can challenge. It is not just 

rural carriers, but State and local governments. 

We have also extended waivers to everyone from Senator Joe 

Manchin of West Virginia to the Kansas Farm Bureau to be able 

to participate. Our own staff has done a lot of road shows, and I 

believe it is nine States currently and a number of webinars. 

We have also created a map with just one unsubsidized competitor to allow companies, anybody, an easier way to pinpoint those 

areas that are ripe for challenge. 

All of these steps, I agree, are complex. Nonetheless, something 

is better than nothing, and nothing is what we started with. 

We are making progress slowly but surely, and I am confident 

when we hold that Mobility Fund auction, folks in Woden, folks in 

my home State, everyone will be able to get coverage ultimately because we did the very hard and dirty work collecting this data as 

best we could. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Well, thanks to all of you. And we will be staying 

in touch, I can promise. Thanks very much. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And Broadband Loebsack, as we have come to 

know him at this committee, does yield back his time. 

Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, everybody. It is great to have you back. 

I want to start with Commissioner O’Rielly. I want to just thank 

you for raising and addressing the 9-1-1 fee diversion issue. It is 

hard to talk about that when your State—my State was good. Then 

it was bad. Now I think it is good again. 

But as Congresswoman Eshoo and I have worked on 9-1-1, as 

many of you know, for a long time, States diverting that money is, 

in essence, stealing from the fund in which they were paying into. 

So I just want to publicly thank you for that. 

But sticking with you, I have been named to the farm bill as a 

conferee. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Congratulations. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Get my pitchforks out. 

But one of the things that we want to—one of the reasons why 

we are on there is the broadband deployment, and there are U.S. 

issues. 

So how can we get the FCC, the RUS, and NTIA to work together so we are not duplicating functions or are actually working 

together to address—everyone is talking about, right, rural 

broadband, connectivity. And so every member has mentioned that 

as part of their discussion. So I am looking for some advice and 

some consultation so that when I go in I can be an impact. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I would be more than pleased to provide more 

technical advice to you. There are extensive provisions in both the 

House and Senate farm bill. There is also the pilot program that 

was created as part of last year’s budget bill. And they all have the 

potential, as I read them now, to provide duplication with existing 

programs we have at the FCC. 

56 

The chairman has done a wonderful job in working with different 

agencies. I was looking at language in terms of consultation. It requires consultation. So basically they will talk to us before the— 

RUS, for instance, would talk to the FCC before a decision is made. 

But that doesn’t get you a prohibition on duplication. It just requires a consultation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So we then know about the duplication instead of 

being surprised about it. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes, we know where the limitations are. 

And if you look at the House bill, for instance, it has different 

speed thresholds. It wants 25/3 compared to where we are trying 

to fund. And I recognize our speeds in the funding that we do are 

less than what people would like, but we are trying to stretch our 

dollars as far as we possibly can with 14 million people—or 24 million, depending if you count satellite or not—unserved households 

today. That has been my primary concern. 

So I would be more than pleased to work with you to try and figure out how to tighten the language to make sure we have duplication, that we do not have coordination throughout, rather than consultation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate that. 

And let me go to Commissioner Carr. And then if I have time I 

can open it up for other folks. 

You have done some work already doing what we are trying to 

do in the SPEED Act, which is address on the deployment 

rightsizing historic and environmental rules, not reinventing the 

wheel if the siting tower is the same siting tower, but then you are 

going to put a 5G system on there. 

Can you talk about what you have done in the Commission so 

far on that aspect? 

Mr. CARR. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership on 

these issues. 

Some of the legislation that you have mentioned contains a lot 

of really great ideas. There is this global race that is ongoing to 5G. 

And winning that race isn’t just about getting next-gen connectivity 

in New York or San Francisco. There are thousands of other communities that need their fair shot at 5G. 

A big portion of 5G is going to be small cells. One of the challenges there is how do we make the economic case to get small cells 

everywhere? So by removing regulations that were really designed 

for 200-foot macro towers, having them continue to apply to those 

towers, but putting an updated approach for these small cells can 

make a big difference in extending 5G everywhere. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So then let’s just finish with this part of the debate. In our language, we are directed to Federal property, parklands and issues, because there is a perceived concern by smaller 

municipalities and stuff that you are going to—we could, in the 

guise of rolling out 5G, that we are going to take away their rights 

to help in the local decisions. 

Have you had any of those debates and discussions? And what 

are your thoughts about that? 

Mr. CARR. We have had a lot of really good, really productive 

meetings with local elected officials, whether it is county commisVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
57 

sioners. As I have been on the road, I was in Boston at the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors conference. 

These local officials deal with issues that we at the FCC will 

never deal with. If there is an ugly small cell that goes up somewhere, those local officials are the ones that are going to get the 

call about it, not us. 

So I think at the end of the day, we can look to try to find some 

common ground because we share the same goal of getting more 

broadband deployed. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again, my time has expired. I wish I would have 

had more time to talk to everybody. 

And I yield back. Thanks. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Welch, you are recognized. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

I want to make three comments and then discuss two topics, 

rural broadband and the homework gap. 

The comments are, number one, thank you for your help on the 

passage of the RAY BAUM’S Act. 

Number two, I do commend you for your decision on Sinclair. 

Number one, you did it together. It is so, so important for us to find 

ways we can do things together. Number two, if we are going to 

have strong rural communities, we have to have local institutions, 

and there is no institution more important locally than local news. 

And then three, Commissioner Carr, telehealth, that is a big opportunity for us and really, really essential. 

The two topics I want to speak about are the rural buildout, and 

I am going to talk to you, Chairman Pai, a little bit about this. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel said you can’t assess something if you 

can’t measure it. You can’t challenge rural broadband or make it 

universal unless we acknowledge that there is a real problem. 

And what Congress said in 1996, it required the FCC to report 

annually on whether advanced telecommunication capability is 

being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. 

In 2016, the Broadband Deployment Report, and you were serving 

on the Commission then, said, and you concurred with it, where it 

was critical of the buildout. 

You said: I agree, ‘‘This administration’s policies have failed to 

deliver ’advanced telecommunications capability’—broadband—to 

the American people in a reasonable and timely fashion.’’ And you 

were explicit: ‘‘The standard set forth by Congress is not being met. 

Rural America is being left behind.’’ 

Fast forward to 2018. In the Broadband Deployment Report, this 

is under your leadership, there was a determination that 

‘‘broadband services are now being deployed to all Americans on a 

reasonable and timely basis.’’ And what you said in your statement 

is the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis. 

That is not what Congress is requiring. It is not to encourage; 

it is to get the job done. 

I want to spell out some of the facts that I understand to be the 

case, and you can tell me whether you agree or disagree. 

Twenty-four million Americans lack access to fixed broadband at 

speeds of 25/3, the FCC standard. Do you agree with that or not? 

58 

Mr. PAI. I do. 

Mr. WELCH. Great. 

Thirty-one percent of Americans in rural areas lack access to the 

broadband service. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. PAI. I do. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. 

Forty-four million Americans lack access to both fixed broadband 

at 25/3 speeds and mobile LTE broadband at 10/3 speeds. 

Mr. PAI. I would have to double-check that number, but I don’t 

have any reason to suspect it is incorrect. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. So we are in agreement that there is a problem. 

Mr. PAI. Correct. 

Mr. WELCH. And I hope we are in agreement that your job, FCC, 

all of you, is not to encourage, it is to get it done. 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. 

Mr. WELCH. Great. That is good. 

Now, in listening to you—not just today, but other times—I have 

heard you talk about what you see as the benefits of deregulation, 

including the elimination of net neutrality, correct? 

Mr. PAI. Correct. 

Mr. WELCH. Let me be explicit. We could give you a pen and you 

could write a revocation of every single regulation that exists. Will 

that provide the financial incentive for broadband carriers to build 

out on dirt roads in Vermont and Iowa and Kansas where there is 

one house every half mile? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, this is the central problem. In too many 

parts of this country there is no private business case for deployment. That is why our job—— 

Mr. WELCH. That is my point. Deregulation won’t get it done 

where there is no market opportunity. 

Mr. PAI. That is not correct, Congressman. Look at the letter 

from VTel, which I appended to my testimony. VTel stated specifically that they are spending millions of dollars more because of 

these regulatory modifications. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. And thank you for bringing up VTel. 

And, in fact, I happen to be a VTel customer. And what they said 

in that letter is they are going to invest $4 million more. We have 

got 100,000 people underserved in Vermont. 

What you didn’t indicate was that VTel was the recipient of a $130 million ARRA grant. So that is kind of relevant. There was 

actual public money that went into helping the broadband buildout. 

So the fundamental question here, OK, because we have got 

agreement that we have got to get rural America wired, and every 

single day it is more important that we do that, but it is not going 

to happen just with deregulation. There has got to be some mapping. There has got to be a bolstered Universal Fund. There has 

got to be promotion of local competition. We had some people in 

here from rural communities that were having local companies that 

were doing really hard things and getting it done, because their investment was in the community. 

So I see my time is up and I didn’t even get to the homework 

gap, Commissioner, which I applaud you for your work on. But this 

is a real ongoing problem. 

I yield back. 

59 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Latta, you are recognized. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you very much, FCC Commissioners, for being with 

us today. 

Chairman Pai, technology such as the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, blockchain are disrupting the markets and even 

changing our everyday lives. We need widespread broadband 

connectivity to drive these technologies to their potential. 

Is the Commission focusing resources on learning more about 

these emerging technologies and how critical broadband access is 

to this discussion? 

Mr. PAI. We are, Congressman. And thank you for that thoughtful question. I have personally spent, both because of professional 

obligations and personal interest, a lot of time thinking about these 

issues starting in the fall of 2017. 

And that is part of the reason why recently I announced that the 

FCC would be hosting a forum later this year on the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning, in particular on the communications sector, because I think we are simply scratching the 

surface in terms of the potential of some of these technologies. 

They have obviously disrupted a number of industries, and I think 

there is a useful focus for the FCC in thinking about how it could 

disrupt communications. 

Similarly, I have been looking at a number of other technologies, 

virtual reality and augmented reality, blockchain, connected vehicles, and the like. I think we need to make sure that we are always 

keeping track of some of these technologies. It is hard, because of 

both the depth and the breadth of some of these innovations. 

But nonetheless, I have been talking to a number of experts, including our own chief technology officer, companies in Silicon Valley, and the like, about how to make sure that we are aware of 

some of these changes. And the transformation thus far has been 

tremendous, but I think over the next 5 to 10 years, it is going to 

be even more mind-blowing. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, the RAY BAUM’S Act calls for the FCC 

and the NTIA to identify 100 megahertz of new unlicensed spectrum under 8 gigahertz by the end of 2022. What steps will the 

Commission take to free up much-needed unlicensed spectrum to 

support growing consumer demand for existing technologies and to 

provide innovation space for the technologies of the future? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. 

I would only answer your previous question to Chairman Pai, I 

would say also don’t forget about narrow band. Narrow Band-IoT, 

very important. But I don’t want to get sidetracked. 

To your point on unlicensed, the Commission, and with the 

Chairman’s great leadership, is going to move forward on a number 

of things, including in 6 gigahertz, where we are going to hopefully, 

assuming that an NPRM is adopted later this fall and moved to 

order sometime next year, provide additional spectrum for unlicensed purposes. 

We have also been working, Commissioner Rosenworcel and I 

have been working extensively on 5.9. And I have also raised the 

60 

question of whether 4.9 may be a place that we can work with to 

have unlicensed bands and services, because we have reached a 

maximum capacity. Five gigahertz is getting rather full in terms of 

services; 2.4 is already full. 

So unlicensed is going to have to be a very big portion of our consideration going forward. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, earlier this week the House passed the Precision Connectivity Act, and you have all been hearing a lot of 

questions coming from us, and especially when we are talking 

about rural broadband and getting that access out there. 

This is a bipartisan bill that I authored with my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, which directs the Commission to 

set up a task force in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture, identify and measure gaps in broadband availability, and 

develop policy recommendations to promote rapid broadband expansion on agricultural land. 

Do you believe the Commission can execute the requirements of 

the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act? 

Mr. CARR. Thank you, Congressman. 

Yes, I do. I think it is an important issue, as you point out. The 

intensive amount of data and broadband that is used in agriculture 

today is quite mind-blowing. When you get outside of D.C.—I was 

in Moline, Michigan—you see the high bandwidth uses, from connected combines to drones that are taking detailed images down to 

the tiny dots of a leaf on a crop. 

We need to find ways to get high-speed broadband for farmers 

and ranchers. I think this bill is one way that is going to do it. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up with that. To what degree will it 

require a combination of the technologies in the wireline and wireless to meet that broadband challenge for the precision agriculture? 

Mr. CARR. Ultimately, it is going to require a mix of technologies. 

Fiber is going to work in some places, fixed wireless in other 

places. We are seeing a new generation of satellite technologies 

that can also help. So we are going to have a lot of different technologies that are making that last mile work. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, all of you, for being here this afternoon. 

Chairman Pai, I want to begin with you and ask about your response—or lack thereof—to a letter that Mr. McNerney and myself 

sent regarding the DDoS attack that crashed the FCC’s website 

during the net neutrality comment period, or what you told us had 

crashed it. 

Last year, during a hearing that we were having, you indicated 

that you would follow up with the committee to provide information 

on what had actually happened. Then, in another hearing in October, you said—and this is directly from the transcript—you had 

provided a detailed response to the committee and, ‘‘I would be 

happy to provide that to you with some of the particulars in that 

regard.’’ 

61 

The committee has never received it. We have not received it. 

And then you responded to a question for the record by saying you 

couldn’t release the information to the committee. Now, since then, 

we have learned some information from the press about this, but 

we still have a lot more questions than answers and are still waiting for a response. 

Would you agree, Chairman Pai, that there is something wrong 

when members of the committee tasked with oversight of the FCC 

learn about issues from the press when we have been asking about 

them for more than a year? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

In consultation with the Office of General Counsel following that 

particular hearing that you referenced, the General Counsel opined 

that we require a letter from the Committee in order to share certain information because of some of the sensitivity of that information. Should the Committee issue such a letter, again, we would be 

happy to accommodate. 

Additionally, I want you to know that we have been working 

with both the General Accountability Office—of course, Congress’ 

investigative arm—as well as the Office of Inspector General at the 

FCC on these issues. And that has been ongoing for a number of 

different months. And so the fact that you might not have heard 

a lot of news from the FCC does not mean we haven’t been working 

with these independent bodies to investigate these particular 

issues. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Well, I think this committee would think that we 

should have some information on this. And so you are saying from 

the subcommittee chair, the full committee? Who do you need to receive that letter from, since you haven’t been asked enough by 

enough of us? 

Mr. PAI. My understanding from the General Counsel is that the 

Committee—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. What is your definition of committee? Does that 

mean Mr. Walden and Mr. Pallone need to send you a letter? 

Mr. PAI. I believe that is correct. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. 

Madam Chair, can we talk to the full chair about this? Thank 

you. 

All right. So then I would like to continue. Since there is already 

some public information about the attack, will you commit to finally following up with the committee if we get this letter, to provide us with reports, requests, memoranda, service logs related to 

the DDoS attack, the FCC’s protocol for documenting it, and what 

steps you are taking to mitigate events like this going forward? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, what I can tell you is that, again, we 

have been working cooperatively with the Office of Inspector General. The Inspector General has done a fantastic job investigating 

this issue. And I don’t want to speak for him, but what I can say 

is that I would expect him to issue more information on this in the 

very near future. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Hopefully, to the committee that has jurisdiction. 

Chairman Pai, let me also ask you about a letter that you were 

sent asking for an investigation into whether companies improperly 

sold TV viewer data to Cambridge Analytica. You punted this matVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
62 

ter to the FTC, which I disagree with. But we did a followup letter 

asking further questions about this decision. It is critical that the 

FCC enforce privacy protections of the communications sector to 

the fullest extent. 

When can we expect a response to this letter? And why did the 

FCC decline to conduct an investigation into this? 

Mr. PAI. I appreciate the question, Congresswoman. 

The agency is a creature of Congress. We can only exercise authority that Congress has delegated to the agency. 

In this particular case, there are two specific authorities: Section 

338 and Section 631. Those authorities extend to cable operators 

and satellite systems. Neither TiVo nor comScore is a satellite operator or a cable system. So we cannot exercise jurisdiction under 

them in the manner in which you requested. 

Additionally, to the extent that you were asking about the company DISH and its provision of aggregate data, that is a specific 

exception from the statutory authority that does not allow us to exercise jurisdiction. 

And so it wasn’t simply a punt, but a recognition of reality under 

the current law that the Federal Trade Commission can be and is 

expressly authorized under Section 5 of the FTC Act and other authorities to investigate this particular matter, and that is why we 

referred it to them. They are the primary privacy cop on the beat, 

and we want them to be able to look at this issue, consistent with 

your request. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I am out of time, so I can’t keep asking. I had 

more. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, first, I want to talk to—this isn’t necessarily 

directly FCC, but it is something you have been working on I am 

very interested in here, and it is the skills gap and apprenticeships. 

I work with Susan Davis from California on another committee. 

And I had the Wireless Infrastructure Association come to see 

me. And I don’t know if you were with them or somebody else— 

that you actually climbed a tower recently. And they were trying 

to figure out how 5G deployment could be held up just by not having the skills of people able, men and women, to be able to go out 

and deploy 5G. 

And I know I have like 6,500 open jobs in my community. If you 

show up with some skill it is easy to do a living wage. If you show 

up with skills, you have a career. 

And so I know that is an interest of you, in terms of this area. 

Could you talk about things that you have worked in, in this area, 

what the skills gap is, and some things you think we should be 

able to do to help close that? 

Mr. CARR. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your 

leadership on this issue. You mentioned I climbed a cell tower in 

Sioux Falls, California, and I demonstrated my own skills gap attempting to keep up with the people doing that. 

But to your point, the skills gap, in my view, comes in two 

places. One, when you look at the deployment of next-generation 

63 

network, 5G, these thousands of small cells, right now we potentially don’t have the workforce in place that can do that work, the 

deployment of it, the consideration of the RF implications, in terms 

of where you set an antenna up to get coverage. 

And then we also see it in communities being able to have the 

skills, take advantage once those connections are in place. I was in 

Detroit at a school that is trying to give either low-income people, 

people recently released from prison, the training and the job skills 

they need to take advantage of the digital economy. 

To your point, I think there is more we can do on the apprenticeship side with streamlining those efforts to make it easier for people to move into this space. I have done some events with the Department of Labor geared towards that. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. And as I said, that moves 

toward careers instead of just jobs, and that is what we really want 

to reach out to help people with. 

Also, Chairman Pai, in the RAY BAUM’S Act, Congresswoman 

Matsui and myself had the auction deposits bill that was included 

into that area. 

My question is for you and Commissioner O’Rielly, I think Commissioner O’Rielly, you both brought that to our attention. Are you 

seeing any other barriers in the auction mechanics that may need 

statutory fix to streamline to make the auctions go smoother or 

better, both of you or either of you? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Before I do 

that, I want to assure the subcommittee that we consulted with the 

General Counsel, and had something happened to Commissioner 

Carr on that tower climb, the FCC still would have had a quorum 

sufficient to discharge its duties as prescribed by Congress. 

But more seriously, we are so grateful to you, to Congresswoman 

Matsui, and to the entire subcommittee for your leadership in fixing that problem. 

As I look at the lay of the land in terms of our legal authority, 

we have sufficient authority at this point, with the exception of the 

budgeting, the issues that I talked about earlier, to make sure that 

we can conduct auctions in an expeditious and productive way. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Rielly, I have another question for you if you want to answer that. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I was going to answer to the point. I don’t think 

it is a question of authority. I think it is a question of what this 

committee does very well, which is oversight and following up to 

make sure that the auction software is advanced to meet the goals 

for the future. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thank you. 

And also for you, Commissioner O’Rielly. 

Thank you for your support on the 6 gigahertz proceeding and 

your testimony. As you know, this is an important issue for the 

Spectrum Caucus. 

Would you like to elaborate on the need for this spectrum and 

what timeframe you expect to see for the expected NPRM? If you 

could be more specific than maybe the fall or something like that. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Absolutely. 

64 

So the predominant bands that I mentioned before, 2.4 and 5 

gigahertz, are congested. And so we need to add more unlicensed 

spectrum to the portfolio, for all the benefits that they bring that 

I have talked about in the past. Commissioner Rosenworcel and I 

have worked together on this issue. 

Six gigahertz is what I consider the second best option for additional unlicensed spectrum next to 5.9. We are working hard on 

that. It has been a very difficult slog to try and come to resolution. 

But 6 gigahertz may be something we can move forward quicker. 

It is the uplink to C-band. C-band has the other component that 

the subcommittee has talked about a little bit earlier. 

In terms of the point on the timing, that is something that the 

Chairman—I don’t want to get ahead of him, but I think that the 

goal is to have an NPRM this fall timeframe. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you have any comments on that? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No. I agree with much of what my colleague 

Commissioner O’Rielly said. 

Unlicensed spectrum has historically been scraps in our airwaves. We have got to be intentional about it. We need more WiFi in our skies, and we have got opportunities in the 5.9 gigahertz 

span and 6 gigahertz span, and it is time to pursue them. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you very much. 

And my time is almost expired, so I will stop there. I yield back 

15 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chair. 

And I thank the Commissioners for your work. It can’t be that 

easy, but hopefully rewarding. 

Chairman Pai, it has been 2 months since we learned about the 

VPNFilter, the Russian-linked malware that can be used to steal 

users’ information, exploit devices, and block network traffic. Hundreds of thousands or more routers have been compromised. Yet 

consumers either know nothing about it or they have been left wondering if their router is affected and how to take action. And these 

are routers that are being rented from their ISPs. 

Do you agree that the ISPs have a responsibility to inform consumers they lease routers to about known vulnerabilities? Can you 

answer yes or no? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, we do want to ensure that consumers get 

the information they need about the security of their equipment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do the ISPs have a responsibility here? 

Mr. PAI. Legally, I would have to look into it. But certainly, as 

a general business matter, I would hope that they would inform 

consumers about any risks to that equipment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is the FCC doing anything to encourage ISPs to 

inform customers about this malware and how to update their routers or if their routers have been compromised? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I have to be a little bit circumspect on 

this issue. I can’t comment on things that might have some classification to them. But we would be happy to work with you to provide what information we can on the subject. 

65 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, is the FCC doing anything at all to help 

protect customers against malware from their routers? 

Mr. PAI. Again, there are certain issues I can’t discuss. But generally speaking, yes, we do monitor any potential threats to equipment, and we work with the industry to make sure that they apprise customers about it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think the 

FCC has a role in protecting consumers from cybersecurity threats? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, I think the FCC has a role in protecting 

consumers from cybersecurity threats. 

I also think our equipment authorization process is of note here. 

Those routers have to be authorized by the agency, because they 

use radio frequency. We could certainly look into using our Part 15 

process to certify that they will notify consumers of any malware 

or cyber risks associated with their use. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for that answer. 

The GAO has committed to investigating fake comments submitted to the FCC in the net neutrality repeal proceeding, and I 

understand that the New York attorney general is investigating as 

well. As it stands, we know that at least 2 million of these comments are fake, some even coming from Russian email addresses. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, is it your view that the FCC has 

been cooperating with law enforcement agencies? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I do not believe we have been cooperating 

with law enforcement agencies. I think that is a problem. Two million peoples’ identities were stolen in our record. That is a Federal 

crime under Title 18. It is also a crime in many States. We should 

be referring these matters to State attorneys general and the Department of Justice. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman Pai, can you commit to ensuring that your office and 

the FCC as a whole will cooperate with these investigations? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, we have been cooperating with the General Accountability Office. As I said, the Office of Inspector General 

is looking into this issue. 

In addition, I proactively have announced recently in a letter in 

response to Senators Merkley and Toomey that we would be changing our process to ensure that some of the issues that arose last 

time, for example, 7.5 million comments in support of Title II using 

fakemailgenerator.com, 400,000 pro-Title II comments from a single address in Chelyabinsk, Russia, that those things don’t happen. 

As we are exploring the use of CAPTCHA and other potential solutions, assuming we get authorization from our appropriations 

committees, we are reprogramming of certain funds. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am still waiting for a response for the 

report’s—and this is following up on Mrs. Dingell’s comments—request memoranda related to the alleged DDoS attack on the comment system, requesting these documents multiple times now, and 

hope that you will provide them sometime soon. 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, again, to follow up on my response to 

Congresswoman Dingell, we have been working with the Inspector 

General. He has done a fantastic job on this. And stay tuned, they 

will be issuing information. 

66 

In the meantime, additionally, as I said, in consultation with the 

General Counsel, we require a letter from the Committee in order 

to supply certain types of information that you are seeking. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there any steps you are taking now to prevent comments from being filed in a manner that would impact 

your proceedings? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, sir. So we are, as I said, exploring, in consultation 

with our career staff and the Office of Managing Director and others, solutions like CAPTCHA or other similar mechanisms to ensure the integrity of our proceedings. 

The system we inherited in January 2017 was designed to be a 

fully open process that anyone can participate in, but we want to 

make sure that it is one that, again, respects the integrity of the 

FCC’s processes and confirms the seriousness of our work. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, last question. I am concerned about 

the proposed changes to the Lifeline Program. I am worried that, 

if adopted, it will only further widen the digital divide and be a 

major setback for vulnerable populations like veterans. 

The proposed changes, could you give me an idea how that might 

affect veterans? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I appreciate the question. I am, in fact, the 

daughter of an Air Force veteran. 

There are 1.3 million veterans in this country that rely on the 

Lifeline Program today. And, in fact, at the behest of Senator 

McCain and Senator Blumenthal, we expanded the program to include the Veterans Pension program so that more veterans could 

apply and participate, so that when they finish their service they 

can reacclimate to civilian life and have communications necessary 

to do so. I think it would be offensive if this agency decided to cut 

them off from communication service. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Olson, you are recognized. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. 

And welcome to our four leaders of the FCC. 

Chairman Pai, Texans back home in Texas 22 want me to thank 

you for standing up for a thriving internet. They are grateful for 

your actions to stop the false net neutrality rules of the previous 

administration. 

You found out firsthand what my former boss, Texas Senator 

Phil Gramm, found out about killing a bad government program or 

rule: It is easier to kill a vampire than a bad government program. 

Yet you persevered. And now again to channel Phil Gramm: The 

previous rule is deader than Elvis. 

It is again hurricane season. I would like to also thank you for 

coming down within days after Harvey hit Houston to help us on 

the ground recover with our telecommunication systems. I am 

hopeful this year is not like last year: Harvey, Irma, Maria, fires. 

We have to make sure we are prepared. 

Can you update us on what the FCC has done to prepare for hurricanes and other disasters this year? 

67 

Mr. PAI. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman, and 

thank you and the folks in your district for hosting me when I was 

in Houston after Hurricane Harvey. 

We are doing a number of things to make sure that our networks 

are as resilient as possible and that restoration is as quick as possible. 

In terms of funding, we have extended funding to make sure in 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, for instance, that we can restore those networks as quickly as possible. And we have also extended a number of different waivers and streamlining orders to 

make sure that carriers can focus on rebuilding networks instead 

of paperwork to the FCC. 

Additionally, we have engaged in a number of different experiments, for example, granting an experimental license to Google to 

use Project Loon to beam internet access from balloons. In a situation like that, we don’t care what technology is used to get people 

back on the grid, we want them to get back on. 

Additionally, we have been working to make sure that our wireless emergency system is much more resilient. I would be happy to 

talk about some of the different steps there, but the bottom line is 

we are making sure that these alerts are more targeted, are more 

informational, and the consumers don’t tune them out. 

An additional one that is specific to you that I thought I would 

mention, because a lot of people don’t think about this, some 33 

trillion gallons of water were dumped on your part of Texas in the 

wake of Hurricane Harvey. That had a huge impact on those parts 

of the area that only had copper lines in the ground. 

Copper degrades when it is under severe water pressure, and if 

it is exposed to water it is utterly useless. And those areas of Houston that had fiber were much more resilient. Either the cell towers 

didn’t go down or the networks stayed up altogether. 

And so I think that it is important when we talk about some of 

our copper retirement rules and other nitty-gritty wireline reforms 

that we have got is that there is a huge public safety benefit to 

doing this, NG9-1-1 and the rest. I think it is very important to 

keep that in mind. 

All of these issues that we have been talking about previously 

have a public safety dimension that I think we should all recognize. 

Mr. OLSON. By the way, thank you for all those emergency messages that came over, warning tornado, warning floods, warnings 

swamped the whole system. With your work, it is targeted now to 

where it actually is. As opposed to hitting a whole county, it is hitting a city. And that is a big deal, because we were bombed. We 

got spammed by all these. It just became nothing after days of 

these buzzers going off. So thank you for acting quickly to make 

that happen. 

Commissioner Carr, you have been leading the FCC in finding 

new ways to reduce government red tape that slows 5G deployment. Verizon has just announced it plans to launch 5G in Houston, Texas, later this year. 

Can you tell me how your work will help expedite this rollout 

quickly in Houston? 

68 

Mr. CARR. Thanks very much, Congressman, for the question. I 

am glad to see that Houston is going to be on the leading edge of 

getting 5G. 

That is something that we want to replicate across the country. 

So we have a number of reforms that we have already taken. That 

is going to reduce the cost of deployment. That is going to make 

a big difference, particularly in costly, difficult-to-serve areas. We 

have a number of ideas that we are continuing to look at, at the 

Commission. 

I also wanted to follow up on your earlier question. I was also 

in Houston at the Harris County 9-1-1 Center and saw the great 

work that they were able to do there in response to Hurricane Harvey. 

Mr. OLSON. And one last question. I am running out of time here, 

but this is for you, Chairman Pai. 

As you probably know from my biography, I spent 9 years in the 

Navy, lieutenant commander, a leader in the Navy. You are the 

leader of this FCC, this Commission. You have a member who has 

climbed up a cell tower. As leader, don’t you think you should follow his lead and climb up a cell tower as well, somewhere in South 

Dakota maybe? 

Mr. PAI. That was a curve ball I had not prepared for, Congressman. Although Commissioner Carr is far younger and more nimble 

than I am, nonetheless, I will put my own life at risk to ascend perhaps a 10-foot tower to inspect a small cell somewhere in Houston 

once the deployment is ready. 

Mr. OLSON. I will go with you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And the gentleman will not only go with you, 

he will climb the tower. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And welcome to all the panelists. I don’t have a climb-the-tower 

question here. 

So but anyway, I want to follow up on my Spectrum Caucus cochair, who is Brett Guthrie, talking about 6 gigahertz. I understand the Commission is planning to move forward with NPRM to 

explore the possibility of opening the bands known as collectively 

6-gigahertz band for unlicensed use in the fall. 

Commissioner O’Rielly and Commissioner Rosenworcel, what interference protection to mitigation techniques, such as frequency 

coordination, could protect incumbents and allow unlicensed operations in this band? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, thank you. 

So those that have been interested in making 6 gigahertz available for unlicensed use have put forward engineering studies to 

show that the interference, harmful interference, would be minimal, and they have recommended a number of mitigation efforts. 

They will all have to be explored as part of the NPRM this fall. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We do have before us some engineering studies like my colleague referenced. The most important thing we can 

do is put this out for a rulemaking so that we make it possible for 

69 

the 6-gigahertz band to be used for unlicensed service in the near 

future. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. Great. Thank you. 

Last week, I announced that I am working on legislation to direct the Department of Commerce to convene a working group of 

Federal and industry stakeholders to develop a consensus-based 

definition of blockchain. 

Distributed ledger systems such as blockchain have particularly 

interesting potential applications in communication networks, including in IoT deployments and spectrum sharing. Next-generation 

networks, including 5G-capable radios, have the opportunity to ensure spectrum is being used as efficiently as possible. 

But there currently is no common definition of blockchain, which 

could potentially hinder it in its deployment, especially in those 

cases where sharing may be the only viable option. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, so what potential could blockchain 

have in increasing spectrum efficiency? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question and being so forward-thinking about this. 

I have written some pieces for Wired and elsewhere where I have 

pointed out that spectrum is a scarce resource. We need to come 

up with more efficient ways to distribute it other than just traditional licensed and unlicensed regimes. 

And using distributed ledger technology like blockchain could 

make that possible. We could see dynamic leasing. We could see 

lightweight leasing. We could see a lot more innovative uses of this 

scarce resource. 

So I think what you are describing is the right way to go. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. 

I want to move on to the C-band. I commend the FCC’s work to 

identify the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band as a potential core midrange 

band for next-generation networks. This band has propagation 

characteristics that make it ideal for reliable satellite distribution 

and particularly valuable for IG mobile networks. 

The NPRM that you unanimously approved earlier this month 

appropriately recognized that the Commission has insufficient information on incumbent operations that may need to be protected 

in the band. I appreciate the NPRM sought additional information 

on existing Earth station uses of C-band satellites as well as the 

previous application filing freeze. 

Chairman Pai, how is the work to gather additional information 

on incumbent users going? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

It is going well, in part because we have extended the time and 

the latitude that some of these folks have to register with us. We 

have extended the timeframe by 90 days, until October 17. We 

have streamlined the fees and the reports that are required for 

them to be able to report. 

And so at the end of the day, this fall we hope to be able to come 

to you just to let you know that we have a much more robust picture of where these stations are in order to allow us to proceed to 

a fully informed decision about the fate of the C-band. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, fine. Thank you. 

70 

Mindful that clearing federally held spectrum is both critical in 

our effort to facilitate deployment of next-generation networks and 

a congressionally mandated preference, I am interested in new 

ways to ensure we are using spectrum more efficiently and innovatively. 

Back in 2004, for instance, the FCC considered the role that opportunistic technologies and access systems could play in promoting leasing arrangements between commercial users and license holders. 

Specifically, I am interested in a legislative framework that 

would further facilitate the opportunity for NTIA to coordinate 

with the FCC and allow Federal agencies to lease spectrum to commercial users. 

Commissioner Carr, I know there is not much time, but how do 

you believe additional spectrum-sharing arrangements could balance the certainty and deployment needs of both commercial providers and government users? 

Mr. CARR. Congresswoman, thank you for the question and 

thank you for your longstanding leadership on spectrum issues. 

I think you are right. I think we need to put even more tools on 

the table, even more options on the table, and we should be exploring all ways to get more spectrum out there for consumer use. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

And I just want to make a comment. In my work on this committee I have been focused on expanding access to telehealth services. So I thank you, Commissioner Carr, for your focus on them. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Johnson, you are recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And to our Commissioners, thank you all very much for being 

here. 

Chairman Pai, earlier this year Congress provided funding to 

NTIA. We have talked a little bit about the mapping issue. We provided that funding to NTIA to update the national broadband map 

in coordination with the FCC. 

How is that coordination effort going? And do you believe that a 

process that uses State and commercial data in addition to the material the Commission collects from the Form 477 process will 

render a more accurate and useful map? 

Mr. PAI. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your leadership on this issue. 

I have personally spoken to the Administrator of NTIA about this 

issue. In addition to that, our staffs have been in touch to share 

expertise to make sure that they aren’t reinventing any wheels and 

that we are all on the same page in terms of the need for mapping. 

In terms of the second part of your question, which of course now 

I have forgotten. Sorry. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It was, do you believe the process that uses State 

and commercial data in addition to the material from the 477 process will render a more accurate and useful map? 

Mr. PAI. Our hope is that it will. And in the meantime, what we 

have done under my leadership over the last year and a half is to 

start a comprehensive review of the Form 477 process, to make 

71 

sure that the information that we get is as granular, is as feasible, 

and is as usable as possible for all of the folks who need it, including NTIA, Congress, the FCC, and others. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know you know, and I think the other Commissioners agree, too, that an accurate map is important, and I appreciate what you said about not reinventing the wheel. 

This is not rocket science. We ought to be able to produce a map 

and we ought to be able to produce a map very, very quickly. An 

accurate map is the starting point for solving this problem. And it 

has been an issue that has just been dragging and dragging and 

dragging. 

So whatever you folks can do to encourage and push that along, 

it really is important to rural areas where we are suffering with 

intellectual capital loss, the rural-urban divide being very real. You 

guys know that. I appreciate that. 

Chairman Pai, cybersecurity is obviously a very important issue 

as well for our country, and there continues to be debate over 

which agency or which commission should take the lead on cybersecurity. 

I know that the telecommunications industry works routinely 

with the Department of Homeland Security, and conversations that 

occur with DHS are held in confidence, and that is required by 

statute. 

Obviously, that kind of protection of information encourages 

sharing of critical and confidential information, which we all agree 

is the best way to safeguard our communication systems. I understand. 

However, those same statutory protections do not exist at the 

FCC. So are you concerned that the FCC and DHS could work at 

cross-purposes, which may undermine cybersecurity? 

Mr. PAI. Great question, Congressman. Cybersecurity is a critical 

issue, and it seems like every week there is a new story that draws 

our attention to that fact. 

I am happy to report that over the last year and a half, we have 

had a very close and productive working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, this very morning I spoke 

with DHS about some cybersecurity issues that have popped up. 

And so we certainly want to make sure we are on the same page 

there. Our role under current law is to act in more of a consultative 

fashion with DHS, which has the lead in terms of cybersecurity. 

Should Congress see fit to change the law—currently, the only 

arguable source of authority would be Section 1 of the Communications Act, which is a very high-level, broad statement, which 

doesn’t give us operative authority there, as well as arguably Section 222, which is more consumer proprietary network information. 

But should Congress change the law, we would dutifully administer it to make sure that our networks are secure. 

And in the meantime, I will continue to work collaboratively with 

DHS and other Federal partners, including the intelligence community, to make sure that cybersecurity is reinforced as an important 

issue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. And I can’t get two questions in here, but I 

am going to try. 

72 

5G. The United States won the race to 4G, increased our economy, according to some reports, by nearly $100 billion and drove 

an 84 percent increase in wireless-related jobs. 

Because of that leadership, the wireless industry now supports over 4.7 million jobs and contributes $475 billion annually to the 

U.S. economy, according to that Accenture report. 

What should the FCC do to ensure that we maintain our global 

lead in 5G so that all of those economic and job benefits continue 

to occur here in the U.S.? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, exactly what we are doing. Being very aggressive on spectrum, holding the 28 and 24 gigahertz auctions this 

fall, 37, 39, and 47 gigahertz next year, in addition to looking at 

other bands, 3.7, 6 gigahertz, and others. 

In terms of infrastructure, we need to make sure that we continue to modernize our regulations to incentivize the construction 

and use of the small cells and distributed antenna systems and 

other guts of the future 5G networks. 

And I can tell you our work is having an impact not just on my 

own word, but I recently came from two conferences, one in Switzerland, one in Panama. And to hear from regulators everywhere 

around the world, from Algeria to Guyana, to even Trinidad and 

Tobago to Fiji, tell us they are looking to the United States for 

leadership because, as one regulator put it to me: You guys are 

doing it right and we follow your lead on this 5G issue. 

That is something that I think reinforces the fact that we are 

doing the right thing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let us know how we can help. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And welcome to the entire Commission. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel said 9 months is a school year. It is 

also the length of time that it takes for a child to come into this 

world. So it has been a while. It has been a while. Welcome back. 

I want to set the record straight on a couple of things first. It 

has been said that people are entitled to their opinions, but not 

their own facts. It has been cast about here today that it is somehow a fiction that my Republican friends destroyed net neutrality 

and wiped out privacy on the internet. That is not fiction; it is a 

fact. 

On December 14, 2017, the Commission voted to upend the net 

neutrality rules that were in place and that had been tested in 

court. Nonetheless, that was rescinded. 

On March 28, 2017, a CRA went sweeping through this committee. It was authored by our chairwoman, went through the full 

committee, went like a prairie fire through the House of Representatives, and removed all privacy protections from the internet. I 

know what I voted on. Obviously, I voted no. Others voted yes. 

But to say that these things somehow are a rumor where people 

are referring to them and they are not so is simply not a fact. So 

I want to really set that down, because I think it is important too. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly follow up on Congressman 

McNerney’s question where he specifically asked whether the FCC 

73 

is cooperating with law enforcement agencies, et cetera, et cetera. 

Is that referred to the Bureau or to the Commission? 

Mr. PAI. Sorry, Congresswoman, is what referred? 

Ms. ESHOO. The investigations, referring the violations. Does the 

Bureau act on that or does the full Commission act on that? 

Mr. PAI. If we are talking about the same thing, the letter was 

referred to our Office of General Counsel. 

Ms. ESHOO. So what does that mean? What I want to know is, 

has there been a referral to a law enforcement agency? That is 

what I think Congressman McNerney was asking you, but you 

talked about the GAO, I think the FTC, the I don’t know whatnot, 

the IG, the FC. 

So have you referred these violations to a law enforcement agency? That is what I would like to know. Yes or no? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, we have consulted with the Department of Justice. 

Ms. ESHOO. No, no, no, no, no. 

Mr. PAI. We don’t have jurisdiction—— 

Mr. ESHOO. Has it been referred to? Has it been referred to for 

examination? Have you asked for an investigation of it? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, it is not our role to administer Title 

18. That is a Department of Justice issue. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, I think you don’t want to answer the question. 

I don’t want to litigate it with you. I just want a yes or no. 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, it is very simple. To the extent that we 

have jurisdiction here, we have worked with the Office of Inspector 

General. We have worked with the General Accountability Office. 

Ms. ESHOO. I think I know what your ‘‘answer’’ is. 

I want to get to something, and I don’t have much time. It probably is going to be more of a statement than anything else. 

It has been said that we have 24 million Americans that either 

have no broadband service or very slow broadband service in the 

country. Shame on all of us. 

Is there a 5-year plan at the FCC on this? Some of it may belong 

in the private sector. Some of it you need authority from the Congress and our subcommittee. Other actions the Commission can 

take. But when that is stitched together, we have solved this issue. 

Every time the Commission comes here, all of our subcommittee 

hearings, we go over and over and over and over this issue, and 

it is not getting any better. 

So can someone enlighten me on this? 

Yes, Commissioner. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So, in fairness, the Commission has spent an incredible amount of work on this. 

Ms. ESHOO. I think we all have, but I don’t sense we are making 

progress. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. We have done the easy stuff, the easy locations. 

We are working on what I would consider the medium locations. 

We have an ongoing auction right now for the CAF Phase II auction. 

What is left over from that and what is left over from our remote 

area—or from our rate of return areas that don’t get served under 

our program—that is what is going to be the hardest—— 

74 

Ms. ESHOO. So what will that knock out of the park, what you 

just described, of the 24 million? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. It is 14 million if you don’t—it is 24 million only 

if you don’t count satellite that is serving 10 million people today 

with 25/3. 

But it is important. I don’t mean to say that 14 million should 

be ignored. But we are working on the really hard area. The Remote Areas Fund needs to be set up, and we are going to need additional funding that we don’t have today. 

And it will either require contributions from Congress in Federal 

dollars, which I have testified in favor of and the dollars went to 

other Federal agencies—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I backed you up on it. 

Mr. O’RIELLY [continuing]. Or it is going to require additional 

contributions from ratepayers to the likes we haven’t seen before. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate it so very 

much. And I welcome the Commission and the Chairman. 

And, Chairman, thank you very much for coming to my area and 

speaking to my constituents. I really appreciate it very much. 

Chairman Pai, again, while you were in the Tampa Bay area, 

you were able to review the testing that Charter Communications 

was doing in and around the district. In particular, they are conducting trials in the 3.5 band, which is showing promise for better 

and faster rural coverage. At the same time, the 3.5 band is utilized by Federal radar systems, which is used by the Navy and 

Coast Guard on the Gulf Coast of Florida as well as other areas. 

The Environmental Sensing Capability, ESC, has been created to 

ensure these Federal uses are not interfered with, while also allowing shared spectrum with industry in preparing the 5G-enabled 

technology. This band provides a great opportunity for industry 

and competition as long as we ensure Federal systems remain secure. 

What is the status of ESC implementation and interference sensitivity standards, please? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And first and 

foremost, thank you for the hospitality you showed me, both in 

Tampa and in Oldsmar. It was a terrific visit to the district. 

I am very excited about the possibilities of 3.5 gigahertz spectrum, in part because of that trial you showed. To be able to see 

how Charter is using and how others potentially could use the 

spectrum to provide a seamless high-definition video experience as 

you are driving down the road. Very simple application, but a very 

powerful one nonetheless for consumers. 

The ESC is a critical part of that, and so I am happy to report 

that we are actively working with both NTIA and the Department 

of Defense on the testing. The testing is very complex, and so I 

can’t give you a definitive timeframe on when it is going to be completed or what the results might show. But do know that we are 

working as quickly as possible to wrap that testing up to enable 

ESC to allow shared use of this valuable resource. 

75 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, I know you are leading the charge on the 

3.5. Do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I would agree with the Chairman on this, but I 

would say there are two parts. There is the SAS, which deals with 

the commercial users, and the ESC, which deals with the Federal 

users, and how we make sure we don’t cause interference. 

Those things, a couple months ago we thought we might separate 

them time-wise. I was briefed yesterday that it looks like things 

are lining up nicely. And I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but 

I think Q1 of next year is not irrational, if not earlier. 

We are hoping to do some things that I can’t speak of, but hopefully will be able to announce some things regarding the SAS later 

this year and then the ESCs really soon after. So I think things 

are lining up pretty nicely along those decisions. 

But can I go back to your earlier question? And I don’t want to 

use your time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. But you mentioned the point regarding Charter. 

To get back to Congressman Doyle’s point regarding census tracts, 

Charter has advocated a different position, in terms of they haven’t 

favored census tracts, they have favored county-sized licenses. And 

so there are different positions than just census tracts, and I am 

trying to work out and try and find a commonality of the different 

entities that are seeking this. 

I will tell you, those that have favored census tracts have not 

moved or advocated 1 inch from where they have been for the last 

number of years. They will not yield anything to where they have 

been. So it has been hard to try and find commonality among all 

these different positions. And you mentioned Charter, so I thought 

I would bring that up. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. Thanks for the update. 

Back in March, after a very long wait, the D.C. Circuit Court 

issued its opinion on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In 

particular, this ruling invalidated the definition of an auto dialer 

and also did away with the Commission’s reassigned number and 

safe harbor rules. 

In light of this opinion, what action is the FCC taking to establish valid TCPA definitions and rules that target bad actors, but do 

not put everyday Americans at risk to lawsuits? 

Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, can you address that? 

Mr. PAI. I would be happy to, Congressman. 

We are still actively studying the results of the opinion in ACA 

International, and we are working with our staff on the way forward on some of the key issues they identified: the definition of 

auto dialer, the reassigned number database, revocation of consent, 

and the like. 

So, again, I can’t give you a specific timeframe, but we are actively looking at a variety of TCPA issues as a result of the D.C. 

Circuit’s opinion. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, Madam Chair, I have got one more question, 

but I will go ahead and yield back my time and I will submit it 

for the record. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

76 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 

back. 

And, Mr. Flores, you are recognized. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Also, I want to thank all the members of the Commission for 

being with us today. 

Let me compliment you on something. I think that the Commission has done an excellent job of taking the statutory authorities 

that you have gotten from Congress and to effectuate the rollout 

of 5G. 

Based on what I have seen from the stakeholders in this space, 

we are moving much more quickly than I would have envisioned. 

We are going to have fixed wireless 5G in Houston as a test case 

at the end of this year. 

That is amazing when you can talk about speeds up to 3 to 10 

gigabits. That is amazing. So good work on getting that done. And 

that also, I think, sets the stage for a cost-effective way to roll out 

rural broadband eventually. And I appreciate the work on that, to 

take care of the 24 million people that have been widely talked 

about during this hearing. 

Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly, you both touched in your testimony about what you are doing in terms of making spectrum available for 5G, and part of that entails dealing with the FM radio stations that were left out during the original legislation. 

My bill that deals with that was addressed in the RAY BAUM’S 

Act, and also we set aside the appropriations for you to do that. 

You have moved quickly to have an NPRM at your next hearing 

on August the 2nd. Can you give us a preview of what we can expect in that regard, just in a few seconds? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I certainly hope we will see a unanimous 

vote next week on my proposal, but I don’t want to speak for my 

colleagues. But it is important for us to take that authority you 

gave us and run with it as quickly as possible, get public input on 

what the right procedures should be to protect full power/Class A 

TV stations, FM radio stations, and others as a result of the incentive auction. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

Moving on to another subject, believe it or not, one of the biggest 

complaints that I am receiving from my constituency, which is generally happy, is that they are upset about robocalls. And I don’t 

think that has come up today. And I know you all are taking steps 

in terms of stopping the spoofing of phone numbers and so forth. 

Can you give us an update on where we stand in that regard? 

I guess who owns that among this group? Chairman Pai? 

Mr. PAI. I drew the short straw. 

Mr. FLORES. You get all the big ones, don’t you? 

Mr. PAI. We are doing a lot, Congressman. Thanks for the question. This is an issue that frustrates me. Even last week when I 

was on vacation, I spent several minutes on a phone with several 

robocallers, trying to figure out who they were, how they got my 

information, and the like. 

We are doing a lot. So over the last year and a half since I have 

been in office we have adopted a Notice of Inquiry on call authentication, essentially digital fingerprints for every single phone call. 

77 

We have also in that regard blessed the private sector group called 

the NANC, which is looking at call authentication. 

Mr. FLORES. Good. 

Mr. PAI. Secondly, we are taking steps to allow carriers to block 

spoofed calls, that is, calls that obviously aren’t from your area 

code but nonetheless appear to be. 

Additionally, we are taking very aggressive action in terms of enforcement. Oh, sorry, I should mention also the reassigned number 

database, to allow those legitimate callers to know whether or not 

a number has been reassigned to somebody who doesn’t want to be 

called. 

Additionally, on the back end, so to speak, taking very aggressive 

enforcement action. The largest fine ever imposed in the FCC’s entire history was against a robocaller in Florida, about $120 million. 

Additional multimillion dollar fines there, too. 

I personally have spoken with some of my counterparts abroad, 

because a lot of these robocaller operations come from other countries and our jurisdiction only stops at the water’s edge. And largely, they have been very willing to cooperate with us on that. 

Mr. FLORES. Good. 

Do you need additional statutory authority at this stage of the 

game to be able to fight this epidemic? 

Mr. PAI. I think we have a fairly broad authority, but to the extent that Congress is willing to give us more tools in terms of statutes of limitations or the like, we would love to work with you on 

that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Let us know what you think you need. 

I want to move to the mid-band spectrum in just the remaining 

minute that I have. Part of the mid-band spectrum of 5.9 gigahertz 

was set aside for what was called dedicated short-range communications, or DSRC. That is a part of the spectrum that could be 

used for autonomous trucking, autonomous vehicles. You can have 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications, vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. 

Let me say this. Other people want to use that for unlicensed WiFi and things like that to try to offload some data transmission 

from the SDR bands. This section seems to be congested or subject 

to future congestion. What do you see for the future of the 5.9 

gigahertz part of the spectrum? 

Mr. PAI. It is a good question, Congressman. And Commissioners 

O’Rielly and Rosenworcel have long been advocating for this, as 

have Congresswoman Eshoo and I, in an op-ed we did a few years 

ago. 

We are working actively with our Office of Engineering and 

Technology at the FCC, along with the NTIA and NHTSA, the Department of Transportation and others, to figure out the way forward. So right now we are in phase I of testing. There has been 

a report that is in draft mode that we have shared with our Federal partners. We hope to be able to move forward on that soon. 

Ultimately, this has to be a collaborative effort. There are a lot 

of different agencies with different equities here. But ultimately, 

we want to make the highest-valued use of this spectrum. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

78 

I have some more stakeholders at home that are working on this. 

The Texas Transportation Institute is trying to design the trucking 

system of the future, and so they are pretty worried about what 

happens in this band. So we will send some supplemental questions 

for you. 

Mr. PAI. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Collins, you are recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, I will maybe spend my time talking 

about the, what do we want to call it, the 9-1-1 diversion, the Fee 

Integrity Act that we are putting forward. You were kind enough 

to come visit. 

In my area, we went to a PSAP in Niagara County, which does 

not have the latest technology. They are quite frustrated. They 

don’t have the moneys to get there. And because of your visit, we 

got a lot of press on this, we shined the light on New York State’s 

diversion. 

So maybe just for the record to get this out there, New York has 

about 13 million cell phones. With 20 million people, that kind of 

makes sense. Little kids may not have them. The States set their 

own fee, which in this case New York set the highest fee in the Nation at $1.20 per month for the cell phones, raising $185 million 

for the 9-1-1, what is supposed to be for the 9-1-1 service. 

But, as our bill would forbid, New York State is diverting about 

40 percent of that money to the general fund to be wasted in Albany. And that is about $75 million a year that should be going 

to upgrade PSAPs, like we have in Niagara County that are in 

woeful need of it. Instead, the money is just being frittered away 

in Albany. So our bill would put that $75 million back on the table, not only 

for New York, New Jersey, Guam and a few others that seem to 

have no interest short of some laws that would forbid this. 

And I will tell you, most of the folks in our district were astounded to know that the 9-1-1 service charge that is on their cell 

phone bill every day was not all going for 9-1-1 service. They did 

not have a subtraction for New York State diversion, a 9-1-1 fee 

and then New York State diversion. 

So your visit was well-received in a bipartisan way. Certainly, all 

of the counties which are struggling for funds and want to update, 

they want to know when a call comes in who is calling, where they 

are instantly so they can dispatch the people, that everything is 

moving together. 

And some of these PSAPs are decades old. And in some cases, 

Erie County where I live, there are literally a dozen or more 

PSAPs. They aren’t even consolidated within a county, because this 

sheriff’s department wants theirs, this city police wants theirs, 

some fire issues. Even though all the cell phone calls go to one 

place and there are not too many land lines, people are somewhat 

protective of it. 

So, again, I want to thank you for helping us shine a light on 

this. And to further put this forward, Niagara County, where we 

were, we have done some research since then, over the last 5 years 

79 

they have paid $10 million—this is not a large county—$10 million 

have gone into Albany as part of the $1.20 per phone. 

And while New York State diverted 40 percent, that still should have left $6 million to come back to Niagara County. But since 

each State makes its own rules—New York State I think tends to 

favor the downstate areas—only $2 million came back to Niagara 

County. So they paid in $10 million, with their residents thinking this $10 million is supposed to help our PSAP in Niagara County. Lo 

and behold, only $2 million came in. I can assure you, if that other $8 million, or even if the State di- verted, if the remaining $4 million had come in, they would have 

upgraded that PSAP. Residents would be safer. Those working in 

those PSAPs, which is a very hard, frustrating job, would feel better when they go home at night. 

So with your input, I just want to point out again one of the 

things that this bill would do is to have the States not only stop 

diverting, but we would have the FCC better define what would be 

a use, because the minute they stop diverting they may say: Well, 

for public safety we are going to fix that pothole over here. Well, 

no, this is in need of some Federal oversight. 

And, again, if you want to make a couple of comments. I know 

I burned up most of the clock, but I wanted to get this all on the 

record. 

So Commissioner O’Rielly. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I can’t thank you enough for your leadership on 

this issue. It was great to be home in Niagara County. Your point is well-taken in terms of the $10 million and only re- ceiving back $2 million. So the consumers in my hometown are 

paying for it twice. Not only are they paying the 9-1-1 fees that are 

being diverted, but then they are having to pay higher local residential taxes where the budgets are coming from. And so Niagara 

County, property taxes went up to fund the extra $8 million shortfall. And so they are being hit twice on this. 

And the New York government has made clear that they have no 

intention of changing this. Rhode Island has no interest right now 

in terms of solving their problem. New Jersey has the same problem. I was just talking to some folks from Guam with the same 

issues. We have some work to do on this front. I would love to continue to work with you under your leadershipon this. 

Mr. COLLINS. You shined a light on it. You were very helpful in 

that. Thank you all for your time today. This is also not a partisan 

issue whatsoever. 

So, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Public safety issue. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Costello, you are recognized. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to first just say, since I have been on this committee, I 

have done my best to delve into these issues, and they are very sophisticated, the things that each of you deal with on a day-to-day 

basis. And I just want to commend each of you for your expertise 

and the time that you dedicate to our country and to the FCC and 

to the industry for trying to get it right. 

80 

With that, I want to ask Commissioner O’Rielly a question. Some 

of my colleagues on the other side of the dais today have articulated their interest in giving the FCC more of a presence on cybersecurity issues. While the concern over cybersecurity and supply 

chain vulnerability is certainly well-founded, it is my understanding that the FCC is not and should not play a lead role—I 

emphasize lead role—on identifying and mitigating these 

vulnerabilities. The FCC has a long tradition of deferring to expert 

agencies in the executive branch with the relevant intelligence and 

national security expertise. For example, the FCC routinely refers 

applications for transfers of certain licenses to an informal working 

group in the executive branch known as Team Telecom to review 

the national security implications of each such transaction. 

Do you believe the FCC has anything new or unique to add to 

our nation’s cybersecurity work, or do the intelligence and national 

security agencies currently have a good handle on these issues? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So I have to be careful in terms of what I can say 

in the public, but I do believe that the authority has been provided 

by Congress—so it is not my opinion; it is in the statute, who the 

Congress gave authority to was to other agencies besides the FCC 

on the issue of cybersecurity. And so that is not something that I 

believe we have great authority to act on. If Congress changes that 

authority, that is one thing. But I do believe that we work well 

with what you reference Team Telecom. There is a need to reform 

Team Telecom, and I have advocated some reforms to that. But I 

do believe that we do not have the primary role. We do have functions that we can add to that conversation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And that is why I direct the question. The reforms that you have advocated, does that contemplate that you do 

have existing expertise that could be lent if the statute was broadened to enable you to do that? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. The changes that I am seeking is a more formal 

structure for Team Telecom and addressing the timing of the decisions that are made by them and making sure that interaction between the FCC and Team Telecom actually is beneficial. We had 

applications that sat at Team Telecom under the last administration for quite a long time period. That is problematic for those that 

have applied. It doesn’t mean we are undermining our national security one iota; it means we have a better, more efficient government. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So, if I were to characterize while you agree that 

cybersecurity is a deeply serious issue, you do not feel that placing 

more jurisdiction within the FCC or having the FCC exercise additional jurisdiction, be it within the statute or broadening the statute, would be well placed because we have existing intelligence 

agencies that are already fully capable of doing that, and the FCC 

does not have anything additional to add. Is that correct? Did I 

just, like, say too much? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I would agree with an awful lot of what you said. 

We will continue to have conversations with those entities, but I 

think that they have a great deal of authority and are capable of 

providing us the information as it relates to applications that are 

submitted for our consideration. 

81 

Mr. COSTELLO. OK. I do have a question for Commissioner Carr, 

but does anyone have anything to add to that real briefly? 

OK. Telehealth, as you are aware, the prospect of telehealth 

holds exponential benefits for patients, families, and the healthcare 

system at large. But on the issue of access for rural America, Commissioner Carr, what can we expect to come out of the 3-year pilot 

program? What sort of job creation can rural communities expect 

from increased investment of the development of telehealth technologies? 

Mr. CARR. Thanks so much for the question. 

These are some of the things that we want to tee up in this notice of inquiry that is up for a vote. We have seen some great examples of telehealth, remote patient monitoring technologies, and a 

significantly improved outcome for low-income patients, including 

in rural America, as I mentioned in my testimony, in the Mississippi Delta. 

We have also seen significant cost savings. One program I mentioned in the Mississippi Delta, if just 20 percent of the diabetic 

population in the Magnolia State enrolled in that type of a program, we would be projected to save about $189 million in terms 

of the State’s Medicaid expenses. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. Anyone else to add on that? Yes. 

Mr. PAI. I will simply add that I agree with everything Commissioner Carr said. A few months ago, President Kennedy’s first FCC 

chairman, Newt Minow, and I wrote an op-ed, a bipartisan op-ed 

that emphasized the importance of telemedicine. And Commissioner Carr has expounded these principles very well. And if you 

look at some of the cases we identified—schools in Scottsville, Kentucky, that for the first time are able to treat students because 

there is no pediatrician in all of Allen County, Kentucky; if you 

look at the Veterans Affairs facilities in Lecanto, Florida, and 

Boise, Idaho, where they are providing veterans mental health consultations and experts around the country—if you look at all of 

these great things that the FCC is doing in collaboration with the 

public and private sectors, we could really dramatically improve 

health outcomes for millions of Americans. And here too I think we 

are only scratching the surface of its potential. 

And that has a direct impact on you as well. Instead of spending 

a lot of money on an emergency room visit, if we do proactive 

health treatments for some of these folks, we can save a lot of 

money for the system but, more importantly, save lives and improve health outcomes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Seeing that there are no further—oh, Kinzinger came in. Oh, hi. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I bought you guys another 5 minutes. You are 

welcome. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. There you go. You are recognized. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you all for being here and all your service to the country and what you do. And I really appreciate it. 

82 

I recently reintroduced the FCC Transparency Act, which would 

require the Commission to publish on its website any documents to 

be considered and voted upon at least 21 days in advance. In reality, it is simply a codification of the most importation aspects of 

the transparency process currently in place at the FCC. 

I realize that most of the Commission has weighed in publicly on 

my bill. But just to have your opinions as part of the record for 

this, I want to ask each of you, do you support the current transparency processes in place at the FCC, and by extension, do you 

support the FCC Transparency Act? 

We will start with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. I concur. I agree wholeheartedly with your 

bill. 

Mr. CARR. Yes and yes. I think it codifies good government, and 

it is a step in the right direction. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, for items that are placed on our monthly 

agenda meeting. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, your actions to roll back the so called kid 

vid rules is born out of recognition that there is so much choice 

today in terms of children’s programming. Whether it is on a tablet, an Apple TV, a Roku, or traditional broadcast TV service, you 

argue that the government need not mandate specific programing 

to any one outlet. And to be clear, I support families and children 

having access to good educational programing, but I do watch some 

TV, and I would argue that competition and consumer choice have 

never been greater, not only for children’s programming but for all 

audiences. 

If you don’t mind, briefly summarize your assessment of the 

video marketplace and choices available to consumers. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, thank you. I will say I only take issue with 

your use of the word rollback. We are trying to provide greater 

flexibility on the kid vid issue. As you highlighted, the marketplace 

has changed incredibly since 1990 when the statute, the Children’s 

Television Act, was enacted, in 1996, when the rules by the FCC 

were put in place, and 2004, when they were modified extensively. 

So the world has changed, and we have a much broader marketplace. It is not just your three broadcast channels on Saturday 

morning. It is a plethora of cable options, and it is a ton of options 

for those over the top. 

Now there has been concern, what happens for the family that 

doesn’t have any of that except broadcast television? And we have 

tried to address that in the NPRM and are going to take comments 

on giving the opportunity and the flexibility for broadcasters to 

move that signal that they have on a primary channel today to a 

multicast channel so programming will still be available to those 

over-the-air-only households. So I would argue it is to provide flexibility without harming children that we are seeking to do hopefully 

later this year. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Also, as a co-chair of the bipartisan Rural Broadband Caucus, my 

colleagues and I have worked diligently to close the digital divide 

83 

between urban and rural. In the 21st century, broadband access is 

vital for employers, and employees, educators, and students, doctors, and patients and ag. Broadband access also allows people to 

participate in digital commerce, which provides a convenience to 

our rural constituents while bolstering both their local economy 

and the national economy. 

I am proud that my provisions and others I supported, including 

the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act and the Improving Broadband 

Access for Veterans Act, were included in the RAY BAUM’S Act 

and signed into law in March. And I am also proud that my fellow 

caucus co-chairs and I asked for and received robust resources for 

rural broadband infrastructure in the fiscal year 2018 omni, to the 

tune of $600 million in new money. 

While broadband and telecom work continues, we are taking big 

steps toward ensuring rural Americans have the tools that they 

need to flourish. So, Commissioner O’Rielly, you focused in your 

testimony on the various funding streams being allocated toward 

rural broadband. We all want to bridge the digital divide, but I 

share your concern about the coordination of funding between 

agencies. We have to ensure that we are not being redundant resources by pouring money into the same areas from different agencies. 

Do you have ideas on how these agencies can better coordinate 

and how best to prevent the government from subsidizing the overbuilding of areas that are currently served? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I do, and I would love to provide technical advice 

to your team to help. I really appreciate the commendable efforts 

in terms of the pilot program that was created as part of the consolidated appropriations and efforts that are ongoing in the farm 

bills today, very beneficial. We want to get to exactly what you 

highlighted—there is not the duplication, make sure the speeds do 

not become a mechanism to overbuild—and I think there are ways 

to draft that and include helpful language. It hasn’t been adopted. 

In past efforts, people have asked for language to be provided; 

didn’t quite get there. And I think there is that opportunity to correct that going forward. 

Mr. KINZINGER. In the last 30 seconds, I will just make a point, 

versus ask a question, which is, on the issue of stingrays or IMSI: 

There has been a lot of ink lately about the fact that some of these 

devices have been located around sensitive areas. We made multiple requests to multiple agencies about how do we deal with this 

issue. 

I would like to make the point that, whether it is FCC or other 

agencies, we will encourage everybody to work together to figure 

out how to address this situation because I think it is a concern 

from a national security perspective and something that ought to 

be addressed. 

So, with that, Madam Chair, I thank you. And I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. And now there are 

no further members, and we thank you all very much. 

Before we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the record: A letter from the Credit Union 

National Association; a letter from the Utilities Technology CounVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
84 

*The information has been retained in committee files and can be found at: https:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20180725/108599/HHRG-115-IF16-20180725-SD010-U10.pdf. 

cil; a letter to the FCC on 9-1-1 fee diversion; a U.S. Telecom blog 

post; a letter to the FCC on TCPA; a letter from Anthem and its 

affiliated health plans; a GAO report on Lifeline *. Without objection so ordered and Mr. Doyle. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to make unanimous consent to add to the record the 

letter from wireless ISPs to the FCC regarding the CBRS band; 

Chairman Pai’s tweet with the CEO of Wave Wireless; an article 

from Ars Technica regarding a letter and tweet made part of 

record; NTIA’s letter to the FCC regarding copper retirement; and 

a letter from Senator Wyden to the FCC regarding Securus. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Pursuant to committee rules, members are reminded that they have 10 business days in which to submit additional questions. 

And we remind you that you have 10 business days in which to 

respond. 

Seeing no further business to come before the committee, the 

committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN W. BROOKS

I’d like to thank Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and all of the FCC 

Commissioners for being here today. Over the course of this year, this subcommittee 

has examined several areas that play a large role in the FCC’s work to empower 

broadband and 5G deployment, streamline regulatory approaches, and ultimately 

reach our shared goal of closing the digital divide. 

I’ve been fortunate to have both Chairman Pai and Commissioner Carr visit my 

district. Chairman Pai and I visited a PSAP in Noblesville, Indiana, just outside of 

Indianapolis, last fall and discussed challenges and opportunities around NG9-1-1. 

I’m proud that Indiana is a leader in public safety communications. We already 

have text-to-9-1-1 statewide and our PSAPs are very engaged on NG9-1-1 efforts. 

Chairman Pai and I participated in a roundtable with 9-1-1 telecommunicators, public safety officials, first responders, and local elected officials where we discussed 

how Indiana can continue to enhance 9-1-1 systems and serve as a model for other 

states as we work to realize true Next Generation 9-1-1. 

Additionally, Commissioner Carr visited this past May and we visited Beck’s Hybrids in small rural town in northern Hamilton County called Atlanta, Indiana. 

Becks’ is the largest family-owned retail seed company in the Nation and are doing 

great work to deploy and pilot 5G in rural Indiana. 5G will start in more urban 

areas, but it has huge potential to help with rural broadband as well. We learned 

about how Beck’s is collaborating with On-Ramp Indiana, a WISP based out of 

Noblesville, to bring 5G to rural areas and research exactly how 5G might work to 

help bridge the digital divide. Beck’s built a precision ag management platform 

called Farm Server and worked with On-Ramp Indiana to build a wireless network 

from the ground up to power the Farm Server. It was a cool opportunity to see work 

like this being done! So again, thanks to both of you for coming to Indiana’s Fifth 

District. 

I’d also like to thank Commissioner O’Rielly and his staff for working with me 

and my staff on the introduction of H.R. 5700, the National Non-Emergency Mobile 

Number Act. A small, but important, provision that moves us one step closer to better interoperability between states with regard to public safety communications. I 

hope to see this commonsense, bipartisan bill pass into law. 

From 5G to NG9-1-1 to rural broadband, at the heart of innovation is the need 

for sound telecommunications policy. I’d like to thank Chairman Pai and the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:25 May 21, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-159 CHRIS
85 

mission for the steps you have already taken to modernize the FCC, increase transparency and accountability at the agency, free up spectrum, and all that you do. I 

look forward to our continued work together. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and welcome to 

the full Commission. 

As Commissioner Rosenworcel pointed out in her testimony, it’s been 9 months 

to the day since the FCC last testified before this Committee. A lot can happen in 

nine months, especially in the critically important and rapidly evolving tech sector. 

I want to set the record straight on a few things. It was stated today by the 

Chairman of the full Committee that it’s fiction that the Republican majority has 

done great harm to the Internet and the consumers who rely on it. Each of us can 

hold an opinion, but we’re not entitled to our own facts. 

Here are the facts: the FCC’s majority spent the last year gutting communications 

consumer protections across the board. On December 14, 2017, the Commission 

voted to upend the net neutrality rules that had been tested in the Court twice. 

Those rules were supported on a bipartisan basis by the American people and businesses, but they were rescinded by the FCC. 

Similarly, in March 2017, a CRA swept through this Committee, authored by 

Chairwoman Blackburn, and then spread like a prairie fire through the rest of Congress, which removed all privacy protections on the Internet. 

The majority has done this harm not only by revoking high-profile policies like 

net neutrality, but also through quieter actions such as roll-backs of multiple media 

ownership rules and reducing eligibility for Lifeline beneficiaries at the behest of incumbent corporate interests. 

With each rollback of consumer protections, we’ve seen providers announce more 

mergers, increased price hikes, and more limited choices. Where choice does exist, 

consumers must rely on increasingly consolidated incumbent companies. And ultimately, consumers will pay the price. 

I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that recent actions by the FCC have 

prioritized corporations over consumers, undermining the fundamental public interest mission of the FCC. 

Congress has oversight jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, 

pursuant to the Communications Act, which is an Act of Congress. This is an FCC 

oversight hearing which means that as Members of Congress, we must ensure that 

the Commission is doing its job—and that job first and foremost is to advance the 

public interest. 

Is Chairman Pai’s FCC advancing the public interest of the United States of 

America? I believe that is the question that should be at the forefront of today’s 

hearing. 

86 


35951.024

l"e~ Credit Union 

..)·-(. National 

cuNA Association 

July 24,2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Jim Nussle 

President & CEO 

Phone: 202-508-6745 

jnussle@cuno.coop 

Dear Chainnan Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

99 M Street SE 

Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20003-3799 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

On behalf of America's credit unions, I am writing today to thank you for holding an oversight hearing for 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) 

represents America's credit unions and their 110 million members. 

As the Subcommittee examines the FCC's priorities and functions, we respectfully request you to press 

upon the Commission the need to revise its implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(TCP A) and create a robust, comprehensive reassigned numbers database to combat illegal robocalls from 

bad actors. Credit unions are member-owned, not-for-profit community-based financial institutions. This 

unique structure provides members a voice in the policy setting and decision-making of their credit 

union. As a result, communications between a credit union and its members are responsible and focused 

on providing members with crucial, time-sensitive financial infonnation, such as account balances and 

fraud alerts. In addition, many credit unions provide important infonnation related to credit union 

governance and voting issues through these. direct communications. Clearly, these communications do not 

fall into the same class of annoying and invasive telemarketing calls that the TCP A was intended to 

prevent. However, due to outdated and unclear legal requirements, some credit unions have found 

themselves the target of frivolous TCPA litigation. 

ClJNA has consistently pressed upon the Commission the urgent need to modernize its approach to the 

TCP A. Our efforts included filing a petition in September 2017 outlining how the FCC could provide 

credit unions with TCPA relief. Specifically, we proposed several approaches the Commission could adopt 

to provide credit unions with greater ability to communicate with member-owners about infonnation they 

want and need. 

Recently, after a long delay, the D.C. Circuit rendered a decision in a case challenging the legality of the 

2015 Omnibus TCPA Declaratory Ruling and Order (Omnibus Order) issued by the FCC. The court ruled 

that a portion of the Omnibus Order was arbitrary and capricious. This decision freed the Commission to 

reexamine its TCPA interpretation and find a balanced approach that protects consumers while still 

permitting them to receive timely infonnational communications from credit unions and other institutions 

critical to their daily lives. 

cuna.org 
87 


35951.025

In response to a recent request for information (RFI) soliciting feedback on the TCP A, we requested the 

Commission take following actions: 

Revise its reassigned number framework by defining the "called party" as the "intended 

recipient;" 

Identify reasonable methods to revoke consent; 

Grant the petition filed by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and clarify the 

definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system;" and 

Grant our petition and eliminate antiquated distinctions between cell phone and 

landline informational calls. 

The Commission adopting these suggestions, among others we have previously provided, would go a long 

way towards aligning the FCC's interpretation with the intent of Congress. In addition, we strongly support 

the creation of a single, centralized and comprehensive reassigned numbers database. Such a database, so 

long as its affordable, easy-to-use, and includes a safe harbor, would provide material relief to credit unions 

by limiting TCPA liability. 

We look forward to continuing our work with both the FCC and Congress to provide additional 

recommendations on modernizing the TCP A. On behalf of America's credit unions and their II 0 million 

members, thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

cuna.org 
88 


35951.026

Utilities 

Technology 

Council'" 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology 

1129 20th Street, NW l Suite 350 I Washington, D.C. 20036 

202.872.0030 Phone I 202.872.1331 Fax 

utc.org I networks.utcorg 

July 25, 2018 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member, House Energy and 

Commerce Committee Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology 

Re: July 25 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Oversight Hearing oft he Federal 

Communications Commission 

The Utilities Technology Council (UTC) appreciates the opportunity to submit this Statement for the 

Record in the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology's Oversight Hearing of the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC). UTC was established in 1948 and is now the global association 

representing energy and water utilities in their need for reliable and resilient Information and 

Communications Technology (ICT). Our members own and operate the infrastructure which, for more 

than 100 years, has delivered the energy and water services necessary to power our nation's economy and 

wellbeing. Nearly every level of government considers the energy and water industries as the most critical 

of all critical industries. 

This infrastructure includes transmission towers) power lines, utility poles, and pipelines that Americans 

see every single day and often take for granted. What most Americans do not see are the ICT networks 

that underpin this massive infrastructure. These networks are essential for the day-to-day delivery of 

energy and water services, storm restoration, cyber and physical security, infrastructure modernization, 

smart cities. smart grid development, and much more. 

Spectrum 

The key ingredient to maintaining these ICT networks is radio frequency spectrum. Energy and water 

providers hold spectrum in various bands to operate mission-critical functions like Supervisory Control 

and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used to manage industrial control systems such as electric grids, 

protective relaying, and smart grid applications. Additionally, utility workers use mobile radio devices to 

communicate when repairing lines or restoring service after an outage. The inability of utility personnel to 

communicate in the field could have catastrophic consequences for utility employees and public safety. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC, the Commission) is responsible for allocating 

commercial spectrum. Energy and water providers understand that spectrum is a finite resource, and the 

FCC has the task of allocating and expanding access to spectrum in ways that promote wireless 

deployment, but do not harm incumbent existing spectrum license holders, Given the criticality of energy 

and water providers to our nation's wellbeing, spectrum policies implemented by the FCC should reflect 

this reality. Unfortunately, historically this has not been the case. 

FCC Policies 

We encourage members of this Subcommittee to focus on the FCC's spectrum policies ·as they relate to 

the energy and water industries. Representative Brett Guthrie (R-KY) raised these concerns in his 

Questions for the Record directed to members of the FCC after this Subcommittee's October 25, 2017, 

oversight hearing. Rep. Guthrie recognized the criticality of electric utilities and asked FCC 
89 


35951.027

Utilities 

Technology 

Council'" 

1129 20th Street, NW ! Suite 350 ! Washington, D.C. 20036 

202.872.0030 Phone I 202.872.1331 Fax 

utc.org I networks.utc.org 

Commissioners whether they are willing to work with utility officials on ways to harden their networks. 

We applaud Rep. Guthrie for raising this question and encourage this Subcommittee to follow up on the 

responses he received. The FCC has several proceedings dealing with spectrum access, most notably in 

the 4.9 GHz and 6 GHz bands. We applaud the ongoing FCC inquiry into expanding access to the 4.9 

GHz band to utilities and other Critical Infrastructure Industries (CII). Currently, this band is reserved for 

public safety, though it is lightly used. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 

(NPSTC), a coalition of public-safety entities, has proposed a plan to allow utilities and other CII to share 

in the 4.9 band, and we believe the time has come for this plan to become reality. 

The 4.9 GHz band presents a unique opportunity for efficient spectrum usage. The nation's appetite for 

spectrum is only growing with the proliferation of wireless devices, yet as utilities modernize their 

systems and make them more resilient and nimble, their need for interference-free spectrum is growing as 

well. Expanding access to the 4.9 GHz band is one-but only one-avenue to partially meeting utility 

needs. 

Separately, we are aware that the Commission plans on pursuing a rulemaking process to consider 

expanding the 6 GHz band. Utilities are among the many critical industries with lifeline communications 

systems located in the 6 GHz, which, unlike the 4.9 GHz band, is already widely used. Allowing 

commercial wireless users into this band could threaten the reliability of incumbent systems, likely 

forcing many utilities in the band to relocate-at great cost-because they cannot tolerate interference. 

The FCC hinted at these actions when its bureaus in early 2017 granted startup firm Higher Ground, LLC, 

permission to operate mobile devices in the band, disregarding the overwhelming evidence in the record 

that doing so could cause interference to the crucial incumbent ICT networks. Still, we are hopeful that a 

full rulemaking process will provide ample evidence demonstrating that access to the 6 GHz band should 

not be expanded. 

Joint FCC-FERC Meetings 

We also encourage members of this Subcommittee to consider the merits of directing the FCC to hold 

regular meetings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees the reliability of the 

bulk electric power system. Joint meetings between these agencies will help build understanding 

surrounding the criticality of electric utilities to our nation's security, economy, and wellbeing. The 

energy and telecommunications industries are becoming more reliant upon each other, as 

telecommunications services cannot function without electricity, the reliable delivery of which is aided by 

wireless technologies. 

Going Forward 

The energy and water sectors are in the midst of profound change. New technologies could transform the 

relationship between customers and their electricity, gas, and water providers. Spectrum, which is already 

essential for day~to-day reliability, is critical to the success of grid modernization as well. The Utilities 

Technology Council stands ready to work with members of this Subcommittee, full Committee, full 

House, and any interested stakeholders going forward to help ensure the future of reliable electric, gas, 

and water services. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement. 
90 


35951.028

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JA., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

cttongress of tbe Wnttcb ~tatcs 

l!>ousr of l\cprcscntntibcs 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

MUJOHty {202\22!;.-2927 

Mi'\Mtl'( !20n22!)-3ti41 

July 23, 2018 

Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce is examining the diversion of 9-1-1 fees by some states and territories. 

According to annual reports submitted to Congress by the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC), some states divert 9-1-1 fees for unrelated purposes, raising questions about how this 

practice impacts public safety. 1 

The New and Emerging Technologies 9-1-1 Improvement Act of2008 (NET 911 Act) 

requires the FCC to submit annual reports to Congress detailing the collection and distribution of 

9-1-1 fees by state. 2 Each state imposes a surcharge on cell phone bills to fund implementation of 

wireless Enhanced 911 (E9!1) and reports to the FCC how these funds are spent.3 Since 2009,21 

states and one territory have reported diverting 9-1-1 funds for other purposes. 4 Morecver, ten 

states, six territories, and the District of Columbia failed to report expenditure information at 

least once, raising concerns that 9-1-1 fee diversion may be more prevalent than the FCC's 

reports indicate.' Currently, States are not required to report information about 9-1-1 expenses to 

the FCC, including how much money, if any, is diverted. 

1 See Federal Communications Commission Repof4 Ninth Annual Report to Congress, On State Collection and 

Distribution o/91 1 and Enhanced911 Fees and Charges, Dec. 29,2017, available at 

https://www.fcc.govlfilesl9thannual91l feereportpdf. 2 /d. 

'Id. 

4 See Remarks by Hon. Michel O'Rielly, FCC Commissioner, Rhode Island E91! Summit, Mar. 19,2018, available 

at https:llapps.fcc.gov/edocs.J>ublic/attachmatch/DOC-349797 A l.pdf. 

'/d. 
91 


35951.029

Letter to The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Page2 

Since 2009, over $1 billion dollars of9-l-l funds have,been diwrted by states and 

territories for purposes other than 9-1-1.~ During 2016, five states diverted almost $130 million 

dollars for other purposes, while seven states and territories failed ,to submit information about 9-

1-1 expenses to the FCC7 Similarly, in 2015, eight reporting states and one territory diverted 

over $220 million dollars in 911 fees, while one state and two territories failed to report any 

information. 8 In the last two reporting periods alone, atleast $350 million dollars collected for 9· 

1-1 bas been used for other purposes. 9 A recent update provided by FCC Commissioner Michael 

O'Rielly shows efforts to end 9-1-1 fee diversion have bad "mixed results" and there is still 

significant work to be done.'~ However, some progress has been made, including two states 

correcting filing errors from the last reporting period showing they are not diverters and other 

states committing to end the practice of diverting. 11 

The amount of9-l-l funds that have been diverted for nearly a decade i.s trolihling. When 

critical moments occur, all Americans rely on 9-1-1 to provide emergency services. Diverting 9-

1-1 fees may result in understaffed calling centers, training issues, longer wait times during an 

emergency, and inhibit the transition to Next 'Generation 9-1•1 systems so 9-I -I call oenters can 

flourish with digital age technologies to piupoint the location of mobile device .uSer. 12 In order to 

learn more about 9-1-1 fee diversion, including how it impacts public safety an.d what may be 

done to curtail this practice in the future; we request that FCC staff provide Committee staff with 

a briefing on the matter. Please make arrangements to schedule this briefing no later than July 

30,2018. 

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. If youhave any questions, please contact Lamar 

Echols of the Committee. Staff at 202-225-2927. Thank you for your attention to this matter; 

Sincerely, 

6 See Letter from Hon. John Shimkus, Member of CQngress, .to Hon. David Redl, Asst. Sectary fo.r :CommunicatiOns 

and Information and NTlA Admin.J NTfA. Dec. l5,,20I7, qvai/able at 

https:i/www.documentcloud.org/documentsi4334659-NTiA-Letter.html. 

7 FCC supra note 1. 11 See Federal Communications Commission Report, Eighth Annual Repol'l to Cqngress, On $tate Co/lectlon and 

Dislribution.of91 1 cind Enhanced9H FeeS and Charges, Dec. 3~,'2016, av4ilabJe at 

https:l/www.fcc.gov/filesleij!hthannual9ll feereportl2 I 7pdf. 9 ld; see also supra note I. 10 Hon. Michaei.O'·RieHy, Commissioner, FCC, Status Update: Fixing 9~1 .... / Fee Diversion, FCC BLOO, Jun. 8, 

2018, availab/e.at https://www.fcc:gov/news-eventslblog/20 !8106108/status-update-fixing-9-1-l-fee-diversion. 11 Id, 12 See Hon. Michael O'Rielly & Jessica Rosenworcel, Siates Are Stealif!g FundSfi·om ?-1:-1 Emergency ServicesNow Thi!y'll Be Punished, THE HILl, Feb. 9, 2018, tNailahle ar http:/lthehjJl.comlopinion/tecbnology/373043-st~tesare-:steaJing-fuilds-from-9-1-! -einergency-servlces-now-theyll-be .. 
92 


35951.030

Letter to The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Page3 

~lJ~ Chairman 

~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

a 

Chairman 

Greg~ 

Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Frank J. Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

The Honorable Michael Doyle, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 
93 


35951.031

.::;: i :;~:. ····•••···· .......... h 

............ ····· ..... .. ·~:.::;::· 

STELECOM 

Broadband CapEx Investment Looking Up in 2017 

By Jonathan Spalter 

July 25, 2018 

As pro-consumer policy incentives for broadband innovation and investment continue to take root, the 

two-year decline in private capital investment in U.S. broadband infrastructure from 2014 to 2016 

appears to be in the rearview mirror, according to a preliminary USTelecom analysis of the 2017 

capital expenditures of wireline, wireless, and cable broadband service providers'. 

U.S. broadband companies, excluding independent competitive local providers and fiber operators2, 

have invested between $72 and $74 billion in network infrastructure in 2017, compared to $70.6 

billion in 2016, showing at least an increase of nearly $1.5 billion. 

U.S. Non-CLEC Broadband Provider Capital Expenditures, 2014-2017 

{$billions) 

2014 2015 

Source: USTelecom. Figures. are rounded. 

2016 2017 

Preliminary Estimate 

Estimated 

Range 

1 USTelecom will publish final numbers once it can account for non-reporting companies, including 

independent competitive local providers and fiber operators, and fine-tune eliminations for certain 

capex that is not included in the historical series. 2 USTelecom excluded independent competitive local providers and fiber providers because we have 

not finalized data for non-reporting private companies. The companies included here represent the 

vast majority of U.S. broadband capex. 

www.ustelecom.org 
94 


35951.032

Many factors affect these figures-from the overall health of the economy to intense and rising 

competition, not only among broadband providers but across the internet with the ongoing 

convergence of entertainment, media and communications. 

But as someone who closely watches and works with the companies that are among the leading 

investors in our nation's economy, it is essential that we give substantial credit where it is clearly 

due-restoring U.S. innovation policy to the constructive, nimble and pro-consumer framework that 

has guided the meteoric rise of our economy since the early days of the internet. 

It is no coincidence that the broadband capex slow down coincided with the previous FCC-in its 

final two years-abruptly shifting course down a sharply more regulatory path headlined by the 

controversial attempt to subject consumer broadband services to heavy, archaic regulations written 

nearly a century ago. 

Equally true, this capex recovery in 2017 coincides with the current FCC leadership's emphasis on 

consistent, modern policies that seek to create a more level playing field across the internet 

ecosystem-ensuring company investments will be treated fairly AND consumers will be protected 

consistently wherever they go online. 

Among the key recent and restorative steps: 

Recognition that the world and technologies have changed and many outdated rules undercut 

rather than advance the public interest in pro-investment policies. 

Encouraging signals that the federal government aims to be a strong partner in connecting 

high-cost rural areas, most recently evidenced by this week's launch of the CAF II auction. 

Net neutrality principles without onerous utility regulation-and an insistence that these 

principles be applied consistently for consumers across the internet and not solely on ISPs. 

Of course, the future investment landscape is far from guaranteed. For example, California appears 

poised to turn back the clock and reinstate heavy, backward looking, internet regulations, jeopardizing 

the state's status as the crown jewel of the global innovation economy. 

But a return to sound federal policy-for rural America, for consumers, for head-to-head competition 

on a level playing field-is helping revive investment in ever stronger, faster and more innovative 

networks that continue to bring progress and opportunity home for communities across our nation. 

If the recent broadband capex roller coaster teaches us anything, it's that markets, along with 

consumers and innovators, resist uncertainty and inconsistency. This dip and apparent recovery 

should be a powerful reminder that not only do policymakers have to get it right-they have to KEEP 

getting it right-and consistently pull in a constructive direction that benefits us all. 

Today, a preliminary look at the data suggests the investment tide may have turned. Now, it's up to all 

of us to work together to keep it going the right direction. 

www.ustelecom.org 
95 


35951.033

DAVID B. McKINLEY, P.E. 

1STDISTI'IIC"r,WESTVIRGINIA 

2239 RAYBURN HOUS£ OfFICE 8UitoiNG 

WASXINGTON, 0C 20515 

TEL:(202)225-4172 

FAX:(202)225-7564 

www.mekioley.house.gov 

COMM!lTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SU&COMMITTH ON 

ENVIRONMENT 

VIC€CKA<R 

S\.fflCOMMtTTEEON 

ENERGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

DIGITAl COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROT£C"r10N 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

C!tongress of tbe Wniteb ~tates 

~ou~e of l\epre!3entatibe!3 

July 10,2018 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12" Street NW 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

CHAIRMAN, 

CONGRESSIONAL COAL CAUCUS 

Co-CHAIII, 

CONGIIESSIONAL 8UILOING TRADES C""ucus 

Co·CHAIII, 

CONGRESSIONAlARTKIIITISCAUCUS 

CO· CHAIR, 

CONGIIESS!ONAl YOUTH CtlAlLENGE CAUCUS 

Co-CHAIR, 

HIGJ.< PERFORMANCE 8Uil01NGS CAUCUS 

Co-CiiAIR 

Co· CHAIR 

CONGRESS!ON/I.l f'ENSION f'fl01ECTION CAUCUS 

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) recent efforts to update the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (TCPA) and create a safer and more workable environment for communicating with 

consumers should be commended. 

While the FCC is at the forefront of many critical communication issues, its past interpretations of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) have resulted in confusion regarding what is 

required. This has made it more difficult for consumers to receive the communications they want and 

need, and for legitimate businesses to understand compliance standards. 

In addition, there is legal uncertainty surrounding how consumers can obtain important information. 

This leads to increasing class action litigation that often does little to help consumers. The FCC must 

make it more workable for legitimate businesses to stay in communication with consumers in a 

timely and effective manner, while continuing to fight to eliminate illegal and fraudulent calls and 

texts to cell phones. 

We appreciate the steps the FCC has taken to limit abusive and illegal robocalls, and applaud the 

enforcement of action taken to end these instances of consumer mistreatment. It is imperative that the 

FCC continues to develop a modem TCPA framework that provides protection to consumers from 

bad actors, but allows legitimate business to communicate effectively with their customers. To that 

end, I request that you please update me on the steps you are taking to establish better protections for 

consumers and clarify and modernize the rules under TCPA. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact my 

Legislative Assistant, Sydney Pettit, by email at Sydney.Pettit@mail.house.gov or by telephone at 

(202)-225-4172.llook forward to hearing from you. 

Sincerely,,O. M}~ 

B. McKinley, P.E. 

r of Congress 

PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
96 


35951.034

July 25,2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairwoman 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

Thank you for holding a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Oversight 

Hearing on Wednesday, July 25'h and for the opportunity to submit this letter for the record 

on behalf of Anthem, Inc. and its affiliated health plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, 

WellCare Health Plans, Inc., and the American Association ofHealthcare Administrative 

Management (collectively, the "Healthcare Petitioners"). 

We respectfully request your assistance with urging the FCC to act quickly and favorably 

to clarify its earlier guidance addressing whether patients may receive health care related 

communications in accordance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In 

particular, we ask you to encourage the FCC to grant without further delay the pending Petition 

for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and/or Clarification ("Joint Petition") filed twenty-three 

months ago by the Healthcare Petitioners.' The Joint Petition asks the FCC to clarify certain 

aspects of the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Order2 and to confirm the FCC's longstanding policy of 

harmonizing its interpretations of the TCPA with the regulation of the use of telephone numbers 

under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIP AA''). 

The 2015 Declaratory Order provided, in relevant part, that the "provision of a phone 

number to a healthcare provider constitutes prior express consent for healthcare calls subject to 

HIP AA by a HIP AA -covered entity and business associates acting on its behalf. "3 The 

Healthcare Petitioners have sought clarification of two related aspects of the 2015 Declaratory 

Order: (1) who may receive the number; and (2) what the call must be about. Regarding the 

"who" question, the Healthcare Petitioners asked the. FCC to clarify that the provision of a phone 

number to a HIP AA "covered entity" or "business associate," whether by an individual, another 

covered entity, or a party engaged in an interaction subject to HIP AA, constitutes prior express 

consent calls to the HIPAA-covered entity and business associates acting on its behalf. A critical 

limitation is that covered entities and business associates must make calls within the scope of the 

1 See Joint Petition of Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, WellCare Health Plans, Inc., 

and the American Association ofHealthcare Administrative Management for Expedited Declaratory 

Ruling and/or Clarification of the 2015 TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order, CG Docket No. 

02-278 (filed July 28, 2016) ("Joint Petition"). 

2 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 et al., Declaratory 

Ruling and Order, 30 FCC Red 7961 (2015) ("2015 Declaratory Order"). 

3 I d. , 141 (emphasis added). 
97 


35951.035

consent given, and absent instructions to the contrary. Regarding the "what" question, the 

Healthcare Petitioners asked the FCC to clarify that a HIP AA-regulated entity may place 

"treatment, payment, and operations" calls otherwise allowed under HIP AA. In short, the Joint 

Petition requested narrow clarifications to bring the FCC's TCPA rules for healthcare-related 

calls more in line with patient expectations and HIPAA. 

The Joint Petition has received strong, bipartisan support in the FCC record and among 

members of Congress. On October 13,2017, a bipartisan group of members of the House of 

Representatives led by Representatives Bilirakis and Cardenas sent a letter asking Chairman Pai 

to act promptly to "afford clarity to covered entities and business associates making nonmarketing communications that benefit patients."4 As this bipartisan coalition observed, 

"helpful, important non-marketing communications can be critical safeguards to reaching 

underserved populations and supporting more effective, efficient health care."5 Senators Booker 

and Nelson also sent a bipartisan letter to Chairman Pai on November 3, 2017 noting that calls 

and text messages subject to the Joint Petition convey "important medical and treatment 

information" and "improve patient outcomes"6 They also stated that "time is of the essence to 

ensure that consumers' access to health care is not jeopardized" and asked the FCC to "resolve 

these issues as soon as possible (preferably within the next 90 days) and to protect 

communications allowed under HIP AA in light of their unique value to consumers and their 

positive impact on Americans' health and well-being."7 Further, in September of2016, 

Well Care was invited to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee and received strong 

bipartisan support for its position supporting these reasonable and measured changes that would 

have a positive impact on their beneficiaries health outcomes by allowing the company to 

communicate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. 

The breadth and depth of support for the Joint Petition is hardly surprising. The 

communications at stake include onboarding, wellness, informational, and follow-up and calls 

and texts that, for example: (i) explain coverage and how to get needed care, including providing 

updates about benefits and/or network changes; (ii) perform health screenings and identify at-risk 

members; (iii) facilitate selection of primary care provider and schedule appointments; (iv) 

remind members to get preventive care, such as shots and help ensure medication adherence; (v) 

notifY patients of changes in enrollment or disruptions in coverage due to non-payment and 

remind members about renewing their benefits; and (vi) solicit member feedback on healthcare 

quality and other issues and ensure satisfaction. 

Patients need and expect these and other non-marketing treatment, payment, and 

operations calls and texts, irrespective of which party in the HIPAA ecosystem-physicians, 

health plans, clearinghouses, or business associates-places the communication or initially 

obtains the patient's telephone number. Nevertheless, the FCC has not yet issued a decision on 

the Joint Petition. In the meantime, the threat of abusive class-wide litigation has chilled 

4 See Letter from Rep. Gus Bilirakis, eta/. to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, at 1 (Oct. 13, 20 17). 

5 Jd. at2. 

6 See Letter from Sens. Corey Booker and Bill Nelson to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, at I (Nov. 3, 2017). 

7 ld. 

2 
98 


35951.036

HIP AA-regulated entities from placing non-marketing calls about treatment, payment, or 

operations that patients want and expect. 

Given the fact that the D.C. Circuit's decision was now released several months ago, we 

ask you to urge the FCC to grant the Joint Petition without delay. Thank you very much for your 

consideration of this request, and we are available to answer any questions that you or your staff 

may have about this important issue. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/ Adam Goldberg 

Adam Goldberg 

Director, Congressional Affairs 

ANTHEM, INC. 

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 710 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 628-7840 

adam.goldberg@anthem.com 

On Behalf of Anthem, Inc. 

Is/ Justine Handelman 

Justine Handelman 

Senior Vice President, Office of Policy and 

Representation 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION 

1310 G StN.W., 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 626-4780 

Adam.Peltzman@bcbsa.com 

On Behalf of Blue Cross Blue Shield 

Association 

Is/ Paul Miller 

Paul A. Miller, LCP, PPC 

MILLERIWENHOLD CAPITOL STRATEGIES 

10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 204 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

Telephone: (703) 383-1330 

pmiller@mwcapitol.com 

On behalf oft he American Association of 

Healthcare Administrative Management 

Is/ Michelle Turano 

Michelle Turano 

Vice President, Public Policy & Government 

Affairs 

WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS. INC. 

8735 Henderson Rd 

Tampa, FL 33634 

Telephone: (813) 290-6200 

michelle.turano@wellcare.com 

On behalf of Well Care Health Plans, Inc. 

3 
99 


35951.037

FILED VIA ECFS 

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-82114 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

July 23,2018 

Re: Citizens Broadband Radio Service 

Ex Parte Notification 

GN Docket No. 17-258 

Dear Ms. Dortch: 

\'(le are 182 fixed wireless broadband prov~ders. We serve hard-to-reach places that no one 

else will: remote farms, schools, Ubraries, healthcarc institutions, and other businesses that but for us 

would have no broadband or no broadband competition. But we are running out of the critical 

infrastructure \Ve need to serve rural America: spectrum. 

For decades, we have served rural families and businesses using unlicensed spectrum. But 

that spectrum is becoming more crowded with each passing day. We have potential customers 

within range of our towers that we cannot serve because we do not have access to adequate 

spectrum to do so. 

But the FCC can help. Continued access to Citizens Broadband Radio Service ("CBRS'') 

spectrum is vital to our abiUty to continue serving rural America. And we write to urge the FCC to 

ensure that census tracts remain available as bidding units for Priority Access Licenses ("PALs") in 

the CBRS band. We ask you to reject options that take census tracts off the table and propel rural 

broadband access backwards instead of forwards. Without census-tract-sized licenses, we will have 

virtually no ability to acquire protected spectrum in this band. That would be an intolerable 

outcome that would harm our rural broadband businesses and inhibit our ability to grow, but worse 

it would harm the millions of consumers for whom mid-band spectrum is the key to high-speed 

fLxed broadband access. 

Over the last year, many of us have spoken and written to the f'CC to explain why census 

tract licenses in the CBRS band arc critical to rural economic development and our ability to provide 

broadband to more rural consumers. \'\'e've provided maps showing that auctioning larger areas will 

effectively shut us out uf the auction. \Ve've explained that we've already invested in the CBRS 

band under the current rules by deploying software-defined radios in the 3650-3700 MHz band tbat 

can be easily upgraded to operate in the entire 3550-3700 MHz band, reacbing more rural 

consumers within months. And we've explained how we've curtailed our investments based on the 

threat that we may not be able to bid for census tract PALs. While our businesses and networks are 

diYerse and independent, we are united that census tracts arc the only way that we can participate in 

tbe CBRS band auction. 

We recognize the national priority of promoting SG wireless technolO!,,'Y· But SG is not for 

mobile wireless only. We, too, want to deploy SG to connect more devices and support precision 
100 


35951.038

July 23, 2018 

Page 2 

agriculture and other industrial and enterprise solutions. "Winning the race to SG" does not mean we 

need to let the most powerful companies in the mobile wireless industry define the rules of the 

road. 

Our economy depends on small businesses like ours, and we are poised to invest- if the 

FCC gets the rules right. 

\V'c reluctantly acknowledge that the mlcs arc likely to be changed, that we will no longer 

have access to seven census tract PALs. But there is no reason \vhy, out of those seven PALs, that 

tbe FCC cannot retain at least two census tract PALs in rural areas to facilitate broadband 

deployment in the areas where we live and work. We urge the FCC, in the strongest possible terms, 

to preserve our ability, and the ability of other stakeholders, to bid on census tract PALs in rural 

areas. 

Galen Manners 

President 

Wave \~'ircless, LLC 

Parsons, KS 

Mark Radabaugh 

President 

Amp lex 

Luckey, OH 

Jeff Crews 

Vice-President 

Eastern Oregon Net, lnc. 

La Grande, OR 

Cad G. (Greg) Huber 

Manager 

CcllTex Networks, LLC 

San Antonio, TX 

Lori C. Collins 

President 

SonicNet, Inc. 

Eagle River, WI 

Patrick Shoemaker 

Partner 

Vector Data Systems, LLC 

Crofton, MD 

Respectfully submitted, 

Keefe John 

President & CEO 

Ethoplex 

Milwaukee, WI 

Jeff Kohler 

Co-Founder 

Rise Broadband 

Englewood, CO 

W. G. Capshaw 

Manager 

Capshaw Enterprises LLC 

dba Crossroads Wifi 

Middleton, TN 

Jeremy Sheets 

President 

CMS Internet LLC 

Mount Pleasant, MT 

Ronald van Gcijn 

President 

Eastern Shore Communications 

Cape Charles, VA 

Drew Vermette 

Vice President 

Tower Net Communications, Inc. 

Spring Hill, FL 

Chuck Hogg 

President 

Shelby Broadband 

Simpsonville, KY 

Scott LePere 

President 

On-Ramp Indiana 

Noblesville, IN 

Jarcl '~JP" Pittman 

President, Founder 

Rodeo Networks/Rodeo Internet 

Clarkston, WA 

Seth Johannesen 

Partner and Network Manager 

IO!Nctlink 

Whitethorn, CA 

Jorge Santiago 

Chief Technology Office•· 

Bridge Net Wireless 

Ocala,FL 

Randy Cosby 

Vice President 

lnfoWest, Inc. 

St. George, UT 
101 


35951.039

July 23, 2018 

Page 3 

Robert Clark 

President/ Owner 

Bolt Internet 

Prescott, AZ 

Jason Pond 

CEO & Managing Member 

Grizzly Broadband, LLC 

Hamilton, MT 

Jeff Hardesty 

Member 

Desert iNET, LLC 

Phoerux, AZ 

Jeremy Smith 

Owner /Manager 

Blue Spring Broadband 

Providence, UT 

Joe Royer 

President & GM 

Royell Commurucations Inc, 

Virden, IL 

Todd Tanner 

Executive Vice President 

SkyPacket Nerworks 

Cumberland, MD; Scranton, P1\ 

Scott Gibbs 

CEO 

VGI Technology, Inc. 

San Angelo, TX 

Jeff Lcerhoff,Owner /Manager 

Bits Technology Wireless Internet 

LLC dba BT\'171 Wireless Internet 

Perry, L\ 

Adair Winter 

Owner & VP of Network 

Operations 

Amarillo Wireless & A W 

Broadband 

Amarillo,TX 

Jay Domin,,>ue 

Business Development 

REACH4 Communications 

Crowley, LA 

Jeff Randolph 

Owner 

Advanced Internet 

Y akin\a, \v' A 

Orion Lukasik 

President & CEO 

AlignTec Incorporated 

Durango, CO 

Drew Beverage 

VP Business Development 

ProValue.Net 

Stillwater, OK 

William Fowler 

President/CEO 

Verso Networks 

Denver, CO 

Atilla Gabbro 

Founder & CEO 

Subrigo International 

T .os Angeles, CA 

Alex Phillips 

President & CEO 

HighSpeedUnk.net 

Harrisonburg, VA 

Gregory B. Armstrong 

CEO 

Surf Air Wireless 

La Porte, IN; Elkhart, IN; 

Coal City, IL 

Kristian Hoffmann 

President 

Intcrwest ~'Ianagement Services 

Inc. dba Firc2\l\'ire 

Salida, CA 

Joshua A. Beug 

General I'vianger 

Tularosa Comtrmnications 

Tularosa, NM 

Gmham Mcintire 

President & Owner 

Verona Networks LLC 

Princeton, TX 

Kurt i\Jbershardt 

Managing Member 

Mimbres Communications, LLC 

Silver City, NM 

Tony Holland 

President 

Isotech Inc./KCCoyute Inc. 

Trimblc,MO 

Ken Garnett 

Chief Technology Officer 

Cal.Nct, Inc. 

Shingle Springs, C1\ 

Ryan Amburgy 

Network Engineer 

Impulse Advanced Communications 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Sean Heskett 

Owner&CTO 

ZIRKEL Wireless 

Steamboat Springs, CO 

Tristan Johnson 

Owner/Membet 

Wireless Data Net, LL.C 

Saybrook, IL 

Britain Turner 

President 

AirFi, Inc. 

Zebulon, GA 
102 


35951.040

July 2:>, 2018 

Page 4 

Catherine A !lartenbower 

l I. L Cable, LLC 

Lostant, IL 

Malynda Nowell 

President & Co-Owner 

Ridgewood Holdings LLC 

dba Net 3 !SP 

Midland, Texas 

Greg Hayman 

Managing Member 

Tecinfo Commtmications 

Leland/Jackson, MS 

Harvern Davis 

Network Manager 

Crossroads WiFi 

Middleton, TN 

Alan Fitzpatrick 

CEO 

Open Broadband, LLC 

Waxhaw, NC 

Phillip Randash 

CEO/Owner 

Northern Skies Wireless LLC 

Bismarck, ND 

Matthew Thomas 

Founding Member 

WON Communications LLC 

Springfield, MO 

Mike Scott 

President & CEO 

STT Rural Net 

Emmetsburg, IA 

Anthony Will 

VP 

Broadband Corp. 

Victoria, l\IN 

Steve Barnes 

\'\'irclcss Ops Manager 

NLBC 

New Usbon, IN 

Daniel Peoples 

Owner 

Resonance Broadband LLC. 

Haileyville, OK 

Steven L. Mason 

General Manager 

Lighthouse.Net 

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 

\1\'arrcn Kane 

CEO 

B2X Online, Inc. 

Salem, VA 

Stephen Lash 

President & CEO 

Signal Net Broadband, Inc. 

\'\'ylic, TX 

Kevin Robinson 

President 

Aroostook Technologies lnc. 

Presque Isle, ME 

Jerry Stephens 

CEO 

SOS Communications LLC 

Georgetown, TX 

Neal Silvers 

WISP Owner 

Backroads Broadband 

David Busch 

CEO 

ZipLink Systems LLC 

Queen Creek, AZ 

Patrick Parks 

President 

SmartBurst LLC 

Aubrey, TX 

Tim Reichhart 

Owner 

Northwest Ohio Broadband 

Coldwater, OH 

David Cleveland 

Managing Partner 

DMCI Broadband, LLC. 

Hillsdale, MI 

Troy Rasmussen 

CEO 

Back 4 Wireless 

Jackson, MN 

Zot Barazzotto 

President 

Clifton Communications, LLC 

Clifton,OH 

Josh Luthman 

President 

Imagine Networks 

Troy, OH 

Chris Felix 

IT Manager 

Coffeyville Connection/City of 

Coffeyville 

Coffeyville, KS 

Tim Cailloux 

President & CEO 

Southern Internet, Inc. 

Fairburn, GA 

Ernie! Butcher 

President 

Micrologic Jnc. 

Buckhannon \X'V 
103 


35951.041

July 23,2018 

Page 5 

Nick Bright 

Vice President of Technology 

Valnet Holdings, LLC 

Independence, KS 

Brian Gray 

\X'ireless Network Manager 

Joink, LLC 

Terre Haute, IN 

Nathan Stooke 

CEO 

Wisper ISP, Inc. 

Mascourah, IL 

Chris Soilcs 

Owner 

Rio Cities Internet 

Belen, NM 

Daniel Rudnick 

President 

Advanced \X'ireless 

Santa Maria, CA 

Roland Houin 

President 

Fourway Computer Products, 

Inc. 

South Bend, IN 

Colin Wood 

CEO 

Trans World Network, Corp. 

Oldsmar, FL 

Jason Dab bert 

Owner 

Leap Communications, LLC 

Parker, SD 

Shane Baggs 

Presidcnt/GM 

BEH Communications, LLC 

Price, UT 

Eric Williams 

Ov.rner 

SDWisp 

Spring Valley, CA 

Wes Davis 

Owner 

Canyon Wireless 

Spri;1g Valley, Ci\ 

Matt Hoppes 

President & CEO 

River Valley Internet 

Williamsport, P A 

Paul Conlin 

President 

Blaze Broadband 

Marshall, VA 

Conor Ferguson 

President & CEO 

~1SPr Systems 

Batesville, MS 

Spencer Pous 

CEO 

SJP Network Solutions, LLC 

Ft. Walton Beach, FL 

Alan Luelf 

General Manager 

Alsat \\'lrcless 

Montgomery City, MO 

Roxanne \X'hite 

CEO 

Evertek, Inc. 

Everly, Ii\ 

Eden Rccor 

Owner&CEO 

Grand County Internet Services 

.Inc. 

Grand Lake, CO 

Mike Whelan 

CEO 

AirL.ink Internet Services 

Mounds, OK 

Virginia Lam Abrams, SVP, 

Communications & Government 

Relations 

Starry, Inc. 

Boston, MA 

Ryan Willcins 

Managing Member 

Elevated Networks LLC 

Oherlin,OH 

J oscph Falaschi 

General Manager 

e-vergent.com, LLC 

Racine, Wl 

Michael Clemons 

President 

GigaBeam Networks, LLC 

Rich Creek, VA 

Jacques L. Fluker 

Chief Technology Officer 

Pixius Communications, LLC 

Wichita,KS 

Joseph J. McGrath II 

Owner & President 

Texoma Cotnmunications, LLC 

Sherman, TX 

Phillip D. Maag 

President & CEO 

Meta LINK Technologies, Inc. 

Defiance, OH 

Kent \'(:im1ch 

Chief Technolot,'Y Officer 

Open Broadband LLC 

Salisbury, NC 
104 


35951.042

July 23,2018 

Page 6 

AI Rachide 

Managing Partner 

Eastern Carolina Broadband 

LLC 

Pink Hill, NC 

Royce Hcnningson 

President & CEO 

River Canyon Wireless 

Moab, UT 

Forbes Mercy 

President 

Washington Broadband, Inc. 

Yakima, WA 

Alexander M. Mann 

Installation Technician 

Win Win Wireless 

Houghton, NY 

Shane T. Miller 

Partner 

Celerity Networks LLC 

Spearfish, SD 

Jeff Rime 

Chief Technical Officer 

WiLogic, Inc. 

Huntington Beach, CA 

Cody Landmm 

President & CEO 

Southem Broadband 

(3rd Coast Internet) 

Crystal Beach. TX 

Paul McCall 

President 

Florida Broadband, Inc. 

Vero Beach, FL 

Joe Gaylord 

Owner 

COLI 

Rapid City, MI 

Kevin Voss 

President & CEO 

Door County Broadband 

Door County, WI 

Troy Gibson 

Owner 

Byhalia.nct, LLC 

Bellefontaine, OH 

Garrett Kellner 

CT!connect, LLC 

Round Rock, TX 

Charles Thomas 

Chief Operations Officer 

Omnipoint Technology, Inc. 

Springfield, MA 

Ryan Walker 

President & CEO 

OACYS Technology 

Porterville, Ct\ 

F.ric Rogers 

President 

Precision Data Solutions, LLC 

Mooresville, IN 

Garth Nicholas 

CFO 

New Wave Net Corp. 

Bloomington, IL 

Aaron Palmer 

President 

LR Communications 

Leaf River, IL 

Kathy Tate 

CEO 

McMinnville ;\ccess Company 

McMinnville, OR 

Chtis Jeske 

President 

West Orange Wireless Inc. 

Winter Gardens, FL 

Ryan Grewell 

President 

Smart Way Communications LLC 

Uhrichsville, OH 

Brandon Sloan 

CEO 

Sloan Holdings, LLC 

Westernport, MD 

Scott Pope 

Network and Operations Officer 

Arbuckle Communications LLC 

/udmore, OK 

Paul Stebbins 

Owner 

Winfinity LLC 

Liberal, MO 

Ryan Ellsworth 

President 

Vegas WiFi Communications, 

LLC 

Las Vegas, NV 

!<lis McElroy 

SVP of Operations and Partner 

360 Communications, Inc. 

Durant, OK 

Travis Allen 

President 

Total High speed LLC 

Springfield, MO 

Smart Robertson 

Owner 

Veopoint Internet 

Longview, TX 
105 


35951.043

July 23,2018 

Page 7 

Robert Haas 

Network Administrator 

BPS Network/BPS Telephone 

Company 

Bernie, MO 

Aaron Clark, Vice President Chief 

Operating Officer 

Future \'(lirclcss Technologies 

of Nebraska 

Lincoln, NE 

Jimmy Carr 

President & CEO 

All Points Broadband 

Ashburn, VA; Roanoke, VA 

David Snyder 

President 

VOLstate, Inc. DBA RevTel.nct 

Dayton, TN 

C. D. Tavares 

Owner 

Grand Avenue Broadband 

Wickenburg, AZ 

Jorge Santiago 

Chief Technology Ofticcr 

BridgeNet Communications 

Ocala, FL 

Troy t\. Slagle 

Information Technology Manager 

Mid-States Services, LLC 

Trenton, MO 

Joel White 

President 

NexGent\ccess Inc 

Delaware, 0 H 

David Rodocker 

Managing Partner 

Wisp. net 

Fountain Valle)·, C\ 

Paul Scortea 

CEO 

AirFiber \'V'ISP LLC 

Phoenix, z\Z 

Bradley Hagstrom 

Owner 

Jcnco Wireless, LLC 

Marysville, 0! l 

Jason Telles 

Owner 

Gigabeam Internet 

Yakima, WA 

Michael Meluskey 

CTO and Founder 

Broadband Vl 

St. Croix, VI 

Adam Bates 

Operations Manager· 

FrccdomNct Solutions 

Byron Center, MT 

Michael Underdown 

MitoTec, LLC 

Burr Ridge, IL 

Mathew Ford 

CEO 

Ayera Technologies, Inc. 

Modesto, CA 

Paul F. Barton 

President and GM 

\X'estelcon1 Network Inc. 

\X'atertown, N'Y 

Craig Mason 

Owner 

Vertical Broadband LLC. 

Delta Junction, AK 

JonTmell 

.President & CEO 

Future Wireless Technologies of 

Nebraska 

Lincoln, NE 

Jay Fuller 

President/ CEO 

Cyber Broadband Inc. 

Cullman, AL 

David Waldrop 

Owner 

Twin State Wireless, LLC 

Demopolis, AL 

Anthony Pierro 

Chief Technology Office 

'X'ireless Internet Services, Inc. 

Visalia, Ci\ 

Reilly Flal1erty 

President 

Hexis Internet 

Jackson, WI 

Cody Landrum 

President/ CEO 

3"' Coast Internet 

Crystal Beach, TX 

Matt Lauer 

CEO 

Solvaris Net LLC 

Rumeo,MI 

Sonja Harris 

Director of Company Development 

Conifer Con1munkations, Inc. 

Sonora, CA 

Zachery D. Peres 

Vice President 

JMZ Corporation d/b/a KwiKom 

Communications 

lola, KS 
106 


35951.044

July 23,2018 

Page 8 

Gilbert A. Darrell 

Horizon Communications. 

New York, NY 

Travis Mikalson 

CEO 

TerraNovaNet, Inc. 

Key Largo, f'L 

Ben Mize 

CJperat.ions Director 

Tecinfo Communications, LLC 

Leland, MS 

Andrew Wicker 

Director of Infrastructure 

Vistabcam 

Gering. NE 

Glenn Kelley 

President, CEO 

Connectivity. Engineer LLC 

Racine, OH 

Brian Fults 

Owner 

FuiAirLLC 

Lake Charles, LA 

Aaron Larson 

President and CEO 

SPTTwSPOTS Inc. 

Homer, AK 

Darin Steffl 

President & CEO 

Minnesota WiFi 

J.(asson, i\1N 

Michael Birnbaum 

Managing Membc1· 

Cloud Alliance LLC 

Plainfield, VT 

Greg Coffey 

AllureTech/CoffeyNet 

Casper, WY 

Kevin Owen 

President & CEO/Owner 

First Step Internet, LLC 

Moscow, ID 

Tim Shaw 

President 

Hill Country Broadband Inc 

San Antonio, TX 

Kevin Melson 

President 

Eagle One Wirdess\PC Station 

Corinth, MS 

Jim Hanley 

President, CEO 

netBlazr Inc 

Boston, MA 

Pat Wilson 

President 

The Computer Works 

Conway, AR 

Joel Brick 

Owner 

lntcrlakcs Wireless 

Madison, ~D 

John Dunbar 

Assistant General Manager 

MHTC 

Mt. Horeb, \\1] 

Fred Moses 

ChiefTechnolbgy Ofticcr 

Tri-County Wireless, Inc. 

Fenton, Ml 

Mike Hammett 

President 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 

DeKalb, IL 

Kevin lvl. Triplett 

President & CEO 

Softcom Internet Communications, 

Inc. 

Galt,CA 

Kevin Brown 

CEO 

Quantum Telecon1municarions, Inc. 

Manchester, MD 

Marlon Schafer 

Odessa Office Equipment 

Odessa, WA 

Travis Boyd 

Owner 

Wallowa Valley Networks 

Enterprise, OR 

M.ichael Ungwall 

Operations 

Prestige Broadband, LLC 

Springville, UT 

Douglas Ratcliffe 

Owner 

Direct Wireless \~'eb 

Daytona Beach, FL 

Ben Blomgren 

Owner 

JTN Communications, LLC 

Farmington, i\fN 

Brian i\hdl 

President 

Edge Broadband 

\'V11itewater, Wl 
107 


35951.045

July 23,2018 

Page 9 

Izzy Bocanet:,rra 

CEO 

Emerald Harbor 

Con11nunications 

LLP 

Destin, FL 

AJ Becker 

President 

Sonic Spectnun Inc. 

Durand, IL 
108 


35951.046

712512018 Ajit Pai on Twitter: "Terrific meeting Galen Manners offi>rediNire!ess !SPWaveWire!ess! Wave's connecting Parsons {includmg my parents) &sm ... 

Ajit Pai $ 

@AjitPaiFCC 

Terrific meeting Galen Manners of fixed 

wireless ISP Wave Wireless! Wave's 

connecting Parsons (including my parents) & 

smaller towns nearby. 

3:10 PM - 21 Sep 2017 

11 Retweets 31 Likes 0 «) 

0 l Un 31 

EndCitizensUnited @FightForTitlell · 21 Sep 2017 

Replying to @AjitPaiFCC 

v 

@AjitPaiFCC Plenty of time for photo ops, but no time to answer FOIA requests. 

ltVerizonShill #Corrupt 

https;l/lvvitter.corrVAji!PaiFCC/status/910989592756719616/photol1 111 
109 


35951.047

7/2512018 Ajlt Pal gets message from his hometO\I'KIISP: Don't hurt us small !SPs 1 ks Teclmlca 

SUBSCRIPTIONS SIGN IN 

A PLEA FROM HOMEAjit Pai gets message from his hometown 

ISP: Don't hurt us small ISPs 

Pai's spectrum auction plan could make it hard for small ISPs to buy licenses. 

JON BRODKIN· 7/24/2018,2:06 PM 

https:f!arstechnica.cornttech-polic'(l018107/ajiH>ai-gets-rnessage-from-his-hometOM'l-isp-dont-hurt-us-small-isps/ 118 
110 


35951.048

7/25/2018 Ajlt Pai gets message from his horneiOM"l !SP: Don't hurt us smai!ISPsl Ars Technica 

Enlarge I FCC Chairman Ajit Pai speaks about improving rural connectivity during an Agriculture Department 

forum on April18, 2018 in Washington, DC. 

A broadband provider from FCC Chairman Ajit Pal's hometown says one of his latest plans could 

prevent it from purchasing spectrum needed to bolster its network. 

Wave Wireless is a locally owned and operated home Internet provider in Parsons, Kansas, where Pal 

grew up. Last year, Pal met with Wave's owner and wrote In a tweet that Wave is "connecting Parsons 

(including my parents) & smaller towns nearby." 

https</!arstechnica.corr/tech-pollc)i2018/07/ajl!-pai~gets~message-from-his~hometOIM1-isp-dont~hurt-us-small-ispsf 218 
111 


35951.049

712512018 

• 

AjitPai 

@AjitPaiFCC 

Terrific meeting Galen Manners of fixed wireless ISP Wave 

Wireless! Wave's connecting Parsons (including my parents) & 

smaller towns nearby. 

6:10PM- Sep 21,2017 

31 See Ajtt Pal's other Tweets 

Pal heard from his hometown ISP again yesterday when Wave and 181 other fixed wireless broadband 

providers wrote a letter opposing an FCC plan that could limit the smaiiiSPs' access to wireless 

spectrum. 

ARS TRENDING VIDEO 

Dictionary.com's Liz McMillan Discusses Tech's Influence on Language 

0 

"Our economy depends on small businesses like ours, and we are poised to invest-ifthe FCC gets the 

rules right," Wave Wireless owner Galen Manners and the other providers wrote. 

Pal's primary focus as FCC chairman has been removing or changing regulations in order to encourage 

ISPs to invest in their networks. But the small providers say that his proposal for a spectrum auction 

https://arstechnica.comltech-polic~18107/ajit»pal»gets»rressage-from-his-11orrletow1-isp-dont-hurl-us~sma!l-isps/ 318 
112 


35951.050

7/2512018 .Ajit Pai gets rressage from his hometov..niSP: Don't hurt us smaH ISPs l Ars Technlca 

could make it harder for them to inves~ while helping much larger carriers. 

The rule changes in question relate to spectrum in the 3.5GHz band that will be auctioned off by the 

FCC. The Obama-era FCC in 2015 established "a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) for 

shared wireless broadband" in this band. Crucially, the FCC under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler 

decided to let operators buy three-year Priority Access Licenses (PALs) In individual census tracts, small 

areas with between 1,200 and 8,000 people each. Each PAL authorizes a provider to use a 1OM Hz 

channel in a single license area. 

Allowing ISPs to buy spectrum in small areas would help the smallest broadband providers compete 

for spectrum against big companies. But the auction hasn't happened yet, giving Pal's FCC time to 

change the rules. 

T-Mobile and other companies asked the FCC to change the licensing areas from census tracts to 

Partial Economic Areas (PEAs), which are much larger. Pal's proposal from October 2017, which the 

FCC sought public comment on, could grant T-Mobile's request or change the size of the license areas 

in some other way. 

New license areas could be gigantic 

While there are 74,000 census tracts In the US, there are just 416 PEAs. The largest PEA includes more 

than 25 million people in the New York area; nationwide, there are 62 PEAs with at least 1 million 

people each and more than 300 with at least 100,000 people each. 

Small providers likely wouldn't be able to obtain 3.5GHz spectrum if they have to bid for licenses 

covering such large areas. Wave Wireless, for example, was created "in 2000 as a response to a need 

for faster than dial-up Internet for rural citizens of Labette County," the ISP says on its website. "From 

our first transmitter site, to now 22 and counting. we continue to expand and improve in response to 

customer needs." CNe contacted Wave today and will update this story if we hear back from the 

company.) 

In their letter to the FCC yesterday, Wave Wireless and the other small providers wrote: 

Continued access to Citizens Broadband Radio Service ("CBRS") spectrum is vital to our ability 

to continue serving rural America. And we write to urge the FCC to ensure that census tracts 

remain available as bidding units for Priority Access Licenses (''PALs") in the CBRS band. We 

ask you to reject options that take census tracts off the table and propel rural broadband 

access backwards instead of forwards. Without census tract-sized licenses, we will have 

virtually no ability to acquire protected spectrum in this band. That would be an intolerable 

outcome that would harm our rural broadband businesses and inhibit our ability to grow, but 

worse it would harm the millions of consumers for whom mid-band spectrum is the key to 

high-speed fixed broadband access. 

https:f/arstechnica.comll.eclrpollc12Q18107/ajit~pai~gels·messag&-from-his~hometO'MI-isp-donl·hurt·us·stmll·ispsf 4/8 
113 


35951.051

71'2512018 Ajlt Pal gets message from his homet<MfliSP: 0011't hurt us smaiiiSPs 1 Ars Technica 

1 ne prov1oers nave oeen pusmng tne t-LL to mamtam avauao1my 01 census tran11censes 1or me past 

year, and the group gave the commission evidence that increasing the size of license areas would shut 

them out of the auction. Their new letter to the FCC continued: 

Over the last year, many of us have spoken and written to the FCC to explain why census tract 

licenses in the CBRS band are critical to rural economic development and our ability to 

provide broadband to more rural consumers. We've provided maps showing that auctioning 

larger areas will effectively shut us out of the auction. We've explained that we've already 

invested in the CBRS band under the current rules by deploying software-defined radios in the 

3650-3700 M Hz band that can be easily upgraded to operate in the entire 3550-3700 MHz 

band, reaching more rural consumers within months. And we've explained how we've 

curtailed our investments based on the threat that we may not be able to bid for census tract 

PALs. While our businesses and networks are diverse and independent, we are united that 

census tracts are the only way that we can participate in the CBRS band auction. 

The FCC's 2015 decision made up to seven PALs (the priority licenses) available in each census tract, 

and it let one provider obtain up to four in each tract. The 182 small providers seem resigned to the 

likelihood that Pal's FCC won't allow seven licenses In each tract, but they urged the FCC to let them bid 

on at least a couple of licenses in each tract. 

"We reluctantly acknowledge that the rules are likely to be changed, that we will no longer have access 

to seven census tract PALs," the 182 providers wrote. "But there is no reason why, out of those seven 

PALs, that the FCC cannot retain at least two census tract PALs in rural areas to facilitate broadband 

deployment In the areas where we live and work. We urge the FCC, in the strongest possible terms, to 

preserve our ability, and the ability of other stakeholders, to bid on census tract PALs in rural areas." 

"The rules are working" 

Pal's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMJ doesn't endorse any specific license area size, instead 

asking the public for input on a variety of possibilities. But It's clear that Pal's Republican majority 

wants to change the Obama-era rules that were designed to help smaiiiSPs obtain spectrum. 

Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat who was on the commission when Pal's NPRM was approved in October, 

tried to stop the NPRM from being issued at all. Pal's original version of the NPRM included a more 

definitive proposal to increase the size of the license areas, but Clyburn said at the time that she 

negotiated with FCC Republicans to change the NPRM so that it would merely seek comment on the 

idea and seek comment on other possibilities. 

FCC Republican Michael O'Rielly said he supports "increasing the market sizes from census tracts, 

which will reduce auction complexity, administrative burdens, and interference concerns. But 

I recognize that there are many different views, so I look forward to hearing from all interested parties 

on this issue." 

rl"h' ,,."" .,.,.;,,4 rho ,-h,.,.,.,,..-....,,.;.,t-;,..,. ..-..f ,... ... ...,.,., ,.,. t-r:<>M_cl,..,....J 11.-..,. ... .,.,. ""'""""'"' ......,,!;,.,. rh.,.,...., n.,.ff,..,.-.-l,.hl..,. fnr .,......,.,.fl 

https:l/arstechnica.comltech-!Xllic'/2fJ18/07/ajit~pai-gets-message-from-hiswhorretov.nwisp.dont~hurt-us-sma11-isps/ 518 
114 


35951.052

712512018 Ajit Pai gets message from his hometov.n ISP: Don't hurt us smaiiiSPs 1 Ars Technica 

school systems and rural hospitals, located in underserved areas that are desperate for cost-effective 

broadband services." Besides the small size, the FCC's 2015 decision set the license terms at three 

years instead of the usual ten years. Clyburn said the shorter license terms would help encourage 

small entities to bid, but Pal is proposing to raise the term to ten years. 

Small providers have already started investing with the expectation that the FCC's 2015 decision 

wouldn't be changed, Clyburn also said in October: 

The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that those rules are working. Wireless Internet 

service providers (or "WISPs") that tend to serve rural areas, equipment manufacturers, tech 

companies, and heavy industries, have raced to invest millions of dollars to unlock the 

potential of mid-band spectrum in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service band. To-date, fiftyfive entities-including chipmakers, mobile carriers, cable companies, equipment 

manufacturers and more-have joined the Citizens Broadband Radio Service or CBRS Alliance. 

Forty-seven companies participating in the Wireless Innovation Forum, have spent tens of 

thousands of hours developing technical standards to implement CBRS. At least a dozen firms 

have obtained experimental authorizations to trial equipment and technology in the band. 

They are developing private networks to support an open architecture operating system for 

the Industrial Internet as well as smart grid, rural broadband, small cell back haul, and other 

point-to-multipoint networks. 

It's not clear when the FCC will issue a final decision, but large carriers are still pushing for an Increase 

in the size of license areas."[qensus tract licensing will hinder the development of the 3.5GHz band 

and impede US companies as they compete in the global race to SG," wireless industry lobby group 

CTIA wrote. CTIA represents T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint. 

NTCA, a lobby group for rural broadband providers, said it backs a potential compromise that would 

auction licenses in "a combination of counties and census tracts." 

Rural ISPs should have "a reasonable opportunity to obtain spectrum and to promote more effective 

use of spectrum for actual service delivery in rural areas," the group told the FCC. 

Promoted Comments 

domikai 1 Wise, Aged Ars Veteran 1 er Subscriptor JUMP TO POST 

Well. If you can't afford to purchase regulation, you can't afford to invest In your 

business. 

:I 

https:l/arstechn1ca.com'l:ecJl..po!ictj2018107/ajit~pal-gets~rressaga-from-his-hometO'M1-isp-dont-hurt-us-small-ispsf 618 
115 


35951.053

7/2512018 AJit Pai gets message from his home!O'Ml !SP: Don't hurt us smaiiiSPs! Ars Technica 

247 posts I registered 9/1 i/2017 

READER COMMENTS SHARE THIS STORY 

JON BRODKIN 

Jon is Ars Technica's senior 1T reporter, covering the FCC and broadband, telecommunications, wireless 

technology, and more. 

EMAIL jon.brodkin@DrstechniGl.com //TWITTER @j8rodkln 

Ars Live #23: The History and 

Future of Tech Law 

Tech history is an endless tug-of-war between new 

innovations and old laws. But behind this !ega! 

machine are often bizarre court cases full of petty 

Ars Live #23: The 

History and Future 

of Tech Law 

Visual Labs body 

camera software 

with the Dos Palos 

PD 1 Ars Technica 

Police re-creation 

of body camera 

evidence- Pueblo, 

CO I Ars Technica 

criminals, o!d"fashioned gumshoe detectives, and 

robots who want civil rights. More videos 

<--PREVIOUS STORY 

Related Stories 

Sponsored Stories 

Powered by 

https:l!arstechnica.corT'Itech-poiic}42018/07/ajil~pai-gets-message-from-his~hornetOIM1-isp-dont-hurt~us-small-1sps/ 

NEXT STORY----" 

718 
116 


35951.054

July 18,2018 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12'h Street, Southwest 

Washington, DC 20554 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

The Allslstant Secretary far Communications 

and Information 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Re. Accelerating Wjre!ine Broadband Deployment. WC Docket No. 17-84 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as the 

President's principal adviser on telecommunications and information policy, applauds the 

Commission's continuing actions to accelerate the ongoing modernization of the Nation's 

communications infrastructure, by promoting the transition from legacy networks and services to 

next-generation networks and services (the so-called IP transition). NTIA has consistently 

supported network modernization because it will both significantly reduce carriers' operating 

and maintenance costs and enable carriers to expand and enhance the services they can offer 

subscribers.' NTIA remains concerned, however, that streamlined regulatory requirements may 

place federal departments and agencies that rely on services subject to disconiinuance in the 

untenable position of losing access to critical national security and public safety communications 

functionality. 

As an initial matter, NTIA continues to believe that, in most instances, the transition from 

legacy to next-generation networks and services will be seamless for residential and business 

customers.2 Accordingly, lowering regulatory hurdles for grandfathering and discontinuance 

applications generally will allow the Nation to reap the benefits of a more capacious, reliable, 

and fleltible communications infrastructure more quickly, without significant customer 

disruptions. For that reason, we support the Commission's decision to extend the streamlined 

processing rules it adopted last November for legacy voice and data services operating at speeds 

less than 1.544 Mbps to carrier applications to discontinue data services at speeds below 25/3 

Mbps. 3 Further, NTIA welcomes the Commission's decision to retain the "adequate replacement 

1 See Ex Parte Comments of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in WC 

Dkt. No. 17-84, at 2 (filed Oct. 27, 2017) (NT/A Comments), m•ailable at 

h!tps://ecfliapi.fcc.goy/file/ !02778342250 IINTIA %20Ex 'k 20Pane'k20Comment5%20in%20WC%20Dkt. 

%20No.%20)7-84,pdf; Letter from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information to FCC 

Chairman Wheeler, at I, Gen. Dkt. No. l3-5 (filed July 29, 2015) (NT/A Leiter), al'ailable at 

hnps:/lecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/6000 I I 19091.pdf. l See NT/A Commellls at 4-6. 3 See Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 

Second Report and Order, WC Dkt. No. 17-84, FCC 18·74, '117-14 (rei. June 8, 2018) (Second Report), 

available at https://docs.fcc.gov/publicluuachments{FCC-18-74A l.pdf: Accelerating Wireline Broadband 
117 


35951.055

test" it adopted in 2016 as a precondition, in certain circumstances, to streamlined processing of 

carrier applications to discontinue legacy voice services.4 Having retained the adequate 

replacement test, NTIA encourages the Commission to put in place a process to enable 

expanding as necessary the list of protected key applications and functionalities.5 We also 

anticipate that the Commission will soon address NTIA' s pending request to expand the list of 

"low-speed modem devices" identified in the 2016 Technology Transitions Order to include 

similar devices commonly used by federal agencies.6 

NTIA has described to the Commission the problems that the IP transition has created, 

and will present, for federal users in particular situations.7 We appreciate the Commission's 

recognition last year of "the budget and procurement challenges that government customers face, 

as well as other challenges associated with transitioning strategic government applications that 

use legacy services to alternative next-generation services."8 We also appreciate the 

Commission's view that, as a predominant buyer of communications services, the federal 

government generally is well-positioned to protect its interests through large-scale service 

contracts with carriers, such as the General Service Administration (GSA)-negotiated conlracts 

underlying the Networx and its replacement, Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS), 

communications platforms.9 However, as the Commission knows, many federal agencies have 

offices and installations in remote or less populated areas, or receive services outside of Networx 

or EIS. In such contexts, they must purchase services outside of GSA contracts, often from 

carriers that do not face the competitive pressures that the Commission sees in other parts of the 

country, or in the marketplace generally. Oftentimes, carriers in these areas lack the incentives 

that exist in more populated areas and, thus, negotiation alone may not produce the contractual 

provisions that adequately serve federal users' needs. 10 

In that regard, NTIA is encouraged by the Commission's statement that it expects carriers 

to continue "to collaborate with their [enterprise or government] customers, especially utilities 

and public safety and other government customers, to ensure that they are given sufficient time 

to accommodate the transition to [next-generation services] such that key functionalities are not 

and FurtlterNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Red II 128, 11160-68, '1'180-107 (2018) (First 

Report). 

'Seconcl Report 'l!'l(29, 33-34. As the Commission notes, one prong of that test requires that any proposed 

replacement service preserve "interopernbility and compatibility" with a specified list of key applications 

and functionalities. SeL·ond Report n.91. See also Technology Transitions, Declaratory Ruling, Second 

Report and Order, and Ordero11 Ret·onsiderarioll, 31 FCC Red 8283, 8305, 834142, '1'165, 157-59 

(2016) (20/6 Technology Transitions Order). 

s See 2016 Technology Tra11sitions Order, 31 FCC Red at 834243, '1'1160-66. 6 See Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration at 7-10, GN Dkt. No. 13-5 (filed Oct: 12, 2016) (NT/A Petition), available at 

hltru!:~~,fJ;£,gpy~1QJ24774!093llNJIA'if20Pet%20for%20Recon%201012~. 

1 See, e.g., NT/A Comments at 6-7, 10 and n.27; NT/A Petition at 6-7, 9; NT/A Letter at 2-3. ~See First Report, 32 FCC Red at 11168, '1106. 9 Second Report'Jl38; First Report, 32 FCC Red at 1114849, 11168, '1'147, 107. 10 The term "federal user" includes not only federal agencies, but also private contractors that procure, 

assemble, aggregate, and manage networks for federal users and agencies. See NT/A Commellls at 3 n.6. 

2 
118 


35951.056

lost during this period of change.'' 11 We understand the Commission's decision not to adopt 

specific protections for federal users rests on its confidence in carriers' "incentives and a long 

history of accommodating government customers to avoid costly and dangerous disruptions of 

service."12 Further, in the case of service discontinuances involving multiple locations- a major 

concern for federal users -the Commission specifically relied on carriers "strong incentives to 

work with its customers to establish a transition schedule that is seamless, physically attainable," 

and consistent with any applicable contractual obligations. 13 

A broad range of critical national security and public safety functions of the Federal 

government rely on reliable telecommunications services, and it is in the national interest to 

ensure that those functions can be maintained as our country's communications providers make 

the welcome transition to modern technology. NTIA appreciates that if carriers' conduct impairs 

those agencies' critical national security and public safety functions, the Commission retains 

"flexibility to address these circumstances on a case-by-case basis." 14 As the Commission states, 

"customers are able to file comments in opposition to a discontinuance application and seek to 

have the Commission remove the application from streamlined processing."" We construe that 

language as a commitment to sanction conduct impinging on those critical functions when it 

occurs. 16 In particular, the Commission should hold in abeyance any copper retirement if a 

federal user credibly alleges that the carrier's proposed retirement date does not give the user 

"sufficient time to accommodate the transition to new network facilities such that key 

functionalities are not lost." 17 

I am confident that the Commission will continue to recognize and address the specific 

needs of federal government users during the IP transition and look forward to working together 

to ensure no disruption to their communications, particularly in the areas of national security and 

11 Second Report f 38 (quoting Firsr Report, 32 FCC Red nt 11149, '1148). 

tl First Report, 32 FCC Red at 11167-68, 'II 06. See also Second Report '138; NT/A Commellls at 8-9. 13 Firs/ Report, 32 FCC Red at 11166, '197. ~ /d. 'JI98 (referring to "specific applications that raise public safety or other mission-critical safety 

concerns, where the discontinuance timefrnme is too short to accommodate {a customer's] transition 

needs, or where a carrier is not working cooperatively to effectuate such a transition"). 15 Second Report 1 38. 16 For example, if a federal user credibly claims that a carrier has not discussed a prQposed service 

discontinuance with affected federal customers, and taken all reasonable steps to ensure the continuity of 

critical agency networks, systems, and services, the relevant discontinuance application should not qualify 

for expedited review until the Commission is satisfied that the carrier has taken such steps. 17 See First Report, 32 FCC Red at 11149, '148. 

3 
119 


35951.057

public safety. Thank you for your consideration of these views. If you have any questions, 

please contact either me or John Morris of my staff at (202) 482-1880. 

cc: Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

Commissioner Brendan Carr 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel 

4 

SiQQ &r;W 

D"ld I. Rod! ~ 
120 


35951.058

RONWYOEN ORE-GO<" COMMITTEES: 

RANKING :.JEMBER: OF C!Jt..tll-lnTEt ON 

fiN..~.:~C£ '1anitcd ~tatcs ~cnatc WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3703 

COMMm"EE ON ANANCE 

CO,o,.!MflTEEON BUOC>ET 

C.GMMITl'EE ON ENERGY & NATURAL RI!SOURCES 

5ElECT COMl',illTE£ ON IN"f"EWGfNCE 

JO!;-.T C'O/Yl'-lf!1'!.'£ ON TAXATION 

221 DIRKSE.!'\ Sf ..Nr'\TE OI'FJCE BUiLDING 

WASHlNGTON, DC 20510 

!:?0'2}22<1-5244 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street Southwest 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

May 8, 2018 

I write to ask that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigate abusive and 

potentially unlawful practices of wireless carriers, which have permitted at least one company to 

provide law enforcement with unrestricted access to the location data of the carriers' customers. 

I recently learned that Securus Technologies, a major provider of correctional-facility telephone 

services, purchases real-time location information from major wireless carriers and provides that 

information, via a self-service web portal, to the government for nothing more than the legal 

equivalent of a pinky promise. This practice skirts wireless carrier's legal obligation to be the 

sole conduit by which the government conducts surveillance of Americans' phone records, and 

needlessly exposes millions of Americans to potential abuse and surveillance by the government. 

To access this private data, correctional officers simply visit Securus' web portal, enter any U.S. 

wireless phone number, and then upload a document purporting to be an "official document 

giving permission" to obtain real-time location data. I have enclosed portions of a Securus 

presentation demonstrating that web portal as well as a Securus white paper documenting 

"success stories" where Securus customers used this turnkey service to conduct activities wholly 

unrelated to correctional-facility telephone services. 

Top officials at Securus confirmed to my office that Securus takes no steps to verify that 

uploaded documents in fact provide judicial authorization for real-time location surveillance, or 

conduct any review of surveillance requests. Securus claimed, incorrectly, that correctional 

facilities, not Securus, must ensure that correctional officers don't misuse the web portal. 

Federal law-enforced by the FCC-restricts how and when wireless carriers may share certain 

customer information, including location data. Wireless carriers have an obligation to take 

affmnative steps to verify law enforcement requests for customer information, and must further 

ensure they are the sole avenue for law enforcement to obtain that information. Federal law also 

permits the commercial disclosure of customer location data to third parties, but only with the 

consent of the customer. Securus does not take any of the steps required of carriers. 

SAC ANNI:.'X BU!LD!Nti U.S. COURTHOUSE 

105 f'!R ST 310 WEST 6TIJ ST SUITE20l . ROOM 118 

LA GRANDE. OR ?1!350 Mf:.f)rQRo, OR 91501 \541}962-7691 (541/855~5!22 

HTlTJ /WYDEN.SENATE. GOV 

f'RINTEO ON RECYCLI:O PAPER 

THE.,J.'\M!SON BUllDlNG l:JI NWHAV.ITI-IORNI::AVE sum:JQ? 

BEt\0, OR 9770l {541)330-91<12 

70713THST,SE 

SU!Tf!285 

SAlEM, OR 97301 

<50015894555 
121 


35951.059

It is incredibly troubling that Securus provides location data to the government at all-let alone 

that it does so without a verified court order or other legal process. This clear abuse is only 

possible because wireless carriers sell their customers' private information to companies 

claiming to have consumer consent without sufficiently verifying those claims. I am also asking 

the major wireless carriers to investigate their own practices and the obvious potential. for abuse. 

I have enclosed a copy of that letter. 

I ask that the FCC promptly investigate Securus, the wireless carriers' failure to maintain 

exclusive control over law enforcement access to their customers' location data, and also conduct 

a broad investigation into what demonstration of customer consent, if any, each wireless carrier 

requires from other companies before the carriers provide them with customer location 

information and other data. 

If you have any questions about this request, please contact Chris Soghoian in my office. 

Sincerely, 

United States Senator 
122 


35951.060

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!ongress of tbe Wntteb ~tates 

:U,ou~e of ~epn~entatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majmiiy (202)225--2927 

Mtnonty {202)225-3641 

August 9, 2018 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Chairman Pai: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Wednesday, July 25,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of the Federal 

Communications Commission." 

Pursuant lo the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional qu.estions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, August 23,2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Vi au, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology . 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
123 


35951.061

Federal Communications Commission 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

Washington, D.C.20554 

Office of the Director 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

August 31,2018 

Subconunittee on Conununications and Technology 

Conunittee on Energy and Conunerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

Enclosed please find responses to Questions for the Record submitted for Chairman Ajit 

Pai regarding his appearance before the Subconunittee on Communications and Technology on 

July 25, 2018, at the hearing entitled "Oversight ofthe Federal Conununications Conunission." 

If you have further questions, please contact me at (202) 418-2242. 

Sincerely, 

Director 

~ 
124 


35951.062

Attachment-Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

I. Our colleague Congressman Tom Cole, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Labor, HHS, and Education, sent you a letter recently asking for your assurance that 

transitioning C-Band frequencies for wireless services would not degrade or impair public 

radio's programming distribution and public safety frmction. 

As you know, public radio relies on C-Band frequencies to distribute 450,000 hours of 

programming annually, 80 percent of which is live, to 42 million Americans each weekincluding in rural and remote areas where citizens rely on their local public radio station 

because there are few or no alternative sources of news and emergency information. Will 

you please provide Congressman Cole and our Committee with your plan to protect public 

radio's satellite-based programming distribution and public safety activities while making 

more intensive use of the band? 

Response: I agree with you on the importance of protecting broadcast and cable earth 

stations as we increase terrestrial use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, commonly called the C-band. 

At this time, the Commission is collecting data from incumbent earth stations and public 

radio stations in order to have an accurate picture of how the spectrum is currently being 

used. Without this information, we will have no way to protect public broadcasters that 

currently use earth stations to access programming. Because we have not yet collected all the 

information we need, we have not yet decided on a specific plan to protect public radio's 

satellite-based programming distribution and public safety activities, but please be assured 

that protecting these functions is a priority for us as we make more intensive use of the band. 

2. Since the oversight hearing, you announced a circulation order to extend the Mobility Fund 

Phase II challenge process by an additional 90 days. With $4.53 billion at stake to support 

4G LTE service in unserved areas, how can you assure the Committee the extended 

challenge process will be sufficient to update the map with more reliable data to determine 

eligible areas? 

Response: As you know, the Commission's legacy support for mobile services has been 

poorly targeted. All too often, it has supported buildout in areas where private capital has 

already invested and provided duplicative support to more than one carrier in the same area, 

while leaving states like Oregon with less funding than they need to ensure universal service. 

The Mobility Fund Phase II auction will redirect funding to unserved areas-like Eastern 

Oregon-helping us fulfill our goal to bring digital opportunity to all Americans. I am 

pleased that the Commission voted recently to extend the challenge process for an additional 

90 days. Based on the record, this additional 90 days should ensure that stakeholders have 

adequate time to challenge the maps submitted by mobile providers while ensuring that we're 

able to move forward with the auction in a timely manner. 
125 


35951.063

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

1. Chairman Pai: I understand the FCC has taken a number of actions to stop unwanted calls 

from reaching consumers and is looking into this issue through a variety of pending 

rulemakings. This is another example of the FCC and FTC working together, and I 

commend all of you for that. Can you give us an update on when we might see additional 

steps taken from the rulemakings that are currently pending before the FCC? 

Response: Unwanted robocalls are consumers' top complaint to the FCC, and we have 

accordingly made combating illegal robocalls our top consumer protection priority. We have 

aggressively enforced the TCPA as well as the Truth in Caller ID Act, leveling $120 million 

of fines and proposing more than $82 million in fines, respectively, against two robocallers 

who engaged in illegal spoofing on a massive scale. We have authorized carriers to stop 

certain robocalls at the source while we pursue the creation of a reassigned numbers database 

and a robust call-authentication framework. And we have been working with our colleagues 

at the Federal Trade Commission, hosting a policy forum in March and a tech expo in April. 

We will continue our work this fall to combat unwanted roboca!ls. We are currently studying 

the record in response to our open rulemakings regarding a reassigned numbers database and 

additional opportunities for carriers to block illegal robocalls. In addition, we are closing 

loopholes in our rules that allow robocallers to profit through regulatory arbitrage (e.g., with 

toll-free calls), and we are working with carriers to implement a call-authentication 

framework by next year so that consumers can once again trust Caller ID. Finally, we are 

studying the record in response to the March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down much of the agency's 

2015 interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. I look forward to working 

with you and my colleagues to continue our crackdown on what former Senator Fritz 

Hollings once rightfully deemed the "scourge of civilization." 

2 
126 


35951.064

The Honorable Jobn Shimkus 

I. I understand that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners recently 

passed a resolution raising concerns regarding the implementation of the National Verifier 

and the absence of Application Programming Interfaces (APis) that allow for automated 

interaction between consumers, carriers and the National Verifier when consumers are 

attempting to enroll in Lifeline with carriers. NARUC is concerned that the absence of these 

APis will make it unnecessarily difficult for eligible consumers to enroll. I understand you 

also have a petition before you asking the FCC to address this. I also understand that the 

National Lifeline Accountability Database already uses similar APis. Are you are 

reconsidering reinstating APis as part of the National Verifier and whether they should be 

part of the design, and if so, will you complete any decision-making before "hard launch" of 

the National Verifier? 

Response: As you know, the Commission created the National Verifier in response to 

widespread waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program, with the goal of eliminating the 

role of carriers in verifying the eligibility of consumers. A carrier API could give the very 

companies that have previously abused the Lifeline program direct access to the National 

Verifier. In light of the $137 million in abuse that the Government Accountability Office 

discovered in the Lifeline program last year, we must be careful in designing any carrier API 

to mitigate the ability of unscrupulous carriers to evade the screening role of the National 

Verifier. 

As such, we have not made a final decision on whether to include a carrier API in the 

National Verifier. We continue to study the National Verifier's functioning to determine 

whether one is necessary and whether one can be designed without undermining the National 

Verifier's work of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in this important program. In the 

meantime, carriers are able to work with consumers in person using the National Verifier's 

service provider portal. 

3 
127 


35951.065

The Honorable Robert E. Latta 

1. What steps have you taken to reduce regulatory burdens for small entities, and what do you 

have planned for the future? 

Response: Federal regulations have a disproportionate effect on small businesses. This is 

unfortunate in several respects: small businesses are often the linchpin of a more competitive 

marketplace or are critical to providing access in the first place, and they simply don't have 

the resources of their larger competitors to comply with complex regulatory schemes. 

Accordingly, the FCC has taken numerous actions to reduce regulatory burdens on small 

entities. For example, last year we eliminated the onerous reporting requirements imposed 

by the last Administration on small Internet service providers in the Title !I Order, and then 

later eliminated the regulatory overhang of that same order. Also last year, we eliminated 

unnecessary reporting burdens on small providers participating in our universal service highcost programs. In June of this year, we eliminated a rule that penalized small rural carriers 

with extra Universal Service fees whenever they offered broadband. The Commission also 

hosted a workshop to help small business entrepreneurs navigate corporate supplier diversity 

programs. And in August, we launched an incubator program in the radio industry where an 

established broadcaster will provide financial and operational support, including training and 

mentoring, to a new or small broadcaster. 

And we're not finished yet. For example, we have proposed to eliminate many of the legacy 

burdens for small, model-based carriers serving businesses in rural America-burdens that 

unnecessarily divert funding away from build-out of broadband toward paperwork. I look 

forward to working with you and my colleagues to continue this work. 

2. I have over 20 telecommunications companies operating in my district. The majority are 

small businesses in rural areas that are recipients ofUSF. I'm concerned that the uncertainty 

of budget controls in the USF High-Cost program is stifling investment and preventing rural 

Americans from getting the broadband they deserve. I know the Commission has taken steps 

to address USF budget shortfalls in some of the programs, but the High-Cost program hasn't 

had a recent recalibrated budget, or an inflationary factor applied to it. Are you considering 

addressing the concerns with the High-Cost program in a manner similar to how the FCC has 

addressed the other USF programs? 

Response: I agree with you that the 2016 Rate-of-Return Reform Order has not lived up to 

its promise-and some decisions of the prior Administration like the budget control 

mechanism require revisiting. That's why I led my colleagues earlier this year to increase 

funding for small carriers and to propose changes to that prior order to respond to its many 

shortcomings. Later this year, I aim to circulate an order that will boost funding for small 

companies deploying broadband to rural America, while considering other reforms to ensure 

that money is spent wisely, and funding is more predictable going forward. 

4 
128 


35951.066

The Honorable Brett Guthrie 

l. When it comes to describing the Commission's work within global fora such as the ITU or 

others, what role do you believe the Commission should play as an influential voice on 

spectrum policy and connectivity? This could be in relation to other U.S. agencies and 

foreign policy makers or relative to domestic and foreign stakeholders. 

Response: The FCC should play a leading role on spectrum policy and connectivity both 

here at home and abroad-and it does. We are working within the U.S. to establish a policy 

environment that encourages the development and deployment of new technologies and highspeed networks for all consumers. And internationally, we are working to harmonize 

spectrum allocations for next generation terrestrial mobile and satellite services while 

focusing on connectivity-the core of ITU's mission-to help promote more innovation and 

greater international unity. To build support for our positions in the ITU, we engage 

extensively on a bilateral and regional basis-sharing regulatory best practices and 

encouraging innovative spectrum policies. I personally have participated in numerous 

multilateral and bilateral meetings and have aggressively promoted various American 

positions on communications policy with regional representatives like Europe's BEREC and 

individual countries as varied as the Bahamas and Bahrain. 

5 
129 


35951.067

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis 

1. The Final National Verifier Plan reviewed by the Commission and released by the Universal 

Service Administration Company (USAC) in January 2017 included plans to design 

application programming interfaces (APls) both between the National Verifier and state 

eligibility databases, and between the service providers and the National Verifier to facilitate 

modern machine-to-machine interaction necessary to ensure efficient and effective 

enrollment processes for eligible Lifeline subscribers. 

How does the Commission expect these two verification systems to operate with each-other 

in order to verify an eligible Lifeline applicant? For example, will the applicant be tasked 

with providing proof of state eligibility to the service provider upon approval (siloed 

interfaces) or will the two verification systems interact autonomously to prove who a 

particular applicant is and their eligibility? 

Response: With the National Verifier, carriers do not verify subscriber eligibility and do not 

retain eligibility documents. The National Verifier is designed to work in an integrated 

fashion with other databases and has two online methods for obtaining a subscriber eligibility 

determination: a carrier portal (used when the carrier representative is present with the 

consumer) and the consumer online portal (used when the consumer is applying without inperson carrier assistance). Consumers also have the option of mailing in a paper application 

along with their supporting eligibility documents. For consumers who are enrolled through 

the carrier portal, carriers have immediate access to their customer information and eligibility 

determination in the National Verifier system. For consumers who are enrolled in the 

consumer portal or via a paper application, the consumer must first select a specific carrier 

and give that carrier his information and National Verifier number in order for the carrier to 

access that consumer's information and eligibility determination in the National Verifier 

system. Carriers will still need to enter and maintain consumer records separately in their 

customer relationship management system. 

2. As a follow up to your testimony during the hearing on the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act (TCPA), does the FCC need any additional authority from Congress in order to 

adequately address issues related to TCPA and robocalls that could enhance your ability to 

fight bad actors? 

Response: We have found that unlawful robocalling and unlawful spoofing tend to go handin-hand. The Truth-in-Caller-ID Act, which governs spoofing violations, does not require 

the Commission to first issue a citation against non-carriers; we can go directly to a Notice of 

Apparent Liability. It also provides a two-year statute oflimitations. We would welcome 

legislation that eliminates the citation requirement and provides for a two-year statute of 

limitations for TCP A actions as well, allowing us to pursue robocalling and spoofing 

violations in a more coordinated manner. 

6 
130 


35951.068

The Honorable Bill Johnson 

1. Earlier this year, 130 members of the House, including many members of this Subcommittee, 

sent a letter thanking the FCC for providing additional resources in the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) High-Cost Program for areas served by smaller rural broadband providers. 

While we are very thankful that all of you at the FCC helped to address the USF budget 

shortfalls in the last fiscal year, a new budget cut took effect last month that will reduce USF 

support on average by 15.5o/o-Or about $230 million-over the next 12 months. This 

budget control keeps growing every year, taking more and more USF support away from 

companies. Companies that elected model USF support are also not able to deliver on what 

they had hoped to due to funding shortfalls. 

It's my understanding that your agency is taking a fresh look at these budget concerns and 

trying to address sufficiency in the program. 

a. After having made significant positive changes to the budget of the Rural Health Care 

Program recently, the High-Cost Program is the only USF program without a recently 

recalibrated budget or an inflationary factor applied to it. Are you considering addressing 

the concerns with the High-Cost Program in a manner similar to how the FCC has 

addressed the other USF programs? 

Response: I agree with you that the 2016 Rate-of Return Reform Order has not lived up 

to its promise-and some decisions of the prior Administration like the budget control 

mechanism require revisiting. That's why I led my colleagues earlier this year to 

increase funding for small carriers and to propose changes to that prior order to respond 

to its many shortcomings. Later this year, I aim to circulate an order that will boost 

funding for small companies deploying broadband to rural America, while considering 

other reforms to ensure that money is spent wisely, and funding is more predictable going 

forward. 

b. Would any steps you take aim to address sufficiency concerns and provide more support 

both for those small carriers that adopted model support as well as those that are being hit 

by the 15% budget control right now? 

Response: Yes. 

c. Can you commit to a vote by the end of this year to address these concerns? 

Response: I commit to circulate an order to my colleagues addressing these concerns 

later this year. 

7 
131 


35951.069

The Honorable Bill Flores 

1. The record in the 6 GHz Notice of Inquiry includes studies that show potential interference 

from unlicensed operations to mission critical communications systems, and there are 

concerns regarding mitigation strategies to reduce the potential for interference. If the FCC 

does expand the 6 GHz band to include unlicensed operations, how does the FCC plan to 

develop technical rules and implement mitigation capabilities to protect incumbent mission 

critical communications against interference? 

Response: The record developed by the Mid-Band NO! reflects how greater unlicensed use 

in the 6 GHz range could facilitate the introduction of 50 services and help close the digital 

divide. A fundamental principle of unlicensed spectrum policy is that operations may not 

cause harmful interference to licensed services. I anticipate that the Commission's 6 GHz 

rulemaking process will foster proposals that protect incumbent services while allowing more 

intensive use of the band. Our staff will review that record and ensure that we can 

adequately protect existing users before proceeding to a final rule. 

8 
132 


35951.070

The Honorable Susan W. Brooks 

1. Bridging the digital divide in rural areas remains a challenge, particularly regarding wireless 

connectivity. Since deployments by Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licensees and 

leasing partnerships with small wireless operator have been successful in delivering wireless 

broadband services in hundreds of rural communities, do you see a feasible opportunity to 

extend this successful model to areas where EBS has not been licensed before considering 

auctions? 

Response: In May, the Commission unanimously voted to begin a proceeding that proposes 

to allow more efficient and effective use of the EBS band. The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking asks about giving existing EBS licensees, along with other educational entities 

and rural Tribal communities, the chance to obtain new local priority licenses before 

auctioning off the remaining white spaces. Our proposals also seek to give current users 

more flexibility, such as standardizing license areas and eliminating outdated restrictions on 

lease terms and how the spectrum is used. I look forward to reviewing the record and am 

hopeful that in the end we will be able to make more spectrum available for high-speed 

wireless broadband. 

2. I introduced H.R. 5329, the Poison Control Center (PCC) Network Enhancement Act, which 

will help improve Americans' access to poison control center services during an emergency. 

I'm proud that this bill was packaged into H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and 

Communities Act, however there is one provision aimed at improving call routing accuracy 

for PCCs we pulled from the bill, so we could further explore how to best go about 

addressing the issue. The provision would have: 

• Requested enhanced communications capabilities such as texting be established 

• Requested the FCC work with HHS to ensure calls to the 1-800 number are properly 

routed 

• Directed HHS to implement call routing based on a caller's actual location to ensure 

timely responses 

Currently, calls to the poison control center's 1-800 number are routed based on the area 

code associated with the phone number of the caller. For example, if I (Susan Brooks) am in 

Washington, D.C. and call the poison control center's 1-800 number with my personal phone 

(Indiana area code 317), I would be connected to the center in Indiana, rather than a center 

closer to my actual location in Washington, D.C. This could present a problem in situations 

where a caller is in an area with a specific poisoning danger that might not be as well known 

to the poison control center staff in another location. PCCs standardize training across all 

regions, but it is still practical to assume that certain region's will be more familiar with 

certain situations. For example, if you visit California and are bitten by a rattle snake and call 

the poison control center's 1-800 number, you would be directed to the poison control center 

in Indiana, which is likely not as well equipped with knowledge and experience regarding the 

treatment of a rattlesnake bite as someone in a California location. In this instance, as with 

most poisoning situations, timing is critical. It is important that the caller be directed as 

quickly as possible to the poison control center closest to where they are currently located. 

9 
133 


35951.071

a. Are you aware of this issue with call routing accuracy with regard to PCCs? 

Response: Yes, the Commission is aware of this issue with call routing from wireless 

phones, both in the context of Enhanced 911 calling and also for calls to the PCC toll free 

number and other emergency numbers. In addition, we are aware of commercial 

solutions available in the toll free services marketplace that can provide call routing 

based on the rough location of a wireless caller. Such capability is available via the 

Responsible Organization (RespOrg) that manages the toll free number for the toll free 

subscriber. 

b. Working on this issue made me wonder what we can learn from other emergency lines, 

like the Suicide Hotline and Veterans Crisis Lines to improve 9-1-1 and vice versa. Can 

you elaborate on what some of these potential similarities and learning opportunities 

might look like, and what, if any, role the FCC could play? 

Response: The Commission's success in establishing location-based call routing with 

Enhanced 911 has resulted in an ecosphere of location-based technologies and providers, 

and the extension of such capabilities beyond 911 calling into other wireless calling and 

related applications, such as commercial toll free location-based calling services 

referenced above. I believe the Commission's continuing efforts in this area may 

continue to foster benefit to wireless usage beyond 911 systems. For example, earlier this 

year, the Commission issued a Notice oflnquiry on location-based routing for 911 calls, 

seeking industry and public input on reducing delays in and improving such functionality. 

3. How should we ensure that we do not use universal service funding to overbuild an existing 

broadband provider when that existing provider serves, or has plans to serve, a significant 

number of, but not all, locations in a census block? 

Response: The Commission is continuing to refine its universal service programs to more 

precisely target support. For example, participants in the Connect America Fund must report 

the precise geolocation of the locations they build out using federal funding. This belowcensus-block granularity will enable the Commission to more closely track compliance with 

our rules and ensure that overbuilding even within a census block does not occur. 

4. How should we ensure that universal service funding is not used by a recipient to enter an 

adjacent area that is already served? 

Response: Recipients of Connect America Fund support are prohibited from using that 

support anywhere outside of their eligible areas. In addition, recipients must submit the 

precise geolocation of the locations served using such funding to USAC for review and 

potential auditing. 

a. Would you consider an audit of current universal service spending to review this issue? 

Response: USAC regularly reviews the submissions of carriers and conducts risk-based 

audits to ensure program compliance. 

10 
134 


35951.072

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

1. I'm concerned that the only time Democratic Members seem to get responses from you or the 

FCC to our oversight letters is either when we send public follow-up letters, or shortly before 

you're scheduled to testify before the Committee. Moreover, your responses often are 

incomplete and, further, the answers you do provide are so general and lacking in specificity 

that they do not truly satisfy the questions raised. This is particularly troubling given your 

commitment to Ranking Member Doyle and me at the beginning of this Congress to be 

responsive to both Democrats and Republicans. 

a. Going forward, will you commit to providing complete responses to both Republican and 

Democratic Members of this Committee within three weeks of receiving such inquiries? 

Response: I am happy to renew my commitment to respond to all congressional inquiries 

in a complete and timely manner. I have done so throughout my tenure. For example, 

when you wrote earlier this year asking about 26 letters written by Democratic members 

of the Committee, we had already responded to 21 of those letters-and I responded to 

the remaining five shortly thereafter. And as you know, each response requires an 

examination of different facts and circumstances that may require a substantial devotion 

of limited Commission resources. 

Under my leadership, the Commission has been more transparent than ever before. I 

have responded to 389 letters over the last twenty months. And for the first time, we 

have released the full texts of meeting items three weeks in advance, thus providing 

Congress and the American people the ability to see what the FCC is considering before 

the Commission votes. This level of transparency at the Commission is unprecedented, 

and I look forward to working with you to maintain this transparency in the months and 

years ahead. 

b. To the extent you need additional time on some aspect of an inquiry, will you commit to 

submitting a written response within three weeks of receiving such request explaining 

what information you cannot provide at that time, what steps are being taken to provide a 

complete response to the inquiry, and by when the complete response will be sent? 

Response: As I explain in the response to the question above, each letter I receive 

contains a unique set of facts and receives the singular attention that it deserves. 

Nonetheless I am happy to reiterate my commitment to respond to all congressional 

inquiries in a complete and timely marmer. 

11 
135 


35951.073

The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

1. Following FCC Auction 97 for A WS-3, which raised more than $44 billion in auction 

proceeds, some committee Democrats, including myself, sent your agency a letter in June 

2015, asking you to curb instances of"gaming" of the Designated Entity (DE) program. In 

our letter, we'd also offered some recommendations to make smart reforms to the FCC's 

designated entity and other small business-related rules and policies. Our letter was 

prompted largely by public disclosures that DISH Network had heavily financed and could 

potentially exert unauthorized control over these DEs and licenses. 

I understand though, that in late August 2017, the DC Circuit remanded the fCC's decision 

to deny bidding credits to some of the winning DEs back to your agency. The DC Circuit 

agreed with the DE petitioners that in the past, the FCC had allowed small companies a 

chance to modify their contractual agreements with large investors to gain enough 

independence from those investors to satisfy the FCC. 

Judge Pillard, who wrote that case opinion stated, "the FCC's [rules and decisions] did not 

give [the Petitioners] clear notice" of which violations of its control rules were irreparable. 

(Op. at 45). Judge Pillard wrote further, "Where, as here, hundreds of millions of dollars are 

at stake, regulated parties need fair notice of the circumstances in which a finding of de facto 

control will and will not be subject to an opportunity to attempt to negotiate a cure." (Op. at 

45) The Circuit Court concluded "that an opportunity for [the) petitioner to renegotiate their 

agreements with DISH provides. the appropriate remedy." (Op. at 46). 

The appeal holds very important implications for the future inclusion of designated entities 

and small businesses who wish to participate in spectrum auctions. Invariably, these bidders 

will need to seek out capital and execute financing and operations agreements that pass 

Commission muster. Without more clear guidance from the Commission, consistent with the 

DC Circuit's remand, it is highly probable that designated entities and small businesses will 

continue to be shut out from the wireless marketplace. 

a. What is the status of the remand and when will the FCC act consistently with the DC 

Circuit opinion? 

Response: In January 2018, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued the Order 

on Remand (DA 18-70), which put in place a process to afford Northstar and SNR 

Wireless an opportunity to cure consistent with the D.C. Circuit opinion. On July 12, 

2018, the Commission affirmed that order with one minor modification (FCC 18-98). 

This process remains ongoing. 

b. Have the petitioners in that appeal attempted to renegotiate with DISH Network and 

submitted those renegotiated terms to the FCC? 

Response: Northstar and SNR Wireless have renegotiated their agreements with DISH 

and submitted the new agreements to the FCC on June 8, 2018. 

c. Provided that a satisfactory cure with respect to the petitioners is achievable, how will the 

Commission resolve the matters of the disputed Auction 97 licenses and the denied 

bidding credits? 

12 
136 


35951.074

Response: The Order on Remand established a process for petitioners and parties of 

record to provide input to the Commission on these issues. That process contemplates 

the possibility of additional filings by Northstar and SNR Wireless, currently due on 

September 6, 2018, with an opportunity by other parties of record to file responsive 

comments 30 days thereafter. Commission staff will evaluate the record established 

through this process and, once it is complete, make recommendations to the Commission 

about how to proceed. 

2. It has come to my attention that the Commission recently notified at least two 600 MHZ 

auction winners of de facto control concerns and afforded them an opportunity to cure. 

a. Please identify all DE bidders participating in the A WS-3 and 600 MHz auctions that 

were afforded opportunities to cure de facto control issues. 

Response: The Broadband Division has identified two DE bidders raising control issues 

(although not necessarily issues of de facto control)--Biuewater Wireless II, L.P. and 

Omega Wireless, LLC-and asked each to provide written explanations as to how 

specific provisions in their agreements were consistent with their eligibility for a small 

business bidding credit. In response, both applicants chose to revise their agreements. 

b. Do all DEs applying for FCC licenses and bidding credits have similar opportunities to 

cure potential de facto control issues consistent with the DC Circuit's ruling? 

Response: DEs who applied for Commission licenses and bidding credits before the D.C. 

Circuit's ruling will receive similar opportunities to cure control issues. For upcoming 

Auctions 101 and 102, however, the Commission informed applicants that they "should 

not expect to receive any opportunities to revise their ownership structure after the filing 

of their short- and long-form applications, including making revisions to their agreements 

or other arrangements with interest holders, lenders, or others in order to address 

potential concerns relating to compliance with the designated entity bidding credit 

requirements." See FCC 18-109. 

c. Do these opportunities to cure involve back-and-forth discussions or meetings between 

the FCC and the DEs? 

Response: Neither the court decision nor the Commission's rules and policies require the 

Commission to hold "responsive, back-and-forth discussions" with DEs, especially given 

the prohibitions applicable to a restricted proceeding. Instead, the Commission, like the 

court, expects that an opportunity to cure may require negotiations between DEs and 

those who have invested in them-negotiations common among business entities that 

have entered into contractual arrangements. The Commission's role is simply to 

determine whether a DE has complied with the rules laid out for bidding credits, not to 

essentially negotiate against itself by allowing variances with an established decision by 

the agency (here, the denial of bidding credits to certain entities) that has already been 

upheld by the court as reasonable. 

d. Please identify which DEs have received or been denied licenses and/or bidding credits 

and detail what specific steps that the Commission took on its own or pursuant to 

13 
137 


35951.075

delegated authority to notify these DEs about these issues or to guide them on how to 

cure those issues. 

Response: To date, no 600 MHz applicants have been denied any licenses or bidding 

credits for which they applied. Attached is a list of the applicants that have been granted 

600 Ml-Iz licenses as of the date of this letter; applicants that received Small Business or 

Rural Service Provider bidding credits arc identified on this list. 

With respect to communicating with 600 MI!z DE applicants about their eligibility for 

bidding credits, the Broadband Division sent two letters, which are attached, asking 

Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. and Omega Wireless, LLC to provide written explanations as 

to how specific provisions in their agreements were consistent with their eligibility for a 

small business bidding credit. In response, both applicants chose to revise their 

agreements. 

e. Will the Commission be taking any further actions under your Chairmanship to increase 

designated entity and small business ownership and participation through spectrum 

auctions in the communications and IT sectors? 

Response: Pursuant to Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, the Commission 

regularly considers in the context of designing each of its spectrum auctions how to 

promote the dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including but 

not limited to, through use of bidding credits. We are providing eligible small business 

and rural service providers the opportunity to seck bidding credits in upcoming Auctions 

101 and 102, which should promote small business participation. 

14 
138 


35951.076

The Honorable Debbie Dingell 

1. Given the Congressional and public attention questioning the FCC's reported DDoS attack, 

what did you do to verify whether the DDoS attack occurred and what steps did you take to 

address the alleged attack? Please provide all correspondence and other documentation 

between you and your staff that reflect your engagement on the issue. 

Response: The Office ofinspector General Report details some of the steps we took to 

verify the determination that David Bray, the then-CIO, made. For example, the 

Commission's Chief of Staff asked the then-CIO if he was confident that the incident wasn't 

caused by a number of individuals "attempting to comment at the same time ... but rather 

some external folks deliberately trying to tie-up the server." In response to this direct inquiry, 

the former CIO told him: "Yes, we're 99.9% confident this was external folks deliberately 

trying to tie-up the server to prevent others from commenting and/or create a spectacle." 

Moreover, in the days and weeks following the incident, my office had several conversations 

with the then-CIO and other Commission IT personnel to better understand what had 

happened, help answer questions regarding what had happened, and take steps to keep ECFS 

running. 

In terms of addressing the situation, following the incident the Commission took several 

steps to ensure that ECFS remained operational. Career FCC IT personnel have explained to 

my office that they focused on three key areas with respect to ECFS: content delivery, system 

scaling, and application optimization. 

For content delivery, FCC IT personnel improved caching both internally, within the ECFS 

system, and externally, leveraging our Content Delivery Network provider. Caching 

improves content delivery to the end user while reducing the load on ECFS. 

With respect to system scaling, FCC IT personnel enhanced ECFS both vertically (using 

"larger" instances with more memory and CPU capacity) and horizontally (adding additional 

instances to the various clusters) to deal with the increased volume of requests. The scaling 

of the various components ofECFS was initially done manually but was later automated to 

the extent possible. 

Finally, FCC IT personnel also optimized the ECFS application both in terms of data access 

and application functions. The data queries were optimized as the dataset increased and better 

indexing strategies were implemented to improve retrieval from the data store-especially 

for queries producing large return sets. The application functions were tested and optimized 

to improve performance to the end user. 

2. When did you personally suspect that there was no May 7th DDoS attack? 

Response: I initially assumed that the attack was not the result of a DDoS attack, but 

received a contrary opinion from the then-CIO (an opinion reinforced by IT staff on July 24, 

2017 during a meeting my office). I personally suspected the then-CIO's opinion was wrong 

on January 23,2018, when I learned that the Office of the Inspector General did not believe 

the then-CIO's representations were accurate. That suspicion was, as you know, confirmed 

in the OIG's report. 

15 
139 


35951.077

3. During the most recent FCC oversight hearing on July 25, 2018, when asked about providing 

the Committee with reports, requests, memoranda, and service logs related to the DDoS 

attack, you referenced the OIG and said you "would expect him to issue more information on 

this in the very near future." 

a. Were you aware of the findings of the IG's report at that time? 

Response: Yes. 

b. Prior to the OIG's report being released, were you ever advised by either the FCC's 

General Counsel or the OIG to not correct the public record and your misrepresentations 

to Congress that there had not been a cyber-attack during the net neutrality comment 

period? If so, were those advisories in writing and will you commit to sharing those with 

the Committee? 

Response: The OIG orally requested that we not discuss the investigation with anyone 

until it was complete in order not to jeopardize it (including the referral of facts involving 

the then-CIO's conduct to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution). 

16 
140 


35951.078

The Honorable Jerry McNerney 

1. During the oversight hearing, I asked you about VPNFilter-Russian-linked mal ware that 

can be used to steal users' information, exploit devices, and block network traffic. I noted 

that dozens of router models have been identified as susceptible to VPNFilter, and yet many 

consumers know nothing about it. While some consumers might be aware of it, they have 

been left wondering if their router is affected and what steps they should take to protect 

themselves from potential threats. Since your responses to my questions regarding this 

matter were not clear, I wanted to give you another opportunity to answer them. 

a. What is the FCC doing to make sure ISPs inform customers about VPNFilter malware, 

how to update their routers, and whether their routers have been compromised? Please 

specify all actions the FCC has taken to date and any steps the FCC plans to take going 

forward. 

Response: When consumers file informal consumer complaints with the Commission 

about network and end user security concerns relating to a specific provider, we forward 

their concerns to the provider for investigation and response pursuant to our informal 

complaint process. We also refer consumers to the Federal Trade Commission, which 

has helpful information and resources regarding a variety of online security issues on its 

website. We are currently exploring additional avenues for consumer outreach and 

education. 

b. Is the FCC doing anything at all to help make consumers aware of how to protect 

themselves against their routers being infected by malware? Please specify all actions the 

FCC has taken to date since you became Chairman and any steps the FCC plans to take 

going forward. 

Response: Please see response to I.a. above. 

2. You recently announced that you will be making changes to the FCC's Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) in an effort to address fake comments. You have also noted that if 

your reprogramming request is approved by the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees, the FCC will incorporate CAPTCHA or a similar mechanism to prevent bots 

from submitting comments. 

a. In addition to your plans to incorporate CAPTCHA or a similar mechanism, can you 

provide us with details about what else you plan to do to combat fake comments and the 

misuse of Americans' identities? 

Response: We intend to seek a broad range of input before making final decisions with 

respect to how ECFS will be redesigned, so I am not able to provide such details at this 

time. 

b. Are there any steps you can take now to prevent fake comments from being filed in 

matters currently pending before the Commission? 

17 
141 


35951.079

Response: The current system cannot validate the user identity, which is why we are 

focused on redesigning the ECFS system rather than modifying the existing system. 

c. Following the reprogramming request's approval, how quickly can you get started? 

Response: The Commission is moving forward with the procurement steps for this 

project and expects that the Discovery/Requirements phase of the ECFS Replacement 

project will start in the first quarter ofFY 2019. 

d. How long do you expect the process to take? 

Response: Upon completion of the procurement steps and the Discovery/Requirements 

phase of the ECFS Replacement project, we will have a more accurate timeline for ECFS 

development. The estimated development time is six to nine months. 

e. Will you commit to giving me and the quarterly briefings on the FCC's actions to address 

fake comments, prevent identity theft, and restore the public's trust in the ECFS? 

Response: The Commission will commit to providing quarterly briefings on ECFS 

development to Congress. 

3. RAY BAUM's Act of2018, which was signed into law as part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of2018, included my bill, the Improving Broadband Access for Veterans 

Act. Pursuant to this law, the FCC is required to produce a report examining the current state 

of veterans' access to broadband and what can be done to increase access, with a focus on 

low-income veterans and veterans residing in rural areas. In preparing this report, the FCC is 

to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment. The report must be 

completed by March 23, 2019 and include findings and recommendations for Congress. 

Veterans, who fight tirelessly to protect our country, face many challenges when they return 

home. Not having internet access makes what is already an incredibly difficult transition 

process to civilian life even harder. It is critical that we move quickly to close the digital 

divide for veterans. 

a. Has the Commission started the process for producing this report? 

Response: Yes. Commission staff are in the process of preparing the Public Notice for 

this report. 

In the meantime, the FCC is working to promote broadband-enabled access and services 

to veterans. For example, I have delegated to Commissioner Carr the responsibility of 

spearheading a pilot program for telehealth connectivity, with a focus on increasing 

access for low-income families and veterans. In addition, I have personally visited three 

facilities run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-in Lecanto, Florida; 

Boise, Idaho; and Salt Lake City, Utah-to better understand how broadband can 

improve veterans' health through services like online mental health consultations. I have 

also spoken repeatedly to VA leadership about collaborating to broaden the availability of 

telemedicine services to those who have served in our armed forces. 

18 
142 


35951.080

b. On what date do you expect that the Commission will begin to seek public comment for 

this report? 

Response: We plan to release the Public Notice in the fall. 

c. Will you commit that by November I, 2018, you will provide my office with a briefing 

on the status of the report? 

Response: Yes. The Commission's Office of Legislative Affairs will coordinate with 

your staff to schedule a briefing on the status of the report. 

19 
143 


35951.081

Thomas Gutierrez 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Broadband Division 

445 12th Street, S.W., Suite 3-C123 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

May 21, 2018 

Lukas, LaFuria, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP 

8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1200 

Tysons, VA 22102 

Dear Mr. Gutierrez: 

Re: Bluewater Wireless ll, L.P. 

Application for 600 MHz Licenses/ Auction I 002 

File No. 0007754927 

The Broadband Division (Division) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) is 

processing the application of Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. (hereinafter "Applicant") for sixty-six 600 MHz 

Band licenses pursuant to its winning bids in Auction 10021 under FCC File No. 0007754927 

(Application).2 In its Application, Applicant seeks a 25% Small Business Designated Entity (SB DE) 

bidding credit in the amount of$150,000,000.3 

To establish its eligibility for the SB DE bidding credit, Applicant asserts that Charles C. 

Townsend, the sole owner and president of the Applicant's General Partner (GP), Bluewater Wireless 

Management Company, has both de jure and de facto control of the Applicant.4 With reference to the 

reviewed Bluewater Wireless, II, L.P. Agreement of Limited Partnership, dated December 1, 2015 

(Agreement), filed with the Application, please provide by June 20, 2018 a written explanation as to how 

the specific provisions of that Agreement identified in Appendix A, both individually and in the 

aggregate, are consistent with this assertion. If your explanation leads Applicant to revise the Agreement, 

please include a redline of any changes when you file your explanation. All responses to this letter should 

be filed as part of the Application in ULS. In addition, please also send a courtesy copy of your filing 

addressed to Madelaine Maior at madelaine.maior@fcc.gov. 

1 Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice: The Broadcast Television Incentive Auction 

Closes; Reverse Auction and Forward Auction Results Announced; Final Television Band Channel Assignments 

Announced; Post-Auction Deadlines Announced, Public Notice, 32 FCC Red 2786 (2017) (Auction 1002 Closing 

Public Notice). 

2 Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. Long-Form Application, FCC Form 60 l, ULS File No. 0007754927 (filed Apr. 25, 

2017, last amended July 25, 20 17) (Application); Bluewater Wireless II, L.P., FCC Ownership Disclosure 

Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services, FCC Form 602, File No. 0007859165 (filed July 19, 

2017). 

'Auction 1002 Closing Public Notice, 32 FCC Red at 2875, Appx. B. 

'See Application, Exhibit C- Small Business Bidding Credit. 
144 


35951.082

Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. May 21,2018 

Page 2 of2 

Attachment: Appendix A 

Sincerely, 

Bt~ k. ~"vv~ / . cO 

Blaise A. Scinto rJb 

Chief, Broadband Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
145 


35951.083

APPENDIX A 

1. The Agreement authorizes the GP to "manage the Partnership business ... [and] perform all 

contracts and undertakings deem[ ed] necessary or advisable or incidental to ... the Partnership," 

but only insofar as "all such acts and undertakings are contemplated by the Reviewed Budget" as 

submitted to the Advisory Board.1 

2. The LPs and the Advisory Board must approve the following actions taken by the GP on behalf 

of the Partnership even if contemplated in a Reviewed Budget. For example: 

(a) The GP's ability "to borrow money ... in furtherance of any and all purposes of the 

Partnership, "2 must be both contemplated in the Reviewed Budget' and approved by the 

Advisory Board.4 

(b) The Applicant may acquire and/or dispose of certain property only if such transactions are 

contemplated in the Reviewed Budget5 and the Advisory Board and the partners approve the 

transaction. 6 

(c) The GP may hire staff on behaif of the Partnership only if staff salaries and benefits are 

contemplated within the Reviewed Budget,' and the Advisory Board approves of"the annual 

compensation and benefits for senior management ofth.e Partnership."8 

(d) The GP-prepared budget is subject to Advisory Board approval if"aggregate expenditures 

proposed in the Reviewed Budget exceed by more than 20% the aggregate expenditures 

included in the immediately preceding Reviewed Budget."9 Given the limited scope of the 

1 Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. Long-Form Application, FCC Form 601, ULS File No. 0007754927 (filed Apr. 25, 

2017, last amended July 25, 2017), REDACTED Exhibit D -Agreement of Limited Partnership (Agreement)§§ 

3.0l{a), (e). See also Agreement§ 3.05(a)(i) ("Reviewed Budget"). It is unclear how the Reviewed Budget relates 

to the initial budget, and how the initial budget is prepared, reviewed, and approved. Please address these questions 

in your response. 

2 Agreement§ 3.01(e)(ii). 

3 Agreement§ 3.0l(e). 

4 Agreement§ 3.04(c)(i)(d). 

5 Agreement § 3.0 I ( e )(i). We note that sections of the Agreement use the terms "asset" and "property" 

interchangeably, and neither term is defmed in the Agreement. 

6 Agreement§§ 3.04(c)(i)(f)(Advisory Board must approve "material asset transfers and acquisitions"), 3.06(c) 

(Advisory Board approval required to "sell ... a material portion, all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets), 

4.0l(a)(i) (requiring the "Consent of the Partners" for "[t]he sale, transfer, lease or other conveyance of all or 

substantially all of the Partnership's property''). We note the term "material" is used to describe both a type of asset 

and a portion of the Partnership's assets but is not defmed in the Agreement. Further, the Agreement is unclear 

about whether the Advisory Board or the Partners must first approve a transaction disposing of all or substantially 

all of the Partnership's assets. Please address these questions in your response. 

7 Agreement§ 3.05(a)(i). 

8 Agreement§ 3.04(c)(i)(e). Notably, the Agreement provides that, after the Applicant no longer is subject to the 

Commission's Designated Entity rules, the Advisory Board must approve the annual budget and "any material 

amendments thereto." Agreement§§ 3.04(c)(i)(c), 3.05(b)(i). 

9 Agreement§ 3.05(a)(ii). 
146 


35951.084

Bluewater Wireless II, L.P. May 21,2018 

Appendix Page 2 of2 

initial budget, 10 and the likelihood that the business will progress beyond this initial stage, 

one or more subsequent budgets are likely to exceed the 20% limit that triggers the approval 

of the budget by the Advisory Board. Even though the Agreement provides that the 20% 

limit is "applicable only when the Partnership remains in the same phase of development of 

its business ... as reasonably detem1ined by the [GP],"11 the Agreement does not define 

"phase of development" for purposes of detem1ining when the GP must obtain Advisory 

Board approval of a budget. 

3. The Advisory Board has the unilateral authority to remove and replace the GP or force the sale or 

other disposition of the Partnership's assets if the Advisory Board determines that "[GP president, 

Charles Townsend] fails to devote ... such time as may be reasonably necessary for the proper 

performance of his duties and the General Partner's duties under this agreement."12 

10 The Agreement states that the Partners agree that the initial budget consists only of a monthly lliee for the 

GP (capped at thirteen months) and an agreement to cover the GP's expenses subject to a cap of . 

Agreement§ 4.02(b). 

11 Agreement§ 3.05(aXii). 

12 Agreement§ 3.04(cXii). See a!so Agreement§ 3.01(!). The Agreement does not appear to defme what is 

''reasonably necessary" or to place any limits on the Advisory Board's determination of whether this standard is met. 

Please address these questions in your response. 
147 


35951.085

Tom W. Davidson 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Broadband Division 

445 12th Street, S.W., Suite 3-Cl23 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

June 4, 2018 

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Field, LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Mr. Davidson: 

Re: Omega Wireless, LLC 

Application for 600 MHz Licenses/ Auction 1002 

File No. 0007754732 

The Broadband Division (Division) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) is 

processing the application of Omega Wireless, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant") for one-hundred and 

nineteen 600 MHz Band licenses pursuant to its winning bids in Auction I 0021 under FCC File No. 

0007754732 (Application).2 In its Application, Applicant seeks a 25% Small Business Designated Entity 

(SB DE) bidding credit in the amount of$32,234,183.3 

To establish its eligibility for the SB DE bidding credit, Applicant asserts that the Controlling 

Members of the LLC4 and members of the LLC's Board ofManagers5 have both de jure and de facto 

control of the Applicant. With reference to the reviewed Omega Wireless, LLC Amended and Restated 

Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated April 6, 2016 (Agreement) filed with the Application, 

please provide by July 9, 2018 a written explanation as to how the specific provisions of that Agreement 

identified in Appendix A, both individually and in the aggregate, are consistent with this assertion. If 

your explanation leads the Applicant to revise the Agreement, please include a redline of any changes 

when you file your explanation. All responses to this letter should be filed as part of the Application. In 

addition, please also send a courtesy copy of your filing addressed to Madelaine Maior at 

madelaine.maior@fcc.gov. 

1 Jncentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice: The Broadcast Television Incentive Auction 

Closes; Reverse Auction and Forward Auction Results Announced; Final Television Band Channel Assignments 

Announced; Post-Auction Deadlines Announced, Public Notice, 32 FCC Red 2786 (2017) (Auction 1002 Closing 

Public Notice). 

2 Omega Wireless, LLC Long-Form Application, FCC Form 601, ULS File No. 0007754732 (filed Apr. 27,2017, 

last amended Jan. 17, 20 18) (Application); Omega Wireless, LLC, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the 

Wireless Telecommunications Services, FCC Form 602, File No. 0008064598 (filed Jan. 17, 2018). 

3 Auction 1002 Closing Public Notice, 32 FCC Red at 2875, Appx. B. 

4 Kenneth D. Anderson, Christopher J. Jensen, Edward Moise, and W. Scott Soden are identified by Applicant as 

Controlling Members of the LLC. See Application, Exhibit C- Small Business Bidding Credit 5 Kenneth D. Anderson, Christopher J. Jensen, Edward Moise, W. Scott Soden, Barry B. Lewis, and Craig W. 

Viehweg are identified by Applicant as members of the LLC's Board of Managers. See Application, Exhibit CSmall Business Bidding Credit. 
148 


35951.086

Omega Wireless, LLC June 4, 2018 

Page 2 of3 

Attachment: Appendix A 

Sincerely, 

~A-~fo Blaise A. Scinto 

Chief, Broadband Division 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
149 


35951.087

APPENDIX A 

l. The April 6, 2016 Omega Wireless, LLC Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company 

Agreement (Agreement) confers management responsibilities on the Board of Managers.' 

However, several Company activities require authorization by a "supermajority"2 of all 

Managers, thereby necessitating, at a minimum, one of the two stated Non-Controlling Managers 

voting in favor of the proposed actions.3 The activities subject to supermajority approval include: 

the annual budget for expenditures;4 

any "material deviation from the approved budget, the effect of which would have a 

substantial impact on the financial condition of the Company;"' and 

incurring "any indebtedness or authorize, cause or allow any Subsidiary to incur any 

indebtedness in an amount that, when combined with all other indebtedness of the 

Company and the Subsidiaries, exceeds twenty five percent (25%) of the annual budgeted 

capital expenditures.''" 

2. The Agreement requires the consent of the Majority Institutional Investors' before the Company, 

the Board of Managers or other agents of the Company may engage in certain activities and/or 

transactions,' including: 

any amendment of the Company's charter documents, including the Agreement, without 

limitation (other than as reasonably required by the FCC);9 and 

the sale, transfer or assignment of not only "all" but also "any portion" of the Company's 

assets or property10 

1 Omega Wireless, LLC Long-Form Application, FCC Form 601, ULS File No. 0007754732, REDACTED Exhibit 

D -Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement§ 6.l(a) (filed Apr. 27,2017, revised Sept.!, 

2017) (Agreement) ("the powers of the Company ... and business and affairs of the Company shall be managed 

under the direction, a Board of Managers ... and ... the Board may make all decisions and take all actions for the 

Company not otherwise provided for in this Agreement."). 

2 1

'Supermajority Vote" means the affirmative vote or written consent of four of the five Board votes~ under most 

circumstances. Agreement § 1.1 (''Supermajority Vote"). 

3 Agreement§ 6.4(b). There are five members ofthe LLC's Board of Managers, two of whom are Non-Controlling 

Managers. See Agreement§§ 6.l(c) (naming Kenneth D. Anderson, W. Scott Soden, Christopher J. Jensen, Craig 

Viehweg, and Barry Lewis as the initial Managers of the Company); 6.l(g) (defming ''Non-Controlling Manager", 

identifying Craig Viehweg and Barry Lewis as Non-Controlling Managers, and establishing the right of the Majority 

Institutional Investors to nominate Non-Controlling Managers). 

'Agreement§ 6.4(b)(ii). 

5 Agreement§ 6.4(b)(iii). 

6 Agreement§ 6.4(b)(iv). 

7 "Majority Institutional Investor" means "the Institutional Investors [comprised ofM/C, Peppertree and Shamrock] 

whose Commitments as of the date of this Agreement amount to a majority of the Commitments made by all of the 

Institutional Investors as of the date of this Agreement" Agreement§ 1.1. 

8 Agreement§ 6.4(a). 

9 Agreement§ 6.4(a)(iii). 

10Agreement § 6.4(a)(vii). 
150 


35951.088

Agri-Valley Communications, Inc. 

Alaska Wireless Network, LLC 

AT&T Spectrum Holdings LLC 

Bluewater Wireless II, LP 

Carolina West Wireless, LLC 

CC Wireless Investment, LLC 

Cellular South Licenses, LLC 

Chariton Valley Telephone C~rporation 

CTCube, LP. 

Cumberland Cellular Partnership 

Dacoma Pacific, Inc. 

East Kentucky Network, LLC 

Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 

Gold Spectrum, LLC 

Hulce, James C 

Inland Cellular LLC 

Iowa RSA 2 Limited Partnership 

Kentucky RSA 3 Cellular General Partnership 

Kentucky RSA 4 Cellular Genera! Partn-ership 

UCT Wireless Broadband Company, LLC 

Mach FM Corp. 

McCotter, James E 

NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. 

NEIT Services, LLC 

Nex-T ech Wireless, LLC 

Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company 

Northam Valley Communications, LLC 

Nova Wireless LLC 

Nsight Spectrum, LLC 

Omega Wireless, LLC 

Pacific Comnex, Inc. 

Panhandle Telecommunication Systems, Inc. 

ParkerS. com Wireless LL.C. 

PBP LICENSE GROUP, LLC 

Pine Belt Cellular, Inc. 

Pine Ce!!ular Phones, Inc. 

Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. 

Auction 1002 Non·Pub!ic Information Deliberative Process 

RSP 15% 

SB25% 

RSP15% 

RSP15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP 15% 

8815% 

SB25% 

RSP 15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP15% 

RSP 15% 

SB25% 

SB25% 

RSP 15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP15% 

SB25% 

SB 25°/o 

SB25% 

RSP15% 

RSP 15cVo 

RSP 15% 

RSP15% 

RSP15% 

PrivHege In Anticipation of litigation 
151 


35951.089

Plateau Telecommunications, Incorporated 

Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation 

Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. 

Sagebrush Cellular, Inc. 

SAL Spectrum, LLC 

Sl Wireless, LLC 

Smith Bagley, Inc. 

Spectrum Financial Partners, LLC 

Spotlight Media Corporation 

T-Mobile License LLC 

Tradewinds Wireless Holdings, LLC 

Triangle Communication System, Inc. 

TStar 600, LLC 

Key: 

RSP 15% 

RSP 15% 

RSP15% 

RSP15% 

RSP 15% 

8825% 

SB25% 

SB25% 

RSP15% 

SB 25°/o 

SB 15% =granted a 15% small business bidding credit (revenue does not exceed $55 million) 

SB 25% =granted a 25% small business bidding credit (revenue does not exceed $20 million) 

RSP 15% =granted a 15% rural service provider bidding credit (subscribers fewer than 250,000) 

Auction 1002 Non-Public Information Deliberative Process Privilege in Anticlpation of Litigation 
152 


35951.090

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

(:ongr£5'5' of tbt ~ntttb ~tatt5' 

~oust of 1\tprtscntatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Michael O'Rielly 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Commissioner O'Rielly: 

(202)225-.'.7.927 

(202)225-3641 

August 9, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Wednesday, July 25,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of the Federal 

Communications Commission." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, August 23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan. Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
153 


35951.091

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON DC 

Mike O'Rie!ly 

Commissioner 

Via U.S. Mail and Email 

Mr. Evan Viau 

Legislative Clerk 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

August 21,2018 

Re: Additional Questions for the Record to Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

July 25, 2018 Hearing before the House Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission" 

Dear Mr. Viau: 

Please find enclosed my responses to the additional questions for the record in connection 

with my testimony at the July 25, 2018 hearing entitled "Oversight of the Federal 

Communications Commission." 

Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions. 

~'·u Michael O'Rielly 

Enclosure 

cc w/enc: Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov 

445 12TH STREET SW WASHINGTON, DC 20554 • 202-418-2300 
154 


35951.092

Additional Questions for the Record to Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

The Honorable Brett Guthrie 

1. When it comes to describing the Commission's work within global fora such as the ITU or others, 

what role do you believe the Commission should play as an influential voice on spectrum policy and 

connectivity? This could be in relation to other U.S. agencies and foreign policy makers or relative to 

domestic and foreign stakeholders. 

Globally, the Commission has a vital role to play on spectrum policy and connectivity. I was fortunate to 

have attended the last ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, WRC-15 in Geneva and more recently 

the CITEL PCC.II meeting in Orlando, along with other international events. These conferences and 

ministerial meetings have driven home the importance of our nation and subsequently our region 

having a united front and strategy when it comes to spectrum policy generally and, specifically, as we 

approach international conferences, such as the next ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and WRC-19. My 

firsthand observations from these conferences solidified, in my mind, how difficult it can be to arrive at 

consensus decisions, especially when it comes to spectrum and the protectionist approach advocated by 

some nations. I also fully appreciate the need to start communications with other countries as early as 

possible so that we are effective in executing on our main priorities. 

As far as the U.S. perspective, our priorities are generally aligned with creating a regulatory environment 

that provides our telecommunications industries the opportunity to innovate, obtain investment, and 

ensure continued growth for years to come. In part, that means reallocating underutilized spectrum 

bands globally for new wireless services. We also seek to promote the interests of our citizens, 

especially those who are unserved and in need of modern and robust connectivity in order to participate 

in the new digital economy. I recently penned an op-ed on needed changes to the structure and 

operations of the ITU. In the end, the United States must pursue the best course of action to meet its 

own spectrum needs. While I am hopeful that the ITU will be part of that process, there is much work 

ahead before that is a surety. 

The Honorable Pete Olson 

1. As you are well aware, many telecom companies are looking to rollout SG as a fixed wireless 

broadband service, which will compete directly with DSL, Cable, Satellite and Fiber. Can you 

please elaborate on what the addition of "Wireless Fiber" to the broadband marketplace means 

for the increasingly competitive marketplace? 

As you note, many people refer to SG as "Wireless Fiber" because it has the potential to offer 

consumers enormous increases in capacity, much faster speeds, and a significant reduction in latency to 

meet the demands of a broad range of applications, some of which are not even thought of today. To 

put this in perspective, the FCC's latest Mobile Competition Report highlights industry developments 

from 4G LTE: data usage has soared to 13.7 trillion MB, a 42 percent increase from the prior year and a 

whopping 238 percent increase from just two years ago. On an Individual basis, monthly consumer data 

use is up 39 percent since 2015 and over 50 percent of the American public has gone completely 
155 


35951.093

wireless. But, I see this as just the beginning. Every day more and more consumers are flocking to 

wireless broadband and the mobile experience it provides despite the differences in speed. In other 

words, consumers, especially in the less affluent and younger populations, are willing to trade speed for 

flexibility. This is not too dissimilar to how consumers were willing in the early 2000s to trade wireline 

voice call quality for inferior wireless voice service that offered mobility. With wireless fiber, those 

speed differences will be even harder to distinguish, and it will be nearly impossible for the Commission 

to ignore the exciting benefits and new competitive marketplace options made possible in a SG 

universe. 

The Honorable Susan W. Brooks 

1. We need a balanced approach to spectrum policy, one that takes into account both big and 

small providers, urban and rural. I am particularly concerned about On-Ramp Indiana, Inc. 

(along with their customers such as Beck's Hybrids and their farm server customers), a 

constituent of mine that has been deploying rural broadband using CBRS spectrum in my 

district. They need to have a fair shot to compete in this upcoming auction, and have asked for 

just a couple of small license areas. Would you commit to working to find a balanced approach 

so that rural broadband providers like On-Ramp Indiana, Inc. can compete in the upcoming 

auction? 

For over a year, I have been working with a vast array of stakeholders interested in CBRS spectrum to 

ensure that it is attractive to as many users and use cases as possible. Debate over the geographic 

license size has been the most contentious change contemplated from the past rules. Based on 

countless conversations and compromises, I have formulated recommendations on a way to modify our 

existing rules for PAL licenses and hope that this will be ready to be considered at an Open Meeting 

soon. I can commit to you that I believe the approach I have recommended to the Chairman is balanced 

and addresses all legitimate concerns raised throughout our process. Once the proposal is made public, 

I would be happy to brief you on it and answer any questions you may have on the potential impact to 

your state. No one is likely going to be entirely pleased with this outcome, but I believe it achieves a 

sound and just result. 
156 


35951.094

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

fRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

(!ongre~~ of tbc Wnitcb ~tate~ 

~ou~e of l\cpre~cntatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Brendan Carr 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W, 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Commissioner Carr: 

{202)225·-2927 

(202)225--3641 

August 9, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Commtmications and Technology 

on Wednesday, July 25, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of the Federal 

Communications Commission." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, August 23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@maiLhouse.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
157 


35951.095

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr- Questions for the Record 

Rep. Brett Guthrie 

Through the ITU and other global fora, the Federal Communications Commission advances the United 

States' interests in telecommunications. One way the FCC does and should continue to do so is through 

our work to ensure spectrum harmonization globally. This effort benefits American consumers by 

creating economies of scale as well as larger markets for equipment and next-gen services, thus driving 

down the costs of devices and increasing the speed with which new technologies can make it to 

American consumers. The FCC's work on this front also enables American businesses to compete across 

global geographies without the friction that would otherwise accompany vastly different, regional 

regimes. America is the leading innovator in satellite technology, and continuing our leadership role at 

the ITU furthers the industry's ability to serve customers, develop new technologies, and create jobs. 

The FCC also works to promote a pro-competitive environment for U.S. industry abroad. Another 

important activity undertaken by the FCC is representation, on behalf of the State Department, of U.S. 

commercial licensees during international coordination with other Administrations. 
158 


35951.096

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

~ongress of tbt Wniteb ~tates 

~ou!le of i\eptc!lentatibe!) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20554 

Dear Commissioner Rosenworcel: 

Majority 

Minority 

August 9, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Wednesday, July 25,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Oversight of the FederaJ 

Communications Commission." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, August 23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
159 


35951.097

Responses of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 

July 25, 20 I 8 Hearing Entitled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission" 

The Honorable Brett Guthrie 

1. When it comes to describing the Commission's work within global for a such as the 

ITU or others, what role do you believe the Commission should play as an 

influential voice on spectrum policy and connectivity? This could be in relation to 

other US agencies and foreign policy makers or relative to domestic and foreign 

stakeholders. 

Historically, the United States government-led by the Department of State and 

supported by the policy and technical expertise of the Department of Commerce and the Federal 

Communications Commission-has played an important role shaping international frameworks 

for spectrum and connectivity policies. We have led the world with our support of innovation 

and competition while highlighting that these policies are compatible with a commitment to 

human rights and consumer protection. 

I believe that continued US advocacy on the global stage is important. To this end, I 

believe the FCC should continue to play a role in spectrum and connectivity policies at the 

International Telecommunication Union and other comparable international fora. Note that 

while the Department of Commerce--through the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration-is the primary coordinator for federal spectrum, spectrum matters 

involving commercial use, as well as use by local and state authorities, is uniquely subject to the 

oversight of the FCC. 

Accordingly, I believe the FCC should coordinate with other federal authorities and 

interagency committees on international telecommunications matters. At a practical level, this 

means participating in US delegations and leading US participation in international conferences, 

assisting with preparatory efforts, advising on the status of FCC actions, helping with the 

negotiation and implementation of telecommunications trade agreements, and conducting 

economic, statistical, legal, and technical studies to support the development of positions and 

policies, among other things. 

In addition, I believe the FCC should engage with industry interests and other nongovernmental stakeholders. This can be accomplished in a variety of different ways. The 

agency can establish external advisory committees pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. It also can seek input through solicitations published in the Federal Register. It also can 

develop more informal vehicles for public participation, provided they offer all stakeholders an 

equal opportunity to give input and share their perspectives. Consistent with this approach, on 

June 9, 2016, the FCC rechartered its World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory 

Committee to provide advice, technical support, and recommend proposals for the ITU's 

upcoming 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference. This committee-which is composed 

of public and private sector members-is focused on the set of spectrum issues identified in the 

WRC-19 agenda with the goal of identifying US priorities and objectives. I fully expect that the 

work of this committee will help the FCC formulate meaningful recommendations. 

In sum, I believe the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary and World Radiocommunication 

Conferences are important opportunities for the US-supported by the FCC-to forcefully 
160 


35951.098

Responses of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 

July 25, 2018 Hearing Entitled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission" 

advocate for ITU efforts to bridge the digital divide, allocate global spectrum resources, and 

support telecommunications development around the world. I believe it is also possible for the 

US to accomplish these goals while ensuring that ITU policymaking stays within the scope of its 

mandate. 

The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

1. The FCC's efforts to expand broadband access in rural areas are appropriate, but 

the Communications Act also mandates that the Commission help low-income 

communities get access to broadband. A recent Pew Research Center survey on 

internet use found that more than 19 percent of Americans who do not use the 

internet cite the expense for internet service or a computer as the reason. 

Given the clear instructions Congress gave to the Commission in the law, and the 

facts on the ground, it's vexing to me that the FCC would push struggling families 

to the back of the line when it comes to broadband access. Specifically, Mr. 

Chairman, your proposal to strip phone or internet service from 8.3 million 

Americans is draconian. 

a. Can you explain the problems faced by low-income Americans struggling to 

afford internet access and why cutting 70% of providers, capping the 

program, or cutting out fully subsidized service would be devastating to 

Americans using the Lifeline program to get back on their feet? 

I do not support the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission that would cut 

70% of existing users from the Lifeline program. 

The Lifeline program got its start in 1985, when President Reagan was in the White 

House and nearly all communications involved a cord and a jack in the wall. When it began, it 

supported the cost of basic telephony in low-income households. The idea was simple-without 

the ability to call others, it would be difficult to secure jobs, seek out healthcare, pursue 

education, or seek assistance in a disaster. Over time, the FCC updated this program to reflect 

the current state of technology. To this end, more than a decade ago it added wireless service. 

Later, the FCC sought to add broadband, recognizing that internet access is the dial tone of the 

digital age. 

Unfortunately, the agency's most recent proposal does not continue this course. Instead 

of modernizing the program, it proposes to slash it from front to back. This will harm millions 

who presently rely on the program. That includes nearly 2.2 million elderly who depend on 

Lifeline for their healthcare and security as they age on limited incomes. It includes 1.3 million 

veterans who rely on Lifeline to reacclimate to civilian life. It includes 500,000 people on Puerto 

Rico who are still recovering from last year's devastating hurricane season. It also includes 

those who seek assistance from domestic violence programs and homeless youth-and many 

other similar groups that rely on low-cost communications services for safety. 
161 

Æ 


35951.099

Responses of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 

July 25, 2018 Hearing Entitled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission" 

It does not have to be this way. It is possible to address concerns about the Lifeline 

program through more thoughtful reform. All carriers participating in the program should be 

subject to regular audits. In addition, the FCC should consider increased penalties for those 

carriers that fail to follow program rules-including debarment prohibiting future participation. 

It is also important to note that key reforms are already underway, including the introduction of a 

national verifier system in six states. This should be expanded nationwide as soon as feasible. 

I believe that it is worth the effort to modernize and improve the Lifeline program. But I 

am concerned that the proposal before the agency is not only cruel, it is at odds with the FCC's 

statutory duty to support service to "all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers." 

b. I share your concern about the Homework gap. How does the FCC's assault 

on Lifeline affect the homework gap, and how can better help our students 

compete? 

Today, seven in ten teachers assign homework that requires broadband access. But data 

from the FCC show that as many as one in three households do not subscribe to internet service. 

Where those numbers overlap is the Homework Gap. According to the Senate Joint Economic 

Committee, the Homework Gap is real. By their estimate, it affects 12 million children across the 

country. 

The Homework Gap harms students in rural areas and urban areas-wherever they lack 

access to the reliable internet service that is now necessary for so much nightly schoolwork. That 

means students are sitting in fast food restaurants and writing their papers with fries, just to get a 

free Wi-Fi signal. It means there are parents who have to make elaborate plans to head to the 

homes of friends and relatives just to ensure their children have a place to get online for 

homework. It means too many students sitting in the school parking lot well after the final bell 

has rung because it is the only place they can get a reliable connection. 

We can applaud the grit of those who find a way to cobble together a connection for 

schoolwork. But we should also do better-and the Lifeline program could help. If it was 

properly reformed and refocused on broadband, it could assist millions of students in low-income 

households get the internet access they need for basic homework. 

In 2016, the FCC sought to make this happen when it updated the Lifeline program. 

Pursuant to that effort, wireless services eligible under the program would feature devices with 

Wi-Fi chips for internet access and permit tethering for use by other devices, such as a computer. 

Unfortunately-over my objection-the FCC rolled back these changes in 2017. This is 

regrettable. I believe the FCC needs to reconsider this course. Were we to do so, it would help 

bridge the Homework Gap. It also would help ensure that in the digital age no student will lack 

the skills necessary for full participation in modem civic, social, and economic life.