U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

27–889 2018

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 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 25, 2017 

Serial No. 115–69 

( 

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 ............................................................................ 2 

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

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES

Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 140 

Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ........... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 154 

Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ........... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

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

Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ............... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 164 

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

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 167 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Op-ed by Chairman Pai entitled, ‘‘The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom,’’ 

Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2014, submitted by Mr. Doyle ................... 92 

Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman Pai, 

submitted by Mr. Doyle ....................................................................................... 94 

Letter of October 24, 2017, from ConsumersUnion to subcommittee, submitted 

by Mr. Doyle ......................................................................................................... 96 

Statement of Chairman Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle .......................................... 102 

Working paper of the Mercatus Center entitled, ‘‘How FCC Transaction Reviews Threaten Rule of Law and the First Amendment,’’ submitted by 

Mr. Pallone ........................................................................................................... 103 

Letter of October 25, 2017, from the LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition to 

Mrs. Blackburn ..................................................................................................... 133 

Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman Pai .......... 135 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta, 

Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores, Brooks, Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, 

Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Tonko. 

Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications and 

Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; 

Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and Technology; Brighton 

Haslett, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Elena Hernandez, 

Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Sean 

Farrell, Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Jeff 

Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom 

Fellow; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; David Goldman, 

Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany 

Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Lori, Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; Jessica 

Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member Services Coordinator; 

Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief 

Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, 

Outreach and Member Services; and C.J. Young, Minority Press 

Secretary. 

2 

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. And the chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

And I do want to welcome each and every one of you, obviously 

a hearing of interest as we have a full room in front of us. And it 

is our first hearing in 2017 with a fully formed Federal Communications Commission. 

As often seems to be the case, the Senate takes their dear, everloving time to get things done, but I am pleased to see that the 

Commission is back up to speed. And I will tell you, I am pleased 

that we have five members of this Commission, and they have different points of view to bring to the discussion on all things 

telecom related. And I think that that is healthy for the telecommunications and technology industry. 

And we are here today to conduct oversight of the agency, which 

is this subcommittee’s primary role. It is very important that we 

fulfill these obligations, because we have given the FCC a critical 

mission and critical task to fulfill. From the Commission’s disaster 

response efforts, to its work supporting the deployment of rural 

broadband, to its efforts to streamline and modernize the regulatory environment impacting some of America’s greatest creators 

and innovators, you are all doing important work, and we appreciate what you do. 

One of the FCC’s many jobs is to regulate broadcasters who accept and fulfill unique public interest obligations due to their use 

of valuable public spectrum. While we were in the final stages of 

planning for this routine oversight hearing, some of my colleagues 

asked that the committee hold an entire hearing about comments 

by the President on Twitter regarding certain broadcasters’ work. 

So I fully expect them to question the Trump tweets. 

And, Chairman Pai, since we have a very full slate of issues, my 

hope is that you will address that concern so that we can focus on 

the work and responsibilities of the Commission. 

The Commission has conducted entirely appropriate oversight of 

broadcast licenses. There is no indication it has any interest in regulating political content, unlike some in our chamber who have 

urged the FCC to adopt a new fairness doctrine mandating that 

broadcasters provide equal time to the opposition if they allow anyone to express any type of political opinion on air. 

The outrage over the President’s Twitter musing stands in sharp 

contrast to the silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of conservatives, sexual assault victims, and potentially anyone who posts 

something they just don’t like for whatever reason, all this on a 

platform so powerful and far-reaching that you could argue that it 

is the modern day public square. And some on Twitter have even 

called to suspend the President’s account. And after my recent experience, I will say I wouldn’t put it past some people. 

The latest Twitter scandal is an attempt to distract from the 

Commission and the American people from the FCC’s real work, 

which is delivering on a mission to unleash American innovation. 

3 

So, Chairman Pai, no matter what questions are said, I hope that 

we are going to stick to keeping our eye on the ball and making 

certain that we address things like media ownership rules, the 

Lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural broadband, 

and restoring a free and open internet. That is something that we 

want to see done by the end of this year. 

And at this time, I yield 1 minute to the vice chairman of the 

subcommittee, Mr. Lance. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Good afternoon and welcome to our first hearing in 2017 with a fully formed Federal Communications Commission. As often seems to be the case, the Senate has 

taken its time, but I’m pleased to see the Commission back up to speed with five 

vastly different opinions about everything telecom-related. We’re here today to conduct oversight of the agency, which is this subcommittee’s primary role. 

It is very important that we fulfill our oversight responsibilities, because we have 

given the FCC a critical mission and critical tasks to fulfill. From the Commission’s 

disaster response efforts, to its work supporting the deployment of rural broadband, 

to its efforts to streamline and modernize the regulatory environment impacting 

some of America’s greatest creators and innovators, you are all doing important 

work, and we appreciate it. 

One of the FCC’s many jobs is to regulate broadcasters, who accept and fulfill 

unique public interest obligations due to their use of valuable public spectrum. 

While we were in the final stages of planning for this routine oversight hearing, my 

Democratic colleagues asked the Committee to hold an entire hearing about comments by the President on Twitter regarding certain broadcasters’ work. 

So I fully expect them to use this opportunity to try to turn this hearing into the 

Trump Tweet hearing. Chairman Pai, since we have a very full slate of issues, my 

hope is that you will address that concern so we can focus on the work of the Commission. 

This Commission has conducted entirely appropriate oversight of broadcast licensees. There is no indication it has any interest in regulating political content, unlike 

some of my Democratic colleagues who have urged the FCC to adopt a new Fairness 

Doctrine, mandating that broadcasters provide equal time to the opposition if they 

allow anyone to express any type of political opinion on air. 

The outrage over the President’s Twitter musings stands in sharp contrast to the 

silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of conservatives, sexual assault victims, and 

potentially anyone who posts something they just don’t like for whatever reason. All 

this on a platform so powerful and far-reaching that you could argue it serves as 

a modern day public square. 

Some left wingers on Twitter have even called for the company to ban the President’s account. After my recent experience, all I will say is I wouldn’t put it past 

them. The latest Twitter ‘‘scandal’’ is an attempt to distract both the Commission 

and the American people from the FCC’s real work: delivering on its mission to unleash American innovation. 

Chairman Pai, no matter what loaded YES OR NO questions may be posed today, 

or what insinuations are made about a would-be plot by the FCC to crack down on 

political speech, I urge you not to be distracted. Keep your eye on the ball. We are 

waiting for important reforms to address the media ownership rules, the Lifeline 

program, the imperatives of expanding rural broadband and restoring a free and 

open Internet, and we want to see them by the end of this year. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Chair. And welcome to Chairman Pai and the now full complement of commissioners. What a 

good-looking group. Thank you for appearing before us today. 

Since our last oversight hearing in July, the Commission has 

continued its important work on issues such as disaster relief and 

recovery in the communities affected by the recent hurricanes, commercial spectrum availability, fraud prevention in closing the digital divide. The Commission is also moving forward in the process 

4 

to roll back the misguided Title II reclassification of ISPs from the 

previous administration. 

Here on the subcommittee, we have recently taken a bipartisan 

step forward in reauthorizing the FCC for the first time since 1990. 

I applaud the chairman and ranking member for their leadership 

in reasserting this vital oversight tool. I also thank Commissioner 

O’Rielly for joining me in the district I serve in August for a 5G 

industry roundtable. I commend his leadership at the Commission 

pursuing innovation-friendly spectrum and infrastructure policies 

that will be important in our efforts to win the race to 5G. 

Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Doyle, you are recognized 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 hearing. 

And thank you to all the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

Let me just say that I really enjoy our time here together, as I am 

sure all of you do. And I would encourage the chairman to continue 

to hold these get-togethers far more often. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DOYLE. Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back. Your 

work on the homework gap has been missed. 

Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your confirmation. I hope 

that as you establish your agenda, that you remember that the 

guiding principle of the FCC is to act in the public’s interest. It is 

a standard that I will hold you to as well. 

Chairman Pai, many people around the country, including myself, and many of colleagues are deeply alarmed by your response 

to the President Trump’s threats against the media, and specifically his tweet threatening NBC. In 2014, you wrote in The Wall 

Street Journal that the government has no place pressuring media 

organizations into covering certain stories. You took 6 days to respond to the President’s tweet. And when you did, you did not directly address the President’s threat at all or its chilling effects on 

the media. 

While the President and the administration can dispute the veracity of any story, even ones that are demonstrably true, they cannot attack the free institutions that enable our democracy. As Senator Flake said yesterday, it is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end. 

Besides this issue, the Commission’s agenda under your leadership has already had a profoundly negative effect on our country. 

From increasing cost on small businesses, driving up the cost of 

calls to family members in prison, and claiming that wireless 

broadband is competitive, even when people in rural America know 

it is not, it seems that in every fork of the road you have chosen 

the path that leads to higher consumer cost, fewer choices, and less 

innovation. And if it sounds as if the worst is yet to come, news 

reports suggest that you unveil plans tomorrow to vastly alter the 

5 

media landscape in this country, clearing the way for more media 

consolidation, including the Sinclair-Tribune merger. 

Yesterday, the Commission eliminated the main studio rule that 

had ensured for 77 years that local news was gathered and reported locally. What good would a studio and reporters in New 

York have done for broadcast stations in Houston or Florida after 

the hurricanes? What good is local news if it isn’t local? Other news 

reports suggest you will announce an order to repeal the FCC’s 

open internet order around Thanksgiving. 

Madam Chairman, I sincerely hope that, if this true, that we 

have a chance to talk to the Commission in advance of a vote on 

that order. The idea that such a significant order that would affect 

so much of our economy would be voted on without oversight is unconscionable and would be a dereliction of this committee’s duties. 

If the chairman is intent to act, I believe that his actions should 

be done under the scrutiny of Congress and in the light of the public. 

That concludes what I want to say. And I am going to yield the 

remaining part of my time to Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman for yielding his remaining 

time to me. 

I want to associate myself with our ranking member’s comments, 

particularly to what the President said that was a direct assault 

on the First Amendment and, with all due respect to you, Mr. 

Chairman, your delayed and rather tepid response to that. I want 

to place verbally in the record the First Amendment of the Constitution of our country. 

It was written, adopted by—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you—December 15, 1791. It is as new and as 

important today as the day that it was adopted. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press—they were very clear. They were 

very clear—or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to 

petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

I hope you will choose to enlarge on the public statement that 

you put out. 

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back to the ranking 

member. 

Mr. DOYLE. And I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the Chairman of the full Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden, who has been in the chair all 

day along with the hearing downstairs. 

The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to welcome especially Commissioner Carr. Welcome aboard. We are glad 

to have you here for the first time in this capacity. And welcome 

back Commissioner Rosenworcel. It is sure good to see you on the 

6 

Commission. And we look forward to continuing our work with you 

and the other members. Chairman Pai, thank you too for being 

here and for your leadership. 

I couldn’t agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this Commission has some very, very important work to do. The United 

States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this year, 

including wildfires that have devastated literally hundreds of thousands of acres in my home state. And we know the tragedies all 

across the West from these fires. These catastrophic weather 

events have shown the importance of maintaining the most reliable 

and modern communication systems possible. And we certainly owe 

the work many of us were engaged in on FirstNet and going clear 

back to 2012, and we need to make sure that works as planned. 

I look forward to hearing updates on the agency’s contributions 

to the overall Federal relief efforts underway in these areas as well 

as those impacted by Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria, although some of the affected areas are almost back up to speed, 

which is great, thanks to a lot of hard work on both industry and 

government. We know we are facing enormous challenges elsewhere in restoring essential services, in places like Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands, as well as others here on the mainland. 

We appreciate the Commission’s efforts to streamline permitting, 

advance funding, and provide much needed assistance in these situations. We also appreciate the Commission’s work to keep us informed through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on FCC hurricane 

response efforts that we requested and that Chairman Pai’s team 

quickly provided at the beginning of this month. Thank you for 

doing that. 

As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a number 

of key items to emerge from the Commission. In no way does this 

committee expect our oversight to delay the Commission’s important work. Rather, hearings like this are vital to keeping open the 

lines of communication and exposing commissioners and committee 

members alike to different perspectives, yielding better understanding and better decision-making. But we expect the Commission’s work to go regardless, just as it did under the previous administration. 

The subcommittee continues its work as well having just finished 

a markup on an FCC reauthorization bill for the first time in many 

years. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 

their work on this effort as we continue to move toward full committee markup soon. 

Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and opportunities presented by the repacking process that the Commission has 

embarked upon. I commend the Commission’s continuing efforts to 

release funding and work with every broadcaster to ensure their 

needs are being met as this transition evolves in a timely manner. 

Your input has been and will continue to be extremely important 

to this committee as we look at options to solve the remaining 

issues. And we certainly know there are some out there. 

Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a 

forum to rehash, once again, the arguments for dumping cutting 

edge broadband internet service into the stale, musty bucket that 

7 

is Title II. In any case, if anyone was wondering, my position 

hasn’t changed on that, and I don’t sense others have. 

This Commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the previous Commission’s partisan maneuver, which upended stacks of 

Commission precedent, disregard reams of legislative history to 

achieve the results that were demanded by then President Barack 

Obama. It is up to the Commission to set the optimal regulatory 

conditions to fuel broadband investment and deployment. And I 

hope to see a new bar set in this regard before the end of the year. 

Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net 

neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that passion here on 

both sides. And I have been continuing my efforts to negotiate a 

compromise. Although my staff continues to engage the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point. I would love to see that change, by the way. 

The door remains open. 

We are willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and 

establish a Federal framework in statute for providing certainty to 

all participants in the internet ecosystem. I don’t think we need 

Title II to do that. We have the same end goal: Preserving the 

internet as a free, open, dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive our economy, while also doing everything we can to 

extend its benefits to every American. We should be able to work 

together to clear this issue off our plates. 

With that, again, I thank the Commission for being here today. 

We are glad to see you fully constituted and confirmed. And as you 

can imagine, we have a lot of issues to hear from you on and to 

have good discourse back and forth. So thanks again. 

And with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to welcome Commissioner Carr for the first 

time, and welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel as this subcommittee continues 

in its long tradition of active oversight of the FCC. 

I couldn’t agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this commission has some 

very important work to do. The United States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this year, including the wildfires that have devastated hundreds of 

thousands of acres in Oregon and across much of the West. These catastrophic 

weather events have shown the importance of maintaining the most reliable and 

modern communications systems, particularly in emergencies. 

I look forward to hearing updates on the agency’s contributions to the overall federal relief efforts underway in these areas as well as those impacted by Hurricanes 

Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Although some of the affected areas are almost back up 

to speed, thanks to a lot of hard work on the part of both industry and government, 

we are facing enormous challenges in restoring essential services in other areas. 

We appreciate the commission’s efforts to streamline permitting, advance funding, 

and provide much needed assistance. We also appreciate the commission’s work to 

keep us informed, through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on FCC hurricane response efforts that we requested and that Chairman Pai’s team quickly provided at 

the beginning of this month. 

As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a number of key items 

to emerge from the commission. In no way does this committee expect our oversight 

to delay the commission’s important work. 

Rather, hearings like this are vital to keeping open the lines of communication 

and exposing commissioners and committee members alike to different perspectives, 

yielding better understanding and better decision making. But we expect the commission’s work to go on regardless, just as it did under the previous Administration. 

8 

The subcommittee continues its work as well, having just finished a markup of 

an FCC reauthorization bill for the first time in many years. I want to thank my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working with us to see this effort through, 

and continuing that work as we move toward full committee markup. 

Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and opportunities presented by 

the repacking process the commission has embarked upon. 

I commend the commission’s continuing efforts to release funding and work with 

every broadcaster to ensure their needs are being met as this transition evolves in 

a timely manner. Your input has been, and will continue to be, extremely valuable 

as this committee explores initiatives to solve for the issues that still remain. 

Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a forum to rehash 

once again the arguments for dumping cutting-edge broadband Internet service into 

the stale, musty bucket that is Title II. In case anyone was wondering, my position 

on this has not changed. 

This commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the previous commission’s 

partisan maneuver, which upended stacks of commission precedent and disregarded 

reams of legislative history to achieve the result demanded by President Obama. 

It is up to the commission to set the optimal regulatory conditions to fuel 

broadband investment and deployment, and I hope to see a new bar set in this regard before the end of the year. 

Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the net neutrality debate. 

And I have been continuing my efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff 

continues to engage with the various affected parties in productive discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have been largely uninterested. I 

would love to see that change. 

We are willing and able to codify net neutrality protections and establish a federal 

framework providing certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem, and we 

don’t need Title II to do it. 

We have the same end goal: preserving the Internet as a free, open, dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive our economy, while also doing everything 

we can to extend its benefits to every American. We should be able to work together 

and clear this issue off our plates. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Anyone seeking the remainder of the chairman’s time? 

No one else. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, Mr. Pallone, you are recognized 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 and Ranking Member Doyle, for holding this hearing today. And I appreciate that you 

are maintaining the subcommittee’s tradition of oversight of the 

FCC. I know some people here today would prefer you wouldn’t. 

Congressional oversight is especially important now because the 

FCC is on a path to take up a number of controversial issues in 

the next few months. Nonetheless, it is curious that this hearing 

is scheduled for today in particular, just one day before Chairman 

Pai is expected to make public at least one proposal that enriches 

a single company above others, and that would clear out any last 

obstacles to Sinclair broadcasting’s purchase of Tribune Media 

Company. This will be the single largest owner of television broadcast station, and they would be buying the second largest. 

So Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply coincidence that his actions are all timed to benefit Sinclair. But if that 

was the case, why can’t the members of this committee see the latest proposal that he plans to circulate tomorrow before the Commission came before us? And now Chairman Pai has refused repeatedly to respond to my questions about allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. And this kind of evasiveness with ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:39 Feb 23, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-69 CHRIS
9 

gress does not help put anyone’s concerns to rest. These moves are 

just another example of how this FCC values large companies over 

small ones and always puts companies before consumers. 

The most glaring example of this, of course, is Chairman Pai’s 

commitment to eviscerate net neutrality protections by the end of 

this year. Net neutrality protects consumers, protects small businesses, and protects free speech. And I hope that the FCC is spending this time reviewing the millions of comments that had been 

filed, including comments from the Democratic members of this 

committee. And I also hope the FCC considers the thousands of 

consumer complaints that have been made public since the comment period closed. These complaints demonstrate that consumer 

problems with broadband providers is much farther reaching than 

the FCC’s proposed rulemaking lets on. 

Now, together, these items have the potential to drastically remake the way Americans communicate. And in taking on these 

issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate itself from the political 

pressures from the President. Chairman Pai has claimed that he 

has restored independence to the FCC, yet he refuses repeatedly to 

put any distance between himself and President Trump, whether 

it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or even protecting a free press. And 

that evasiveness does not inspire confidence. 

I have said many times, and I think I have told some of the Commission members, that I remember earlier this year when Sean 

Spicer was at a press conference and he said that the President 

would have the FCC repeal net neutrality before the FCC even addressed the issue. So, again, it just seems that everything is, whatever the President wants, and there is really no independence at 

all on net neutrality or the other issues. And the FCC has a long 

tradition of bipartisanship. But, unfortunately, that is simply not 

the case today. Hardworking American consumers and future Congresses are sure to take a dim view of the current partisan politics 

at the FCC, and it is time to restore that bipartisan tradition. 

But, again, I thank the chairman and the commissioners for all 

being here today. And I would like to yield a minute each to Mr. 

McNerney and Matsui. I guess I will start with McNerney. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Doyle for holding this hearing today. I appreciate that you are maintaining this subcommittee’s tradition of 

oversight of the FCC—I know some people here today would prefer you wouldn’t. 

Congressional oversight is especially important now because the FCC is on a path 

to take up a number of controversial issues in the next few months. Nonetheless, 

it’s curious that this hearing is scheduled for today in particular—just one day before Chairman Pai is expected to make public at least one proposal that enriches 

a single company above others, and that would clear out any last obstacles to Sinclair Broadcasting’s purchase of Tribune Media Company. This would be the single 

largest owner of television broadcast stations buying the second largest. 

Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply coincidence that his actions 

are all timed to benefit Sinclair. But if that was the case, why can’t the members 

of the Committee see his latest proposals that he plans to circulate tomorrow before 

the Commission came before us? And now Chairman Pai has refused repeatedly to 

respond to my questions about allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. This 

kind of evasiveness with Congress does not help put anyone’s concerns to rest. 

These moves are just another example of how this FCC values large companies 

over small ones and always puts companies before consumers. The most glaring exVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:39 Feb 23, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-69 CHRIS
10 

ample of this, of course, is Chairman Pai’s commitment to eviscerate net neutrality 

protections by the end of the year. 

Net neutrality protects consumers, protects small businesses, and protects free 

speech. I hope that the FCC is spending this time reviewing the millions of comments that have been filed, including comments from the Democratic members of 

this Committee. I also hope the FCC considers the thousands of consumer complaints that have been made public since the comment period closed. These complaints demonstrate that consumers’ problems with broadband providers is much 

farther reaching than the FCC’s Proposed Rulemaking let on. 

Together, these items have the potential to drastically remake the way Americans 

communicate. And in taking on these issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate 

itself from the political pressures from the President. Chairman Pai has claimed 

that he has restored independence to the FCC. Yet he refuses-repeatedly-to put any 

distance between himself and President Trump, whether it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or even protecting a free press. That evasiveness does not inspire confidence. 

The FCC has a long tradition of bipartisanship, but unfortunately that is simply 

not the case today. Hardworking American consumers and future Congresses are 

sure to take a dim view of the current partisan politics at the FCC. It’s time to restore that bipartisan tradition. 

I thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before us today. And 

with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the ranking member for yielding. 

I have noticed a troubling trend in the FCC’s recent actions. The 

very core of the FCC’s mission is in the public interest. In fact, the 

words ‘‘public interest’’ appear over 100 times in the Communications Act. But by taking steps to limit access to information and 

content, the Commission has gone against what I think is the 

public’s interest. This is evidenced by the Commission’s current efforts to dismantle net neutrality protections. It is further evidenced 

by the steps the Commission has taken to undercut localism from 

reinstating UHF discount to eliminate the main studio rule. These 

and other actions signaling favorable treatment for Sinclair. 

And then there was the chairman’s initial silence regarding the 

President’s threat to revoke broadcast licenses on the basis of viewpoints, followed by the chairman reluctantly making a statement, 

but one that was too late and insufficient. I am disappointed in 

these actions and the effect that they will have on the information 

my constituents and Americans across the country have access to. 

With that, I yield to Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. Thank you for yielding. 

In order to expand broadband deployment across this country, it 

is critically important that we accelerate our work to free up spectrum for commercial use. Additional spectrum is necessary both to 

expand wireless coverage across rural America and build capacity 

across all of America. We must also focus on locking more spectrum 

frequencies that will allow new and innovative technologies to 

grow. This means everything from precision agriculture, public 

safety communications, telehealth services, the Internet of Things, 

and connected devices. All of this to rely on access to spectrum’s 

invisible infrastructure of the 21st century. 

Access to the spectrum would depend on the FCC conducting 

auctions that will allow additional low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum to be delivered to commercial users. That is why Congressman Guthrie and I introduced the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act 

yesterday. Without this fix, future auctions may be put on hold indefinitely. And I look forward to working with Chairman Pai, the 

11 

committee, and Congressman Guthrie to work together to enact 

this into law. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

And I see no other members requesting time, so this concludes 

our opening statements. 

I would like to remind members that, pursuant to the committee 

rules, all members’ opening statements will be made a part of the 

record. 

We want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here 

today and for preparing for the hearing, submitting your testimony. 

We do appreciate this. Today’s witnesses will have the opportunity 

to give opening statements, followed by the questions that are 

going to come from our members. 

Our witness panel for today’s hearing: The Honorable Brendan 

Carr, Commissioner Clyburn, Chairman Pai, Commissioner 

O’Rielly, Commissioner Rosenworcel. We appreciate that you all 

are here for this. 

And as the tradition of this subcommittee, we will go in the order 

of seniority. So, Chairman Pai, you will be first, followed by Commissioner Clyburn, and then Mr. O’Rielly, Mr. Carr, and Ms. 

Rosenworcel. 

So, Chairman Pai, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MIGNON CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, 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, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing today. I appreciate this opportunity to update you on the 

FCC’s work to advance the public interest. 

That work has been substantial. In my written statement, I outlined progress in four key areas: Promoting public safety, bridging 

the digital divide, modernizing our regulations, and combatting unwanted robocalls. Additionally, I commended the subcommittee for 

its work on reauthorizing the FCC. 

Of particular importance is the provision just mentioned by Congresswoman Matsui that would allow the deposits placed by bidders in spectrum auctions to be sent to the Treasury. Without this 

measure, the FCC won’t be able to launch a large spectrum auction 

for the foreseeable future. 

But this morning, I would like to address an area of concern for 

all members and for me: The First Amendment. I have said again 

and again and again that the First Amendment must be at the 

heart of our work. That is why I oppose the prior FCC’s critical information needs study, an ill-conceived initiative which would have 

12 

involved sending government funded agents into newsrooms to second-guess editorial judgment. And that is why just last month I 

spoke at the Newseum about the importance of the First Amendment. 

My record on these issues is clear. And these issues are not new. 

President Kennedy targeted The Washington Post and NBC directly telling one of my predecessors that a particular story was 

outrageous and to, quote, ‘‘do something about it.’’ More recently, 

some have said that the FCC should reject a transaction involving 

the transfer of FCC broadcast licenses because of editorial judgments. And six members of this very committee, including the current ranking members of the committee and subcommittee, once 

demanded that the FCC investigate a broadcaster based solely on 

the content of a documentary that they didn’t like and that hadn’t 

even aired. 

Let me be clear. I stand on the side of the First Amendment. I 

firmly believe that journalists should heed to their viewers, their 

listeners, and their readers, not the dictates of officials in Washington, D.C. But don’t just trust my words. For if you believe, as 

I do, that the Federal Government has no business intervening in 

the news, then we must stop the Federal Government from intervening in the news business. And that is why this afternoon I 

shared with my fellow commissioners an order that will reform our 

media ownership rules and help pull the government, once and for 

all, out of the newsroom. We will vote on this order at our November 16 meeting. 

The marketplace today is nothing like it was in 1975. Newspapers are shutting down. Many a radio and TV stations are struggling, especially in smaller and rural markets. Online competition 

for the collection and distribution of news is even greater than it 

ever was. And just two internet companies claim 100 percent of recent online advertising growth. Indeed, their digital ad revenue 

alone this year will be greater than the market cap of the entire 

broadcasting industry. And yet the FCC’s rules still presume that 

the market is defined entirely by pulp and rabbit ears. As one 

newspaper has put it, making the argument that the current rules 

are outdated is easy. That radical right wing rag was The New 

York Times in 2003. 

Now, if this order is adopted, the FCC will belatedly recognize 

reality and match our rules to the modern marketplace. First, the 

order will, once and for all, eliminate the newspaper broadcast 

cross-ownership rule. As President Clinton’s first FCC chairman 

has explained, under current conditions in the media business, the 

FCC’s rule is perverse. And the Third Circuit has said that it remains at, quote, significant expense to pro-competitive arrangements. 

Second, the item will eliminate the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which is unnecessary into today’s marketplace given the 

Commission’s separate local radio and local television ownership 

rules. 

Third, it will revise the local television ownership rule to eliminate the eight-voices test and incorporate a case-by-case review of 

the top-four prohibition. This better reflects the competitive conditions in local markets. 

13 

Fourth, it will eliminate the attribution rule for television joint 

sales agreements, finding that JSAs serve the public interest by allowing broadcasters to better serve their local markets. 

Fifth, it will retain the disclosure requirement for shared services 

agreements involving commercial television stations. 

And, sixth, it will finally, finally, establish an incubator program 

to encourage greater diversity in and new entry into the media 

business and seek comment on what the details of that program 

should be. And unlike under the prior administration, I have ordered that the text of this decision be made publicly available tomorrow, 3 weeks before we vote on it. That too is news that is fit 

to print. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the 

committee, thank you once again for holding this hearing, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:] 

14 


27889.001
15 


27889.002
16 


27889.003
17 


27889.004
18 


27889.005
19 


27889.006
20 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We thank the chairman. 

Commissioner Clyburn, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MIGNON CLYBURN 

Ms. CLYBURN. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, 

and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you 

for the opportunity to once again appear before you today. 

We are 9 months into a new administration, making it appropriate, I believe, to reflect on the tremendous change that has 

taken place when it comes to our outlook on consumers, competition, and viewpoint diversity. Beyond the Washington acronyms, 

inside of the beltway jargon and flashy press headlines, are a series 

of actions, I fear, that are jeopardizing the FCC’s role as the referee 

on the field protecting consumers and small business interests. 

Now, I ask you not to take my word about this. In my hand are 

80 mostly handwritten letters I have received in the recent months. 

They express concern ranging from open internet and proposed 

mergers to inmate calling and a lack of affordable broadband in 

their communities. Amid the many policy changes, what may have 

gone unnoticed are the enforcement actions that we have failed to 

take against the Nation’s largest regulatees, where they have violated the public trust and the Commission’s rules. 

In March, for example, millions of consumers were unable to call 

911 for 5 hours. Similar outages in the past few years resulted in 

the Commission collectively fining companies more than $30 million. These past fines were a recognition that we depend on 911 

being available during times of greatest need. How did the current 

FCC handle this year’s outage, one of the largest fines ever? No 

penalty and no report that addressed the question of whether the 

Commission’s rules were violated. 

Now, I am all for taking enforcement action whenever the 

public’s trust has been violated. But what is clear is that the majority’s focus is on targeting individuals and small businesses, 

where we are least likely to collect any fines. 

Turning to policy. It is a source of great disappointment that as 

we approach the holiday season, 2.7 million children continue to 

wait for this agency to make good on its word to bring about real 

reform when it comes to the inmate calling regime. In April, the 

FCC majority welcomed Industry Consolidation Month by reinstating the technologically obsolete UHF discount. The result: 

Opening the door for a single broadcast station group to reach more 

than 70 percent of the television households. In that same month, 

we paved the way for huge rate hikes on business data services, 

formerly known as special access, that will not only negatively impact small businesses but rural hospitals, schools, libraries, and police departments as well. Instead of looking out for millions of little 

guys, the Commission’s majority once again chose to align with an 

interest of a handful of multibillion dollar providers. 

In August, we began an inquiry that may actually put us on a 

path of lowering the bar for what we now consider to be high-speed 

broadband. As I travel across this country, the refrain I hear is 

that service is too expensive and speeds are too low. We should be 

aiming to lead the world in having the fastest, most robust 

21 

broadband, not heading in the opposite direction by green-lighting 

broadband service at excruciatingly slow snail-like speeds. 

Now, last month, we took another worrisome turn with the adoption of our latest mobile competition report. Ask those that I have 

met in rural America who are struggling with 2G and 3G service. 

What they want is reliable wireless connectivity. What they have 

is lackluster noncompetitive service, simply put. 

Our reports’ findings do not match the experiences on the ground 

and in the communities across this great Nation. And if I am to 

believe the reports that I am hearing and reading, in just a matter 

of days, as you have heard, the chairman will circulate a series of 

items that include rolling back the best elements of our media ownership rules. If true, the already consolidated broadcast media market will become even more so, offering little to no discernible benefits for consumers. 

Our actions, most often the ones that fail to make the headlines, 

have real everyday consequences. And while I keep and will keep 

doing everything in my power to make sure that we do not dial 

back any further when it comes to consumer protections, just, reasonable, and fair phone rates for all of our citizens, media ownership opportunities, and digital inclusion, I remain fearful, in part, 

because the rhetoric is not in line with the actions. I have submitted a longer statement for the record. 

But once again, allow me to thank the subcommittee for providing me the opportunity to testify today. I look forward, I believe, 

to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:] 

22 


27889.007
23 


27889.008
24 


27889.009
25 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Commissioner Clyburn, you always look forward to the questions, and we are delighted you are here. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O’RIELLY 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be before the subcommittee 

once again as it conducts further oversight of the Federal Communications Commission. 

Before I discuss certain policy and other matters, I would like to 

address the recent tweets by the President of the United States 

raising matters within the purview of this FCC. Let me be clear, 

I do not speak for the President, and I have never met him. However, I think it is fair to say that the new President and his administration have received what can be most kindly called unbalanced 

coverage from various media sources. But you don’t have to take 

my word for it or corresponding studies showing the same. Former 

President Carter stated over the weekend: I think the media have 

been harder on Trump than any other President, certainly that I 

have known about. 

With that said, I do not believe that the Commission’s licensing 

decisions should be influenced or decided by politics. Similarly, like 

my objections to the cozy relationship between the past administration and the Commission, I continue to support the FCC as an 

independent agency. Moreover, I strongly believe in the Constitution of the United States, which includes the First Amendment, 

and have sworn to support and defend it as part of my oath of office. But this is somewhat immaterial, because the beauty of the 

Constitution is that it is the highest law of the land, and the rights 

that it affirms and provides supersede my belief or any action by 

the Commission. It serves to protect us all, even the unwitting bystander or active hostile. 

Turning to substantive matters. A top priority of mine is to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is being put to the most efficient use possible. My overall goal of this work is to position the 

United States and our wireless carriers for overall success in the 

coming years. We know that internationally several nations seek to 

corner the market on next generation wireless technologies, commonly known as 5G, to reap the economic benefits and dictate the 

world’s wireless future. I intend to ensure that the United States’ 

ingenuity and technological development are not unfairly hampered 

by others’ quest for this premier position. 

Moreover, as the insatiable demands of consumers for more mobility and broadband offerings continue, the Commission has the 

arduous task of reclaiming, reallocating, clearing, and, in some 

cases, facilitating spectrum sharing. A prime location for such efforts is the mid-bands, including a 3.5, 3.7 to 4.2, and 3.1 to 3.5 

GHz bands. In terms of unlicensed spectrum, the time has come to 

determine whether the DSRC remains the best use of the 5.9 GHz 

band. If it no longer makes any sense, the Commission could combine the 5.9 GHz with the rest of the 5 GHz band and potentially 

the 6 GHz band to expand current unlicensed operations and promote continued growth. 

26 

Once spectrum is made available, additional auctions will be 

needed to assign licenses. But as Chairman Pai testified, the Commission faces difficulty in securing a financial institution to meet 

the statutory requirements to hold our upfront auction payments. 

Without a willing partner or a change in law, the Commission believes that it is unable to announce a schedule for future spectrum 

auctions, much less hold an auction itself. 

While the subcommittee has included a technical fix within its 

larger reauthorization bill, it is possible that this larger legislation 

may take additional time. Accordingly, I want to thank Representatives Guthrie and Matsui for introducing the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act of 2017, a stand-alone bill for this purpose, and express 

my support for moving this rifle shot approach as soon as possible. 

In terms of process reform, I believe that the Commission is more 

open and transparent now than it has been since I started following its activities. However, I continue to believe that additional 

changes to the Commission’s procedures, both formal and informal, 

are necessary and prudent. On that note, the Commission’s perpetual struggle over the excessive use of delegated authority continues. To rectify this, I have put forth what I consider to be a balanced plan to accommodate the competing interests of permitting 

commissioners to vote and resolving matters expeditiously. I would 

be pleased to work with the subcommittee on this and any other 

process reform ideas. 

I thank the members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

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

27 


27889.010
28 


27889.011
29 


27889.012
30 


27889.013
31 


27889.014
32 


27889.015
33 


27889.016
34 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. And so far, he is 

winning the prize for most time yielded back. 

Mr. Carr, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before you 

today. This is a particular honor for me because this is my first opportunity to testify since I was sworn in as a commissioner in August. For the 8 months before that, I served as the general counsel 

of the FCC, after joining the agency originally as a staffer back in 

2012. 

In my 5 years at the Commission, I have enjoyed working with 

you and your staffs on policies that promote the public interest. I 

want to commend you in particular for your efforts to enact bipartisan legislation, such as Kari’s Law, the Improving Rural Call 

Quality and Reliability Act and, most recently, the markup of an 

FCC reauthorization bill. 

Having served in various roles in both the majority and the minority at the FCC, these experiences have instilled in me an appreciation for the importance of bipartisan consensus and working toward common ground. I commit to carrying that forward in my 

time on the Commission. 

In my testimony, I want to focus on the ways the FCC can continue to incentivize broadband deployment. This is particularly important as we make the transition to 5G, a shift that will require 

a massive investment in both wired and wireless infrastructure. 

But if we get the right policies in place, this transition could mean 

$275 billion in network investment, 3 million new jobs, and half a 

trillion added to the GDP. 

As I see it, there are at least three keys to getting there: Spectrum, infrastructure, and ensuring we have the skilled workforce 

in place to deploy these NexGen networks. First, we need to get 

more spectrum into the market. I am pleased the FCC is pressing 

forward on this front. We have a proceeding underway that is looking at broad swaths of spectrum between 3 and 24 GHz. And the 

chairman has announced that we will vote later this year on opening up additional bands above 24 GHz. These are really great steps 

towards maintaining the United States’ leadership in the global 

race to 5G. 

Second, we must modernize the Federal, State, and local regimes 

that currently govern broadband infrastructure deployment. 5G is 

going to require a 10- to 100-fold increase in the number of cell 

sites in this country. The current regime is simply not tailored to 

support this type of massive new deployment. It costs too much, it 

takes too long. So we need to find ways to drive the unnecessary 

regulatory costs out of the system, and we need to speed the 

timeline for obtaining regulatory approvals. Doing so will be particularly important for rural America. 

One recent study shows that regulatory reform can shift the 

business case for entire communities. Streamlining alone could 

make it economical for providers to deploy 5G to nearly 15 million 

more homes than under the existing and more burdensome regime. 

35 

The lion’s share of those would be in less densely populated parts 

of the country. 

Third, we need the skilled workforce necessary to get this transition across the finish line. Last month, I participated in a roundtable hosted by the Wireless Infrastructure Association outside of 

Baltimore. A broad range of stakeholders from wireless companies 

to independent infrastructure providers all talked about the shortage of skilled workers that can deploy the small cells, distributed 

antenna systems and other infrastructure necessary for 5G. 

Now, while there is no direct regulatory role for the FCC here, 

I think we need to focus additional attention on this issue and potential solutions, including the role that apprenticeship and other 

job training programs can play. And to that end, I will be participating at an event next month at the Department of Labor on 

workforce development. 

One last point. While technology continues to evolve, one constant is the FCC’s obligation to promote public safety. This has 

been highlighted in a most devastating of ways over the past 2 

months with the hurricanes that have overwhelmed communities 

across the country and now currently with the wildfires that we 

see. The FCC has been working hard since well before the first 

hurricane made landfall. And Chairman Pai has kept the agency 

focused on the immediate task of supporting restoration efforts, including by forming a hurricane recovery task force that is coordinating the agency’s work. Right now, the FCC is focused on the 

emergency situations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

while continuing to assess restoration efforts across the country. I 

will see some of those firsthand on Friday when I visit Houston to 

hold a roundtable with broadcasters, meet broadband providers, 

and visit a 911 call center. I will be taking stock of the progress 

that has been made and the ways the FCC can continue to support 

those efforts. 

So, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of 

the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:] 

36 


27889.017
37 


27889.018
38 


27889.019
39 


27889.020
40 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Commissioner Carr. You did well 

in your first appearance. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, 

and the other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. This is my first appearance before you 

since returning to the FCC. I had a little vacation courtesy of your 

friends in the United States Senate. 

Of course, a little distance provides some perspective. And in my 

time off, one thing became abundantly clear: 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. But the fact of the matter is that, 

today, too many Americans lack access to broadband. Let’s put a 

number on it. Right now, 34 million Americans lack access to high 

speed-service. That number includes 23 million Americans living in 

rural areas. That is just not acceptable. We need to do better. 

But, of course, statistics alone don’t tell the whole story. To get 

a picture of just what it means to be consigned to the wrong side 

of the digital divide, consider kids and homework. Today, 7 in 10 

teachers assign homework that requires internet access. But data 

from the FCC show that as many as one in three households do 

not subscribe to broadband. Where those numbers overlap is what 

I call the homework gap. And according to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, the homework gap is real, and it affects 12 million children all across the country. 

I have heard from students in Texas who do their homework at 

fast-food restaurants with fries just to get a free WiFi signal. And 

I have heard from students in Pennsylvania who make elaborate 

plans every day to get to the homes of friends and relatives just 

to be able to get online. I have also heard from high school football 

players in rural New Mexico who linger in the school parking lot 

late at night in the pitch-black dark because it is the only place 

that they can get a reliable connection. These kids have grit, but 

it shouldn’t be that hard, because, today, no child can be left offline. 

Developing digital skills is essential for education and for full 

participation in the modern economy. So I hope that adds a human 

dimension to what it means to not have access to broadband. 

Now, let me tell you what we can do about it. If we want to get 

serious about addressing our broadband problems, we need to know 

exactly where those problems are most pronounced. We need better 

mapping. Nearly 9 years ago, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress had a good idea. It created a national 

broadband map identifying where deployment has and has not occurred. But if you check that map online now, you will last see that 

it was updated 3 years ago. And I don’t have to tell you, in the 

internet age, 3 years is an eternity. 

You cannot manage what you do not measure, so I think it is 

time for a national broadband map that offers an honest picture of 

both wired and wireless broadband across the country. And, of 

41 

course, we can build this map with all sorts of datasets here in 

Washington. But I think it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. I am a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, 

so I think we should put it to the public. If any of your constituents 

have not been able to get service or live in an area that lacks it, 

help us make that map and write us at broadbandfail@fcc.gov. 

I set up this account to take in the public stories and ideas, and 

I will share everything that comes in with the chairman and my 

colleagues, because I think it is time to make every one of those 

broadband fails into something better: broadband success. 

Finally, I want to point out that, with broadband, speed matters. 

The FCC has a statutory duty to annually assess the state of 

broadband deployment. Today, our national standard is 25 megabits. But the agency has sought comment on scaling this back to 

10 megabits. That is crazy. We won’t solve our broadband problems 

by lowering our standards. We need to correct this course immediately and start setting bigger goals if we want to do bigger 

things. 

Let me close by thanking you for having me at this hearing 

today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:] 

42 


27889.021
43 


27889.022
44 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We thank everyone for the testimony. And this 

concludes our testimony portion, and we are going into the Q&A 

portion. And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Chairman Pai, I am going to come to you first. I want to stay 

with that freedom of speech theme. During the last administration, 

the Commission had proposed a multimarket study of critical information needs, and you had made the comment that you thought it 

thrust the Federal Government into the newsrooms across the 

country. And Chairman Upton, Chairman Walden, and many members on this subcommittee, including myself, sent Chairman Wheeler a letter calling the study what we thought would be unconstitutional, and urging him to put a stop to the attempt to engage the 

FCC as the news police. Fortunately, Chairman Wheeler did heed 

our call. 

And I want to know if he put a stop to it, but can you tell us 

more about that project? How close was it to actually happening? 

How much money got spent on that project? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Chairman Blackburn, and 

thank you for your advocacy several years ago. The critical information needs study was a study that was conceived in the prior 

FCC. It spent approximately $900,000, as best I can discern it. And 

the project involved sending government-funded researchers into 

newsrooms to ask questions about why they were or were not covering eight different categories of news that the government 

thought were important, asking questions to news directors and 

the like about perceived bias, and asking a whole host of other intrusive questions. 

It seemed to me that this was not compatible with the agency’s 

obligations under the First Amendment. And so I wrote up an oped about it. And I am grateful that Chairman Wheeler ultimately 

scrapped that study, but not before, as I said, a great deal of money 

had been expended and a rubicon of some sort had been crossed. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Now, when Chairman Wheeler pulled the 

plug on it, the FCC said that some of the questions may not have 

been appropriate and that the Commission would be modifying the 

draft study. So what is the current status on this? 

Mr. PAI. That study will not proceed and—period. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. I just want to ask, for each of you on the 

Commission, is there anybody on this current Commission that 

would support such a study? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Well, Madam Chairman, one of the things that I 

take issue with is how that was couched. I was a part of that 

study, which started out being a study of studies, looking at what 

the Commission gathered in terms of information about the entire 

media ecosystem. And as a result of us not having information, we 

have been kicked back several times to the court about not having 

justification, not having information, not having data. When it 

comes to certain policies, the court has spoken. We don’t have the 

information needed. We are making decisions by putting a finger 

up in the wind and seeing where the political winds are flowing 

and going in terms of information, in terms of our decision-making. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Ms. CLYBURN. And that is why we have a UHF discount that has 

no justification. And that is because we have no information that 

45 

we are gathering. We are just making decisions based on political—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you would support the FCC being in the 

newsroom? 

Ms. CLYBURN. I will support the FCC not being in the newsroom, 

because I am a First Amendment prophet. I had a newspaper for 

14 years, and dare not anybody come into my newsroom and tell 

me what to print. That is not what I am saying. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. Let me ask you all this. In 2009, 

Anita Dunn, the White House communications director said of Fox 

News: We are going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate 

news organizations behave. This overall attitude culminated in the 

exclusion of Fox News From access in numerous large and small 

ways. 

As deputy press secretary Josh Earnest wrote in an email to a 

Treasury official, and I am quoting: We are demonstrating our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews. 

Did any of this raise First Amendment concerns with any of you? 

Yes or no. Commissioner Carr, start with you, and go right down 

the line. 

Mr. CARR. I think it underscores the need for the Commission to 

just stay focused on every action that the agency takes being consistent with—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. We are going to learn to do yes and no. 

OK. Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. I am trying to grasp what are you saying. All I 

know is I am very consistent on First Amendment principles. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. So exclusion from asking questions or 

being included, would that bother you? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Exclusion—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Excluding a news outlet, would that bother 

you? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Excluding a news outlet from—that is not how I 

conduct myself. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. All right. 

Chairman Pai? 

Mr. PAI. I agree with Commissioner Carr. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Chairman BLACKBURN. Yes. OK. Follows instructions well. 

All right. Chairman Rosenworcel? 

Mr. ROSENWORCEL. Tension between administration—— 

Chairman BLACKBURN. Yes or no. You have got to learn to do it. 

Mr. ROSENWORCEL. Tension between administrations are as old 

as the republic. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. 

Mr. ROSENWORCEL. Nothing strikes me about what you have just 

described as being particularly new or unique. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. That is unfortunate. 

All right. Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. 

46 

Commissioner O’Rielly, in the spirit of Chairman Dingell, I have 

a number of questions that I want to ask you with—just requiring 

yes or no answers. And I would appreciate you doing that as rapidly as possible. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. You got it. You used to work on this committee. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. And you helped draft legislation that prevented one 

entity from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national population, correct? 

It is a yes or no. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Thank you. 

In response to a question for the record from me, did you state 

that you believe only Congress can change the cap via the passage 

of legislation? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. At that time that you worked on this legislation, did you understand that a UHF station signal, the ones 

above channel 13, could not travel as far as VHF signals? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Were you aware at that time that the FCC did not 

count the entire reach of UHF stations against the 39 percent national ownership cap? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. And in a twist of fate, since the DTV in 2009, digital 

UHF stations can now reach a larger audience than VHF stations, 

right? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. The UHF discount now allows a single entity to own 

stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national population, correct? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Even though there is no technical reason for this discount anymore, right? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. So the UHF discount just allows companies to reach 

close to 80 percent of the national audience, right? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Do you believe the Congress intended to create a 

loophole in the law? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. That is a no. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Did you state in a response to me that, even though you think 

only Congress can change the national cap, this entire issue may 

need to be litigated through the judicial process to determine which 

position is accurate? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Did you also say that you suspect your position will 

ultimately prevail at the end of the day? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes, always. 

Mr. DOYLE. Does that mean you believe the court will find that 

only Congress can adjust the 39 percent national cap? 

47 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Both parts, yes, national cap and the UHF discount. 

Mr. DOYLE. But did you also state that you will support whatever 

action is necessary to see that the issue gets its day in court? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. So are you saying that you are willing to vote to 

raise the cap, even though you think Congress prohibited the FCC 

from taking that action? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I am saying that I need to see what the item is. 

I don’t want to—— 

Mr. DOYLE. It is a yes or no question. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

If the 39 percent cap is statutory, as you and I both believe, will 

you oppose any attempts by companies to contravene congressional 

intent? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I believe that they comply with the law. 

Mr. DOYLE. Specifically, if the Sinclair-Tribune merger resulted 

in a combined entity reaching more than 39 percent of the national 

audience, that would contravene congressional intent, correct? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. No. 

Mr. DOYLE. Why not? 

OK. Thank you. I will let you get by on that one. 

So if that is the case, though, if it did contravene the 39 percent, 

would you oppose the merger? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I don’t talk about any pending merger before the 

Commission. 

Mr. DOYLE. If the Sinclair merger goes through and the courts 

determine that you were right, that Congress prohibited companies 

from exceeding the cap, should the FCC undo the merger? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I don’t talk about any pending mergers before the 

Commission. 

Mr. DOYLE. Well, let me just say, I think this is a dangerous 

path, because your response to my questions for the record and 

some of your answers here today suggest that you may take steps 

to evade the law by approving a merger, even though you and the 

majority of the Commission agree that it would violate congressional intent. And I hope that you will reconsider that. 

Let me ask Commissioner Rosenworcel if she has anything she 

wants to add to the line of questioning that I have had regarding 

that merger. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. I believe that 39 percent is the 

figure that Congress chose to put in the law and that this Commission needs to abide by it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record five documents. One is the chairman’s 2014 Wall Street 

Journal op-ed, his response; a letter also that he sent regarding a 

letter that a number of members sent regarding the President’s 

threats against the media; a letter from Consumers Union; and the 

statement for the record that Commissioner O’Rielly had sent back 

to me. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

48 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. I see my time is just about 

expired, so I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, it has. 

And, now, Chairman Walden, you are recognized. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Yes or no, Commissioner O’Rielly, do you wish communications 

issues were as simple as yes or no? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Now, moving on. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I am glad you 

raised the ARRA issue. I was on the committee at the time when 

the stimulus bill came through. And I fought like the dickens to get 

the maps done before the money went out the door, and I failed in 

that effort. And so the money went out the door, then they drew 

the maps. 

What I am trying to figure out is why are the maps 3 years old? 

Does the FCC not have a responsibility to keep those up to date? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. I agree with you. 

I think we should be keeping them up to date. I think the fact that 

we spend billions of dollars on Universal Service Fund every single 

year without having a full sense of where service is and is not is 

a problem. 

Mr. WALDEN. I fully agree. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And it is my understanding that the funds 

that were used to support that map at the Department of Commerce ceased to be available when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act came to an end, and I think that the FCC has been 

collecting data through its own 477 process. But it is not—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And how valuable is that 477? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. Compatible with the data from 

the Department of Commerce. 

Wherever you are sitting on this issue, it just seems to me that 

with better data we are going to make better decisions—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And that is the point I—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I actually agree with that and hope you all can figure out what the best reporting improvement mechanism is to get 

to those data points, because we shouldn’t be overbuilding or wasting the ratepayers’ money. 

Mr. Chairman, did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. PAI. I would be happy to. That is precisely why, several 

months ago, I asked the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for a reprogramming of funds to enable us to discharge that 

important function. And I am glad to report that each committee 

agreed with that recommendation and that task is now underway 

and certainly welcome Commissioner Rosenworcel’s support for it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Rosenworcel. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I just want to point out that that sounds terrific, but it is my understanding that that is only for wired 

broadband. And I think an adequate map at this point has to include both wired and wireless. 

Mr. PAI. Certainly, if the committees give us additional reprogramming funds, we would love to pursue it. We cannot act in 

49 

the absence of congressional authorization from our appropriators, 

as this committee well knows. 

Mr. WALDEN. Very good. Maybe we can get everybody on the 

same page on this one. We stand ready to work with you on it. 

Chairman Pai, we have spent a lot of time together over the 

years before this committee, and one of my concerns has been that 

the FCC did not always operate in an open and transparent way. 

I argued for making some of the proposed orders public and have 

it actually circulated so Commissioners could read it, the public 

could read it. 

Have you done anything to improve that process down there? 

Mr. PAI. I believe I have, Chairman Walden. I announced a pilot 

project in the second week I was in office that, for some of the upcoming meetings, we would be publishing at least 3 weeks in advance the actual text on the internet of these orders—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Had that been done before? 

Mr. PAI. It had never been done, and I had been told not only 

was it potentially unlawful for it to be done, but it was also unwise 

for it to be done. And I think the success of the pilot program has 

disproved each one of those claims of fear. 

And, just yesterday, I announced that—or 2 days ago, rather, 

that this would be a permanent project, that we would be doing 

this on a permanent basis for every meeting that the FCC will hold 

into the future so long as I have the privilege of leading the agency. 

Mr. WALDEN. There was an issue about delegated authority and 

Commissioners wanting to be able to take it off delegated authority. Have you made any changes on that one? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. One of the things that Commissioner 

O’Rielly and I noticed in the minority is that if one of us or both 

of us requested that an item that was reportedly going to be done 

on delegated authority—if we requested that item be considered by 

the full commission, my predecessor would typically ignore that. 

And so I said, if there are two Commissioners who want to handle 

something on the full commission level, we will do that. And that 

is what we have done. 

Mr. WALDEN. Good. 

Main studio rule—— 

Mr. PAI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. I think I am the only one on the panel that actually had to comply with that, as an FCC licensee for more than two 

decades. 

Obviously, you believed it outlived its purpose. I believed it outlived its purpose. It made no sense. We very seldom, if ever, had 

anybody come into the main studio for the purpose of looking at the 

public file. That is now online, I believe, right? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely right. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so I am trying to get to this issue of why some 

people think it was like the holy grail of local communication. Because I don’t see it that way; I didn’t see it that way. We acquired 

three other stations in another market. It would have been nice to 

be able to consolidate in overhead and put the money, like we did, 

into more news gathering and into the proramming and all of that. 

People still knew where we lived, and we knew where we lived. 

And so I commend you for getting rid of that rule. 

50 

I think there are a whole bunch of other antiquated rules that 

are legacy, that make no sense in today’s internet communication 

world, that other providers and competitors in the market have no 

obligation to comply with. I don’t see Twitter with their local community rule in any community they serve or any of these others. 

I realize they are not licensed. But, obviously, there is a lot of debate going on now about how all these communication mechanisms 

work in today’s environment. 

My time is gone. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Commissioners, for all the good work you do. We look 

forward to having you back up here on a regular basis. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank the chair for the hearing. 

And I thank you, Commissioners, for your work. It is not an easy 

job. And it is interesting to see the different viewpoints that you 

all have. 

Mr. Chairman, I recently had a chance to visit The Huddle, 

which is a coworker space in my district where startups go together 

to bring innovative ideas and working hard to get their businesses 

off the ground. But they are very worried about the impact that 

doing away with net-neutrality protections will do to their businesses. 

If net-neutrality protections are weakened, as you propose, can 

you commit to me that small businesses and jobs will not be hurt 

in my district? Please answer with a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. PAI. Well, Congressman, I don’t know that particular company, but, obviously, we support a free and open internet that allows small businesses like that to thrive. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Commissioner Clyburn, do you think that that 

will hurt small businesses? 

Ms. CLYBURN. I think, if we shift gears, that they would not have 

the certainty that they need. 

And I think that what doesn’t get enough attention is the impact 

on universal service. And we can talk about that later, but the 

Chairman is not speaking clearly about what the impact on universal service would be if we shift from Title II. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, there has been a series of reports on 

the Sinclair-Tribune merger. I am very concerned about the impact 

that this merger would have. 

The FCC has a critical role to play in the merger approval process. From your perspective, how do you think the Commission has 

handled the review of this merger and the related proceedings? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. 

Frankly, I am concerned. I think any broadcaster reaching more 

than 70 percent of United States households would be unprecedented. 

I am also concerned that, if you look at the series of media policy 

decisions that has been made by this Commission, they all seem to 

serve Sinclair Broadcasting’s business plans, from reinstating the 

UHF discount, to changing the 39-percent rule that was enacted by 

Congress, to possibly foisting on all of our households a new broadcast standard for which they own many, many patents. 

51 

I think it has reached a point where all of our media policy decisions seem to be custom-built for this one company. And I think it 

is something that merits investigation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. That is a pretty strong statement. 

Mr. Pai, should the FCC be doing more to ensure local officials 

have local resources and know how to use the WEA, the Wireless 

Emergency Alerts? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely, Congressman. That is part of the reason 

why I supported the proposal last year to work cooperatively with 

local officials and stakeholders to see if we can strengthen that system. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So we can count on your support in terms of 

producing resources and education? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. Our public safety bureau and I personally 

are committed to making sure that that system is as robust as it 

can be. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Pai, last September, the FCC adopted a further notice of proposed rulemaking that addresses increasing the accuracy of the 

WEA geotargeting. The final round of comments was due on January 9. When does the Commission plan to move on that? 

Mr. PAI. We don’t have a particular timeframe, Congressman. I 

will note two things, however: First, the reason that we have that 

geotargeting proposal is because my office last year urged the full 

Commission to include it. And that is part of the reason why I was 

pleased to support it. 

The second thing is that we are still working very cooperatively 

with local officials, with stakeholders, and others to figure out the 

right way forward. So, while I can’t give you a specific timeframe, 

I do want you to know that this is under active consideration, and 

we are going to do the best we can to make sure that the system, 

as I said, is robust. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, would you commit to giving the committee 

a quarterly report on the progress of that? 

Mr. PAI. I would be more than happy to do so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman Pai, during our last FCC oversight hearing, I asked 

you if you would commit to turning over to this committee any reports, requests, memoranda, and server logs related to the alleged 

May 7 DDOS attacks on the FCC’s electronic systems. 

You said that you had hoped to consult with IT staff and attorneys to see if there were any applicable technical or legal prohibitions against you sharing information with this committee. You 

then committed to sharing the requested information with the committee to the extent that you could do so. 

So far, no one from your staff has followed up with my office regarding this matter, and we still have not received a single document in response to the request. 

Do you recall consulting with the IT staff about this issue? 

Mr. PAI. I do remember meeting about this issue after the hearing. If you don’t mind, I will take a look at it. My understanding 

was that we had gotten in touch, perhaps not with your office but 

with the committee. But I will double-check to make sure, and we 

will get you the information that you need. 

52 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, I will follow up on that, then, and 

make sure we get that information. 

Mr. PAI. OK. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am going to yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. 

Good afternoon to members of the Commission. 

And, regarding the First Amendment, let me say that I think 

you, Chairman Pai, and all members of the Commission, are devoted to the First Amendment, as, of course, we are in Congress. 

I am proud that New Jersey was the first State to ratify the Bill 

of Rights in 1791. 

You mentioned President Kennedy, Chairman Pai, in The Washington Post. Before you were born and, I would imagine, before any 

member of the Commission was born and when I was a little boy, 

John Kennedy canceled his subscription to the Herald Tribune, the 

great Republican newspaper in New York, and my late father, who 

was involved in public policy in New Jersey, sent him a subscription to the Herald Tribune. And we have in our family files a very 

sarcastic and curt letter back from Pierre Salinger saying we 

should stay out of the subscription business of the White House. 

And so, from my perspective, all presidents, on occasion, criticize 

various news agencies. I don’t find it necessarily attractive. My 

reading of American history is that this is done by various presidents. And I have great confidence in you, Chairman Pai, and in 

members of the Commission in this regard. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. LANCE. To Commissioner Carr and to Commissioner 

Rosenworcel, congratulations on your confirmation. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, you recently applauded the AIRWAVES Act, introduced by Senators Gardner and Hassan, for identifying more spectrum that can be made available for wireless 

broadband. 

How would the AIRWAVES Act arm the FCC with tools to keep 

pace with consumers’ significant demand for bandwidth and for the 

race to 5G? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question and the delightful family story. 

Mr. LANCE. I hope I haven’t bored you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. The best part of the AIRWAVES Act is something incredibly simple: It is full of deadlines. It chooses certain 

spectrum bands, and then it tells the agency that it has to auction 

them on a very clear calendar. I think that calendar is useful for 

all aspects of the wireless ecosystem, and I think it is vitally important. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Pai, last month, I believe without warning, Google 

blocked Amazon’s new Echo Show devices from showing any 

YouTube videos. As of November 2016, YouTube was by far the 

leading internet video portal in this country, with 79 percent market share. Netflix was ranked second, with 8 percent. The same 

study found that users age 25 to 34 years spent an average of 178 

53 

minutes each week watching online video. So access to YouTube is 

a deal-breaker for videos devices like the Echo Show. 

From your perspective, Chairman Pai, should the FCC be involved in any way in this matter? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, our internet regulations do not apply to 

edge providers or to conduct of the kind you are describing. So, as 

a matter of law, they simply don’t, at this point. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. And I think that this is a serious matter, 

and I don’t know exactly the venue we should pursue. 

But is there any other member of the Commission who would 

like to comment on this? 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will yield back a minute and a 

half. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We are rolling. You might get the prize. 

Mr. LANCE. I hope so. 

Please, everyone else, may I have the prize? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Now we are into a competition. I have Goo 

Goos in the office. We will see who wins. 

Mr. Ruiz, you are recognized. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. And, yes, I vote to 

give him the prize. 

This hearing is timely for a number of reasons, but, in particular, 

I would like to focus on the FCC’s role in the ongoing recovery effort in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

By way of background, I have training in humanitarian disaster 

relief from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. I am an emergency medicine physician. And I was on the ground in Haiti as the 

medical director for the largest internally displaced camp in all of 

Port-au-Prince after the earthquake in 2010. So I have seen firsthand the challenges that arise in a humanitarian crisis and the importance of communication systems and coordination amongst 

agencies, local governments, and NGOs in the field. 

Two weeks ago, I flew down to Puerto Rico to see the conditions 

for myself and to do a needs assessment based on my training and 

experience. And I found two things that I would like for you to 

carry back and figure out how we can work together to improve. 

One is a lack of clarity of leadership as to which agency is really 

running the show and taking the leadership on the ground. And 

two is a lack of coordination amongst agencies, NGOs, the local 

governments, out in the field, not necessarily in San Juan. 

And so my first question is for Chairman Pai. 

Has the FCC been in the room during these conversations in 

leadership? What is your footprint in Puerto Rico, and what are 

your efforts in coordinating with the other agencies on the ground? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and thank 

you for your attention to this issue, including personal attention in 

the island itself. 

I have spent a lot of time over the last several weeks involved 

in Puerto Rico and the recovery efforts. I have regularly consulted 

with FEMA, with Puerto Rican officials, with wireless companies, 

with tower companies—— 

Mr. RUIZ. ‘‘Regularly’’ means what? Are you invited to weekly, 

daily briefings? 

54 

Mr. PAI. So we get daily briefings on some of the situation 

there—— 

Mr. RUIZ. Do you have people on the ground full-time? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUIZ. Do they go to those meetings in San Juan? 

Mr. PAI. My understanding is that they do liaise with—— 

Mr. RUIZ. Just follow up with that. Do they go down into the periphery and the municipalities as well? 

Mr. PAI. The FCC staff I have spoken with have described to me 

how difficult it was, in some cases—— 

Mr. RUIZ. It is. 

Mr. PAI [continuing]. To go from place to place. 

Mr. RUIZ. Very difficult. 

Mr. PAI. Because, in some cases, the roads weren’t even 

cleared—— 

Mr. RUIZ. Yes. 

Mr. PAI [continuing]. So it was very difficult. 

Mr. RUIZ. So that is good to hear, that you personally are involved in getting calls for sure. 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. 

Mr. RUIZ. And, in this case, we have some lessons learned that 

could save lives. 

I have also made some calls with telecommunication carriers that 

have run into a myriad of barriers, including—and please take 

notes here—one is a lack of security available to keep their engineers and equipment safe so they can make the repairs necessary 

to restore service; two, inconsistent coordination with power providers that could have freed up critical generators for use elsewhere on the island; and, three, failures in the backhaul infrastructure that have prevented towers from coming online even when 

they are powered and repaired; and, four, logistical delays that 

kept temporary satellite trucks, which were utilized, for example, 

in Texas and Florida to provide temporary wireless service, literally waiting on the boat for days. 

So, while a disaster of these proportions is hopefully a rare occurrence, Hurricane Katrina and Sandy have shown us that hope is 

not a luxury that we can rely on. 

Two weeks ago, I submitted a proposal to have the FCC create 

a list of best practices for telecommunications infrastructure and 

preparedness in hurricane and disaster-prone areas. I hope we can 

work together on this proposal to find a commonsense solution that 

fosters improved coordination and more efficient response efforts in 

the future. 

So, Chairman Pai and to the other Commissioners, will you work 

with me on this important issue? 

I will go down the line. 

Mr. CARR. Yes. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Absolutely. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Wonderful. I appreciate your willingness to work on 

this critical issue. 

55 

Finally, Commissioner Rosenworcel. You have been outspoken on 

the need for FCC action in response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, 

and Maria. What more do you think the FCC can do to help with 

recovery efforts right now as well as better prepare for future disasters? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question and your work on 

this subject. 

I think we just need to take a playbook from what we did with 

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. We held hearings. We 

held hearings and talked to people on the ground in locations that 

are different than Washington, D.C. We came up with ideas, we 

put them in reports, and then we changed our rules to make sure 

that we are better prepared the next time. 

While I appreciate that we have a task force, I am confident that 

all good ideas do not reside in our building on 12th Street. And so 

I think we should be getting out, holding hearings, issuing reports, 

and then changing our rules to be better prepared in the future. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate you all being here. Opioids, NDAA conference, and 

then here, so I apologize for missing some of the opening statements. It has been a busy day. 

And I just caught the last end of the comments from you, Commissioner Rosenworcel. And Chairman Pai was out to my district, 

and I appreciate that, visiting on an issue that many of you know 

that I have been working on, 911, going back to when we officially 

made it the national cellular number, all the way until next generation. And the interesting thing about the trip was that it was 

multiple counties, rural counties, working together to move forward. 

And then we had a roundtable. And the roundtable, from my 

point, the people who talked about vesting in the program, they 

said the good and the bad. People who hadn’t yet joined talked 

about why, but why they are thinking about it. 

So I know you have made—and this is to the Chairman. 

I know you have made a lot of trips to rural America. I would 

like to know what some of your takeaways are, other than just the 

next-generation 911, but other issues that have been raised in your 

travels. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and for the 

hospitality you and your folks showed in Harrisburg. 

The key takeaway I have from the trips I have taken, over 4,000 

road-miles in small towns across the country, is that the digital divide is real and that it leaves human capital on the shelf, particularly in rural towns that don’t have internet access. And that is 

why I am deeply committed to doing everything that I can and 

hopefully the FCC doing everything it can to bridge that divide. 

We have seen the payoff in places like Harrisburg, where, as you 

mentioned, 15 rural counties, predominantly lower-income, are able 

to band together and create a next-gen 911 system that enables everybody to be safer than they were before. 

56 

We have seen the potential in education, where rural communities that have high-speed internet access are able to give their 

kids distance-learning opportunities and better educational opportunities overall. 

We have seen the change in telemedicine. I personally visited a 

small town in southwestern Virginia that has been able to cut the 

sepsis rate by 34 percent by using advanced technologies like remote monitoring. 

And we have seen the power in precision agriculture. I have been 

in feed lots in Allen, Kansas, and farms in Maryland and other 

places that tell me that the notion of an analog tractor is long gone. 

Right now, technology is the key driver for agricultural growth. 

So, to me, it just reaffirms the mission of this agency, so long as, 

again, I have the privilege of leading it, that the digital divide has 

to be our top priority. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So let me follow up on the Universal Service Fund 

issues that have been addressed. A lot of House Members have 

talked about how it is insufficient. Letters have gone back and 

forth. My colleague Congressman Cramer and, I know, Congressman Peterson from Minnesota has also taken an interest in this. 

What do you have in the forefront of your plans to address the 

funding issue on the Universal Service Fund? 

Mr. PAI. It is a difficult question, Congressman. Obviously, some 

of the bigger-picture initiatives that we have been able to get 

across the finish line, like the Mobility Fund Phase II and CAF 

Phase II, have been more successful in terms of getting off the 

ground. 

In terms of the budget issue for the rate of return for carriers 

you are talking about, unfortunately, we are in a pickle. Last year, 

the Commission made a decision—over my dissent, I would add— 

that I forecasted at the time would leave us with a shortfall. And 

here we are, and the shortfall is here. 

So one of the things that I have suggested to my staff is that we 

should think about getting a notice of proposed rulemaking out by 

the end of the year, to think about some of these budget issues, to 

be able to tee up before the end of the next budget cycle, which I 

understand ends at the end of June 2018, to be able to address this 

issue in a timely way so that rate-of-return carriers and, more importantly, rural consumers have the certainty they need in order 

to participate in the digital age. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with my 54 seconds left, does anybody else 

want to—I don’t want to leave out the other Commissioners. 

Commissioner Clyburn? 

Ms. CLYBURN. What you are not hearing is a call for contribution 

reform. And that is the elephant in the room—no party pun intended—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, that is fine. 

Ms. CLYBURN [continuing]. That nobody is talking about. And if 

we don’t have a rational conversation about that, we are going to 

stay in a pickle. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I appreciate that. 

Commissioner O’Rielly? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Two parts. One is, I do believe there is an opportunity to use some of our reserves for rate of return to balance out 

57 

both the legacy and the model side to provide—we are not going 

to provide all the money they are requesting, but I think there is 

some opportunity to increase the budget. They have nothing to do 

with the reforms that we adopted last year, which are mostly 

guardrails to prevent bad behavior. 

And then, two, in terms of contribution reforms, since I happen 

to be the chair of the Joint Board on Universal Service, we are trying to move forward on that, but there is a great difference of opinion on some of those things, so we have had to sideline that for the 

time being. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, my time has expired. I think there is still a 

great difference of opinion among a lot of Members of Congress too. 

So I appreciate the challenges, and I appreciate you being here. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Loebsack, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I do agree with my friend Mr. Shimkus that we have to deal 

with the funding issue. The question is going to be how are we 

going to do it. 

First, Commissioner Rosenworcel, great to see you back. Appreciate that. I haven’t seen you since you were actually in Newton 

and Baxter, Iowa—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK [continuing]. Way back in 2016. And people there 

were very happy to hear you talk about the homework gap issue 

and, just generally speaking, these rural broadband issues. 

I saw that at a recent field hearing you did highlight the need 

for better data collection. And now you have this crowdsourcing 

proposal. After you mentioned that, I quickly went to your Twitter 

account and checked it out to see what was going on there, because 

I do want you to talk about that a little bit more. 

But, before I do that, I am grateful that the subcommittee took 

up my Rural Wireless Access Act and we did move it forward. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have to get that out of the full committee. 

It is great to talk about making sure that we have better data. 

I remember, Chairman Pai, when we talked last, you had mentioned going through northwest Iowa, going from southwest Minnesota to northwest Iowa—or maybe it was the other way—and 

you had a lot of problems, obviously, with cell service. As someone 

who has 24 counties in Iowa, I am fully aware of this problem, as 

are all my constituents. 

But my bill, hopefully we are going to get it out of full committee, get it on the floor, and get this thing enacted at some point, 

and hopefully sooner rather than later, to make sure that you folks 

have statutory authority, as much as anything, to do the things 

that you are talking about today. 

But can you elaborate a little bit on your crowdsource proposal? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. 

Listen, for a long time, the way that the FCC collected data 

about broadband is we found, if there was one subscriber in a census block, we presumed that it was available throughout the block. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

58 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think we all know that that is not a fair 

assumption anymore, and we are leaving too many households behind. 

We also have been collecting data and shapefiles from wireless 

carriers, and sometimes they get it right, but sometimes, as you 

probably know, you can drive through places and find that you 

have no bars and no ability to make a call. 

We are going to have to work hard to have more precision in our 

maps to target our policy efforts, and I think we should be asking 

the public for help. I think they know better than anyone else 

where they live, where they get service and they don’t. And I feel 

like it is time to start incorporating public comment into our maps 

if we want to make them effective and accurate. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I appreciate that. It is democratizing the process, 

and that is—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Exactly. 

Mr. LOEBSACK [continuing]. Very important. I think we can all 

agree with that. Thank you. 

For all the witnesses, at the recent repack hearing that we held, 

American Tower’s witness said in his testimony that there was a 

shortage of qualified tower crews. There are some of us who have 

some ideas about how we can address that issue. 

Do you agree with that assessment, and do we have enough 

crews to get the job done in 39 months? If not, what will happen 

to broadcasters who can’t complete the transition in that time? 

To any of you folks who would like to address that issue. 

Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. 

Mr. PAI. Well, I will simply say that we try to structure the 

phases such that we would be able to accommodate variations in 

terms of weather and availability of crews and the like. 

If we get information that there is a bottleneck like that that 

might stand in the way of the 39-month deadline being able to be 

met, we will certainly work with Congress and with stakeholders 

to take the appropriate action. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Anyone else want to comment? 

Mr. O’Rielly? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, I have raised this issue a number of times 

with different industry groups to see where we were, and I was 

concerned that there was a shortage of crews. And we have seen 

an increase of the number of crews, some of those sponsored by the 

wireless companies who would like to take advantage of those licenses on an early basis. 

So it has been relatively positive, but I think the Chairman is 

exactly right. We have to get through some of the phases and see 

where we are. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Any of the other Commissioners want to speak on 

that issue? No? 

It is a workforce development issue too. We have to get the right 

number—we have to get the people trained so they can do that. 

And I have talked to my friend Mr. Shimkus about that too. We 

have to move forward on that. 

While we are on the subject of the Universal Service Fund—and, 

Commissioner Pai, you know that I have written to you about moving the resources to the U.S. Treasury and some of the concerns 

59 

I have about that, making sure that the funds actually are used 

as they are supposed to be used. 

Would you like to address that issue? Because I think that is a 

legitimate issue. If we move the funding, you know, to the U.S. 

Treasury instead of from the bank, then I think that is going to be 

a really difficult issue that we have to resolve. 

Go ahead, if you want. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Congressman. And I appreciate your concern. 

The issue, as I understand it, from a financial perspective, is 

twofold. Number one, from a legal perspective, it is safer for Federal funds of this kind to be stored with the United States Government as opposed to a private account. 

Secondly, given some of the issues that arise when these funds 

are kept in a private bank account—for example, if there is somebody who owes money to the IRS and that person is also at the 

same time getting money from the FCC, the Federal Government 

is limited in its ability to have an offset, so to speak. Keeping the 

money in that Treasury account allows essentially the Federal taxpayer to be whole, that we are not sending money out the door in 

a way that, at the end of the day, Congress might not want. 

And so we have been exploring with Treasury and with others 

the way to move forward on this. But, obviously, we are happy to 

take any input on ways to accommodate multiple interests. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you look like you 

wanted to say something. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I appreciate what my colleague just said. I 

think we have gotten conflicting advice over the years on this from 

OMB and GAO. 

But I just want to make this point: We get about $50 million in 

interest income every year from the accounts as they are held 

today. $55 million can go far for rural broadband—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. That is right. Exactly. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. For connecting schools and students. We are choosing to forgo those dollars. I don’t think that 

makes sense. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. PAI. If I may, Congressman, if, God forbid, something were 

to happen to those funds when they were in a private bank account 

and all the billions of dollars of Universal Service Funds somehow 

went away, we would be accountable to Congress. And you would 

be asking me, as the leader of this agency, why did you jeopardize 

taxpayer funds by keeping them in a private bank account when 

thousands, if not millions, of Americans are depending on those 

funds? That is a tough tradeoff I have to make. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I think it is a—— 

Ms. CLYBURN. That is why we need to put this out for comment. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you so much. It is a difficult issue. We 

have to deal with it. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You are welcome. 

And, Mr. Latta, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for 

today’s hearing. 

60 

And thanks very much to the Commissioners for being with us 

today. As always, it is great to see you all. 

And just following up on my friend from Illinois, I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O’Rielly, for you coming 

out to my district, because I think you take an interest. And, in 

this one case, when the Chairman was out with the very small 

rural telecoms that you met with. And it wasn’t really a roundtable; we were actually sitting around a square table. But there 

were quite a few people there that day that you addressed, and 

they appreciated it. And, Commissioner O’Rielly, for coming out 

and talking to our smaller broadcasters in the area, I appreciated 

that. So it is good that you are listening to the folks back home. 

Chairman Pai, if I could start my questions with you. Like you, 

I believe modernizing regulations is critical to spur innovation. For 

instance, I would like to see the FCC streamline procedures for 

small entities to seek regulatory relief. The current waiver regime 

has a one-size-fits-all construction. It is disproportionately burdensome on small entities and, when needed, diverts the resources 

from infrastructure investment to regulatory compliance. 

Do you believe there is a need for a more efficient and expedited 

process that allows small entities to seek relief from these unnecessary regulations? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I appreciate the question. And I do think, 

consistent with my views, that we should try to minimize the regulatory burdens on smaller providers, that that is an approach that 

has merit. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, what are your thoughts? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I agree. I think it has incredible merit. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, in your statement on the Commission’s 

adoption of the mid-band spectrum, NOI, you noted that the 6 

gigahertz band is adjacent to the unlicensed 5 gigahertz band. 

Would you elaborate on the potential benefits if the 6 gigahertz 

band is made available on an unlicensed basis? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So we have to deal with incumbency issues within 

6 GHz, but I think that there will be tremendous benefit by combining it with 5 GHz. Wider channels provide opportunity for 

greater speeds, latency reductions, and consumer experience will go 

through the roof. 

We have a shortage of WiFi spectrum or unlicensed spectrum 

going forward, and we need to address that. There are estimates, 

by 2025, we will need somewhere between 500 MHz and 1 GHz of 

additional unlicensed spectrum. Six GHz makes a great platform 

for that solution. 

Mr. LATTA. So when you are talking about especially how badly 

congested that 2.4 to 5 GHz bands—are already available to the 

unlicensed community. So the congestion is how bad, would you 

say? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So I don’t have an exact measurement, but when 

I talk to folks in the industry, they barely will use 2.4. Five 

gigahertz is obviously popular, but that is becoming extremely 

more popular, and so we are running out. 

61 

That is why I have spent a great deal of time on 5.9 and my colleague and I have worked really hard on 5.9. But then 6 gigahertz, 

being right next door, is a great platform. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Voice-activated virtual assistants, like Siri, Alexa, and Google 

Assistant, are becoming an increasingly popular consumer gateway 

to the internet. Someday soon, they might even become the consumer-preferred interface with the internet, leaving the age of the 

desktop Google search behind. 

You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn radio 

from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition, the consumers’ access to other internet content is limited or completely blocked. It 

is the question of who answers Siri’s question when you ask Siri 

something. 

Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, under our current internet regulations, 

we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers. 

Mr. LATTA. And, Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel, do 

you think this is a concern for the open internet? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Again, our jurisdiction is very limited. I think 

there is an impact, an influence, but, in terms of our ability, it is 

very limited to negligible. 

Mr. LATTA. Commissioner Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I would agree with both my colleagues that 

our jurisdiction does not extend to that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back, but he is not in the 

running for a prize. 

OK. Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And welcome to you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the Commissioners. 

Commissioner Carr, congratulations to you. 

Commissioner Clyburn, it is always an honor to have you here 

at the committee, get to know you. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, terrific to keep the Irishmen together 

here. You’re a set of bookends. 

And to Commissioner Rosenworcel, it is really terrific to have 

you back. 

And I think that it all represents a win for the American people, 

hopefully. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been debating something inside of myself, 

so I am just going to make a statement. I don’t want to go on and 

on about it, but I need to say something. To bring together President Kennedy with Donald Trump I don’t think is palatable. And 

I am just going to leave it there. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, that I have raised deep concerns about 

RT. Our intelligence community has determined, with high confidence—that is the highest level of agreement between all of the 

agencies—that they interfered in our democracy. The intelligence 

62 

community described them as the Kremlin’s ‘‘principal international propaganda outlet.’’ 

I wrote to you May 8, urging you to consider applying broadcast 

transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like 

RT so the American people would know whether foreign governments are behind the content they are reviewing. I found your response to be ambiguous, and, most frankly, I don’t think you answered my questions. And it is curious that I get a response to my 

letters at about 6:30 in the evening the night before the day we are 

going to have a hearing with you. 

I think that this is a very serious issue. The intelligence community and all of the Members of the House participated in that briefing. It was a classified briefing, but there was also an unclassified 

report that was put out, and that unclassified report was replete 

with RT. 

Now, I don’t know what I need to do to either impress upon you 

that this is a serious issue and that you take it seriously—so I 

want to ask you, will you commit to us that you will apply or consider applying broadcast transparency requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if not, why not? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, you are welcome. 

Mr. PAI. As I understand the law, there is no jurisdictional hook 

at this point, no transfer of a license, for example, that allows the 

FCC to assert jurisdiction. If—— 

Ms. ESHOO. But what about those that have a license and carry 

them? Doesn’t the FCC have any say-so in that? Or is this—as the 

intelligence community said, that they are a principal international 

propaganda outlet. So are they just going to operate in the United 

States no matter what? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act 

and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have, currently, a jurisdictional hook for doing an investigation of that kind. 

If you are privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified information that suggests that there might be another agency that has obviously a direct interest in the issue, we are obviously happy to 

work with them. But, at the current time, as I have been advised, 

neither under the First Amendment nor under the Communications Act do we have the ability to—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, the First Amendment applies to free speech in 

our country. It doesn’t mean that the Kremlin can distribute propaganda in our country through our airwaves. 

I don’t know if you are looking hard enough. Maybe if Commissioner Carr were still the general counsel, he could advise you better. But I am not going to give this up. 

I want to move to something else, and that is this issue on media 

consolidation. Three years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Commission 

voted unanimously to prohibit two stations in a market from jointly 

negotiating retransmission consent. And you were part of that 

unanimous vote. 

Now, by eliminating the duopoly rule, which reports indicate you 

are preparing to do next month, you would permit two of the top 

four stations in a market to merge. 

So how do you explain this? 

63 

Mr. PAI. Well, those reports are inaccurate. As I outlined in my 

opening statement and as you will see tomorrow when we publish 

in unprecedented fashion the actual text of this document, we were 

doing a case-by-case review in particular markets—— 

Ms. ESHOO. So this will apply to Sinclair? 

Mr. PAI. It applies to any broadcaster that seeks to enter into an 

agreement that otherwise would be in violation of the top-four prohibition. So some—— 

Ms. ESHOO. With 73-percent dominance of a market, how does 

that fit? Where does that fit? 

Mr. PAI. So some had argued we should just get rid of the topfour prohibition—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, he can answer the question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. PAI. Some had argued that we simply get rid of the top-four 

prohibition. My recommendation to our staff was to draft it so that 

there would be a case-by-case review. We would not get rid of it. 

We would review, if there were particular facts that a particular 

broadcaster would bring to us and that presents a compelling case 

that that combination would be in the public interest, then we will 

take a look. But, otherwise, the prohibition applies. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Time has expired. 

Ms. ESHOO. I wish I had more time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, everyone, for being here. 

And, Commissioner Carr, welcome. 

And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back. 

We look forward to working with you guys over the course of this 

term. 

First, Chairman Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly, thanks for letting us know about the auctions and the inability for the financing 

fix that you need. I know that the chairman in the overall authorization bill is taking care of this. But also, yesterday, Congresswoman Matsui and I did drop a bill to specifically fix the issues so 

we can move forward, hopefully, on the auctions moving forward. 

I had a question. In 2013—and I was one of the households affected by this—there was a carriage dispute between CBS and 

Time Warner Cable, and CBS blocked Time Warner Cable internet 

customers from viewing its shows online through its cbs.com 

website. So I couldn’t get any of CBS or Showtime or any of that 

on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner Cable was 

our cable provider and internet service provider, you couldn’t go to 

cbs.com—it was blocked—or Showtime to watch any of those shows 

that were coming out. And that is when some new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find that. 

But some Members of Congress did bring this up, and I think 

Chairwoman Clyburn was acting Chairwoman at the time and said 

that she didn’t believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene 

in this situation. 

And, Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you 

think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a similar 

case? 

64 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I think the legal authorities have not 

changed. To the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a party 

is acting in bad faith in the context of a retransmission dispute, 

then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absent such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we couldn’t take further action. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But, currently, the Title II open internet is still in 

effect. How would that affect it? 

Mr. PAI. Oh, yes. To be clear, I should have added, as well, then, 

our internet regulations would not apply to that kind of content, 

to the extent you are talking about the blocking of online distribution of—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Because it only applies to the service provider, not 

to the content provider? 

Mr. PAI. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So I brought your name up there, Commissioner 

Clyburn, to comment on that. So, being an advocate for the Title 

II—and I think Commissioner Rosenworcel, when she was on the 

Commission, as well—should it be expanded, where it doesn’t just 

affect internet service providers but you should also have jurisdiction on the content side as well? If it is good for one, should it be 

good for the other is my question. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Well, I am not in a position to comment at this 

time. I just know what is in front of me and what the rules of the 

roads are at this time. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. 

Same answer, I guess? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No. To be clear, that behavior was problematic. From a consumer perspective, that stinks, right? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes. I was a consumer. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. But I would point out that what we are talking about when we talk about telecommunications service and telecommunications under Title II is about the provision of service by 

a provider of broadband, and the jurisdiction does not extend to the 

content providers, as you described. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes, that was my point. Yes. Thanks a lot. 

So I have some questions on spectrum. I am cochair with Congresswoman Matsui on the Spectrum Caucus. So Congresswoman 

Matsui and I sent a letter last summer—this is to Commissioner 

Pai, Chairman Pai—last summer regarding a pending license modification petition for the L band satellite-terrestrial network. 

What is your ideal timeline for getting information from the 

other agencies you are working with? Do you think the end of the 

year is reasonable, or will you need more time? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, we don’t have a specific timeframe in 

mind at this point. What I can say is that it is a matter that is 

under active consideration and that we are collaborating with other 

agencies and private stakeholders to see if we can reach a resolution. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thanks. 

And for all the Commission, given the efforts of the Spectrum 

Caucus, I strongly support a further deep dive by the committee on 

wireless issues. And so, just getting your opinion, going down the 

committee, for auctions, could you each give me what you think is 

65 

the top spectrum issue that we should be focusing on this upcoming 

calendar year for moving forward on auctions? What do you think 

is the top issue for the committee? 

All of you who would like to answer that. Commissioner Carr 

first. 

Mr. CARR. Sure. Thanks. 

Obviously, we have the hurdle right now in terms of our authority to conduct the auctions in terms of the money. And so the top 

focus that I have over the next year is going to be infrastructure 

deployment on the wireless side. I think we have a lot of progress 

that we can make there to help maintain our leadership. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. 

Ms. CLYBURN. And for me, it is to ensure multiple providers, no 

matter what size, and if they have the ability to participate. So it 

would be contours, the size of the bidding areas. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. That is a good answer. Thank you. 

Mr. PAI. In the tried and true tradition of pandering to my questioner, I think the Guthrie-Matsui legislation is the number-one 

issue. We cannot have any spectrum auctions, certainly of any significance, without that fix. It is a bottleneck for the agency. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes, I think you may be about next, so that was 

a good pandering. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, about 10 seconds. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I agree with my colleagues there, infrastructure 

and freeing more spectrum. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Commissioner Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. All right. I agree with my colleagues there, 

but I also want to quickly read you a list: 470 to 512 megahertz, 

3.5 gigahertz, 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz, 6 gigahertz, 28, 37, 39, 24, 32, 

42, 47, 50, 70, 80, and 95 gigahertz are all under consideration at 

the Commission right now. 

What we need, instead of that blitz of spectrum, is a calendar 

that makes clear we have some bands that we are going to auction 

earlier than others so that the wireless ecosystem and financial 

markets can organize around it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. That is helpful. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

My questions are to Chairman Pai. And I want to discuss your 

reaction to the President’s attacks on the press. And I have a number of questions, so if you could keep your answers to yes or no, 

I would appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said, ‘‘Network 

news has become so partisan, distorted, and fake that licenses 

must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked’’? 

Mr. PAI. Is that from a tweet? 

Mr. PALLONE. That is a quote. Yes. The question is, are you 

aware of that quote? 

Mr. PAI. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you. 

66 

Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said, ‘‘It is 

frankly disgusting that press is able to write whatever it wants to 

write and that The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and 

CNN are the enemy of the American people’’? That he said that, 

are you aware? 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

Now, do you think that these types of statements are appropriate 

for the President of the United States to make? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I am going to speak to my own views and 

my own words. And my views are that I stand with the First 

Amendment. I am not going to characterize the views of anybody 

else. 

Mr. PALLONE. But, Mr. Chairman, you did say on another other 

occasion, and I quote, that the American people are being misled 

about President Obama’s plan to regulate the internet, right? You 

said that. 

Mr. PAI. Because that was a direct compromise of the agency’s 

independence on a particular pending issue where the agency was 

already heading in a different direction. 

Mr. PALLONE. But if you are not shy about speaking out against 

President Obama, let me ask you this: Would you condemn attacks 

on the press if they had come from President Obama? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I always focus on the facts and the law. 

That is our job, in terms of licensing—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I just think it is a double standard here. 

Before coming to the FCC, you worked for then-Senator Jeff Sessions, correct? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. Are you aware that, when asked if he would, and 

I quote, jail reporters for doing their job, he said he cannot make 

a blanket commitment to that effect? 

Mr. PAI. I am not aware of that. I hadn’t heard that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, he said it. 

When you spoke at the Mercatus Center last week, did you say, 

‘‘Under the law, the FCC doesn’t have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular 

newscast’’? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, I did. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Do you understand why reporters might be 

concerned when the Attorney General and the Chairman of the 

FCC leave open the threat of punishment and even jail time? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, again, I wasn’t familiar with General Sessions’ statements, and I am certainly not familiar with the perceptions of journalists. All I will simply say is that this FCC stands 

on the side of the First Amendment, and that includes the ability 

of journalists to gather news as they see fit. 

Mr. PALLONE. But the problem is that the people raising this 

issue, Mr. Chairman, are concerned that your silence or your overly 

lawyered responses contribute to a culture of intimidation that can 

chill free speech. And so, that is why I am trying to clear the air, 

because I am concerned about the impact of either silence or an 

overly lawyered response. 

67 

At the Mercatus Center, you said that you would not act based 

on a particular newscast. Would you revoke a license based on multiple newscasts? 

Mr. PAI. No. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

Now, I have here a working paper—I don’t know if it is in the 

record, Madam Chairwoman, so I am going to have to ask if we can 

enter it into the record. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PALLONE. I have a working paper produced by the Mercatus 

Center. In this working paper, the Center suggests the FCC is able 

to threaten free speech through other mechanisms, like license 

transfers. 

Do you commit that your Commission will not threaten broadcasters’ license transfers based on the content of the reporting? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will not 

launch investigations into companies based on the content of the 

reporting? 

Mr. PAI. Sorry. Can you repeat that? 

Mr. PALLONE. Do you commit that your Commission will not 

launch investigations into companies based on the content of the 

reporting? 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will not 

take any acts of retribution against companies based on the content 

of the reporting? 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Well, let me look. I appreciate working that 

out, because I think that is important. 

So, finally, Chairman Pai, when you first took office, you committed to me that you would be responsive to Congress even if a 

request came from Democratic Members. Now, I have heard complaints from my colleagues that your responses to a number of 

their letters have also been nonsubstantive and evasive. You have 

even avoided multiple times answering my questions about allegations involving your relationships with Sinclair Broadcasting, including refusing to even answer my letter. 

So let me just say, we are going to look into your continued evasiveness on some of these important issues, including Sinclair. And 

I just want you to know that I am not happy, and I am not going 

to tolerate the agency not responding to us, because I don’t really 

feel they have, with regard to Sinclair and so many other issues. 

That is just my opinion. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very 

much. 

Before I begin my questioning, Chairman Pai, I know you inherited a backlog of petitions related to the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act. This is an area of real concern to many indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:39 Feb 23, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-69 CHRIS
68 

viduals across various industries. I look forward to your response 

and future action to this topic. 

I will move on here. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, during the last oversight hearing, I had 

a discussion with Chairman Pai regarding interference complaints 

and pirate radio operations. I know that this is an important area. 

I know you care about it, very much, to resolve it. 

Can you share the differences between repercussions pirate radio 

operators face as compared to robo-callers? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So I will give you an example of a couple different 

items, enforcement actions that were taken by the Commission. 

In terms of pirate radio, we just did one for—and the NAL was $144,000 for pirate radio operating in Florida. In terms of a robocall, it was $82 million. And in terms of a cramming call, cramming 

behavior and slamming, it was $3.9 million. So $3.9 million, $82 

million, $144,000. The difference between the two—or between the 

three is amazing. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Wow. Wow. 

OK. Related to this topic, again, for you, Commissioner, do you 

or any of the Commissioners here on the panel know of any instances where pirate radio operators interfere with public safety or 

military use frequencies? 

We will start off with you, Commissioner O’Rielly. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. So, technically, it wouldn’t be pirate radio because 

that is someone operating within the AM or FM band, but they 

have violated the sanctity of public safety. Just recently, we had an 

enforcement action of someone in New York that was violating the 

New York public safety system, and they were fined, or they had 

an enforcement action against them. They are still in prison at the 

time, but we will see if we get that money. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone else? 

OK. I will go on to the next question. 

Chairman Pai, I regularly advocate for seniors and, again, improved quality of life for seniors. I think you know that. 5G technology promises great benefits for our growing elderly population. 

What can the FCC do to advance specific telehealth technologies 

like remote patient monitoring to allow seniors to remain independent and age in place? 

Mr. PAI. That is a great question, Congressman, and it is a growing need as our population ages. I don’t want to steal her thunder, 

but Commissioner Clyburn has been the leader on this issue in pioneering the Connect2Health Initiative, but I—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, I would like to give her an opportunity as 

well. 

Mr. PAI. And I don’t want to throw it in her lap, but she has 

been a leader on it. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. 

Ms. CLYBURN. One of the things that we are proud of, as the 

Chairman has endorsed, is the Connect2Health Task Force, as he 

mentioned. And one of the things that it is doing is looking at that 

intersection of broadband, technology, and health. 

And another thing that it is doing is very helpful. It has developed a broadband mapping tool that looks at what is going on on 

69 

a county-by-county basis in the United States and looking at where 

broadband is available, where healthcare providers are or are not, 

and is informing communities as to how best to approach different 

business models, different initiatives that might be needed in particular areas. 

And so we are really on—as quiet as it is kept, even though people in the ecosystem know about it, we are front and center on providing a means for people to be informed so they can make better 

critical decisions. 

And this will help us also on our Healthcare Connect Fund, 

which we need to talk about enhancing that. Because, in order to 

make all of these things more ubiquitous, allowing people to age in 

place and address their needs, connectivity is key, affordability is 

key. And I am looking forward to working with you as we progress. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I, too. 

Everyone on board with this? Anyone want to make a comment? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, just to the last point maybe, that we have 

to balance all those things with all our budget overall. And so, we 

talk about expanding services; we have to figure out how we can 

pay for all of that. And that gets—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Of course. 

Mr. O’RIELLY [continuing]. Back to the conversation on contributions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely. 

Chairman Pai? 

Mr. PAI. I will simply add to Commission Clyburn’s able disquisition on the issue that I think the importance of remote monitoring, 

in particular, cannot be overstated. If you are an older person who 

has difficulty coming into a hospital or you have just had surgery 

and you have just returned home, the worst thing that can happen 

for you is to get an infection or some sort of illness that will require 

you to come back. 

And so I have seen for myself in Staunton, Virginia, how a hospital center is using remote monitoring, as I said earlier in response to a question, to decrease the sepsis rate by 34 percent, disproportionately, I think, among older individuals. And that is something, if you can intervene quickly, thanks to this technology—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. PAI [continuing]. Everyone is better off. The healthcare system is better off because you are not spending money on an in-hospital regimen of treatment. 

And so it is something that I am really excited about. And I am 

glad that Commissioner Clyburn has been a pioneer on this issue. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Dingell, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no voice. Too 

much talking. 

It is great to have all of you here. The Dingell names have a long 

connection with the FCC, sometimes good, sometimes not. But I 

want to first start on the important topic of privacy and how it relates to the ATSC 3.0. 

70 

I am really worried about privacy, and I think you all need to 

be too. This new broadcast standard allows for interactive TV, personalized ad placements, and for granular collection of data about 

who is watching what. 

Chairman Pai, if someone is looking to take advantage of this 

personalized content, they would like to give up information about 

themselves, would they not? 

Mr. PAI. So, sorry, would they be—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. So, if someone wants to use it, they are going to 

have the tell the provider what personal information about themselves? 

Mr. PAI. The individual consumers? 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes, the consumer. 

Mr. PAI. Well, it depends on the particular—these are nascent 

services. I don’t know—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. Yes, the personalized content. So, as we are looking at this ATSC 3.0, it is going to be more personalized content. 

Mr. PAI. Right. Yes. I see where you are—yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. So how is the FCC considering privacy concerns 

as the Commission is looking at this new standard? 

Mr. PAI. A great question, Congresswoman. 

Right now, we are looking at just the technical standard, should 

we be able to proceed with this new next-generation TV standard 

and, if so, what should the technical parameters be. I would imagine that, as those privacy concerns and others like that come to the 

fore, that the agency is going to be looking at that too. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I think it is really important. 

My staff wouldn’t let me ask some of the other questions I wanted to ask today. But I don’t think people realize that, when we will 

have televisions watching us, that there is reverse, as people are 

using all of these great new gadgets, how much information is 

being collected about them. 

And who has responsibility for letting people know that kind of 

data is being collected? 

Mr. PAI. Right. I think, in the first instance, the Federal Trade 

Commission has generally been the cop on the beat of privacy—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. They have, but so much of this is with the FCC. 

I think you all have a responsibility to really look at some of this. 

And do you think that this new data that is generated will be 

kept in house by the provider, or do you think it is going to be sold 

to third parties? 

Mr. PAI. Again, here, it is a nascent—the standard hasn’t even 

been adopted, so we are not sure how any particular service—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. But should this be part of looking at a standard? 

Mr. PAI. As the services materialize, Congresswoman, we will 

certainly be monitoring all those kinds of concerns. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. 

The last time you were here, in July, you agreed to follow up 

with this committee on the steps you were taking to mitigate 

DDOS attacks. What updates can you share with us? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, we have 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. 

71 

But what I can say is that our IT staff is always vigilant to make 

sure that we have the protocols in place to make sure that our IT 

systems are up and running. And I have appreciated the chance to 

work with this committee, as well as our appropriators, to get the 

funding to make sure that continues to be the case. 

Mrs. DINGELL. I will leave you off the hook and ask Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think that the public-interest standard 

requires that you look at the effect of Commission actions on small 

businesses and consumers? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Absolutely. Small businesses create twothirds of the new jobs in the economy. The Commission should always be thinking about the impact on small business, and I think 

the public-interest standard incorporates that. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. 

A lot of us have already asked this question, so I am just going 

to make an observation and see if you all agree or disagree with 

me. 

Mergers of the scale of the Sinclair-Tribune are not always popular, but I can’t ever remember when everybody was so opposed to 

the idea. Can any of you think of a merger that has met this type 

of united opposition? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Commissioner Clyburn? 

Ms. CLYBURN. I can say that, within my last 8-plus years, this 

is the most energized that I have seen diverse parties. 

Mrs. DINGELL. And anybody else that wants to say something. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I will jump in here. I used the word ‘‘energize.’’ 

But I would say that I have seen it before, and that is the reason 

we have a 39 percent cap. It was a result of a transaction that 

caused a lot of uprest between the relationship between the network and an affiliate. And that is the reason the Congress stepped 

in at the time and addressed it. 

So in terms of the excitement or energy, I have seen the energy 

level far beyond what it is today in that—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. But the broad spectrum of people opposing is unusual. 

I may yield back my 9 seconds, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the commissioners for being here today. 

I have heard some buzzwords that caught my attention. Full 

Chairman Walden talked about the complexity of the telecom environment and how difficult your job is, and I agree with that. Commissioner Clyburn talked about how the technology is necessary to 

create opportunities for Americans, particularly in rural America. 

And it took me back a little bit, and I have been thinking about 

this for the last several months, how important your job is. 

If we look at the hundred years of American history, from 1868 

to roughly 1970, we started out in 1868 at the most divided point 

that our Nation has ever been in, at the end of a brutal and bloody 

Civil War. We healed our internal wounds to go in to fight off tyranny in Europe in two world wars, mobilizing from scratch both 

times, practically. Did the same thing in Korea. And at the same 

72 

time in that hundred-year period, from 1868 to 1970, we saw one 

of the most explosive, innovative periods in human history: the 

light bulb, the combustion engine, the automobile, the mass production of automobiles, the assembly line process, the industrialization of Western cultures, the airplane, powered flights, space travel, landing a man on the Moon, organ transplants, telecommunications and computing technologies, nuclear power. That, I think, 

the case could be made that that was one of the most innovative 

periods in human history. 

I talk about that a lot to people that I represent back in Ohio, 

because then I follow it with a question. What have we done since 

1970? You know what answer I get most often? The internet, 

telecom. And why is that the case? I believe that is the case because it is the one area that the Federal Government couldn’t figure out how to regulate. If you go back to the 1970s, that is when 

the EPA came into being, that is when the Department of Energy 

came into being, that is when the Department of Education came 

into being. All of a sudden back in the 1970s, Washington kind of 

thought that the American people had it wrong for all that time. 

Instead of telling the American people what we should be innovating on and what we should be focused on to create opportunities 

for the American people, Washington started talking about how to 

innovate, where to innovate, when to innovate, why to innovate, 

and in many cases, picking the winners and losers and determining 

who should be able to innovate. 

So I throw that out there just as a thought provoker to you folks. 

Your job is so vitally important. We can’t throw water on the campfire of American innovation and ingenuity. And I would submit 

that if we really want to create opportunities, if we would just look 

at our own Nation’s history and realize that if Washington would 

just get out of the way, in many regards that the American people 

are more than capable of creating their own opportunities through 

innovation and ingenuity. And I think that is an important thing 

for you folks to remember. And I see the attitude of the Commission today, and I think that is what you are trying to do. So I applaud that. 

Let me ask you one quick question here, and it is a yes or no 

question, so it will be easy, especially for Commissioner O’Rielly. 

He is good at this. In 2013, it was reported that the Justice Department had spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 

2010, collecting his phone records, 2 days’ worth of his personal 

emails, and tracking his movements to and from the State Department. So in the 32 seconds that I have remaining, each of you, 

starting with Mr. Carr, Commissioner Carr, did this raise First 

Amendment concerns for you at that time? Yes or no. 

Mr. CARR. I think what I said is that it reinforces—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Come on now, follow Mr. O’Rielly. 

Mr. CARR [continuing]. The importance of the Commission, as everyone has said, being committed to the First Amendment in everything that we do at this agency. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. CLYBURN. That is an interesting question. I will say it raised 

personal and privacy and other concerns. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

73 

Mr. PAI. I agree with Commissioner Carr. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are good. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That is a disturbing tale. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

First of all, welcome. I am glad to see all of you here, and I especially want to welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel and welcome Commissioner Carr. 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. As co-chair of the Congressional Spectrum Caucus 

with my good friend, Representative Guthrie, we are very focused 

on the opportunity to unleash new spectrum that will help us get 

to 5G. We have introduced legislation that provides financial incentives to Federal agencies to reallocate unused or underutilized 

spectrum holdings. 

Commissioner O’Rielly, will you commit to working with us to try 

to strike an appropriate balance for the 3.5 gigahertz band that 

will be the foundation for 5G deployment? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, I am not in charge of the 3.5. The chairman 

was nice enough to have me take some of the lead. But we are 

going to work as an agency to dispose of our item that we adopted 

yesterday. So I will work with, of course, the committee in any capacity and take its views into account in terms of my vote. 

But in terms to your point that you raised, which is the incentives for Federal agencies to clear bands, I have also made the 

point that it is not just incentives; we need the carrot and the stick. 

So we need some more of the stick. And so I think that those two 

pieces have to go hand in glove. And I would be happy to work with 

you on putting some of the stick into your legislation. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I think we 

talked about this before. Would you like to add a comment or two? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. I believe carrots work better than sticks. 

And I think when it comes to spectrum policy, what we need to do 

is make Federal users internalize the cost of their holdings. They 

need to be able to report at some level what the value of what they 

have today is, and then we need to figure out how to give them incentives so that they see gain and not just loss from reallocation. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. I can see a carrot and a stick here working very 

well together. So thank you. 

Today, everyone needs a broadband connection, we all know that, 

in every part of the country. And I have over 20,000 constituents 

utilizing the Lifeline program to obtain access to broadband. This 

is a real program that is helping low-income families access communications that are essential in our digital academy. The National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier will be a significant step toward 

this goal, but will not be fully up and running until 2019. Now, in 

August, I wrote to the Commission to request steps that the FCC 

is taking to implement the verifier. 

74 

Chairman Pai, I received your response last night. Could you 

give me an update on getting the National Verifier fully up and 

running, and commit to providing me and the committee with regular updates in the future? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, I will take the second piece first. Yes, 

the quarterly reports will be forthcoming, and I think our staffs 

have talked about that going forward. 

In terms of the first point, which is the update, we are on track. 

I have been advised to, in December of 2017, for what is called a 

soft launch of the National Verifier, with a full launch in early 

2018. The first states that will be considered for the National 

Verifier, there are six of them, it is Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, 

New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. And in 2018, USAC will roll out 

at least an additional 19 states in the National Verifier. And USAC 

has been working with other stakeholders under our oversight, 

with your consumers groups and carriers and others, to make sure 

that that verifier works and actually serves consumers’ needs. 

And so we would be happy to work with you continuously on this 

issue. And I thank you for flagging it for our attention. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. I appreciate that. 

Commissioner Clyburn, can you talk about what is needed at the 

FCC to ensure the Lifeline program remains an option for low-income households to access the communications or broadband moving forward? 

Ms. CLYBURN. We need to have the mechanism to encourage providers to get involved and to provide more opportunity. If you 

know, back in February, we stopped nine providers that did nothing wrong from gaining access and for offering opportunities. And 

some of them had to even discontinue service. So we need to give 

the states the power and the ability they need to include to have 

Lifeline providers particularly for broadband. And we need to get 

out of the way. The FCC is not getting out of the way and allowing 

these reforms that have been—the contours that have been laid out 

to happen. So we are in the way of Lifeline becoming a phenomenal 

program. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Well, at this point. 

Thank you very much. And I will yield back some of this time, 

Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Awesome. Not in the running for the prize, but 

getting close. 

Mr. Flores, 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to welcome 

Commissioner Carr, Commissioner Rosenworcel to the Commission. 

It is great to have you here for your first testimony today. 

We all know that reliance on mobile networks is growing at a 

breakneck pace. My question is this: What more does the FCC and 

Congress need to be doing to ensure that we keep up with consumer and business demands for mobile? 

So I will start with you, Commissioner Carr. 

Mr. CARR. Thanks for the question. 

Mr. FLORES. Just short answers, if you can. 

Mr. CARR. Yes. My principal focus right now is infrastructure deployment. We have to streamline the rules. The current regime, we 

have relatively few small cell deployments. We are going to need 

75 

to get to millions of cell sites pretty quickly here, so we have got 

to streamline the process. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. We need to focus on the areas where we have 2 

and 3G service. That is why I was pushing so much for the Mobility Fund Phase II. And we need to talk about affordability, which 

is why I am pushing for a Lifeline program. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Chairman Pai. 

Mr. PAI. I agree with my colleagues. I would also add that spectrum, of course, is a critical input from 600 megahertz all the way 

up to 95 gigahertz. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And I think Commissioner Rosenworcel went 

through that list, although I couldn’t write that fast. 

Commissioner O’Rielly. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Three things. Infrastructure, which means preemption. Two, it is spectrum, which we have talked about. And, 

three, it means deciding what to do on those hardest-to-reach individuals we don’t have a plan for today. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I will give you one thing, which is we should 

set a time for auctioning the 28 gigahertz band, make it our first 

millimeter wave band so that we can lead the world in 5G and millimeter waves. 

Mr. FLORES. And so the first priority is that auction. Is that correct? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Thank you. 

I want to go back to the First Amendment conversations we have 

had today. Yes or no answers will be appropriate for this one. In 

2013, the Justice Department revealed that they had been secretly 

combing through the work, home, and cell phone records of almost 

100 Associated Press reporters and editors in what appeared to be 

a fishing expedition for sources of leaks, as well as an effort to 

frighten off whistleblowers. Did this action raise First Amendment 

concerns for you, Commissioner Carr? 

Mr. CARR. This is what drives some of the importance of us committing to the First Amendment and always acting consistent. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. That is a yes. 

Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Not sure how to answer that at this point. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes or no would be easy. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Yes or no. I’m sorry. 

Mr. FLORES. Chairman Pai. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That sounds troubling. 

Mr. FLORES. All right. I appreciate the work you all have been 

doing for AM revitalization, particularly your orders from February 

and September. Let’s continue along that line for a minute. In general, what is the status of your efforts to revitalize AM radio? 

We will start with you, Chairman Pai. 

Mr. PAI. Thanks for the question, Congressman. So the translator window has been a success. A great many folks have applied 

76 

for an FM translator, and we are in the process of processing those. 

I would anticipate by the end of the year we will have several hundred of those that will be processed. And going forward, we are 

thinking about some of the bigger-picture issues that are of interest 

to broadcasters. And we are trying to sort through the record and 

see if we can find a consensus on some of those issues. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And you answered my second question in that 

regard as well. 

What can this committee do to be helpful to encourage a revitalization of AM radio? 

Mr. PAI. Certainly, we will take all the support from whatever 

corridor we can get it. I can tell you, as my colleagues will probably 

agree, that I have never been shy about the issue of AM revitalization. So you don’t need to encourage me. But I will say that it is 

important to talk about the importance of the work that AM broadcasters do in their communities every day. And I know you visited 

some of these stations. I have too. And to me they are not just call 

signs. WRDN and KZPA and KKOW. These are folks who really 

are keeping the lights on and keeping their communities informed. 

Mr. FLORES. In my community it is WTAW and KWTX. 

I assume the entire Commission’s on board with that? 

OK. Everybody shook their heads yes. That is good. 

Mr. PAI. That is across the board, I hope. 

Mr. FLORES. Across the board. That is what I meant. It seemed 

to me like that was one area where we had good cohesiveness 

among the Commission. 

For all of you, I understand that other countries are moving rapidly to make mid-band spectrum available for 5G services. Particularly China, Japan, and South Korea are all making spectrum 

available to win the global race to 5G. My question is this, for each 

of you—two questions. One is, in the United States, are we risking 

falling behind those other countries if we don’t catch up on making 

mid-band spectrum available for 5G? 

Commissioner Carr? 

Mr. CARR. I think we are in good shape right now with the highband spectrum that we have opened up. But as your point says, we 

have got to keep the pedal down and keep moving forward. And we 

have a number of proceedings right now that the chairman has 

teed up that will let us do that. So I am confident about where we 

stand right now. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. I agree. And our spectrum management policies 

have to be all of the above to make sure we get the optimal use 

with the optimal players. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Chairman Pai. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. High-band spectrum is great and it is part of the 

equation, but we have to address the mid-bands. 3.5, 3.7 to 4.2, 3.1 

to 3.5, we have to take action on those going forward. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I am not the only one with a list. 

Mr. FLORES. That is right. That is good. 

77 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think we are at risk of falling behind. And 

I think we need something simple. We need a calendar for which 

bands are moving at what time. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. I would like to work with you on that some 

more, if we can, on the calendar. 

So thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I thank 

our Ranking Member Doyle. I thank our commissioners, Chairman 

Pai. And Commissioner Carr, welcome. 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Ms. CLARKE. Commissioner Rosenworcel—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Perfect. 

Ms. CLARKE [continuing]. Welcome back. Of course, it is good to 

see you, Commissioner Clyburn. 

I wanted to just talk about how important today’s hearing is. 

There is so many pressing matters and changes happening under 

the FCC’s authority, on a daily basis it seems. And I can say that 

it has been quite instructive and interesting just listening to today’s proceedings and your answers regarding these issues and the 

significance in facilitating announced changes. 

So I want to talk about a couple of things that are currently on 

my mind. And as co-chair of the Multicultural Media Caucus with 

colleagues Rep. Cardenas and Rep. Chu, we are extremely interested in the recent media ownership changes. 

As you have indicated, Chairman Pai, the Commission is poised 

to take up an item to modify the local TV ownership rule at the 

next Commission meeting. This important rule provides for diversity of voices and ownership at the local level by limiting ownership 

of more than one TV station to the largest markets. So hypothetically, Commissioner Pai, if the Commission were to modify the 

local TV ownership rule next month by adopting a case-by-case approach, who do you think should have the burden of proof? Those 

seeking more consolidation or those seeking to maintain diversity 

of ownership? 

Mr. PAI. Congresswoman, as always is the case, if a prohibition 

remains and the party is seeking a relaxation of that prohibition 

on a case-by-case bases, the petitioner would bear the burden of 

proof that that application was in the public interest. 

Ms. CLARKE. So let me ask Commissioner Clyburn and 

Rosenworcel. Do you have any substantive or process concerns with 

the potential modification of local TV ownership rules? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Well, one of the things that we were demonized 

for was trying to look at the media ecosystem. I don’t think we 

have the tools and the data needed to make these wholesale 

changes. There are 67 women-owned broadcast stations, 12 African-American-owned stations. Clearly, our policies must be out of 

sync because that is not diversity and inclusion in any stretch of 

the way. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. 

Listen, media ownership matters. What we see on the screen 

says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities, 

and as a Nation. And right now, when you look at the ownership 

78 

structure, it does not reflect the full diversity of this country. I am 

worried that with more consolidation, that is not going to get better; it is going to get worse. 

Ms. CLARKE. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Can I just comment and say—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Certainly. 

Mr. O’RIELLY [continuing]. The situation we have today is under 

our current rules, and those rules have been in place for so long, 

they haven’t worked. We ought to try something new. 

Ms. CLARKE. Here’s the question: You are saying that it hasn’t 

changed. We are not certain whether what you are proposing will 

make it even worse. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. It is really hard to get much worse. 

Ms. CLARKE. You think so? I know that that is not the case. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. The numbers are so low. I mean, 12. The numbers 

are really low, and it has been—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Right. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. And there are a lot of reasons why they are going 

to go even lower, because—— 

Ms. CLARKE. And what you are saying is your new proposal is 

going to transform that? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. No. I am saying that the current—— 

Ms. CLARKE. No. What I am asking you is your new proposal is 

going to transform that? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I think it is given—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. O’RIELLY. I am saying—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Are you saying here today that this new proposal 

is going to transform that? Yes or no. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, it is not my proposal and—— 

Ms. CLARKE. I am just asking. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. But, in general, I am hopeful that it provides a 

better opportunity—— 

Ms. CLARKE. You are hopeful. OK. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Because the current situation isn’t working. 

Ms. CLARKE. Commissioner Pai. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. The answer is yes. 

Ms. CLARKE. You think it will? 

Mr. PAI. Absolutely. Part of the reason why we don’t have more 

diversity is because the Commission, several years ago, the prior 

majority, rejected my suggestion for an incubator program and 

other diversity proposals. Part of the reason why we don’t have diversity is because the prior administration let the diversity committee lapse, so we haven’t had input from stakeholders. I reconstituted that diversity committee several months ago, and specifically 

tasked one of the working groups with promoting more diversity in 

the broadcast business. Part of the reason we don’t have more diversity is because the prior administration outlawed JSAs. 

I have met with Pervis Parker—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Are you saying that this is going to be a pilot 

project or is this going to be a wholesale change? 

Mr. PAI. We are seeking comment on the scope of the incubator 

program, but we will—— 

79 

Ms. CLARKE. Are you saying this is going to be a wholesale 

change or a pilot program? 

Mr. PAI. The incubator program? 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Mr. PAI. If we get the public input we need, this is going to be 

a real program. 

Ms. CLARKE. OK. Let me move on to my next question, because 

I only have 18 seconds left. And I would like to ask—and we can 

talk about that further. 

I have been working with Congresswoman Plaskett with respect 

to the U.S. Virgin Islands. And specifically, is the FCC engaged to 

assist Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands regain the telecom 

capabilities in the wake of last month’s hurricane season? And 

what must we learn from these hurricanes and their impact on existing communications infrastructure? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, Congresswoman, is the answer to your question. I 

have personally called the Congresswoman’s office and offered our 

assistance as well. In addition, I make sure that I have talked to 

some of the stakeholders, just as I have in Puerto Rico, stakeholders, tower companies, wireless companies and others, who 

might have had infrastructure affected in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

I also conveyed to FEMA and to others that, to the extent there 

are power issues in the U.S. Virgin Islands, we would love for those 

communications power requirements to be elevated in terms of getting that infrastructure onto the island. And, obviously, there are 

hospitals and schools and other things that are competing for attention, but communications networks are critical too. So we are 

working on it. 

Ms. CLYBURN. And as the chairman would also tell you that we 

forwarded a universal service—we green-lit universal service 

money so people have hard dollars to rebuild their telecommunications systems. 

Mr. PAI. And I proposed just yesterday doing something similar 

for E-rate, for schools and libraries to be able to help those in need. 

Ms. CLARKE. Madam Chair, I yield back. And thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You are welcome. 

Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today, and 

welcome the two newest FCC commissioners. 

5G deployment is important to my district where the majority of 

the residents have multiple wireless devices and are increasingly 

using IoT technology. Further, investment in 5G deployment has 

the potential to create over 2,300 jobs in my district. A recently released survey found that 5G will improve business operations and 

competitiveness, which further demonstrates the need to deploy 

this technology. 

Since joining the subcommittee at the beginning of the year, I 

have focused on issues related to the sitings of 5G infrastructure. 

Earlier this month, the Governor of California vetoed a bill that 

would have established uniform standards across the state for the 

installation of 5G equipment. The bill would have limited the ability of local governments to block antenna placement. It would have 

also capped installation rates on public properties such as traffic 

80 

lights. But California isn’t the only state where siting is an issue. 

I would like to get your thoughts on some of the issues 5G deployment is facing. 

Chairman Pai, can the FCC take immediate action to work with 

states and localities to streamline the siting process? And if so, 

could you briefly discuss what the Commission can do to address 

these issues? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The answer is yes. And we teed up earlier this year in our wireless infrastructure proceeding a number of different tools that we could use 

to help streamline that approval process. And I am hopeful that together we can move on that relatively soon. 

Mrs. WALTERS. All right. Great. 

And, Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your confirmation. 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Your testimony mentioned the importance of 5G 

and the need for infrastructure to deploy this technology. Are you 

concerned that local zoning requirements throughout the country, 

not just in California, are impeding the deployment of the infrastructure necessary for 5G services? 

Mr. CARR. I am concerned. I was disappointed to see the veto of 

that small cell bill. Again, we are going to see a massive new deployment of small cells. The current regime is not tailored to support that type of deployment. If we are going to get 5G across the 

finish line, this could be the real bottleneck is these infrastructure 

deployment rules. So I am glad that we actually have a number of 

steps teed up at the Commission, and I look forward to working 

with my colleagues to get them across the finish line. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

And this third question I have, and you touched a bit on it just 

a few minutes ago. But, Chairman Pai, as you know, wireless networks in Puerto Rico were devastated by Hurricane Maria. Networks in east Texas and Florida were impacted by Hurricanes 

Irma and Harvey. And the fires in my home state have damaged 

wireless infrastructure in California. And I commend you for speeding the availability of USF funds to carriers in Puerto Rico to accelerate rebuilding of these critical communication networks. 

Will the FCC contemplate similar efforts to support reconstruction in other states impacted by this fall’s natural disasters? 

Mr. PAI. We are certainly open to hearing that case and to taking 

action if appropriate. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. All right. Thank you. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And the winner is. All right. Way to go, Mimi. 

All right. Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. Welcome to the full Commission. It is really tremendous to see you at full strength. Congratulations on your confirmation. 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. 

Mr. WELCH. It is very good to have you back, Commissioner. It 

wasn’t a swift process, but it had an end result. 

And, Mr. Chairman, congratulations to you as well. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you. 

81 

Mr. WELCH. Net neutrality we have talked about some. And we 

know the debate here, in my view, was that the actions of the previous Commission made a lot of sense. But my understanding is 

that your Commission is opening that up. You have heard millions 

of comments. The apprehension among the industry has largely 

been that there may be a new Commission at some point that is 

overbearing, but they won’t necessarily agree to put in a statute. 

There are assurances that they give privately and publicly that 

they won’t do anything to interfere with net neutrality. So there is 

a skepticism on their part about the durability of the current practice, which worked well. 

But isn’t it fair for consumers to have some skepticism that when 

CEOs change in these companies, when shareholders start demanding a bigger return, that there won’t be the pressure to do 

things that advantage the company at the expense of the folks who 

need solid net neutrality? 

Chairman Pai? 

Mr. PAI. I appreciate the question, Congressman. Obviously, we 

are now engaged in the question of what is the regulatory framework best calibrated to preserve the free and open internet—— 

Mr. WELCH. Here’s my question, though. Why not have it be embodied in a statute? They are saying to us, as I assume they are 

saying to you, that they want to maintain that neutrality. But that 

is who is in those executive offices now. There will be other people 

there later. So do you consider that to be a valid concern on the 

part of those of us who want to make certain that we preserve net 

neutrality? 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, all I can say is what I said in the wake 

of the 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision myself, which is that the 

proper course, I think, is for Congress to ultimately decide what 

the rules of the road are going to be. That is obviously—— 

Mr. WELCH. I don’t have a lot of time. 

So, Commissioner O’Rielly, you looked like you wanted to say 

something. Quickly. 

Mr. O’RIELLY. Well, I think, if I heard you correctly, you said embody it into statute. And I would say, yes, that is the law, and you 

have an opportunity in this committee to craft a law and then decide whether we should go forward. And I think that is what members of this committee were contemplating for a number of months. 

Mr. WELCH. But we haven’t seen the statute. The majority has 

to act on that. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I support net neutrality. Our internet economy is the envy of the world. It is built on a foundation of openness. I think our current rules support that openness. They have 

been sustained in courts, and they are wildly popular. I am at a 

loss that we would decide to take them away. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you. A lot of us are from rural America, 

Republicans and Democrats up here. In fact, Mr. Latta and I started a rural broadband caucus. A real concern we have is not only 

deployment. We are so lagging behind. It is the speed. And there 

has been some movement toward reducing what is considered to be 

the adequate speed. That would be very damaging to us in rural 

America. 

82 

Commissioner Clyburn, do you want to comment on that? 

Ms. CLYBURN. I think any talk about slowing things down—sub 

253 is problematic. It is problematic for keeping and ensuring that 

rural America catches up. You haven’t caught up, and that is problematic. So that is why this talk of loosening these standards, of 

lowering speeds is just very problematic to me, and that is not the 

direction we need to go. 

Mr. WELCH. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you were in Burlington, 

Vermont, I appreciate your visit, talking about the homework gap. 

Burlington is not where we have the issue. That is an urban area. 

They have high speed. But a lot of Vermont is much like a lot of 

rural America; it is slow. And rural America in rural Vermont is 

on its heels economically. We have to have this tool to have any 

shot at getting back in the game. Your view on it lowering the 

standards. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Oh, I think lowering the standard is crazy. 

I believe you have to set audacious goals if you want to do big 

things. And deciding that we can get 100 megabit speed to everyone in this country is worth the effort, including rural America. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Chairman Pai, you have got a real history of 

rural America, so—— 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH. I am hoping that you are not going to be in favor 

of changing the definition for rural America. 

Mr. PAI. A few different points, Congressman. First, the actual 

proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. There is no proposal 

other than that. Secondly, I am a little puzzled by the criticism, because when the prior majority actually had the pen and had the 

ability to do something for folks in rural America, in December of 

2014, they decided to allocate billions of dollars of funding for 10 

megabit per seconds connectivity in rural America. According to 

them now, that is not broadband. 

Last year, when we reformed the Lifeline program, I specifically 

suggested that we increase the speeds to 25 megabits per second 

to say, well, if the FCC is saying this is broadband, poor consumers 

should get broadband. The prior majority specifically rejected that 

suggestion. And so I think it is a little hollow now to somehow just 

be grandstanding on this issue—— 

Mr. WELCH. My time is up. I won’t argue with you about that, 

but you are in the chair now. 

Mr. PAI. That is why a proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. 

Mr. WELCH. So does that give us assurance that there is not 

going to be any suggestion to lower that standard? 

Mr. PAI. Congress charged us with taking a look at what is 

connectivity. And as a part of that, we have to seek comment on 

what is the impact of mobile broadband? What do consumers use 

the internet for? Are there some applications that they require 10 

megabits per second or some other standard? That is basically 

what we are trying to do. But the lead proposal is to maintain that 

standard. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Olson, 5 minutes. 

83 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome to our witnesses. And 

a special welcome, Commissioner Rosenworcel. I spent a few weeks 

with my dad in ICU. It is not a pleasant time to have a loved one, 

a parent, in the hospital, so thank you so much for coming. We are 

praying for you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. My first question and comments are for Chairman 

Pai. Thank you so much for coming down to Houston to see the 

devastation of Hurricane Harvey firsthand. You saw it with your 

own eyes. Hit us twice, came back. Fifty inches of rain in parts of 

the district, parts of the county. We did very well, but we can do 

much better. 

I would just like to ask you, what do you see with respect to forwards of communication networks throughout the region during 

Hurricane Harvey? What are the steps the FCC is taking to support the restoration and recovery efforts back home? 

Mr. PAI. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your leadership on this issue. I know you have been active in trying to inform your constituents about where they could get help. 

A few different things. Number one, the FCC is working very 

proactively to make sure that we assist state and local partners in 

Texas. And I personally, as you mentioned, visited and offered my 

assistance. 

A few different things that we could do going forward. First, I 

was quite taken by a point that I learned at the Harris County 911 

center, which is that part of the reason why the networks were relatively reliable compared to, say, Florida and Puerto Rico was because—despite the fact that 33 trillion gallons of water, as you 

know, were dumped on the Houston surrounding area, was because 

of the backhaul they had that was fiber-based as opposed to copper-based. And despite the fact that there was a huge amount of 

weight placed on those networks, because they were fiber, they 

were relatively more resilient. If it had been copper, it might have 

degraded or just disintegrated altogether. 

The second thing is that we all need to work together. We are 

all in this together. And I heard time after time that state and 

local partners and the industry relied on our disaster information 

reporting service, which was very helpful. And they also found it 

useful to have a point of contact at the FCC that they knew could 

provide assistance. So a lot of things that we are excited about 

going forward in terms of our disaster response. And we are going 

to apply some of that in Puerto Rico, and have already. 

Mr. OLSON. And thank you. 

How about what is called the network resiliency framework? 

That, as you know, is the wireless industry initiative to better prepare and respond for times of emergency. Do you think this framework helped restore coverage faster than other recent natural disasters? 

Mr. PAI. There is no question. I heard firsthand from wireless 

providers when I was in Texas about how useful that had been. 

The other piece that I should mention that was very useful is that, 

as I understand it, the Governor’s office, Governor Abbott’s office, 

provided some of these wireless companies with information as to 

where the flooding was. And some of the companies were able to 

84 

overlay that information on where they saw their cell networks up 

or down. And they were able to target in some places, OK, we see 

there is huge flooding here, but there are people actually on the 

network. We need to get help there. And so that overlay is the kind 

of serendipitous, I think, benefit that, going forward, we will be 

able to take advantage of in other jurisdictions. 

Mr. OLSON. Anything we could learn from Harvey? Anybody 

want to comment on those? I know he was down there. He saw it 

firsthand, but—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I would just want to mention, the wireless 

network resiliency that you cited was the industry coming together 

in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And, in fact, we have it in 

place because we learned from that past disaster. And it is my 

hope that we will learn comparably from this one. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. Well, I am about out of time here. 

Commissioner Carr, I believe you are going to Texas, Houston, 

see for yourself? 

Mr. CARR. Yes. On Friday I will be in Houston meeting with 

broadcasters to hear about what the FCC can continue to do to 

support the recovery efforts down there. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. They are thrilled to hear that. 

One thing I have to warn you about. Can you say y’all? 

Mr. CARR. I will work on it. 

Mr. OLSON. And can you say ‘‘beat L.A.’’? 

Mr. CARR. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Well played. 

And, Commissioner Pai, I know you are a baseball fan, a huge 

baseball fan of pro baseball. And as I sort of alluded to, the L.A. 

Dodgers are playing my Houston Astros in the World Series. Yesterday, we had a rough day. Didn’t quite do as well as I wanted. 

But that morning, all over Capitol Hill, signs popped up about that 

game, especially, this sign popped up on the door of the majority 

leader from California. 

In having jurisdiction over Federal communications, let’s make 

sure that is not some Federal offense you are looking at. I neither 

confirm nor deny my involvement in those operations. And one 

thing too, Commissioner Pai, just what is your prediction? Astros 

in five, six, or seven games? 

Mr. PAI. Well, Congressman, first I want to reiterate. I stand in 

favor of the First Amendment and your right to plaster everybody—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. OLSON. I like the word ‘‘plaster.’’ 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mrs. Brooks, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you and 

congratulations to all of those who have recently gotten confirmed. 

Just recently, I joined with my colleague across the aisle, Debbie 

Dingell, to form a 5G caucus. And we had our first briefing with 

congressional staff yesterday, led by CTIA. And I am learning more 

and more about 5G. This is not something that I think is commonly 

understood among the citizens of our country. And a slide was put 

up during the presentation that talked about the global race being 

on for 5G. And, quite frankly, because we have often been the leaders in innovation and technology in the world, I was a bit surprised 

85 

to see it appears that China and Europe and others may be further 

along in 5G deployment than in the United States. 

Now, obviously, some of those countries, particularly China, for 

instance, don’t have the division in governments between Federal, 

state, and local jurisdictions the way that our great democracy 

does. But how are we taking that into account, and what should 

our role be in Congress? And what can the FCC and our role in 

Congress do to better partner with our state and local governments? Because I think we are struggling, quite frankly, particularly in state legislatures, either educating or understanding what 

this race is about and how we are, I think, falling behind. 

Chairman Pai, would you like to start as to what we could be 

doing differently and better? Because I think we all, from what I 

can tell from your responses today, we are in agreement here that 

we all need to do a lot more and a lot better. But what does it 

mean for us, A, to fall behind, and what should we be doing? And 

I am pleased, Indianapolis, that I represent the northern part of, 

is a 5G test site. But I think we are way behind these other countries. 

Chairman Pai. 

Mr. PAI. I have an answer, Congresswoman. And before I start, 

thanks for the hospitality you showed me in Noblesville back in the 

district. 

With respect to the first, I think there is a significant opportunity cost that attaches to American inertia on this issue. If we 

don’t lead, there are plenty of other continents and countries that 

are more than happy to take that lead. And one of the things I 

have learned in this role as I liaise with my counterparts in other 

countries, is that they are quite eager to capitalize on what they 

see is a lesson of the 4G revolution, which is that America was forward-thinking in terms of spectrum and infrastructure. And as a 

result, not that long ago, we had 4 percent of the world’s population and 50 percent of the world’s 4G LT subscriptions. Europe 

and China, among others, they don’t want that to happen with 5G. 

And so they are trying to be very aggressive in terms of spectrum 

and, in some cases, infrastructure as well. 

I think it is important for the FCC, but not just the FCC, to 

think very creatively about this issue. Working with Congress and 

with state and local governments, as Commissioner Carr first 

pointed out in his testimony, we really need to have a serious conversation about what is the appropriate regulatory framework for 

5G. Is it this trifurcated or even quadfurcated system of regulation, 

or is there a more streamlined approach that we need to consider? 

I recognize the equities are difficult here. But at the end of the day, 

if national competitiveness in the wireless world is our priority, 

then we have to make some very difficult decisions. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And I appreciate the need for a calendar, the need 

for the discussions with state legislatures. But what is the FCC 

doing—and I’m sorry that I might have missed part of that—relative to educating state legislatures and local communities? Because in our state, which did pass some legislation this last session, 

it was a fight between local jurisdictions and the state legislature. 

And so what can we and the FCC be doing, I think, to maybe eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:39 Feb 23, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-69 CHRIS
86 

cate, in large part, or have these really tough discussions? I don’t 

know if Commissioner Carr—— 

Mr. CARR. Sure. There is a number of steps that the FCC is taking and can continue to take on this. We have an advisory committee where we have representatives from local government on 

that that we can help have these discussions. But to your broader 

point, this is critically important. The U.S., that we heard, led the 

world in 4G. The regulatory structures we have right now are 

going to be the bottleneck that hold us back. But I am confident 

that, right now at the Commission, we have the momentum to 

move forward to try to streamline some of those, and it is going to 

make a real difference. As I have said in my testimony, we can 

shift entire communities from being uneconomical for the private 

sector to deploy to to becoming economical simply by streamlining 

the deployment rules. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Can, briefly, someone say why it is important that 

we win this? Anyone? 

Mr. PAI. Well, risk capital is fickle. It will go to any country in 

the world where it thinks that innovation will find a home and that 

an investment will yield a return. And that doesn’t necessarily 

have to be the United States in the 21st century. 

Ms. CLYBURN. I think if our policies are flexible that we include 

the needs of all communities, the voices of all communities, that we 

will win this race. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Doyle for—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to waive 

Mr. Tonko onto the committee today? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Tonko. So ordered. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Blackburn and Ranker 

Doyle, for you conducting what I think is a very important hearing. 

And welcome to all of our commissioners, and thank you for your 

service on what are very critical issues for the growth of our economy. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, I recently introduced the Access 

Broadband Act to create an office of internet connectivity and 

growth within the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration. Under this bipartisan legislation, that office would 

coordinate broadband deployment programs across our governments, among other things, to make sure we are all working together, pulling in the same direction. 

In your time at the FCC, do you believe that our agencies could 

do better coordinating with the various programs that serve 

broadband interests? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. 

Yes, more coordination is always going to make scarce dollars go 

further. And I think that is particularly true with respect to the 

FCC and the folks who are just up the road from us at the Agriculture Department, at the Rural Utilities Service, which runs 

grant and loan programs for rural broadband too. The more coordination, the better. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Any other comments from any of our commissioners? 

87 

Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. And also, when we are green-lighting those devices, we need to work closely with other agencies, in particular 

when we talk about telehealth and telemedicines. There are so 

many synergies that can be realized if we leverage those relationships we have inside of government. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Anyone else? 

If not, my bill would also task this office with tracking just how 

many consumers each of these programs serve so that we have a 

better sense of how many people are being connected, the cost of 

these programs, and where the consumers live. 

So, Chairman Pai, today, does the FCC know definitively how 

many Americans it helps to serve through the Connect American 

Fund? 

Mr. PAI. We have an estimate, but it is not as definitive as the 

metric that I think your legislation contemplates. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. Is there any way you can commit to providing 

my office or this subcommittee, the committee in general, with that 

information before the end of the year? 

Mr. PAI. So that information being the number? 

Mr. TONKO. Right. 

Mr. PAI. We would be more than happy to provide any information that we have that bears on that question. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, if put in the right context, do 

you believe that the information would be valuable for policymakers, not just as it relates to the Connect America Fund but for 

all of the government’s broadband programs? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Absolutely. We can’t manage what we don’t 

measure. And if we get better broadband data, that can inform all 

of our communications policy. But as Commissioner Clyburn has 

acknowledged, it can inform things like healthcare policy too. So I 

think it is imperative. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. Thank you. 

I have found that sometimes people without high-speed 

broadband at their homes may not understand all the benefits that 

broadband can bring, and so education becomes important. That is 

why the Access Broadband Act includes educational components to 

help people learn what broadband can do for them and the difference it can make in a community, and what it means toward a 

stronger bit of economic recovery. 

So, Commissioner Clyburn, do you believe that there is value in 

the educational component of what we are attempting to do here? 

Ms. CLYBURN. You talk about the educational component in 

terms of us, you know—— 

Mr. TONKO. Broadband awareness and what it provides. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Absolutely. Again, the commissioner talks about 

not measuring what—whatever you said is true. But sincerely, if 

you don’t have the exposure, you don’t know what is possible. You 

don’t know what is possible for you to better age in place if you 

have connectivity, if you are not aware of the options and opportunities that you have. So there are so many things from an educational standpoint. We mentioned health. In terms of keeping in 

88 

touch and knowing what is going on in government in real time. 

Those are the types of things that can better empower individuals 

only with connectivity, only with the awareness. And I think all of 

us have a role to play in ensuring that the public is informed so 

they can be better enabled to live those lives more fully. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. And finally, I know that there 

was some exchange with our colleague from Vermont. But the 

Commission is considering lowering its definition of broadband, or 

could. To be honest, it is hard to make sense of this proposal when 

I receive calls from my constituents day in and day out asking for 

faster broadband speeds. They don’t want the FCC to lower the definition of broadband. They want a faster internet access. 

So while we did hear some of that exchange, are there other comments you would want to make about that definition of broadband 

to speed, definition? 

Mr. PAI. Two different points, Congressman. First, as I said, the 

proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. The second point I will 

add is that if you look at some of the decisions we have made in 

terms of our Universal Service Fund, we have been always trying 

to push the envelope. And that is why in the very first vote that 

happened after I became chairman was to deliver $170 million in 

funding to unserved parts of upstate New York so that they can 

have the connectivity that folks in big cities often take for granted. 

Mr. TONKO. Anyone else? 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Engel for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with funding for the repack. I understand that the FCC has reduced its total 

cost estimate for the repacking process downward, from approximately $2.1 billion to $1.86 billion. Many have told me, though, 

that they think the amount is likely higher. 

So, Chairman Pai, do you think that Congress should provide additional funding for the repacking process? 

Mr. PAI. Thanks for the question, Congressman. And that number could fluctuate up or down. It is not set in stone at this point. 

What I said to the other committees on the Senate side was that, 

to the extent that we don’t have the ability to be on the $1.75 billion that is in the relocation fund, that additional funding from 

Congress will be necessary in order to meet that gap that, otherwise, broadcasters would have to pay out of their own pocket in 

order to fill. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me also ask you this, Mr. Chairman. If Congress 

provides additional funding, do you believe that low-power TV stations and TV translators should also be eligible for that funding? 

Mr. PAI. That is obviously a decision for Congress to make in the 

Spectrum Act. Congress decided not to give those entities rights in 

terms of reimbursements. So if Congress changes that determination, then certainly the FCC would be duty-bound and would happily administer it. 

Mr. ENGEL. So you don’t personally have a position on that? 

Mr. PAI. Well, I have been talking to a lot of these low powers 

and translators, and they are in a tough situation. And so I can tell 

you I have been pushing for them since September 28, 2012, when 

89 

we issued the notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue that 

whatever consideration the FCC can give them, and Congress too, 

would be welcome. 

Mr. ENGEL. Because there is another group that we have heard 

from, FM radio stations, who are impacted by the transition, but 

not included—— 

Mr. PAI. Correct. 

Mr. ENGEL [continuing]. In the initial reimbursement fund. 

Mr. PAI. And we have heard those concerns too that, under the 

Act, they aren’t entitled. But to the extent they are piggybacking, 

essentially, on infrastructure that is owned by the television broadcaster, then here too Congress, I think, could step in and provide 

some relief. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Let me ask Commissioner Clyburn, how important is it to ensure 

that there is money for consumer education in this transition? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Oh, my goodness. It is just so obvious, you know, 

in terms of, you know, looking at what impact, if any. Hopefully, 

negligible that would happen in this—as we move toward relocating and making our ecosystem more efficient. The public needs 

to be aware that the low power—the stations and those who are 

not protected but impacted, they need to be informed. And we need 

to continue to do what we can to protect them to make sure they 

don’t have to do relocation twice. All of these things are very important for us to be at the forefront of ensuring that the transition 

is smooth as possible. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. I don’t think anybody would really disagree. 

Let me talk a bit about cybersecurity. And, Commissioner 

Rosenworcel, I am going to ask you a question. We have seen from 

high-profile data breaches at companies like Equifax and Yahoo, 

that consumers are having everything exposed, from social security 

numbers to login names and passwords. So do you think that the 

FCC has the necessary authority to address cybersecurity? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. 

I do. I believe the very first sentence of the Communications Act 

references our obligation to make sure that we make available communications for the purposes of national defense and for the protection of safety of life and property. I believe that encompasses what 

is modern, which is cybersecurity. At the same time, I recognize 

that our cyber aggressors will always move faster than any regulation. And so the task is can we bring people together so that we 

can come up with good best practices and implement them widely 

to make sure our networks are more secure. 

Mr. ENGEL. Did the Congressional Review Act rescinding the 

FCC’s broadband privacy rules have any effect on the FCC’s cybersecurity authority? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That is a good question. I think the primary 

problem right now with cybersecurity is that my colleagues don’t 

agree with me. In addition, I think there is the fact that our Communications Security, Reliability, Interoperability Council used to 

be tasked with coming together and identifying good practices for 

cybersecurity. But in its current iteration, that is not part of their 

agenda. 

90 

Mr. ENGEL. And finally, how did the CRA impact the security of 

consumers’ private information? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Only time will tell. But I am worried about 

that as well. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Let the record reflect I cosigned. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

For everyone’s awareness, they are going to call votes in about 

15 minutes. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is seeking to be UC’d to the 

committee for the purpose of asking a question. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

You are recognized. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for 

giving me the opportunity to join you today. 

The internet has revolutionized the lives of millions of Americans 

and is vital to an individual’s economic potential in the 21st century. Unfortunately, many in eastern Washington live with a digital divide that is limiting employment, educational, health, and 

economic opportunities. 

Ensuring that hardworking families in eastern Washington have 

reliable access to broadband technology is a top priority of mine, 

and we must use every tool in the toolbox to provide greater opportunity. That is why I am excited in the opportunity the build-out 

from the broadcast incentive auction can provide to rural America. 

Many individuals and families in the most rural parts of my district struggle to get a signal for a cell phone, let alone connect to 

the internet. I am encouraged by the commitment the private sector has made in purchasing this spectrum and the practical effect 

it will have in eastern Washington. 

Deployment of infrastructure and technology as a result of the 

auction will support millions of jobs and generate billions in economic opportunity in rural America. An increased broadband will 

help the U.S. continue its leadership in technology and innovation 

by providing an on-ramp for 5G network deployments. That is why 

I led a letter with Congresswoman Eshoo and a bipartisan group 

of 54 of our colleagues urging the FCC to continue supporting the 

current timeline for the repack resulting from the auction. This 

issue is too important. Ensuring that the repack remains on schedule will mean that many in eastern Washington will gain reliable 

broadband access in a matter of months, not years. 

I want to thank the FCC for putting a renewed emphasis on closing the digital divide, and I am encouraged by the engagement of 

the Commission in looking for new innovative ways to deliver 

broadband to the 35 million Americans without access. I believe we 

have a great opportunity working together in a bipartisan manner 

to provide every American the opportunity they deserve, regardless 

of where they live. So I look forward to you making that a reality. 

So at this time, I would like to submit to the committee this letter that Congresswoman Eshoo and I lead with the 54 colleagues. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

91 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Before I go, I would also like to ask 

you, Chairman Pai, on Title II, until the last FCC chairman acted 

late in the previous administration to upend really decades of bipartisan work in fostering broadband infrastructure, providers of 

this service were subject to a light regulatory touch. As you have 

made the rounds throughout the country, are you concerned about 

achieving the level of broadband investment necessary to deploy 

broadband deeper into rural areas if the U.S. does not go back to 

the light regulatory touch model? And can you tell us what is on 

the horizon to remove this uncertainty over investment for folks 

that just want fast and reliable internet service? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and for 

the way you captured, I think, both the peril and the promise of 

bringing connectivity to folks in eastern Washington. 

We are, as I mentioned earlier, engaged in open proceeding to 

figure out what is the best regulatory framework that is calibrated 

to both promote the free and open internet and preserve as much 

infrastructure investment as possible, especially in parts of the 

country that don’t have it. And so we have taken a fair amount of 

public comments at this point, and we are studying the record and 

trying to figure out the appropriate way forward. 

And what I can tell you is that we want to make sure, not just 

in this proceeding, but in every proceeding, that we have first and 

foremost in our minds closing the digital divide. There are far too 

many Americans, as you pointed out, who are on the wrong side 

of that divide. Those are individuals who don’t have the opportunities that others have. Those are families that don’t have the chance 

to thrive. Those are communities that are increasingly going to 

wither on the vine. And ultimately, it is the country that is weaker 

as a result of leaving human capital on the shelf. And that is why 

the first day I was in office I said this would be our top priority. 

And it is going to remain so, so long as I draw a paycheck at the 

FCC. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Great. Well, I thank you for that commitment. 

And with that, I will yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

There being no further members wishing to ask questions of the 

panel, you all have been generous with your time for the over past 

3 hours, and I thank you all for being here today. 

As we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following 

letters into the record: The five documents offered by Mr. Doyle, 

Mercatus Center paper offered by Mr. Pallone, the letter from the 

LPTV Coalition, and the McMorris-Eshoo repack letter. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

92 


27889.023
93 


27889.024
94 


27889.025
95 


27889.026
96 


27889.027
97 


27889.028
98 


27889.029
99 


27889.030
100 


27889.031
101 


27889.032
102 


27889.033
103 


27889.034
104 


27889.035
105 


27889.036
106 


27889.037
107 


27889.038
108 


27889.039
109 


27889.040
110 


27889.041
111 


27889.042
112 


27889.043
113 


27889.044
114 


27889.045
115 


27889.046
116 


27889.047
117 


27889.048
118 


27889.049
119 


27889.050
120 


27889.051
121 


27889.052
122 


27889.053
123 


27889.054
124 


27889.055
125 


27889.056
126 


27889.057
127 


27889.058
128 


27889.059
129 


27889.060
130 


27889.061
131 


27889.062
132 


27889.063
133 


27889.064
134 


27889.065
135 


27889.066
136 


27889.067
137 


27889.068
138 


27889.069
139 


27889.070
140 


27889.071
141 


27889.072
142 


27889.073
143 


27889.074
144 


27889.075
145 


27889.076
146 


27889.077
147 


27889.078
148 


27889.079
149 


27889.080
150 


27889.081
151 


27889.082
152 


27889.083
153 


27889.084
154 


27889.085
155 


27889.086
156 


27889.087
157 


27889.088
158 


27889.089
159 


27889.090
160 


27889.091
161 


27889.092
162 


27889.093
163 


27889.094
164 


27889.095
165 


27889.096
166 


27889.097
167 


27889.098
168 


27889.099
169 

Æ 


27889.100