U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

75–046 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–480 

NOMINATIONS OF 

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL AND AJIT PAI 

TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Staff Director 

JARROD THOMPSON, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 30, 2011 ...................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 2 

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 32 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Senator Toomey ................................................................................. 39 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 40 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 42 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 44 

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 49 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 51 

WITNESSES

Hon. Pat Roberts, U.S. Senator from Kansas ....................................................... 5 

Hon. Jerry Moran, U.S. Senator from Kansas ...................................................... 6 

Prepared statement ..........................................................................................

Jessica Rosenworcel, Nominee to be Commissioner, Federal Communications 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 8 

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

Biographical information ................................................................................. 10 

Ajit Pai, Nominee to be Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 15 

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

Biographical information ................................................................................. 20 

APPENDIX

Hon. Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, prepared statement ....... 57 

Response to written questions submitted to Jessica Rosenworcel by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 58 

Hon. Claire McCaskill ...................................................................................... 60 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 61 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 63 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 64 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 66 

Hon. Jim DeMint .............................................................................................. 72 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 73 

Response to written questions submitted to Ajit Pai by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 74 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 76 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 77 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 79 

Hon. Olympia J. Snowe .................................................................................... 80 

Hon. Jim DeMint .............................................................................................. 85 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 86 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

AND AJIT PAI TO THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome. Senator Hutchison and I will give our 

statements and Senator Kerry will soon be here. Senator DeMint 

will have a statement. 

If others want to do it, we would encourage brevity because we 

have not only two very fine introducers, but we have the two candidates and a plethora of children. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. Who love speeches. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon, anyway. Welcome and congratulations to you both. I’m not talking about you two, I’m talking 

about them two. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Being a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, I think, has to be one of the toughest and 

most cerebral jobs in Washington. Everybody in this room knows 

the incredible scope of the FCC, how much they are involved in so 

many ways. Actually their involvement in so many ways will prevent our nominees from having to answer some questions today 

about potential mergers, because they can’t do that. So I just sort 

of make that clear. It’s a very, very tough job and we have two candidates. 

I believe that Jessica Rosenworcel, the President’s nominee to be 

FCC Commissioner, is up to the task, to say the very, very least. 

She currently serves as senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications Technology. She is essential to all 

of us in both parties, and she has done that for us. She spent nearly 15 years working on communications issues, and I believe there 

is no better qualified person for this position. She has a lot of experience at the FCC. 

2 

She has earned the respect of both Democrats and Republicans. 

She is very calm. She’s brilliant, and she is very hard to defeat in 

an argument of any sort. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Those of you who have worked with Jessica know 

that she is meticulous, that she’s sharp, and above all else she is 

professional. 

And joining her on the FCC, I hope, is Ajit Pai, an attorney, and 

like Jessica, has also worked at the FCC. He is a native of Parsons, 

Kansas. 

Now that makes a difference, not just to Pat Roberts and Senator 

Moran, but to me, because there is an automatic rural prejudice 

built into your DNA, and on telecommunications I like that a whole 

lot. 

This is very important to me and to the people of my state. Mr. 

Pai is a highly distinguished nominee with the experience and 

knowledge necessary to fill this post with distinction. 

Both of these nominees are very devoted public servants. They 

are very excellent people. Both have a background at the FCC, as 

I indicated, and then Congress and also in the private sector. So 

they have pretty much done it all. 

And that allows them to have a deep understanding of communications policy and the impact that it has on people around this 

country and in different parts of the country. That sensitivity cannot be simply picked out of the air. 

And I expect both nominees to focus on closing the digital divide 

that exists in our country and bring much needed expanded access 

to all Americans, including rural Americans, who currently are underserved. 

I am not going to make this lengthy, because I don’t think we 

need to. I think you are both going to swim right home. I look forward to your testimony. I am very pleased that I can heartily support you both, and I hope we will do our work efficiently. 

I turn now to what I refer to as the Vice Chair of the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am 

pleased that we are finally going to fill the two empty seats on the 

FCC, and I think that both of the nominees have the required experience. 

I will say that sometimes nominees come before us and for a variety of reasons they have been nominated, but I have never seen 

two who had the requisite experience that these two both have on 

the FCC, on the Senate staffs, understanding the processes of the 

Senate, and as well the FCC processes. 

So, that goes a long way. There is no question that we have some 

philosophical differences with certainly Ms. Rosenworcel, my differences with the Chairman as well on the subject of net neutrality, 

but also we have had common experiences on the broadband issue. 

Which I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, I think we are going 

to be able to have the broadband bill that we have worked so hard 

for, because it seems that the House is now going to value the public sector block D. 

3 

And I think that is a great thing and due in large measure to 

you and the nominee today. So I am very appreciative of that philosophy that we do share. 

I do want to say that I have had disagreements with the FCC 

on the amount of regulation that they are doing. I believe if the 

communications laws are short of addressing policy issues, it is the 

responsibility of Congress to update the laws, and not the FCC’s 

job to contort outdated statutes to fit the Commission’s desire to 

impose new regulations. 

I think the overregulation that we are seeing is going to stifle innovation in the most dynamic sector of our economy today, which 

is the tech sector. 

So I am going to watch closely but I am certainly appreciative 

of the professionalism and the experience that we have in our 

nominees and certainly look forward to working with them going 

forward in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Kerry is not here. Senator 

DeMint is. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you for holding this important hearing today. I believe we 

have before us two well-qualified nominees to serve at the FCC and 

I hope and expect that we can move them through the full Senate 

before we break for the holidays. 

Before I make my comments about the nominees, though, I 

would like to make a brief request of you, Mr. Chairman, that the 

record for this hearing remain open for at least 1 week. We recently had the hearing for the FTC Chairman’s renomination and 

that record was closed after 48 hours. I feel that decision was unnecessary and may yet prove to be a hindrance to completing the 

confirmation process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Unless I hear a lot of grumbling and shouting directly behind me, I am perfectly happy to grant that. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The last few days and months have reminded us that the biggest 

threat to our economy is not a particular phone company, but an 

army of government lawyers and bureaucrats that create uncertainty. And the biggest threat to investment and innovation is not 

a private Internet service provider but a public agency hell-bent on 

over-regulating at any cost. 

Ms. Rosenworcel and Mr. Pai, I certainly hope you go on to the 

FCC with a mindset of humble public servants and not activist 

agents seeking to expand the authorities of the Commission and 

manipulate the marketplace to your preferred ends. And I don’t 

think you will. 

We cannot predict the future, especially in the communications 

market. Unfortunately, our telecom laws and regulations presume 

that we can predict the future, and these laws and regulations are 

littered with policies that lock in paradigms that are now 15, 20, 

even 80 years old. Many of our current telecom policies are better 

4 

suited for more static industry structures like railroads, aviation, 

and pipelines. 

We need to be moving toward a comprehensive update of our 

communications laws and regulations. If we simply continue the 

rigid structure we know today, we will not have the innovation, the 

investment, and the competition that we could have in this industry, and we won’t see the subsequent jobs and growth in our broader economy. 

I have previously introduced, and plan to reintroduce, a Digital 

Age Communication Act as a template, an example of how we need 

to reform the regulatory structure. It is not an attempt to manage 

economic functions within a particular industry, but an attempt in 

effect to create a framework for freedom to thrive. Within that 

framework, if there is damage or harm done, or if there is anticompetitive activity going on, it gets addressed. 

What we have today is a structure that is complex, rigid, and expensive to navigate. In fact, it seems designed more to help particular companies and business models than actual competition. It 

creates a structure that forces private enterprise to conform rather 

than innovate. It creates uncertainty and benefits those with the 

most lawyers and lobbyists instead of encouraging innovators. 

Innovation and entrepreneurship flourish when we have people 

developing ideas for millions of consumers who can make their own 

individual decisions. And when we have competitors and millions 

of people making their own decision, that creates vibrant economies. That’s what the American economy at its best is all about. 

But the American economy is in jeopardy today as we look at 

this expanding regulatory state. And that is why your roles at the 

FCC are going to be critically important during the next several 

years. 

Some people in this room see communications as a government 

utility, something the government should operate, something the 

government should manage. Some honestly believe the government 

can efficiently manage economic functions. 

History has proven many times that this is a false utopian 

dream. We simply cannot do it, particularly in a dynamic industry 

like communications. 

I hope you both help to move America back towards a free-market economy. We must believe in the power of individual freedom 

and private enterprise to create a vibrant marketplace and improve 

the American economy. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator DeMint. I would 

like to proceed to the introducers unless I hear a chorus of complaint. 

Senator WICKER. How about one? Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That is my ‘‘go’’ signal. We are very honored to 

have Senator Roberts here. He represents Kansas, as does Senator 

Moran, and they are going to colorfully, with distinction and eloquence, introduce one of our candidates. 

Please go ahead. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator ROBERTS. All right, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if this 

is on. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Technology. 

Senator ROBERTS. Frank, can you hear me? Jim, can you hear me 

for the first time? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hutchison, 

and members of the Committee, my colleagues. This is a real privilege for me to introduce Ajit Pai, who is a native of my home state 

of Kansas—Parson, Kansas, America, for his nomination to be a 

member of the Federal Communications Commission. 

After meeting with Mr. Pai and examining his accomplishments, 

I think any of my colleagues who have had this opportunity would 

be hard pressed to find a more qualified candidate to fill this position. 

Now, stick with me, because I have the re ́sume ́ opportunity. My 

colleague and good friend, Jerry Moran, has the character part of 

this presentation. But in terms of the unprecedented accomplishments of this young man, stick with me here. 

His professional background both in government and the private 

sector has provided him with an expansive understanding, to say 

the least. Before starting his impressive career in telecommunications law, he earned his Bachelor of Arts from Harvard. He went 

on to receive his law degree at the University of Chicago, where he 

served as Editor of the school’s law review. 

Then he completed a one-year clerkship upon graduation with 

U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. After completing his Federal clerkship, Mr. Pai accepted a position as Trial Attorney with 

the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Task Force. 

Years later he would return to the Department of Justice, Office 

of Legal Policy, as Senior Counsel working on national security and 

judicial administration as well as communications. 

He also led the implementation of Executive Order—a rather famous one, 133–53, establishing the President’s board on safeguarding Americans’ civil liberties. 

He has also spent a significant time in the U.S. Senate as counsel on the Judiciary Committee, where he earned the reputation of 

being able to work with all staffers in a collegial manner, even if 

they were on the opposite side of the issue. Whatever he has in 

terms of talents in that respect maybe we could use a spoonful or 

two ourselves. 

In 2003 while on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Pai served as the 

Deputy Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Administrative 

Oversight and the Courts, where he primarily served as Lead 

Counsel on constitutional and communications and antitrust 

issues. 

In 2005 he returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee as the 

Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Constitutional and Civil 

Rights, Property Rights, taking the lead on communications, Internet regulations and antitrust issues. 

6 

He also has firsthand experience and understanding telecommunications from the industry perspective. That should be 

helpful, to say the least. 

From 2001 to 2003 he was Associate General Counsel for 

Verizon. His major accomplishments while working for Verizon including drafting the amicus brief to the Supreme Court in National 

Cable and Telecommunications Association v. Gold Power Company, and working with engineering and business teams to establish wireline broadband standard setting organization. 

He then went on to spend over 3 years working at the FCC, 

which I highlight because his work there undoubtedly provides him 

with the knowledge and experience necessary to be an effective 

Commissioner. 

From 2007 to 2011, he served as Associate General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel, and later Special Adviser to the General 

Counsel, where he was extensively involved in matters involving 

the Internet, cable, wireless and other FCC-related issues. 

Most notably, during his time at the FCC, he successfully argued 

before and prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—no small accomplishment—in case of National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association v. The FCC. He is currently a partner at Jenner & Block, where he represents 

the communications industry. He is someone we are extremely 

proud to call a Kansan. 

And because of his background growing up in our state, he is 

sensitive to the importance of communications services for rural 

Americans, as the Chairman has pointed out the importance of 

that perspective. 

I am sure you can all agree after meeting personally with him 

as you prepared for this hearing, or in his capacity as a former 

staffer, that he has forward vision for the FCC and his very wide 

experience and understanding of the law will allow him to fairly 

and objectively carry out his duties as Commissioner. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, he has done it all, and he has done 

it well. I cannot think of a more qualified person to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, and I ask 

my colleagues to fully support his nomination. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Roberts. That is high praise. 

Senator Moran? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, thank you 

very much for the opportunity to join you here today. This is my 

first opportunity as a member of the U.S. Senate to serve the role 

of introducing. I am pleased to see that Chairman Rockefeller has 

complete control of his committee. I got seriously nervous that my 

opportunity was going to be short-circuited when you asked if there 

was any opposition to hearing from either Senator Roberts or I, 

and glad that was not the case, because this is a real honor for me 

to introduce and to support Ajit Pai. 

Senator Roberts and I consider him a friend, and a fellow Kansan. He is the son of immigrants and his parents are here. Ajit is 

7 

a humble and hard worker, just what you would expect from a native Kansan. He is the type of person that you would like to have 

as your neighbor. 

He is only the second Kansan to ever be nominated to serve on 

the Federal Communications Commission and the first since Bob 

Wells served on the Commission from 1969 to 1971. 

The issues before the FCC today are critically important to 

America’s economic and global competitiveness. I don’t know, in my 

14 years in the House and now 10 months as a United States Senator, that there has ever been a time in which I have spent more 

effort at trying to determine what the FCC is doing and what it 

means to Kansans, to rural America, and to our country. 

These issues range from how we manage and promote the efficient use of spectrum resources, crafting policies that will expand 

broadband access to more Americans and connect more schools, 

more libraries and more hospitals. 

The FCC’s decisions will help define how we encourage competition, promote innovation, create jobs and drive our economy into 

the future. 

In order to succeed, the Commission requires smart, talented policy leaders, leaders who respect free markets and understand the 

regulations should be balanced with pro-growth economic principles. Ajit Pai is one of those leaders. 

The FCC also needs Commissioners who are committed to the 

needs of all Americans including those who live in rural America, 

so it also can innovate and be competitive in marketplaces along 

with those who live in suburban and urban areas. 

A native of Parsons, Kansas, Ajit will bring an understanding of 

the challenges facing our part of the country at this vital time for 

the future of telecommunications. His broad range of legal and policy experience at the FCC, at the U.S. Senate on the Judiciary 

Committee, at the Department of Justice, and in the private sector 

will be tremendous assets as he seeks to balance the regulatory 

role of the FCC with the need to encourage competition and freemarket principles. 

Ajit Pai is a public servant of the highest caliber and a man with 

the highest level of integrity and character. Senator Roberts and I 

are proud to recommend his swift and unanimous confirmation as 

a Commissioner of the FCC by the full Senate. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. And that also 

constitutes very high praise. I thank both of you for your courtesy, 

not only to the nominee but to this committee. You were succinct, 

eloquent, and I emphasize succinct. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. At this point, I would like to call Jessica 

Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai forward. 

And Ms. Rosenworcel, so I would ask you to speak first. Ajit Pai 

after that. I hope that you will both introduce family members and 

relatives or anybody that you might like sitting behind you. 

8 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, NOMINEE TO BE 

COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Good afternoon, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and the distinguished members of this 

Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as a 

nominee for Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. For nearly 5 years, I have had the privilege of serving this 

Committee as Senior Communications Counsel, so I am accustomed 

to these halls, this room, and the deliberations of this body, but I 

can assure you that sitting at this table today is a different experience altogether. 

I would like to start by introducing my family. Sitting behind me 

is my terrific husband of 11 years, Mark Bailen, and until very recently, sitting beside him, were our children Caroline Frances, age 

five and Emmett Joseph, age two. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Like the parents the world around, they are 

our pride and joy. And though they are not here today, I would also 

like to note my parents, Elliott and Willa Rosenworcel. They are 

at home in Hartford, Connecticut. 

I like to think that a commitment to public service runs in my 

family. My father served in the Air Force, going on to a career as 

a nephrologist in Hartford. For three decades, he also ran the city 

clinic for hypertension and kidney failure. My mother has spent the 

last two decades helping run a soup kitchen in Hartford. And my 

grandfather before them served in the United States Customs Service here in Washington. My great grandfather before that served 

the public in a different way—he swept the streets of New York. 

It is a great honor to have been nominated by President Obama 

to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. 

Communications technologies are a source of tremendous opportunity. They support our commerce, they connect our communities, 

and they enhance our security. They help create good jobs. 

And by unlocking the full potential of broadband, we will alter 

the way we educate, create, entertain and govern ourselves. This 

reminds us of the great sweep of FCC authority and its impact on 

what every American reads, sees, and hears. 

But communications technology is changing at a brisk pace. 

Laws and regulations struggle to keep up. The challenge for the 

FCC is identifying how to inspire the best in communications in a 

world where change is a constant and innovation can invert what 

we think we know. 

In approaching this challenge, I believe a little humility helps. 

At the same time, it’s absolutely essential that the FCC honor 

the values that are at the core of the Communications Act. 

That means the safety of our people is paramount. New communications technologies should facilitate our security and promote 

the safety of life and property. 

That means universal service, no matter who you are or where 

you live in this country, you should have access to first-rate communications service. To prosper in the twenty-first century, all of 

our communities, urban, rural and everything in-between, need 

9 

this access. Our communications networks and the access they provide should be the envy of the world. 

This means competitive markets. They are the most effective 

means of facilitating innovation and ensuring the public reaps its 

benefits. 

This means a fierce commitment to consumer protection. Communications technology and media are growing more complex. It is 

vitally important to get consumers the information they need to 

make good choices. We should strive too to help parents and families navigate the bewildering digital world of media and communications. 

These values derive from the law. If confirmed, they will inform 

my efforts going forward. 

If confirmed, it will be an honor to continue to work with the 

Members of this Committee. I pledge to listen to you, the Congress, 

those with business before the FCC, and above all, the American 

people. 

If confirmed, it will be an honor to work with the talented members of the Commission today: Chairman Genachowski, Commissioner McDowell and Commissioner Clyburn. Though I have only 

recently made his acquaintance, if confirmed I believe it will also 

be a pleasure to work with the individual sitting next to me today, 

Mr. Pai. 

Finally, I believe the FCC is blessed to have a staff of uncommon 

skill. If confirmed, I know it will be a pleasure to work with them 

day-in and day-out. 

In closing, Chairman Rockefeller and members of the Committee, 

thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. 

Rosenworcel follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Good afternoon, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and the distinguished members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as a nominee for Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. For nearly five years, I have 

had the privilege of serving this Committee as Senior Communications Counsel. So 

I am accustomed to these halls, this room, and the deliberations of this body. But 

I can assure you that sitting at this table today is a different experience altogether. 

I would like to start by introducing my family. Sitting behind me is my terrific 

husband of eleven years, Mark Bailen. Sitting beside him are our children, Caroline 

Frances, age five, and Emmett Joseph, age two. Like parents the world round, they 

are our pride and joy. 

Though they are not here today, I also would like to note my parents, Elliott and 

Willa Rosenworcel. They are at home in Hartford, Connecticut. 

I like to think that a commitment to public service runs in my family. My father 

served in the Air Force, before going on to a career as a nephrologist in Hartford. 

For three decades he also ran the city clinic for hypertension and kidney failure. 

My mother has spent the last two decades helping run a soup kitchen in Hartford. 

My grandfather before them served in the United States Customs Service here in 

Washington. My great grandfather before that served the public in another way-he 

swept the streets of New York. 

It is a great honor to have been nominated by President Obama to serve as a 

Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. 

Communications technologies are a source of tremendous opportunity. They support our commerce, they connect our communities, and they enhance our security. 

They help create good jobs. And by unlocking the full potential of broadband, we 

10 

will alter the way we educate, create, entertain, and govern ourselves. This reminds 

us of the great sweep of FCC authority, and its impact on what every American 

reads, sees, and hears. 

But communications technology is changing at a brisk pace. Laws and regulations 

struggle to keep up. The challenge for the FCC is identifying how to inspire the best 

in communications in a world where change is a constant and innovation can invert 

what we think we know. 

In approaching this challenge, I believe that a little humility helps. 

At the same time, it is absolutely essential that the FCC honor the values that 

are at the core of the Communications Act. 

This means that the safety of our people is paramount. New communications technologies should facilitate our security and promote the safety of life and property. 

This means universal service. No matter who you are or where you live in this 

country, you should have access to first-rate communications service. To prosper in 

the 2151 century, all of our communities-urban, rural, and everything in betweenneed this access. Our communications networks, and the access they provide, should 

be the envy of the world. 

This means competitive markets. They are the most effective means of facilitating 

innovation and ensuring the public reaps its benefits. 

This means a fierce commitment to consumer protection. Communications technology and media are growing more complex. It is vitally important to get consumers the information they need to make good choices. We should strive, too, to 

help parents and families navigate the bewildering new digital world of media and 

communications. 

These values derive from the law. If confirmed, they will inform my efforts going 

forward. 

If confirmed, it will be an honor to continue to work with the members of this 

Committee. I pledge to listen to you, the Congress, those with business before the 

FCC-and above all, the American people. 

If confirmed, it will be an honor to work with the talented members of the Commission: Chairman Genachowski, Commissioner McDowell, and Commissioner Clyburn. Though I have only recently made his acquaintance, if confirmed, I believe 

it also will be a pleasure to work with the individual sitting next to me today, Mr. 

Pai. 

Finally, I believe that the FCC is blessed to have a staff of uncommon skill. If 

confirmed, I know it will be a pleasure to work with them day in, and day out. 

In closing, Chairman Rockefeller and members of the Committee, thank you again 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Jessica Rosenworcel. 

2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission. 

3. Date of Nomination: November 1, 2011. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Office: Hart Senate Office Building, Room 428, Washington, DC 20510. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: 7/12/71; Boston, Massachusetts. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Spouse: Mark Bailen, Partner at Baker & Hostetler. 

Children: Caroline Bailen (5); Emmett Bailen (2). 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

Wesleyan University, BA, 1993. 

New York University School of Law, JD, 1997. 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. 

Senior Communications Counsel, U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science 

and Transportation. 

11 

Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Federal Communications Commission. 

Legal Advisor, Office of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Federal Communications Commission. 

Legal Advisor to the Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. 

Attorney-Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. 

Attorney, Drinker Biddle & Reath. 

9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last five years: None. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last five 

years: None. 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

Federal Communications Bar Association 

Chair, Cable Practice Committee (2007–2008) 

Chair, Legislative Practice Committee (2009) 

13.Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt: No. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past ten years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. 

$1,000 Donation to Barack Obama Campaign in 2008. 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

White Prize for Excellence in Economics (Wesleyan University) 

Special Act Award for Contributions to Common Carrier Bureau (Federal Communications Commission) 

16.Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

I co-authored the following article: 

‘‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Section 271 Five Years After the Telecommunications Act of 1996,’’ Jessica Rosenworcel & Daniel Shiman, Chapter 7, Communications Policy and Information Technology: Promises, Problems, Prospects, 

MIT Press (2002). 

As Senior Communications Counsel at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, I have spoken on panels at a variety of events, including the following: 

May 27, 2010 Panel on ‘‘The FCC’s Authority Over Broadband Access,’’ sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Wharton School, 

Washington, D.C. 

March 2, 2010 Panel on legislative issues at the ’’National Association of Broadcasters State Leadership Conference,’’ Washington, D.C. 

May 14, 2009 Panel on ‘‘Changing Media: Thinking Across the Issues, Part 2,’’ 

sponsored by the James L. Knight Foundation and Free Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

March 31, 2009 Panel on legislative issues at the ’’National Association of 

Broadcasters State Leadership Conference,’’ Washington, D.C. 

12 

April 2, 2009 Panel on Congressional issues at ‘‘The Cable Show,’’ sponsored by 

the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Washington, D.C. 

February 29, 2009 Panel on ‘‘Implementing the Broadband Stimulus: Maximizing Benefits and Monitoring Performance,’’ sponsored by Columbia University Institute for Tele-Information and Georgetown University McDonough Business School, Washington, D.C. 

January 5, 2009 Panel on ‘‘The Future of the FCC as an Institution,’’ sponsored 

by the University of Colorado Silicon Flatirons and Public Knowledge, Washington, D.C. 

September 23, 2008 Panel on communications issues at policy conference sponsored by the Association for Maximum Service Television, Washington, D.C. 

March 13, 2008 Panel on digital television transition issues at National League 

of Cities Congressional Conference, Washington, D.C. 

March 5, 2008 Panel on emergency communications at policy conference sponsored by the E–911 Institute, Arlington, VA. 

January 28, 2008 Panel on Congressional issues at ‘‘Alaska Telephone Association Winter Convention,’’ Lihue, HI. 

September 17, 2007 Panel on Congressional issues at ‘‘Future of Music Policy 

Summit,’’ Washington, D.C. 

June 8, 2007 Panel on communications issues at ‘‘Pike and Fisher’s Broadband 

Policy Summit,’’ Arlington, VA. 

As an employee of the Federal Communications Commission, I spoke on panels 

at a variety of events, including the following: 

April 5, 2005 Panel on ‘‘Consenting Advisors: The FCC Legal Experts,’’ at ‘‘The 

National Show,’’ sponsored by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Las Vegas, NV. 

January 17, 2005 Panel on ‘‘The State of Regulation: A Preview of Key Issues 

Facing Commissions in 2005,’’ sponsored by the National Regulatory Research 

Institute, New Orleans, LA. 

October 19, 2004, Panel on communications issues at ‘‘VON Telecom Policy 

Summit,’’ Boston, MA. 

October 11, 2004 Panel on communications issues at United States Telecommunications Association conference, Las Vegas, NV. 

January 29, 2004 Panel on communications issues at National Consumer 

League roundtable, Washington, D.C. 

December 4, 2003 Panel on communications issues at ALTS Business and Policy 

Conference, Washington, D.C. 

October 28, 2003 Panel on Online Communications Practice Committee, sponsored by the Federal Communications Bar Association, Washington, D.C. 

December 11, 2000 Panel on communications issues at ‘‘DSL Summit,’’ La 

Quinta, CA. 

17.Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony: None. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

I have nearly a decade and half of experience in communications policy. I have 

worked on communications matters from a wide variety of positions in both the private and public sector. Specifically, I have worked at a law firm, as an advisor at 

the Federal Communications Commission, and on Capitol Hill as Senior Communications Counsel at the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

I believe that this range of experiences is unique. They provide the substantive 

knowledge and practical savvy that help make an effective Commissioner. 

I wish to serve in this position because I believe I can use my background to make 

a positive contribution to communications policy-protecting consumers, promoting 

access to new services, and fostering investment and innovation. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

13 

All government officials operate in positions of trust and have a duty to ensure 

that the organization where they work has proper management and accounting controls. 

I have experience managing rulemaking proceedings at the Federal Communications Commission, and managing the office of a Commissioner. 

20.What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/agency, and why? 

Protecting consumers. As technologies evolve, one thing is paramount consumers 

should be the ultimate beneficiaries of policy choices by the Federal Communications Commission. 

Securing access. As technologies evolve, it is imperative that all people in this 

country, no matter who they are or where they live, have access to the communications services that are necessary for 21st century opportunity, safety, and economic 

security. 

Growing economy. Digital services are being a more and more important feature 

of our economy. Providing certainty to companies is an essential part of promoting 

investment, fostering innovation, and creating jobs. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

None. My financial interests are disclosed on SF–278. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain: None. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

None. My husband is a partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler. His practice 

involves commercial litigation and does not include advocacy before the Federal 

Communications Commission. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated: None. 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

I served in a variety of positions at the Federal Communications Commission and 

in these capacities worked on regulatory matters that involved communications policy. 

I presently serve as Senior Communications Counsel at the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In this capacity, I regularly advise Senate 

offices on communications policy and legislation. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

In the unlikely event that conflicts of interest arise, I will resolve them by contacting the agency’s Designated Agency Ethics Official. I will follow his guidance, 

as well as the advice of other ethics officials in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, 

to ensure that I am in compliance with all ethics laws, regulations and policies applicable to employees of the Executive Branch. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, please explain ;No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, 

please explain: No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

14 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain: No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination: 

None. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RESUME ́ OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Legal and Policy Experience 

United States Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, D.C. 

Senior Communications Counsel, 2009–Present 

Develop and implement communications policy agenda for the Democratic members of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, under the 

leadership of Senator Jay Rockefeller (D–West Virginia). Organize hearings regarding the National Broadband Plan, universal service and rural communications, Children’s Television Act, future of journalism, wireless service, communications accessibility for the disabled, retransmission consent for video programming, satellite television, public safety spectrum and oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Develop and work to secure passage of legislation, including the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DTV Delay Act, Satellite Television Extension 

and Localism Act, 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 

and Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act. 

Senior Communications Counsel, 2007–2008 

Developed and implemented communications policy agenda for the Democratic 

members of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, under 

the leadership of Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D–Hawaii). Organized hearings regarding the digital television transition, broadband deployment and adoption, 

universal service, media ownership, media violence and indecency, network neutrality, online privacy and oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Developed and worked to secure passage of legislation, including the Broadband Data 

Improvement Act, Child Safe Viewing Act, and New and Emerging Technologies 

911 Improvement Act. 

Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael J. Copps, 2006–2007 

Advised Senior Democratic Commissioner on television, radio and cable policy 

issues arising under the Communications Act and Cable Television and Consumer Protection Act. Developed office positions and strategy for advancing telecommunications, Internet, wireless and media policy priorities. Managed office 

staff. Provided legal analysis and voting recommendations for Commission decisions. Drafted speeches, editorials and press statements. Coordinated policy decisions with Congressional offices, state and local officials and industry representatives. 

Legal Advisor to Commissioner Michael J. Copps, 2003–2006 

Advised Senior Democratic Commissioner on competition policy and universal 

service issues arising under the Telecommunications Act. Developed policy positions on broadband deployment, Internet access, rural communications, public 

safety networks, E–Rate and VoIP. Provided legal analysis and voting recVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

ommendations for Commission decisions. Drafted Senate testimony, speeches 

and press statements. Coordinated policy decisions with Congressional offices 

and state regulatory authorities. 

Legal Counsel to Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, 2002–2003 

Advised Bureau Chief on universal service and broadband policy. Coordinated 

wireline policy with Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Cable Services Bureau and International Bureau. Taught World Bank telecommunications workshops for the Economic Ministry of Latvia. 

Attorney Advisor, Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 1999–2002 

Managed teams drafting decisions concerning broadband deployment and competitive entry into local and long distance markets. Recipient of Special Act 

Award for policy contributions to the Common Carrier Bureau in 2000. 

Drinker Biddle & Reath, Washington, D.C. 

Communications Associate, 1997–1999 

Drafted merger documents for privatization of state-owned telephone company. 

Prepared Bureau of Export Administration license application for cable modem 

encryption technology. 

Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol, New York, NY 

Summer Associate, 1996 

Drafted securities purchase agreements for venture capital and buyout firm 

transactions. 

United States Attorney’s Office, Brooklyn, NY 

Summer Fellow, Criminal Division, 1995 

Researched and drafted motions on issues of evidence, criminal law and criminal procedure. 

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, NY 

Legal Assistant, 1993–1994 

Managed litigation documents. 

Education 

New York University School Of Law, New York, NY—JD, 1997 

Honors: Annual Survey of American Law, Editor 

Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT—BA, Economics and English, 1993 

Honors: White Prize for Excellence in Economics 

Publication 

‘‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Section 271 Five Years After the Telecommunications Act of 1996,’’ Jessica Rosenworcel & Daniel R. Shiman, Chapter 7, Communications Policy and Information Technology: Promises, Problems, Prospects, 

MIT Press, 2002. 

Bar Association Activity 

Chair, Cable Practice Committee, Federal Communications Bar Association, 

2007–2008 

Chair, Legislative Practice Committee, Federal Communications Bar Association, 2009 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Rosenworcel. These are huge 

nominations and they have vast effect on the future of our country, 

for better or for worse. 

I think it is hard to overstate the importance of the Federal Communications Commission and its reach. So I want that very clearly 

understood. 

Mr. Pai, I would welcome your statement. 

STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI, NOMINEE FOR COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the Committee. Thank you 

very much for giving me the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I appreciate as well the many courtesies you have extended 

16 

to me during this process. I have enjoyed my meetings with you 

and your staff. And if confirmed, I look forward to continuing that 

productive dialogue as well as serving with my distinguished counterpart, Ms. Rosenworcel. 

I also would like to thank Senators Roberts and Moran for their 

very kind introductions. Their support of me has been as gracious 

as their service on behalf of the people of Kansas has been outstanding. 

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank the President 

for nominating me. I am deeply humbled by the honor. And if confirmed by the Senate, I will do my best to be worthy of the privilege of serving the American public in this capacity. 

With the Committee’s indulgence, I would like to introduce the 

members of my family who are in attendance. This might take 

awhile, hence the word ‘‘indulgence.’’ Supporting me today and all 

days is my wonderful wife, Janine. My son, who has absconded for 

reasons—well, he wanted to make a contribution to the record, unfortunately. Alexander, who just turned 3 months old this past—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Can I ask if those who you identify if they at 

least raise their hands? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PAI. My parents, Radha and Varadaraj Pai. My mother-inlaw and father-in-law, Marianne and Bob Van Lancker. My brother-in-law, Bob Van Lancker. My cousin Dinesh Pai and his mother, 

Meera Pai. My cousin Vaishali Kamath and her husband Praveen, 

and members of my extended in-law family, Jan and Rod Gaumer, 

Deborah Nicholson, who took my son Alexander outside the room, 

and Agnes Butsko, who is probably the most technologically savvy 

one of us at 80-something years of age. 

I also wish to remember on this day, my late grandparents. They 

never could have imagined that their sacrifices and the sacrifices 

of their children would have culminated in this proceeding worlds 

and a century away. 

As my introducers pointed out, I am the child of immigrants. My 

parents came to the United States from India exactly 40 years ago, 

with about ten dollars in their pockets and a willingness to work 

very hard and a belief in the American Dream. They settled in Parsons, Kansas in the late 1970s. 

Just to give you a sense of the geographic scope of the place, Parsons is a town of about 10,000 people, approximately 150 miles 

south of Kansas City. After settling in Parsons, my parents began 

serving the community as doctors at the county hospital. They still 

work there to this day. 

I can say that I am glad I grew up in rural Kansas. The friends 

I made and the experiences I had gave me valuable perspective on 

life. And as I grow older I find that I appreciate that perspective 

ever more. 

Now, as a child in rural Kansas, I remember that it was expensive to make long distance calls using our bulky telephone, especially to relatives abroad. So our conversations tended to be efficient more than expansive. I recall also that we only could choose 

among three channels on the manual dial of our television. 

17 

Now cable television was unavailable to us at that time, but we 

did eventually have a satellite dish installed in our backyard. The 

dish was approximately ten feet across and with it we could watch 

non-broadcast programming if we typed in the channel coordinates 

into a set-top box and then waited a minute or two for the satellite 

dish to reposition itself. 

In sum, the products and services offered by the communications 

industry, at least from my youthful vantage point, were rather limited. 

Suffice it to say of today’s communications landscape that we are 

not in the Kansas of my childhood anymore. Today we see convergence as cable, telephone, satellite and wireless companies compete 

against each other to provide traditional and novel services. 

We see an explosion in content and the development of ever new 

ways and faster ways for people anywhere in the world to access 

that content. And we see personal communications devices that are 

as powerful if not more powerful than computers that once filled 

up an entire room. 

Now, I believe that these developments have made our lives better, richer and in some cases even longer. And for this the private 

sector deserves the lion’s share of the credit. After all, private companies and entrepreneurs took risks, they raised and invested capital, they brought new products and services to the marketplace, 

and they employed millions of people along the way. 

But I think it is also important to recognize the role that the 

Federal Communications Commission, the Nation’s premier communications agency, has played in this technological revolution. 

When it prioritizes competition and innovation, the FCC allows 

the private sector to deliver to the American public rapid, efficient 

nationwide communications services at reasonable prices, precisely 

the charge that Congress gave the Agency in the first section of the 

Communications Act of 1934. 

Now, speaking of 1934, a prominent national newspaper that 

year profiled the very first Commissioners to be appointed to the 

FCC. The title of the article referred to them as—and I quote— 

‘‘Rulers of the Air.’’ 

Now were I fortunate to be confirmed to the same position, my 

ambition would be far more modest. I would not bring an ideological mission to the Agency. I would hold no favor for or prejudice 

against any company, segment of the industry, or technology. 

Instead, on each matter, my approach would be the same. I 

would review the record closely. I would stay within the bounds of 

the Commission’s authority as set by Congress, and I would work 

collegially with the Chairman, my fellow Commissioners and Agency staff to come up with solutions carefully calibrated to solve common problems. 

Now I want to say as well that my decisionmaking process would 

incorporate and reflect a respect for others outside of the Agency. 

For example, I would seek to build a collaborative relationship with 

Congress, including the Members and staff of this Committee. 

Similarly, I would consult as appropriate with the private sector, 

Executive Branch agencies, state and local governments, consumer 

groups, and others impacted by the Commission’s agenda. 

18 

I believe a good Commissioner must be a good listener. If I am 

fortunate to be confirmed, I will do my best to hear what all stakeholders have to say. In discharging my responsibilities, I always 

would be mindful of the implicit goal of communications policy to 

maximize the benefits of competition and innovation for all American consumers, whether they live in a big city or in rural Kansas. 

Or to put it in more personal terms, to enable my son, when he 

is my age, to marvel at how far communications services have come 

in his lifetime. 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, members of 

the Committee, thank you once again for giving us this opportunity. I look forward to your questions and I request that my full 

statement be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. Pai 

follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

grateful to you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to consider my nomination to the Federal Communications Commission. I appreciate as well the many 

courtesies you have extended to me during this process. I have enjoyed my meetings 

with you and your staff, and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I look forward to continuing our productive dialogue. 

I also would like to thank Senators Roberts and Moran for their very kind introductions. Their support has been as gracious as their service on behalf of the people 

of Kansas has been outstanding. 

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank the President for nominating 

me. I am humbled by the honor. If confirmed by the Senate, I will do my best to 

be worthy of the privilege of serving the American public in this capacity. 

With the Committee’s indulgence, I would like to introduce members of my family 

who are in attendance. Supporting me today and all days are my wonderful wife, 

Janine; my son, Alexander, who turned three months old this past weekend; my 

mother and father, Radha and Varadaraj Pai; my mother-in-law and father-in-law, 

Marianne and Bob Van Lancker; my brother-in-law, Bob Van Lancker; my cousin, 

Dinesh Pai, and his mother, Meera Pai; my cousin, Vaishali Kamath, and her husband, Praveen; and members of my extended in-law family, Janet and Rod Gaumer, 

Deborah Nicholson, and Agnes Butsko, the last of whom may well be the most 

technologically savvy of all of us at eighty-something years of age. I also wish to 

remember my late grandparents, who never could have imagined that their sacrifices and those of their children would culminate in this proceeding, a world and 

a century away. 

As my last comment suggests, I am the child of immigrants. My parents came 

to the United States from India exactly 40 years ago with about $10 in their pockets, a willingness to work hard, and a strong belief in the American dream. In the 

late 1970s, they moved to Parsons, Kansas. Parsons is a town of about 10,000 people 

located approximately 150 miles south of Kansas City. After settling in Parsons, my 

parents began serving the community as doctors at the county hospital. They still 

work there today. My sister, Sheila, and I received quality educations in the local 

public schools. I am glad I grew up in rural Kansas. The friends I made and the 

experiences I had gave me a valuable perspective on life, and I have grown to appreciate that perspective ever more as I get older. 

As a child, I remember having a bulky telephone, which was connected by a thick 

wire to a jack in the wall. It was expensive to make long-distance calls, especially 

to relatives abroad, so our conversations were efficient rather than expansive. I recall that we only could choose among three channels on the manual dial of our television. Cable television was not available, but we ultimately got a satellite dish installed in our back yard. The dish was approximately 10 feet across. With it, we 

could watch non-broadcast programming if we typed the channel coordinates into 

a set-top box and waited a minute or two for the satellite to reposition itself. We 

had ready access to just two newspapers: the local daily, which usually covered national news with snippets from wire reports, and a paper devoted to agricultural 

19 

issues. In sum, the products and services offered by the communications industry, 

as far as I could tell from my youthful vantage point, were rather limited. 

Suffice it to say of today’s communications landscape that we are not in the Kansas of my childhood anymore. We see convergence as cable, telephone, satellite, and 

wireless companies compete against each other to provide traditional and novel 

services. We see an explosion in content, and the development of new and faster 

ways for people anywhere in the world to access that content. We see personal communications devices that are more powerful than computers that once filled up a 

room. 

Perhaps the best concrete example of innovation in communications is the 

smartphone that I routinely carry in my pocket. On this one platform, I have 

watched videos of television shows, read not just articles from various national 

newspapers but entire books, and listened to radio stations from across the country. 

The device also has allowed me to do things that either didn’t exist back when I 

was a child or have nothing necessarily to do with communications. For instance, 

I have e-mailed and sent text messages to my friends and family. I have taken pictures and created videos of my son, and immediately have shared them with people 

as far away as Australia. I have navigated the roadways, bought airline tickets, 

made restaurant reservations, and even installed a cabinet using an application 

that turns the device into a leveler. I—and perhaps you too—usually take 

functionalities like this for granted. 

But can you imagine my reaction had I been handed this device three decades 

ago? I and most Americans surely would have been astonished by the full range of 

communications technologies that consumers enjoy today. These technologies have 

made our lives better, richer, and in some cases, even longer. For this, the private 

sector deserves the lion’s share of the credit. After all, companies and entrepreneurs 

took risks. They raised and invested capital. They brought new products and services to market. And they created millions of jobs along the way. But it also is important to recognize the role that the Nation’s premier communications agency, the 

Federal Communications Commission, has played in this technological revolution. 

When it has prioritized competition and innovation, the FCC has allowed the private sector to deliver to the American people rapid, efficient, nationwide communications services at reasonable prices—the very charge Congress gave the agency in the 

first section of the Communications Act of 1934. 

Speaking of 1934, a prominent national newspaper that year profiled the very 

first Commissioners to be appointed to the FCC. The title of the article referred to 

them as ‘‘Rulers of the Air.’’ Were I fortunate to be confirmed to the same position, 

my ambition would be far more modest. I would not bring an ideological mission 

to the agency. I would hold no favor for or prejudice against any particular company, segment of the industry, or technology. On each matter presented to the full 

Commission, my approach would be the same. I would study the record closely. I 

would stay within the boundaries of the Commission’s authority, as set forth by 

Congress. And I would work collegially with the Chairman, my fellow Commissioners, and agency staff to come up with solutions carefully calibrated to solve 

problems. My aim would be to help the FCC establish a regulatory framework that 

enables the communications sector to achieve even greater heights. 

My decisionmaking process also would reflect a respect for those outside the agency with an important interest in the FCC’s work. I would seek to build a collaborative relationship with Congress, including the members and staff of this Committee. Having worked in the Senate, I will bring to the Commission a firsthand 

understanding of and appreciation for congressional prerogatives. Similarly, I would 

consult as appropriate with the private sector, Executive Branch agencies, consumer 

groups, state and local governments, and others impacted by the Commission’s 

agenda. A good Commissioner must be a good listener, and if confirmed, I will do 

my best to make sure that I hear what all stakeholders have to say. 

In discharging my responsibilities, I always would be mindful of the implicit goal 

of communications policy: to maximize the benefits of competition and innovation 

for all American consumers, whether they live in a big city or rural Kansas. Or to 

put it in more personal terms: to enable my son to marvel, when he is my age, at 

just how far communications services have come in his lifetime. 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee, thank you once again for affording me an opportunity to testify today. I look 

forward to your questions. 

20 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Ajit Varadaraj Pai. 

2. Position to which nominated: Member, Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC). 

3. Date of Nomination: November 1, 2011. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Office: Jenner & Block LLP, 1099 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20001–4412. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: January 10, 1973; Buffalo, New York. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Spouse: Janine Van Lancker, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Allergy and Sinus 

Center, Medical Faculty Associates, George Washington University Medical 

Center, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037–3201. 

Child: Alexander Madhav Pai, born August 26, 2011. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

Harvard University, B.A. (1994) 

University of Chicago, J.D. (1997) 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. 

Post-Undergraduate Employment 

Jenner & Block LLP. Partner (April 2011 to present). 

Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel. Special Advisor to the General Counsel (March 2010–April 2011); Deputy General Counsel 

(December 2007–February 2010); Associate General Counsel (July 2007–December 2007). 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Property Rights. Chief Counsel (February 2005–June 2007). 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy. Senior Counsel (May 2004– 

February 2005). 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight 

and the Courts. Deputy Chief Counsel (March 2003–May 2004). 

Verizon Communications Inc. Associate General Counsel (February 2001–March 

2003). 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force. 

Trial Attorney, Attorney General’s Honors Program (December 1998–February 

2001). 

Hon. Martin L.C. Feldman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. 

Law Clerk (September 1997–September 1998). 

Kirkland & Ellis. Summer Associate (June 1997–September 1997). Latham & 

Watkins. Summer Associate (June 1996–September 1996). 

Lathrop & Norquist (now Lathrop & Gage LLP). Summer Associate (August 

1995–September 1995). 

Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas. Summer Law 

Clerk (June 1995–July 1995). 

The management-level jobs I have held include Deputy General Counsel and Associate General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission; Partner at 

Jenner & Block LLP (my current position); Chief Counsel at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property 

Rights; and Deputy Chief Counsel at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. 

The non-managerial jobs I have held which relate to the position for which I have 

been nominated include Special Advisor to the General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission; Senior Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Legal Policy; Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc.; and 

21 

Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force. 

9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last five years: None. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last five 

years. 

Partner, Jenner & Block LLP (April 2011 to present). 

Co-Trustee, Radha V. Pai Children’s Trust (entire time period). 

Co-Trustee, Varadaraj S. Pai Children’s Trust (entire time period). 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

Kansas Bar. Member during entire reporting period. 

District of Columbia Bar. Member (December 3, 2001–September 30, 2003, June 

18, 2004 to present). Member, Nominations Committee (November 2010

present). 

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Member during entire reporting period; Member, Executive Committee, Administrative Law Practice 

Group (January 2011 to present). 

South Asian Bar Association-District of Columbia. Member during entire reporting period; Member of the Board (2001–02). 

Federal Communications Bar Association. Member (2008–09). 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt: No. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past ten years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. 

I have not contributed $500 or more to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity over the past ten years. I 

have not held any offices with any state or national political party, political action 

committee, or campaign committee during the same period. Between November 6– 

8, 2006, I served as a volunteer for the Republican National Committee in Montana. 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

Marshall Memorial Fellowship, awarded by the German Marshall Fund of the 

United States (2011). 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

Article, ‘‘Congress and the Constitution: The Legal Tender Act of 1862,’’ 77 Oregon Law Review 535 (1998). 

Comment, ‘‘Should a Grand Jury Subpoena Override a District Court’s Protective 

Order?‘‘, 64 University of Chicago Law Review 317 (1997). 

I have not given any speeches on topics relevant to the position for which I have 

been nominated. 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. 

I have not done so. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for apVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
22 

pointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

With respect to my background, first and foremost, I have extensive Commission 

experience. I worked in the agency’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) for almost four 

years on a wide variety of communications law issues and administrative matters. 

Because OGC’s Administrative Law Division (which I supervised for a time as Deputy General Counsel) reviews virtually every significant proposed Commission decision, I had a broad and deep view of the agency’s overall docket, and worked on 

a wide variety of media, wireline, wireless, spectrum, and public safety issues. Over 

time, I also interacted with Commission-level leadership and every Bureau and Office, and I became quite familiar with agency personnel and procedures. Knowledge 

of the agency’s law, rules, and people is indispensable for Commissioners charged 

with primary responsibility for decisionmaking. 

Second, my other professional experience has given me a good understanding of 

law, government, and business. From my years on Capitol Hill, I learned about the 

intricacies of the legislative process and gained a respect for members’ prerogatives 

and perspectives. My time at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy 

taught me about the importance of inter-branch consultation and inter-agency coordination. My work at Verizon gave me a better understanding of how the regulatory landscape affects corporate strategy and execution and how the communications industry operates. During my service in the Telecommunications Task Force 

at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, I helped to evaluate a number of telecommunications transactions, large and small, and to assess requests for 

regulatory relief following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Finally, as a law clerk to Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana, 

I obtained an in-depth education in the judicial process and the importance of timely, thorough resolution of claims. In sum, I believe my experience in all three 

branches of government, an independent agency, and a large company give me a 

good foundation to serve on the Commission. 

Third, I have management experience. My most significant management role was 

as Deputy General Counsel in OGC, as described in more detail in response to the 

next question. I also served as Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights. In this 

position, I managed the Subcommittee’s agenda, worked with members and staff of 

both parties, and led then-Senator Brownback’s team in evaluating everything from 

Supreme Court nominations to immigration legislation. I believe such management 

experience would help me run an office as an agency principal. 

Finally, throughout my professional career, I have always done my best to work 

with colleagues in a collegial manner and to reach cooperative solutions to problems. 

Even if the person with whom I am dealing has an irreconcilably opposing view on 

an issue, I try to disagree agreeably. Fortunately, the bulk of the Commission’s 

work proceeds by consensus; most votes are unanimous, and the agency has a collaborative culture. But on those rare occasions when divisions arise on a Commission-level item, my approach would be one of constructive engagement and then, if 

necessary, respectful disagreement. 

I wish to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for two basic 

reasons. First, I believe in public service. For most of my career, I have worked for 

the United States, and my client has been the public interest. It would be a privilege once again to contribute to the FCC’s mission, especially in a decision-making 

role. Second, the communications industry has brought tremendous benefits to the 

American economy generally and American consumers in particular. Perhaps more 

than any other, it is characterized by innovation and change. I would welcome the 

opportunities to serve as a Member at the agency that plays an important role in 

this dynamic field and to do my best to ensure that the communications industry 

continues to contribute to economic growth and the welfare of consumers. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

The Chairman of the FCC is the agency’s chief executive officer. Nevertheless, 

were I fortunate enough to be confirmed as a Commissioner, I would take as active 

a role as possible in ensuring that the agency was managed properly. The most important way a Commissioner can do this is by fully and timely participating in Commission proceedings, especially proposed items that the Chairman has placed on a 

meeting agenda or on circulation. Helping the Commission reach and issue a final 

decision in a timely manner not only reflects good government, but also gives parties to a particular proceeding the resolution they deserve. 

In terms of administrative issues, I would work to improve agency management 

in several ways. Most importantly, I would urge the Chairman, other CommisVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

sioners, and staff to take full advantage of the Commission’s February 2011 order 

amending various Part 0 and Part 1 rules of agency organization, practice, and procedure (for which I was the primary drafter while I was at the Commission and 

which is available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/DailylBusiness/ 

2011/db0211/FCC-11-16A1.pdf by broadening the use of electronic filing; terminating more dormant proceedings; expanding the number of docketed proceedings; 

issuing more electronic and fewer hardcopy notifications of new filings or other 

changes in a particular docket; and dismissing plainly defective petitions for reconsideration on the staff level (rather than at the Commission level, in order to conserve scarce resources). In addition, there are a number of areas relatively removed 

from public attention where agency processes could be improved. For instance, Commission procurement is particularly important at a time of fiscal constraint, and I 

would seek to make sure that Commission procurement processes were consistent 

with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as well as basic principles of accountability 

and proper stewardship of Federal funds. Finally, I would work to maintain good 

relations with Congress by, among other things, keeping the door open to members 

and staff with an interest in agency issues and urging the timely completion of reports required by statute to be submitted to Congress. 

The best example of my experience managing a large organization would be my 

service as Deputy General Counsel at the Commission. In that role, I led a team 

of approximately 40 lawyers in OGC’s Administrative Law Division. As described on 

its website, the Division ‘‘reviews all draft Commission decisions for legal sufficiency. Division staff provide legal advice to the Commission concerning a wide 

array of statutes, regulations, and procedures, including, for example, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Government 

in the Sunshine Act, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, negotiated rulemaking and alternative dispute resolution, the Commission’s procedural 

rules, procurement issues, the agency’s ex parte and ethics rules (including receipt 

of gifts by the Commission and its employees, reimbursed travel expenses, and lobbying disclosure).’’ See http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/administrative-law-division-office-general-counsel. 

Given the importance, breadth, and sheer volume of the matters that came 

through the Division for review, careful management was necessary to ensure that 

the Commission—from Commissioners’ offices to the staff in agency Bureaus and 

Offices—could function in a timely, appropriate manner. Accordingly, as supervising 

head, it was crucial to keep abreast of all activities of the lawyers within the Division. To this end, I provided as much detailed feedback as possible on items the 

team leaders sent to me for review, and I made affirmative efforts to become more 

knowledgeable in areas of law in which they were subject matter experts. Similarly, 

I communicated promptly to Division leaders the policy choices and requests for 

legal advice made by Commission and Bureau leadership. I also held a weekly meeting that was attended by the Division Chief, the two deputy chiefs, the six assistant 

general counsels who served as team leaders for different areas, and representatives 

from the Office of General Counsel’s Transactions Team and Litigation Division. 

Prior to each meeting, the assistants circulated a report detailing all pending and 

recently resolved business in the areas within their purview. At the meeting itself, 

I offered updates on upcoming Commission meetings or other issues affecting the 

Division. I then asked each attendee to discuss any substantive or administrative 

matters with the group. This process allowed me to ensure that the Division’s work 

was proceeding smoothly and allowed team leaders a better sense of how to manage 

their team members with respect to ongoing and future projects. I also consulted 

frequently with the Division Chief and/or individual team leaders one-on-one in 

order to resolve more sensitive issues not suited for group-wide discussion. I offer 

this detailed description of my work as Deputy General Counsel to demonstrate that 

my management style was, and would be, engaged, efficient, and collegial. 

20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

I believe the top three challenges facing the Federal Communications Commission 

are as follows: 

(1) Optimizing private sector incentives to invest in, create, and maintain cutting edge communications networks, products, and services. As mentioned 

above, the hallmarks of the communications industry are innovation and 

change. And generally speaking, consumer welfare is maximized when the marketplace offers improved technology at competitive prices. When the Commission acts, it should be mindful of the importance of the communications indusVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

try to our international competitiveness, economic growth, and Americans’ quality of life. 

(2) Solving the ‘‘big’’ problems. The Commission should resolve important matters that have long simmered on its dockets without final resolution. Chairmen 

and Commissioners of both political parties have struggled with these issues, 

and often for good reasons. However, industry and the public would benefit from 

decisive Commission action. Uncertainty about the rules of the road poorly 

serves carriers and, ultimately, consumers. I would make a sincere commitment 

to help the agency make difficult but necessary policy choices in important matters were the Senate to afford me the privilege of serving as a Commissioner. 

(3) Adopting spectrum policies that meet the demands of the broadband age. 

American consumers’ greater use of increasingly sophisticated communications 

technology is putting unprecedented demands on communications networks and 

spectrum. In particular, mobile broadband data usage is exploding as more consumers use their mobile devices to watch videos, surf the Internet, and more. 

Given these trends, the Commission will need to allocate and establish service 

rules for the spectrum within its jurisdiction in ways that ensure efficient, technically feasible use (consistent with statutory guidelines). 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

During my employment at Verizon Communications Inc., I contributed to a 401(k) 

plan (with a proportionate matching amount contributed by the company). That 

plan, over which I still have control, is managed by Fidelity Investments, and all 

funds are invested in diversified index funds. 

I currently receive a monthly stipend from Jenner & Block LLP, where I am a 

non-equity Partner in the Litigation Department, which would stop were I to be confirmed. I also participate in the Firm’s Profit Sharing Plan (401(k)), which is also 

managed by Fidelity Investments. All funds are invested in a diversified index fund. 

I do not have any other financial arrangements with the Firm. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. 

I have no commitment or agreement to maintain my affiliation with the District 

of Columbia Bar (where I serve as a Member of the Nominations Committee) or the 

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy (where I serve as a Member of the Executive Committee for the Administrative Law Practice Group). As set forth in the 

ethics agreement I signed on October 24, 2011, should I be confirmed, I will resign 

from my positions as a Member of the Nominations Committee and a Member of 

the Executive Committee for the Administrative Law Practice Group respectively. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated: None. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

I do not believe my employment at Verizon Communications Inc. between 2001 

and 2003 would give rise to an actual or potential conflict of interest (or the appearance of such) with my prospective appointment to the Federal Communications 

Commission, but I list it here given that it is an entity subject to regulation by the 

agency. 

Since beginning at Jenner & Block LLP on April 25, 2011, I have done a limited 

amount of work for a few clients. Out of an abundance of caution, the complete list 

of my clients is as follows: AOL, Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp.; Cerberus Capital 

Management, L.P.; Charter Communications, Inc.; General Dynamics Corp., C4 Systems; Guggenheim Partners, LLC; The Nielsen Company; and Securus Technologies, 

Inc. During this time: (1) I have not appeared before the Federal Communications 

Commission, Executive Branch agencies, Congress, or any court in connection with 

my work for these clients; (2) my name has not appeared on any comments, briefs, 

or any other written work submitted on their behalf; and (3) to preclude conflicts, 

my firm has established a screen as appropriate to prevent my colleagues from discussing specific matters with me. 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modificaVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25 

tion of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

• During my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission (between 2007 

and 2011), I was asked very occasionally to review proposed legislation. I was 

not asked to recommend the passage, defeat, or modification of such proposals 

so much as to explain their likely effects. Unfortunately, I cannot recall which 

specific bills I was asked to review. Additionally, the bulk of my work within 

the Office of General Counsel at the Commission involved analysis of proposed 

agency actions—or, in a few cases involving litigation, final agency actions—for 

consistency with substantive communications laws as well as general administrative laws. 

• My employment at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during 2003 and 2004 

and again between 2005 and 2007 required frequent involvement in the legislative process on issues as varied as compensation for asbestos-related injuries 

and immigration reform. I also staffed the Senators for whom I worked at oversight hearings of Executive Branch agencies, such as the U.S. Department of 

Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

• My work in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice between 2004 and 2005 also involved legislative analysis and advocacy, primarily 

with respect to national security; for instance, I met with staff for Senator 

Dianne Feinstein in 2004 to discuss the reauthorization of sixteen expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I helped draft a letter to the Senator explaining the purpose and importance of those provisions. 

• Finally, in 2001, while I was working at Verizon Communications Inc., Senior 

Vice President and Deputy General Counsel John Thome and I met one time 

with House Energy and Commerce Committee staff to discuss the company’s 

views on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

Should I be confirmed as a Member of the Federal Communications Commission, 

I would resolve potential conflicts of interest by (1) identifying the proceeding(s) to 

which the potential conflicts pertain and gathering all relevant facts; (2) discussing 

the nature of the potential conflicts with and seeking guidance from the Designated 

Agency Ethics Official and other attorneys responsible for ethics issues in the Office 

of General Counsel; and (3) taking the appropriate action to ensure compliance with 

applicable ethics laws and regulations, as set forth by Congress, the agency, and the 

bar, respectively. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, please explain: No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, 

please explain: No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain: No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. 

I am a member of the Kansas and District of Columbia bars, admitted on October 

13, 1998 and December 3, 2001, respectively. In the late summer of2003, after I became a staffer for Senator Jeff Sessions on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I received a notice (possibly a second notice) from the Kansas Bar informing me that 

my bar dues had not been paid. Thereafter, I sent the Kansas Bar a check for the 

requisite amount. Unfortunately, the check arrived several days after the deadline 

for payment had passed (per a notation made by the Kansas Bar on the letter that 

I had sent and that was returned), and on October 6, 2003, my Kansas license was 

suspended. Similarly, my District of Columbia license was suspended for nonpayment of dues, effective September 30, 2003. After this time, I recall having a 

conversation with Senate Ethics staff in which I described these circumstances and 

26 

was told that Senate staffers doing policy work exclusively were not required to 

maintain an active bar license. I also was informed by Senator Sessions’ office that 

the office did not require that lawyers on staff maintain an active bar license. 

Nonetheless, I sought to reinstate both licenses in late 2003. According to the 

Kansas Bar’s instructions for reinstatement, one requirement was that I submit an 

application for reinstatement. Similarly, in order to get my District of Columbia bar 

license reinstated, I had to take and certify completion of the Course on the District 

of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and District of Columbia Practice, and 

I also had to submit a statement that I was not suspended by any disciplinary authority. See D.C. Bar Bylaws, Art. III, § 3(a), available at www.dcbar.org/inside_the_bar/structure/bylaws/article03.cfm#sec3. I took the required District of Columbia Bar course; submitted all necessary forms; paid all applicable fees and 

charges; and finished the remaining steps needed in order for the respective bars 

to accept my applications for reinstatement. On June 10, 2004, my Kansas license 

was reinstated to active status, as was my District of Columbia license on June 18, 

2004. I was a member in good standing of each bar before September 30, 2003, and 

without exception, I have been a member in good standing of each bar since June 

18, 2004. However, I greatly regret the oversight that resulted in the administrative 

suspensions between those dates and will not allow such an oversight to happen 

again. 

I also would note that on March 26, 2009, the Kansas Bar informed me that the 

suspension of a license under these circumstances is an administrative matter that 

does not involve a reprimand, a breach of ethics, or any other kind of disciplinary 

sanction. On the same day, the District of Columbia Bar confirmed that this was 

an administrative suspension only, and that my work during this time did not constitute the unauthorized practice of law because I did not appear in court, sign legal 

briefs, or do other work typically done by lawyers performing traditional legal functions. (In connection with the background check requisite for nomination to this position, I proactively conveyed the information above to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.) 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? 

I would do everything within my power as a Commissioner to ensure that such 

deadlines are met. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? 

I would do everything within my power as a Commissioner to ensure that Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers are protected from reprisal. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RESUME ́ OF AJIT V. PAI

Experience 

Jenner & Block LLP. Partner (April 2011 to present). Member of Litigation Department and Communications Practice. 

Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel. Special Advisor 

to the General Counsel (March 2010–April 2011); Deputy General Counsel (December 

2007–February 2010); Associate General Counsel (July 2007-December 2007). Led 

team of over 40 lawyers in handling wide variety of matters involving the cable, 

Internet, wireless, media, satellite, and other industries. Also was responsible for 

non-communications legal matters, including fiscal law, intellectual property, and 

environmental law. Finally, argued before and prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in National Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n. Inc. v. FCC; 

briefed the Court in CTIA-The Wireless Ass’n v. FCC; drafted comprehensive revision of agency rules and procedures; and led Commission response to broadest Congressional investigation in recent history. 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Property Rights. Chief Counsel (February 2005–June 2007). Managed all Subcommittee business, budget, and staff; was lead counsel on Supreme Court nominaVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

tions, constitutional law, national security, communications, media, Internet regulation, antitrust, and other issues; and served as general counsel for Senator’s personal office, handling full range of personnel and ethics matters. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy. Senior Counsel (May 2004–February 2005). Worked on issues and initiatives relating to national security, communications, and judicial administration; assisted in consideration of judicial and executive nominations; handled Department’s implementation of Executive Order 

13,353, establishing the President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties; and counseled Associate Attorney General in his representation of the Department at American Bar Association’s annual meeting. 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and 

the Courts. Deputy Chief Counsel (March 2003–May 2004). Served as lead counsel 

on national security, constitutional, communications, antitrust, and other issues. 

Verizon Communications Inc. Associate General Counsel (February 2001–March 

2003). Drafted amicus brief to the Supreme Court in National Cable & Telecomms. 

Ass’n, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (2002); helped draft Federal and state 

court briefs, see, e.g., Verizon New Jersey Inc. v. Ntegrity Telecontent Servs.. Inc., 219 

F.Supp.2d 616 (D.N.J. 2002); conducted depositions; counseled business executives 

on variety of critical competition issues; worked extensively with business and engineering teams to establish wireline broadband standard-setting organization; ran 

antitrust compliance training program; submitted comments to Federal Communications Commission in connection with proposed rulemaking; and prepared general 

counsel for Congressional hearing on communications and antitrust issues. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Telecommunications Task Force. 

Trial Attorney, Attorney General’s Honors Program (December 1998–February 

2001). Worked on proposed transactions and requests for regulatory relief, including 

the then-largest proposed merger in history and the first successful petition for longdistance market entry following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

Responsibilities included drafting application for temporary restraining order to enjoin prospective merger; interviewing and second-chairing depositions of telecommunications executives; evaluating Section 271 petitions for regulatory approval; 

drafting motions, affidavits, third-party communications, and other documents for 

use in regulatory proceedings and litigation; reviewing documents produced by parties pursuant to ‘‘second requests’’ and other compulsory antitrust process; and coordinating regulatory review with Federal Communications Commission, Federal 

Trade Commission, and other antitrust agencies. 

Hon. Martin L.C. Feldman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Law 

Clerk (September 1997–September 1998). Conducted research, drafted orders, and 

assisted in preparation for trial in admiralty, antitrust, bankruptcy, employment 

discrimination, and other cases. 

Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA. Summer Associate (June 1997–September 

1997). Permanent offer extended. 

Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA. Summer Associate (June 1996–September 

1996). Permanent offer extended. 

Education 

University of Chicago Law School J.D., 1997. 

• University of Chicago Law Review. Editor (1996–97); Staff Member (1995–96). 

• Semifinalist, Hinton Moot Court Competition (1997). Winner of Thomas J. Mulroy Prize. 

• Harvard University. B.A. with honors in Social Studies, 1994. 

Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society. Member (1990–94); Vice President (1992–93). Quarterfinalist, World Debate Championships, Melbourne, Australia 

(1994). 

Publications 

Comment, ‘‘Should a Grand Jury Subpoena Override a District Court’s Protective 

Order?‘‘, 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 317 (1997). Proposal adopted, In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 138 F.3d 442,445 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); In re 

Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 162–63 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Article, ‘‘Congress and the Constitution: The Legal Tender Act of 1862,’’ 77 Oregon L. Rev. 535 (1998). Originally drafted during law school and nominated by 

University of Chicago Law School faculty for Casper Platt Award, which recognizes 

the most outstanding student paper (1997). 

28 

Miscellaneous 

• Member in good standing of Kansas and District of Columbia Bars. 

• Awarded the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship by the German Marshall 

Fund of the United States. 

• Member of District of Columbia Bar Association (Member, Nominations Committee) and Federalist Society (Executive Committee Member, Administrative 

Law Practice Group). 

The CHAIRMAN. And it will be so. Thank you very much, Mr. Pai. 

And you have a very warm way of talking, too, a very inclusive 

way. So when you say that you are a good listener, I truly believe 

that. And I also think it is incredibly important. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. FCC is a very complex organization. And it deals 

in such cerebral matters and technical matters that the human relations aspect of it, within the FCC and then also reaching out to 

the public becomes very important. Because most people don’t 

know what you do and if they do, they are probably afraid of you. 

And so those personal skills are incredibly important. 

I would like to start the questioning with a question to each of 

you. It is a question which Jessica Rosenworcel has heard many 

times before, because I always ask it as the very first question. 

Senator Olympia Snowe and I were responsible for establishing 

a program which we are very fond of, called the ‘‘e-Rate’’, and a lot 

of other people helped. It has done a fantastic job in helping with 

closing the digital divide. I thought at the time that, when it 

passed, that California would be way out, a high number in the 

percentage of classrooms which were covered. And in fact it was 

only 15 percent. On the other hand, Houston, which I figured 

might have had a lower, they went wireless and within 2 days they 

were at 100 percent. 

So I mean there is this vast variation. In West Virginia the numbers were very low. Now they are very high, as they are across the 

country. But also, the e-Rate program is not just making a connection, but keeping that connection current, and having the technology to keep it so, so it can continue to close the digital divide. 

So, my question is very simple but profoundly important to me. 

Will you both promise me that you will support the e-Rate program? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s one. 

Mr. PAI. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to working with 

you on the e-Rate program and I support the program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the reasons I say that is that there is a 

tendency sometimes with the FCC to look at e-Rate-related money, 

which is for the moment fungible, and then to apply that to things 

which have nothing to do with the e-Rate. Or others will try to 

make that grab of money. 

That is something which causes me vast heartache. So I am 

going to incorporate that in your ‘‘yes’’ answer, that you will keep 

your eye out for that. 

29 

The second question would be also an obvious one. And Senator 

Kay Bailey Hutchison gave me some very good news today. But I 

was really kind of shocked that we started a couple of years ago 

to draw up a bill to honor the 9/11 Commission’s last unfulfilled 

request, and that is that we have a national wireless broadband 

connectivity so that everybody in the country would hold virtually 

the same device, so that they were instantly in touch with each 

other, that they were not like, you know, when the military invaded Kuwait and the Marines and the Navy—nobody could talk 

to each other because they had different ways of talking to each 

other, and they couldn’t talk to each other. And that was extremely 

embarrassing. 

That has been overcome but it remains very much the case in 

terms of our first responders in America, and that would be firefighters and policemen and all kinds of people who do a variety of 

work and who have to be connected and have to be able—for example, a firefighter has to be able to not just be able to take a photograph of the building that he is going into, but it may be a building-penetrating photograph, in which he can locate an injured person, when he goes into the building, apprise the nature of the problem the injured person has and then shoot that right to the emergency room at the local hospital. 

All of these things have to work together. And the Congress— 

there was an enormous amount of support for us, absolutely every 

imaginable public group, and absolutely nothing happened. It 

passed this Committee by a vote of 21 to 4. It might have been a 

higher vote if we had taken it at a different time. But 21/4—not 

very much passes 21 to 4. So it was right there. Everybody was for 

it. The Vice President was all over it, and nothing happened. 

So obviously in something like that, you don’t give up. You continue on. It made voluntary giving back of spectrum to the FCC 

and nobody believes that it is voluntary, but it is in the law. It is 

voluntary. People do not have to do it. But a lot of people want to 

do it. 

And therefore there would be a lot of money, many billions of 

dollars coming back into the FCC, a lot of which could be used for 

deploying this system across the country to every part of the country. Every part of Alaska, every part of everywhere. 

And also to making sure that the hardware was there. And then 

in the end there would be money left over for deficit reduction, 

about 5.6 billion dollars. 

So, it’s getting pretty hard to argue that this is a bad idea. And 

it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a single dime. 

So, I would ask each of you again if you will be supportive of the 

Committee’s efforts with respect to this legislation. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PAI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am happy, and my time is up. 

Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I think that you pretty much answered, Mr. Pai, in your 

opening statement, but I wanted on the record that you have recently joined a law firm, Jenner & Block, which does have business 

30 

before the FCC, including one of the sides in a potential merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, which has been abandoned but not necessarily permanently. 

So my question is, do you have any possible conflicts of interest, 

would you recuse yourself if there were a conflict between your previous law firm and business that comes before the FCC? 

I would like to know exactly how you would plan to handle that. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Senator Hutchison, for the question. I do not 

believe that my short period of employment at Jenner & Block 

would preclude me from being an effective Commissioner or from 

robustly participating in Commission proceedings. 

I was aware, starting literally on my first day at the firm, that 

I was under consideration for this position. Accordingly, my during 

my time at Jenner, I have not represented any clients before the 

FCC. My name has not appeared on any comments or pleadings 

that are submitted to the FCC, and the firm, in appropriate cases, 

has instituted a screen to preclude me from discussing or otherwise 

handling or knowing about particular matters. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And you would not feel any prejudice in 

favor of a client of your former firm? 

Mr. PAI. Not at all, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. All right. 

I would like to ask Ms. Rosenworcel. As you know, last year the 

FCC opened a proceeding to consider regulating broadband Internet services as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act to impose net neutrality restrictions. 

The FCC did abandon that approach when there was a bipartisan outcry from Congress and did go forward on net neutrality 

under Title I. 

But Chairman Genachowski has said that he will keep the Title 

II reclassification docket open. Do you think that there is any value 

in keeping this proceeding open when a bipartisan group in Congress has so clearly opposed it? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I know that now for nearly a decade the FCC 

has chosen to look at these broadband services as Title I services. 

I recognize that the Supreme Court has upheld that decision, and 

that the Agency has tried to use its ancillary authority to provide 

consumer protection under Title I. 

The scope of that is under consideration and review in the D.C. 

Circuit right now. And, as a Commissioner, if confirmed, I would 

clearly abide by any decision that that court reaches. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And, Mr. Pai, on that same question to you? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, this is an issue that 

closely divided the Commission and closely divided this body. I 

think, nonetheless, it has been healthy to have this debate because 

it has identified for the public the various positions on either side. 

Proponents obviously argued that it is important to preserve an 

open and free and vibrant Internet for consumers and opponents 

have argued that it is important for Internet service providers to 

be able to reasonably manage their network in order to promote an 

open and vibrant experience for everybody. 

As my colleague has pointed out, this decision is under review in 

the D.C. Circuit, and depending on what the court says about the 

31 

scope of the Commission’s authority, I as a Commissioner, if I were 

fortunate to be confirmed, would abide by that decision as well. 

Senator HUTCHISON. On merger conditions—this is a question for 

both of you, as well. Sometimes in recent years the FCC has imposed merger conditions on companies that seem extraneous to the 

transaction and could be seen as attempts to achieve policy goals 

that it would not otherwise be able to impose through its regulatory rulemaking. 

How do you feel about the role of the FCC in these merger applications and putting extraneous diversions or requirements for jettisoning part of their portfolios? How do you feel about that approach 

to a merger approval or disapproval? Both of you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question, Senator. The 

FCC’s authority for merger review is largely under Title II and 

Title III of the statute. They have a DD to assess whether transactions and specifically the transfers or licenses are in the public 

interest, convenience and necessity. 

It is my opinion that any conditions that apply to that standard 

should at least be rationally related to the transaction. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But not more than that? Are you saying 

that you would limit to that nexus? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think if they were rationally related to the 

harms in the transaction and remedy those harms and increase 

consumer benefits, that’s justifiable under the statute and I would 

clearly adhere to the statute. 

Senator HUTCHISON. What would be your position, Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator Hutchison, my approach to merger review 

would—under the public interest standard that my colleague has 

outlined, would be simply to evaluate whether the merger would 

benefit competition and benefit consumers. 

Now to the extent that in the course of reviewing a merger the 

Commission found that a competitive harm would arise, I would be 

open to considering merger conditions that were, in the parlance, 

‘‘merger-specific.’’ That is, conditions that directly related to the 

competitive harm that had been identified by the Agency. I think 

part of the difficulty that arises when ‘‘extraneous’’ as you put it, 

conditions are considered, is that the merger review process becomes a vortex for a variety of concerns that don’t necessarily have 

to do with the merits of the transaction, even if those particular 

conditions might be good ideas, or might be good policies for the 

FCC to pursue in a generalized rulemaking. 

So, my approach would be to limit conditions to merger- specific 

types. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. Senator Kerry, of 

course, is Chairman of the Subcommittee which is responsible for 

all of this, and he was detained at the White House, which is probably a pretty good place to be detained at. But he arrived here late. 

But we are calling on him, as I did on Senator DeMint, to speak. 

He hasn’t had that chance, so I told him he that could take a couple of extra minutes in his questioning period and use that however he wished to make some points or whatever. 

32 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I certainly 

was not detained there in the way I had originally intended, but 

I was otherwise detained. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I know it’s very gratifying to see 

a member of one’s staff receive this kind of recognition. I also know 

it is very hard to let a talented member of your team go. I think 

all of us here on the Committee are unbelievably familiar with Jessica Rosenworcel’s work, with her passion for service and her commitment to the public interest, and especially her encyclopedic 

knowledge of communications law. And I think she has served us 

all on this Committee with great distinction. And we thank you 

very much for that. 

I am less familiar with Mr. Pai’s work in a direct way, but I 

know of his reputation in the community of professionals that serve 

us all in this effort, and of his previous service in the Senate, which 

is commendable. 

And I personally look forward to supporting both of your nominations. 

Senator Rockefeller in his comments a few moments ago said this 

is big nomination, these are big nominations. And I just want to 

second that in a very real way. 

You guys are the protectors of our democracy. You are the protectors of the viability of thought and communication and ideas being 

able to freely move across and around, in and throughout our entire social fabric. 

And if it gets too ‘‘conglomeratized’’ and too narrow in ownership 

and in capacity to move, our—really our freedom is challenged. Our 

democracy is lesser, I think. 

Both of you are widely recognized for your temperament and for 

your intellectual capacity. And I think given the nature of the marketplace that you are going to be regulating—overseeing, you are 

going to need those skills enormously. 

Big monied interests are going to lobby you to gain tactical advantage, public interest groups will push you to adhere to their 

sense of what is moral, and your every word is going to receive attention in the trade press and among investors who are trying to 

read the tea leaves of where the Commission is headed and what 

it means for the market. 

And I know that both of you understand your ultimate responsibility is to the American people and to the broader interest as you 

have described in answer to the first questions. 

I also know that as staffers you have felt some of this pressure 

before, but I am confident that as Commissioners you are going to 

feel it on a new scale. So, you have to listen to your conscience and 

do what is most consistent with the law and the public interest. 

As all of us on this committee know, this is a remarkable, extraordinary time, an exciting time in communications generally in 

this entire field. We are in the early stages of an exciting, socially 

networked, location-aware, mobile- device-driven communications 

revolution. And satellite companies compete with cable and telephone companies to deliver multichannel TV service, broadcasters 

33 

have entered the digital age and they are delivering critical services in all of our communities in different ways. 

And the descendants of monopoly telephone company are competing to win business for wired and wireless service at home and 

at work. And all of that is great but—and there is a ‘‘but’’. But 

even as these opportunities are presenting themselves, the markets 

in each of these sectors continue to concentrate power in the hands 

of fewer and growing larger corporate conglomerates. 

And that concentration, I think at least, and I think some others 

join me in this concern, threatens the competition that we contemplated when we wrote the 1996 Act: diversity of ownership, 

voices, representations in the media and communications is what 

a healthy democracy needs. 

And the fervor against the role of government in our society by 

some on one extreme has reached the point that every time the 

Agency acts to protect consumers or competition, incumbent companies push Members of Congress to attack the Commission chairs 

and the members. I think you are aware of that. 

So the challenges that you are going to face at the FCC are pretty significant, and I just want to make sure as you approach this 

that you come to it with a clarity that the value of open networks 

and of how unlicensed and licensed spectrum can complement each 

other, and how to best ensure that the market is opened to new 

entrants and to innovation. 

And so I would simply open by asking you to generally comment 

on this sense of—this perhaps divergence from where we were in 

the 1996 Act and what is happening and what you see happening 

in the marketplace today. 

Ms. Rosenworcel, do you want to go first, or—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. As I mentioned in my opening statement, technology is changing at a very fast clip and it is very challenging for legislators and regulators alike to keep up. So, it’s important to approach that task with some humility, but also with 

some recognition that there are some core values, many of which 

you mentioned that are in the Communications Act. Fostering the 

public interest, promoting competition, universal service, privacy, 

public safety, and I think those are the things that should animate 

the deliberations of the Commission going forward. 

Senator KERRY. Do you both agree—you haven’t answered yet, 

but I want to add to that question because time is running tight. 

Do you both agree that we need to free up some of our spectrum 

in order for broadband to be able to be competitive, to create jobs, 

and to maintain our economic ability, capacity? 

Why don’t you answer while you—go ahead and answer the first 

question and the second and then she can come back. 

Mr. PAI. OK. Thank you, Senator. With respect to the first question, I find it difficult to improve upon my colleague’s answer. I 

would point out, as well, that whatever Congress decides to do in 

terms of reforms to the Act in order to update the Act to reflect 

current marketplace and technological realities is something that I 

would faithfully implement were I fortunate to serve at the Commission. 

With respect to the second question, I do think it is important 

to deploy broadband to open up networks, to really free up the 

34 

spectrum for competition, innovation and investment. I think that 

is the key to—not just to help the economy, but frankly, as you 

pointed out in your question, a healthy democracy. 

As I pointed out in my opening statement, I think when the 

Commission and when the Congress focus on competition and innovation, consumers benefit and the body politic benefits. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. On your second question, the answer is yes. 

We do need more spectrum available for the services that we all 

make use of, using the wireless airwaves. The problem is that we 

have got less in the pipeline than many of our international counterparts. 

At the same time, I think it would foolhardy if we only focused 

on spectrum and making spectrum available for auction. I think we 

are going to have to work hard also at improving the efficiency of 

existing spectrum with technologies that can help us do that. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask that some additional questions be made part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I thank you. 

I now turn to Senator DeMint. And after him, it’s in order of arrival. So, just to give people warning. I don’t know if Senator Isakson is coming back. But Senator Blunt would follow Senator 

DeMint, then Senator Udall, then Senator Toomey, then Senator 

Lautenberg and Senator Klobuchar, Cantwell and Ayotte. 

Senator WICKER. Will I be allowed to ask questions? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I didn’t say Snowe? 

Senator SNOWE. Not at all. 

Senator HUTCHISON. She came in last. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, no, Jim. I’ve got to eat some crow here. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Snowe—— 

Senator DEMINT. It’s too late. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you remember when you came in, Roger? 

Senator WICKER. I just came in. 

Senator HUTCHISON. OK. You are after Olympia. 

Senator WICKER. I just missed being mentioned. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The situation is under control. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DEMINT. OK. We OK to go? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rosenworcel, 

again, thank you for being here today and the courtesy of coming 

by my office. 

Let me ask for a minute about mobile broadband, we were touching on that just a minute ago. As you know, the broadband competition report does not include mobile broadband when it shows 

build-out, which suggests that we have problems in areas that we 

might not if you count mobile broadband. A few years ago there 

was not a lot of capacity in the mobile market for broadband. Now 

35 

we’re at 4G. I’m sure we’ll be at 5 or 6G soon, and I suspect at 

some point we will have a stronger—well, through mobile, we will 

be able to get just anything we need on broadband. 

But do you consider wireless broadband to be part of our 

broadband system, and do you think it should be included in the 

broadband competition report? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think we are seeing increasing convergence 

across all sectors. And I think over time it will grow to be a more 

robust substitute, a near-perfect substitute for traditional service. 

At the same time, I think what you pointed out is a real challenge for the Agency. They have got a lot of reporting duties, and 

those reports often reflect frameworks that are a little bit dated. 

And in an era of convergence, it is worth trying to identify how to 

update them, so they better reflect technology and the way consumers use them. 

Senator DEMINT. Well, as you know, this is a very important 

point because often here we’ll look at a statistic, like we have 80 

percent build-out in rural areas, and suggest some new subsidy 

while we’ve got companies already competing for mobile broadband 

in an area. So the failure to recognize different technologies as viable alternatives, and certainly mobile broadband is at a point now 

where it is better than DSL in some cases and certainly growing 

in capacity, is ultimately harmful to competition. 

So we need our Commissioners to recognize all existing technologies as well as try to imagine potential technologies because 

once we start subsidizing one technology, we may be eliminating 

another—and I hear it in South Carolina and in rural areas where 

you have someone trying to collect investment funds to do some 

type of build-out—it may be a wireless build-out in a rural area— 

only to find a competitor coming in with some government subsidy 

to compete with them with another technology. 

So your answer is pretty important here, that we push not only 

as a Congress but as an FCC, that the competition reports that we 

look at are actually accurate. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. They should reflect the way that consumers 

are using their service. 

Senator DEMINT. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I also think that to the extent that mobile 

broadband is seen by consumers as an acceptable substitute to 

wireline and other broadband technologies, that the FCC would do 

well to take note of that. 

Senator DEMINT. I would like to hear you both comment on the 

Universal Service Fund, how it affects broadband and specifically, 

Ms. Rosenworcel, I’ll start with you. 

Do you think the FCC has the authority to expand the contribution base for Universal Service Fund to Internet Service Providers? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Under the Communications Act, the Commission has authority to assess on interstate telecommunications services, but it has discretionary authority to also assess on telecommunications services, which are a component of information 

services, which could be described as broadband. So I think that is 

the state of the current statute and I would certainly commit to 

abide by the statute. 

36 

Senator DEMINT. So you think Internet services fall under telecommunications? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think a portion of it could. I think at 

present the system is subsidized by Internet—excuse me—by interstate telecommunications services. I think the challenge going forward is making sure that the revenue base is strong enough to support the type of universal service reforms that the Agency just 

adopted last month. 

Senator DEMINT. So you think FCC now has the authority to assess fees on Internet Service Providers to fund universal service 

fund? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. It has the authority under the statute to assess on telecommunications, not information services. 

Senator DEMINT. OK. Can you really divide an Internet Service 

Provider that provides both? You are talking about assessing fees 

to part of their services and not to others? Is—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I apologize. I am getting fairly ‘‘legal’’ on you 

right now. 

Senator DEMINT. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. So why don’t I just say more simply that the 

current system is supported by telecommunication services. Long 

distance services, as we commonly know them. 

Senator DEMINT. Right. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think the challenge going forward is making sure that we have a system that can support universal service 

in rural areas. I think that the Agency is going to need to look at 

new systems, like the ones that were proposed in the last administration that involve connections and not necessarily Internet or 

broadband services, but connections. 

Senator DEMINT. Connections. Mr. Pai, any thoughts on the subject? 

Mr. PAI. Senator DeMint, I can scarcely improve upon my colleague’s recitation of the legal context for this question, but I would 

say, of course, that with the Commission having recently released 

the universal service order and indicated that it intends to look at 

the contribution mechanism next year, I do think the Commission 

should take a very close look at the nature of its statutory authority before assessing fees in the manner you suggest. 

Senator DEMINT. I know I am running out of time, but just a 

quick question about the Cable Act, which is now nearly 20 years 

old. It reflects a monopoly status for video services in most areas, 

which has totally changed. 

Do you believe the laws and regulations that we currently have 

regarding video services should be reassessed and updated? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That’s a very broad question. But I think as 

a general matter there is a lot in the Communications Act, including the Cable Act, that is old and could be benefited by taking a 

fresh look. 

Senator DEMINT. OK. Mr. Pai, any last comment here? 

Mr. PAI. I agree with Ms. Rosenworcel, and just to give you one 

example. The FCC recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding retransmission consent and, in it, it identified a 

number of factors where it sought comment on ways to clarify exactly where the Commission’s authority was, given that the marVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37 

ketplace has changed. And that is something that I would definitely take a look at if I were fortunate to serve at the Commission. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you both. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Blunt. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman, I 

have a statement for the record that I will submit for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:] 

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

We have before us today, two highly qualified nominees for the Federal Communications Commission. I hope that these nominees will make it a point of priority 

to address FCC process issues to ensure the type of fair treatment that we should 

expect from a Federal agency that has so much authority over such a vast swath 

of our economy. 

On Wednesday afternoon of last week, AT&T voluntarily withdrew the pending 

applications to transfer the radio licenses associated with its proposed merger with 

T–Mobile. The withdrawal was in full compliance with FCC rules and under these 

circumstances, the FCC was required by its rules to dismiss the applications, without prejudice. 

On Tuesday of this week, the FCC did issue an order dismissing the applications 

as it was required by its rules to do. However, in addition, the FCC contemporaneously released a preliminary staff report evaluating the merger. The matter and 

the FCC’s involvement in it, in my view, should have ended with the order of dismissal required by the FCC’s rule on the subject. No further action was required 

or warranted, but the FCC took further action, however, by also releasing a staff 

draft that recommended that the FCC designate the proposed transaction for an administrative hearing. The recommended hearing will not now take place—so why release the report at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included. 

Senator BLUNT. I do have a couple of questions. And first of all, 

I would preface those by saying, as I think we all had a chance to 

talk about as you both were nice enough to visit the office. Thanks 

for your service. 

Ms. Rosenworcel, thanks for your real understanding of these 

issues. All you’ve done for the Committee. 

And, Mr. Pai, thanks for your service in the Senate, even if it did 

include a substantial amount of time with my chief of staff, Glen 

Chambers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. You worked for Senator Brownback. 

And I am glad you are both willing to be here today and willing 

to make yourself available for these important jobs. 

You know, one of the challenges I think the FCC has faced and 

will continue to face, as the Congress also faces it—is this is an 

area that changes so quickly that I’ve believed for a long time that 

the odds that you will actually solve a problem while it’s still the 

problem are pretty slim. 

And the odds that you’ll create a greater problem by trying to 

solve a problem that’s passed you by are greater than that. 

I remember when we did the Telecommunications Act when I 

was on the Commerce Committee in the House in the late nineties, 

I guess it was, when we did that. And then came back to that 5 

years later, nothing that we thought was important was still imVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
38 

portant. I remembered all the things we divided up on, and all the 

debates we had and all the friction—none of it mattered any 

longer, 5 years later. 

I also remember the many times I’ve asked my staff, what is the 

definition of net neutrality this month? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. Because it was a constantly moving target, and, 

you know, one of the issues that Senator Hutchison brought to the 

floor recently was, let’s look at the net neutrality position that the 

Commission has taken. 

And my view and view of many others is that if you regulate too 

much here, you’ll slow down the development of these services 

rather than speed them up. And as you slow them down, you’ll 

make them more difficult and maybe even more expensive, not less 

expensive. And those are issues I hope you’ll think about a lot. 

Mr. DeMint talked about—one other topic is that, as Commissioners—and my belief is that you’ll both become Commissioners— 

the Commission has never been able to fully define, at any place 

I’ve been with the Commission, ‘‘underserved’’ and ‘‘unserved.’’ And 

there is a big difference. And there is a particular difference when 

somebody has come in and created a network with their own 

money and then somebody in the government decides, well, to 

speed of that network isn’t quite quick enough, so we are going to 

subsidize somebody to come in and compete. 

I think we need to be extraordinarily careful with that. And assuming you both go on the Commission, I suspect one of the first 

questions I will ask when we meet again is, what’s the difference 

between ‘‘unserved’’ and ‘‘underserved’’ and what are you doing 

about it. 

And I have a much different view of what the Congress should 

do for ‘‘unserved’’ areas of the country than I do ill- defined ‘‘underserved’’ areas of the country. 

Now for two quick questions. One is, I don’t want you to comment on the proposed merger that has been out there for awhile 

between AT&T and T-Mobile. But I was concerned yesterday when 

the Commission staff released their view of that merger, even 

though the merger request had been withdrawn. 

So I guess my question is does the Commission speak through 

the Commission or does it speak through the staff and how do you 

view the actions of the Commission as a Commissioner and you 

may or may not say anything about the idea that staffers will either be directed to or just decide that they are going to, on their 

own, announce their view of issues that may or may not be before 

the Commission. 

Mr. Pai, do you want to start? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Obviously, the 

Chairman is the manager of the full Agency, usually in consultation with other Commissioners, and if I were fortunate to be on the 

Commission and consulted about a question like this, my recommendation to him, as it would be to the staff, would be simply 

to abide by the Commission’s rules to look at any past precedent 

to make sure that whatever the Commission was proposing to do 

was consistent with those rules and with that practice. 

39 

Senator BLUNT. And what if there is no Commission action pending? Should the Commission gratuitously put information out 

there? 

Mr. PAI. I haven’t had an opportunity to explore the staff report 

you are referring to or, frankly, even news articles and it just broke 

while yesterday while I was meeting with a number of the Members of the Committee. 

But I will say that I view the Commission’s discretion as one 

that should be exercised very carefully and to the extent that the 

release of a staff report along those lines in the context of a proceeding that doesn’t currently exist—to the extent that aggravates 

people in the industry or people on the Hill that that’s something 

that I would take into account. 

Senator BLUNT. And I believe, Ms. Rosenworcel, my question— 

by the time I got done Mr. Pai had two—but was, does the Commission act through its actions or through the staff? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I would have a very hard time improving 

upon the answer from my colleague. I think that what occurred 

yesterday was—the Chairman who directs the Agency chose to release that report. I believe it’s within his statutory authority to do 

that, although I will acknowledge it is probably unprecedented. 

Senator BLUNT. My second question is, you know, 30 years ago 

when there was much less media than there is now, there was a 

doctrine called the Fairness Doctrine. I would be opposed to seeing 

that doctrine put back in place. And, as Commissioners, I am asking what your view would be on that. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I would share your view. And I believe Chairman Genachowski does as well. He recently took action to remove 

that regulation from the books, given that it had somehow stayed 

on the books for sometime. 

Senator BLUNT. Ms. Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I do not support returning the Fairness Doctrine. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Now we will have Senator Toomey, to be followed by Senators 

Lautenberg, Klobuchar, and—so that you’re aware. Please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. TOOMEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to both 

of you for joining us today. Welcome to the Committee. Congratulations on your nomination and thanks for your willingness to serve. 

This is a tough job that you are heading toward and so I commend 

you for that. 

I just have one quick question. As we all know, December a year 

ago the Commission adopted the Open Internet order, currently a 

subject of litigation. I think it is before the D.C. Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

In the event that the Commission loses that case, which is a possibility, of course, would you each comment on whether or not you 

would support the idea of reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Act? 

40 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. As I noted earlier, the Commission has had 

a practice during the past decade of treating those services as information services pursuant to Title I. The Supreme Court upheld 

that approach. I think there has been a fair amount of reliance on 

it. 

But I think the ultimate decision will depend upon the findings 

of the D.C. Circuit, and I would certainly as Commissioner if confirmed agree to abide by that. 

Senator TOOMEY. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, if I were fortunate to be confirmed, I would 

have some concerns about reclassification to the extent that the imposition of those types of common carrier regulations might 

dampen economic investment, the willingness to take risks, and 

that is something that ultimately might harm consumers. And so 

to that extent, I would be a little hesitant, especially if it came as 

posed in your hypothetical, in the wake of two court of appeals decisions that the Commission lacks authority elsewhere to pursue 

that route. 

Senator TOOMEY. Now, Ms. Rosenworcel, if I could just followup. 

I guess what I am trying to understand is, if the court decision 

does not provide guidance on this specific question, if it’s silent on 

this question of whether it is appropriate to reclassify broadband 

under Title II, do you have a personal opinion about whether Title 

II is an appropriate regulatory framework? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think these are new areas in the law, and 

I think that we would just have to follow the decision of the court. 

Senator TOOMEY. OK. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you repeat that, please, Ms. Rosenworcel? 

And also, pull that mike a little bit closer. Some of your words 

are—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sorry about that. I would just say that these 

are some new areas in the law and we would be duty-bound, were 

I to serve at the Commission, to follow that decision of the court. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Toomey. 

Senator Lautenberg, to be followed by Senator Klobuchar, and 

then Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank each of you for bringing your incredibly vast experience at 

a fairly tender time in life, to agreeing to serve in the capacity that 

you’re being reviewed here for. 

And I would start, Ms. Rosenworcel. Broadcasters have to fulfill 

a public interest obligations in exchange for using the public airwaves. In your view, does a broadcaster need to provide local news 

coverage of the community it’s licensed to serve in order to satisfy 

these public interest obligations? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Broadcasters are trustees of the airwaves 

and they receive licenses in communities and they have a duty to 

serve that local community. And part of that should include things 

like providing locally relevant programming like news and information. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you share that view, Mr. Pai? 

41 

Mr. PAI. I do, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would ask each of you to respond to this 

question. In 2007, the FCC held a hearing in Newark, New Jersey, 

on the license renewal of WWOR television. New Jerseans testified 

about the station’s failure to cover New Jersey news and events. 

Four years later. Four years later, this station is still operating 

under an expired license, and there is evidence that its service to 

New Jersey has gotten even more limited. 

Now if you’re confirmed, and I address this to each of you, would 

you review the record in this case thoroughly so—can I count on 

you to review this four-year lapse in getting a decision on whether 

or not this license ought to be renewed? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, you have my commitment to doing so. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. Absolutely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. For each of you, again. New Jersey is a 

net contributor of close to $200 million a year to the universal service fund. And, as the USF has kept growing, the burden on New 

Jersey and other donor states has kept getting bigger and bigger. 

And as the FCC considers reforming the USF, can I count on you 

to work to bring some fairness and balance into the distribution of 

the funds that come in? New Jersey contributes $5 for every dollar 

it gets in services. 

So, can I ask you each to respond to the question. Will you insist 

on a look at the equity here? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, the Commission did indeed tee-up the contribution side of the 

universal service fund for consideration next year. And if I am fortunate to be confirmed, I would dig into the record very carefully 

and make sure that the appropriate reforms are taken to the universal service fund on the contribution side. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I agree with my colleague. The universal 

service system needs to be a fair one. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Very few media outlets are focused first 

and foremost on New Jersey. The state-owned television station, 

NJN, recently went through a dramatic change and is now operated by a company from New York. 

Now, once again, I ask you, can I get your commitment to watch 

the new NJN situation closely to make sure that it lives up to the 

obligations to the people in our state? 

Mr. PAI. Yes, Senator. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I will ask you one more question, please. 

And that is, some have criticized giving additional spectrum capacity to the public safety community on the basis that the commercial 

sector may need this spectrum in the future to address customer 

and network demand. 

What do you see by way of network demands and new technology 

needs that the public safety also faces? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I think, as the Chairman pointed out, a decade 

after 9/11, it is not acceptable that we are still wrestling with the 

question of whether and when public safety personnel arrive at the 

scene of an accident or a tragedy and whether they will be able to 

communicate. 

42 

The question of how to revolve that question, of course, is entrusted to Congress in the first instance, and if I were fortunate 

to be confirmed, I would respect and would faithfully implement 

Congress’ decision appropriately. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of 

the facts that I have heard discussed in this room several times is 

that the average 16-year-old has more functionality in their 

handheld phone than our police and firefighters do today. 

Providing them with better spectrum, which can lead to better 

devices, can actually lead to all or our safety being improved, as 

well as their safety, so I would be supportive. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. On 9/11, Mr. Chairman, New Jersey lost 

700 people. The toll that 9/11 took was over 3,000 people, larger 

that day than the landing at D-Day, larger that day than Pearl 

Harbor. The situation was worsened by the fact that there was little or no communication between those who rushed into that building to save other people’s lives and paid for it by giving their own. 

And the one thing that we have to do is make sure that we have 

the operability that’s required for us to be responsible in a way 

that is efficient and its being. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator Klobuchar, to be 

followed by Senator Begich, Senator Snowe, and Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to both of you on your nominations. You both are very 

impressive. 

And I did want to report, Ms. Rosenworcel, that your children— 

I visited them when I had a meeting. They are eating apples, they 

are coloring, and they are most shocked that you are on TV. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I don’t think that we need to tell them 

that it wasn’t network, that it was just the closed instead, and we 

will make them think it was a big deal. 

I had my first question—and Mr. Pai, by the way, your family 

is so engaged in these questions, I’m afraid they are going to answer them in a minute. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So they have your back. 

Mr. PAI. They are more than welcome to sit in the hot seat, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. 

My first question, on competition. As you know, one of the main 

goals in passing the Telecom Act of 1996—by the way, I practiced 

in this area at that time—was to open up the communications market to competition. And still the national broadband plan found 

that a vast majority of Americans can only choose between at most 

two broadband providers and there are still challenges. 

What role do you think the FCC should play to ensure adequate 

competition in the communications market? 

43 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think that increasingly we are going to see 

more and more intermodal competition, so making sure more wireless spectrum is available, so that there can be more competition 

from wireless is a good place to start. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Can you add anything? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I would build upon that answer simply by saying that to the extent that the Commission can do so, it should 

make sure that the rules of the road don’t differentiate between the 

particular technology that is used. 

I think a lot of times the Commission is dealing with regulations 

that apply to telecommunications carriers but not to cable providers, to cable providers but not to wireless providers. And to the 

extent that those industries are competing in the same space, I 

think it is important to have technological neutrality with respect 

to the Commission’s rules in order to ensure that everyone is competing on a level playing field, and ultimately consumers benefit. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. You mentioned wireless right off 

the bat, and as you know, I have been very involved in some of the 

consumer protection issues there, particularly focused on early termination fees. We have seen some changes and improvements, but 

I still hear about it at home. 

What role do you think the FCC needs to play in the wireless 

consumer protection area? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think when consumers have grievances, it 

is the duty of the FCC to pay attention. They should continue to 

monitor the early termination fee situation you describe and also 

look at newer issues like bill shock, on which there has been recent 

progress. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. The incentive auctions. As you 

know, Chairman Rockefeller has been working very hard to get our 

bipartisan bill through for the interoperable public safety 

broadband network. Some other Senators have referenced that. I 

have one particular thing I just wanted to bring to your attention. 

As you know, Minnesota is on the Canadian border. We are always used in the TV ads for the coldest place to test cars and 

things like that. Well, some broadcasters in our state have raised 

this issue, that Minnesota—that they will have to coordinate not 

only with the FCC but also the Canadian government. 

And I understand that as part of the DTV transition northern 

Minnesota broadcasters have been working to find new TV channel 

allocations but have faced delays in getting their applications approved. 

And I just wanted to know, if confirmed, if you’ll work with us 

and with them to make sure that we can address these issues if 

they may arise as part of any voluntary auction process. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Mr. PAI. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That will require you to go there in January. So I am glad you took that on. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am Chair, along with Senator Burr, of the 

E–911 Caucus, and that is also obviously a—always an issue and 

44 

always a challenge for all of this and we know that there’s a number of issues with E–911, particularly more and more households 

are cutting the cord and relying exclusively on wireless, raising all 

kinds of opportunities as well but also challenges. 

And almost one-third of all Americans just have wireless devices. 

Wireless calls present different challenges in determining the location of a citizen. I have heard all kinds of crazy stories about people stuck when their snowmobiles break down, but we won’t go into 

that. And I understand the FCC is working to close the accuracy 

gap between mobile and landline 911 calls. 

Do you believe in sharing location accuracy is an important priority as we look at implementing E–911? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I do believe it is an important priority and if 

confirmed I would look forward to working with you and the other 

Members of the Committee to ensure that that goal is met. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Just two other things I wanted to mention and then I will—we 

have many people waiting to ask questions. 

Senator Warner and I are later this week reintroducing our Dig 

Once bill and we look forward to working—the idea is, if you are 

digging up for Federal highway projects that you also try to put the 

cable in. Very appealing to states that have short highway construction time periods, like Alaska and others. 

And so I hope that you will look at that. It was incorporated in 

the national broadband plan, but we are hoping that we can work 

further on that as we go forward. 

And the second thing is, obviously, the importance of universal 

service reform and I will ask you that maybe in writing. 

But we’re run out of time, but that is clearly the way to go as 

we move forward with broadband. 

So, thank you very much to both of you. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

And Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple of quick questions. First, obviously, thank you both for 

visiting my office. Thank you for your willingness to serve, and 

once you have gone to the balmy Minnesota, I would expect that 

you would have come to Alaska, where it was 42 below in Fairbanks last week. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. He always has to one-up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. And that wasn’t even above the Arctic Circle, 

so. 

But I do want to invite both of you—I know you have already 

been there—I don’t think you have been—— 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. You have been. 

45 

But I would like to invite you both back as Commissioners. Is 

that something obviously you would be willing to do? We don’t care 

what time of the year. You get credit if you come in January. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. Forty-two below, I’m hearty. 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I will do everything within my power to clear 

my calendar in July and August. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. Good. Honesty goes a long ways. 

Let me thank you again for being here. Let me ask you kind of 

a philosophical question on universal service fund. 

I heard your answers to Senator Lautenberg. And to be frank, 

and you’ve heard me say this, when I hear the word ‘‘fair’’ system, 

usually that means, to be very frank with you, Alaska gets kind of 

left out, because there is no other state like it, in the sense of its 

vastness. Eighty percent of our communities are not connected by 

roads. Our highways are in the air—literally. 

And broadband and wireless is a critical component to our longterm economic health or our ability to educate folks in rural communities as well as deliver health care and medicine. 

So, let me—if you could, either one, whoever wants to start—give 

me your sense. Let me preface it by saying I understand—let me 

ask you this way. 

How do you see the resources of the universal service fund being 

used, and what are those priorities? 

Understanding there’s revenue issues, but the idea of universal 

means some pay more to benefit the whole system. 

So, with that premise, give me your thoughts on how you would 

prioritize utilization of the universal service funds. Whoever wants 

it. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. The fund—as you know, it is not infinite. 

And so I think when I said ‘‘fair’’ before what I meant was ‘‘smart’’. 

What we have now are data that tell us where broadband is and 

where broadband isn’t. And I think it’s incumbent on the Agency 

to use that data to be smart about where those funds flow. 

And in rural communities where is no service today, that should 

be our first goal, to try to address those problems, Alaska included. 

Mr. PAI. And, Senator, I would associate myself with those remarks. I would also add that having gone to Alaska as we discussed at our meeting, I think I would take a personal appreciation 

of the uniqueness that the problem has in Alaska, having gone 

from Denali to Kenai to Glacier Bay. It’s hard to imagine when you 

look on a map, but I saw a little smidgen of the state. So I have 

a personal appreciation of how important it is for the fund to take 

account of the unique circumstances in which your state citizens 

find themselves. 

Senator BEGICH. That latter statement, would you agree with 

there’s a little bit of uniqueness of what Alaska has to deal with 

in its area? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Absolutely. As we spoke in your office a few 

days ago, I have spent time in Alaska communities that are not on 

the road system, on gravel runways that count as the airport. 

So I am familiar with its uniqueness, yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. Very good. 

46 

Let me ask you again, in regard to—as we build out, one of the 

challenges I mentioned to both of you, in our state because have 

to use such a variety of systems in order to create communication 

networks, in this process of reform to universal service fund, you 

also have these smaller companies, these co-ops, these companies 

that invested, built-out hardwire and now they are trying to transition to wireless. But their transition period may not be as long as 

maybe—or as short as the FCC would like, to make these transitions. 

How do we deal with that? Because they put these capital investment in to build out, to meet a communication need that didn’t 

exist and now is important for us, recognizing they are shifting toward, you know, more broadband wireless systems. How do we address that, knowing that you are FCC and you are not over here, 

but at the end of the day, all of these resources funnel through the 

Federal Government in some form or another? 

Who wants to take on that little—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, let me provide you with two answers. 

In the first instance, difference arms of the government should be 

talking to each other about this. That will create—— 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think the FCC does enough of that now? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think they could do more. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And the second point I would make is that 

there should be no flash cuts. We should recognize that many of 

those companies had an honest reliance on a government commitment, and we should find a way so that they can slowly navigate 

to whatever new frameworks the Commission adopts. 

Mr. PAI. And, Senator, I also think that a reliance interest and 

consideration of the important value that those carriers provide to 

citizens of Alaska is something the FCC should definitely take into 

account if and when it goes about reforming the fund. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Well, first, again thank you very 

much and I appreciate the time to ask you some questions. I’ll have 

some I’ll probably submit for the record, just some followup. 

But again, thank you. I look forward to seeing you in Alaska, 

maybe July or August—or January. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

The two nominees should understand that history has been made 

here today. It is the very first time that Senator Begich has ever 

referred to Alaska as being maybe more needful of attention than 

other states, all of which are very small and far away. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So he has overcome his shyness today and it is 

quite remarkable. You should be very proud. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Snowe. 

47 

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. And I want to welcome both of you. 

You certainly represent such an impressive array of talent and expertise and experience and they will be fortunate to have you on 

the Commission. 

Second, I appreciate your unequivocal, indisputable support for 

the e-Rate in your response to The Chairman: Correct answer. 

One of the first issues I wanted to raise was regarding comprehensive spectrum inventory. I happen to think that in order to 

have a true analysis of what exists in the spectrum, who is using 

it, by whom, how much is available, that we should have an inventory of the spectrum, and that is the legislation that Senator Kerry 

and I have introduced over the last several years, which we think 

is absolutely essential. There is no—really any way to discern exactly what is available. 

What is your response to that, Ms. Rosenworcel and Mr. Pai, in 

terms of what you think would be necessary to establish a complete 

analysis of what exists for spectrum? 

Second, Chairman Genachowski in his response to a letter that 

I submitted concerning this issue indicated that they had conducted a baseline inventory. But as I could understand it, it really 

essentially didn’t examine the breadth of what existed and whether 

or not they had followed up with licensees in terms of how they are 

using spectrum, who is using spectrum, and to what degree they 

were using it. 

So, would you think that a baseline inventory is sufficient to accomplish the goal of a comprehensive spectrum inventory? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. As you know, spectrum is a scarce but valuable resource. And I think it’s incumbent on the Federal Government to constantly be assessing how it’s allocated, how it’s assigned, and how it’s used. So I agree wholeheartedly with your desire to see a robust spectrum inventory. 

I recognize the FCC has done some work on its spectrum dashboard. I think that over time the goal should be to make that a 

much more robust inventory. 

Senator SNOWE. But don’t you think that we should do an analysis now at the forefront of this process? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. Although I don’t think that we will have 

the luxury of time to make this all sequential. I think our international counterparts have more spectrum in the pipeline than we 

do. I think the demand for the wireless airwaves is tremendous. So 

we are going to have to operate on multiple fronts all at the same 

time. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, as much as I hate piggy-backing shamelessly 

on my colleague’s answer, I find it hard to improve upon it. I would 

say simply as a general matter, it is difficult for the Commission 

or frankly any other agency to make the use of spectrum more efficient and to allocate it more effectively if we don’t know who is 

using it. And so that’s certainly a concern that I would take, were 

I fortunate to serve on the Commission. 

Senator SNOWE. With respect to how you improve upon the technological innovations and the reusing opportunities, one of the 

48 

issues, of course, is incentive auctions. And obviously I think that 

there has been a disproportionate reliance on incentive auctions 

and to provide—I understand that the FCC believes it will yield up 

to 24 percent of 500 megahertz. 

On the other hand, that’s just a very small amount of what’s 

going to be required by 2020, in terms of the demand and the explosive growth in wireless broadband. 

So, how best to develop these technological innovations? What 

should be done in order to establish a better approach than otherwise just relying on incentive auctions? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. I know that 

you’ve done a lot of work on this. And I would say that we have 

a real demand for spectrum but we would be foolish if all we did 

was rely on things like incentive auctions and the auctioning of 

spectrum. 

We have to start devoting our intelligence and our resources toward developing better technologies that use spectrum more efficiently and also studying the topology of networks so that we can 

be more efficient with the networks we do have today. 

Senator SNOWE. But in what time-frame should that happen? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. It should happen immediately. 

Senator SNOWE. Can it happen immediately? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. If confirmed, I can tell you that I would certainly make it a point of trying to do my best to do so. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I also think that, if I were confirmed, I would 

urge the Commission to do whatever it could to create a regulatory 

framework that incentivizes that development as quickly as possible. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I think it is critical because otherwise obviously we understand what’s going to happen here. In terms of incentive auctions, obviously there is a drive in that respect because 

it yields revenues. 

On the other hand, I think it’s clearly important to do everything 

we can to maximize the availability of spectrum. And, as you say, 

you can only reallocate or redistribute it. We can’t manufacture it. 

So we’ve got to figure out the best way to enhance our opportunities to know what is available and how to best to utilize it. 

One other issue, if—a couple of other issues, if I might, Mr. 

Chairman. 

One is on the question on the management of the spectrum in 

terms of who has the ultimate decisionmaking authority. 

The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has issued several reports over the last decade suggesting that one of the real difficulties is, is that you’ve got two different authorities, the FCC and 

the NTIA that oversees spectrum policy between the government 

and non-government users, and that ultimately—that to have less 

confusion that it would be best to have one ultimate decisionmaker 

or authority over the spectrum. 

Do you agree or disagree? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think that’s a fair point. I think that historically they have not coordinated as much as they could, and as 

spectrum grows more and more valuable, I think it’s more essential 

that they coordinate and work closely together. 

49 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I agree that they should coordinate more closely as well. The question of how, if at all, to merge or—the respective agencies’ authority, of course, lies within the province of Congress and that is something that I would look to this Committee 

for guidance on. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Snowe. Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:] 

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

Thank you Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison for holding this 

hearing in such a timely manner. With all the important issues across the telecommunications and technology landscape that need to be considered, now more 

than ever, it is important that we have a fully-staffed Federal Communications 

Commission. To that end, I am glad to see two such qualified nominees before us 

today. Welcome to you both. 

As a Senator representing a rural state, a primary concern of mine is that our 

Nation’s rural areas have the same access to the economic benefits of broadband as 

those in urban areas. Over the past few years, both Congress and the FCC have 

worked to put forward initiatives to enhance the widespread availability of 

broadband, from releasing more spectrum in the marketplace, to updating the Universal Service Fund. And there is still more work to do in both those areas. 

As we continue to consider these issues, it is important that we in Congress—and 

Commissioners at the FCC -ensure the policies we put forward are technologically 

neutral. This means not favoring one sector of industry over another and having a 

level regulatory playing field that will enhance competition, innovation, and ultimately options for the American consumer. 

Both nominees before us today have extensive experience both on the Hill and at 

the FCC, and are more than qualified to handle not only the challenges of expanding broadband availability and competition, but also the myriad of other topics the 

Commission considers daily. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our nominees. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will put it in the record. 

Senator WICKER. I want to commend these nominees, and observe that by this point in the hearing you’re probably feeling pretty good about your chances for confirmation. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WICKER. Let me just say, my brief statement mentions 

that I’m from a state that has quite a bit of rural area to it, and 

a great concern of mine is that our Nation’s rural areas have the 

same access to the economic benefits of broadband as those in the 

more populated areas. 

In that regard, Ms. Rosenworcel, with regard to the FCC’s recent 

USF order dealing with competitive wireless, a number of people 

feel that wireless was unfairly and illogically targeted in this order. 

What do you say to that and what effect do you think the FCC’s 

order will have on broadband competition, particularly in rural 

areas, such as Alaska and West Virginia and Mississippi? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think the FCC’s recent order is at attempt 

to aggregate the data we have about where service is and is not. 

And I think it is an effort to try to take scarce resources in the uniVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
50 

versal service fund and then direct them to places where service is 

not today. 

But I think that the Agency will need to continually evaluate 

how those funds are spent to make sure that we actually do reach 

unserved areas in Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia and any other 

state across the country. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Pai? 

Mr. PAI. Senator, I would add Kansas to that tally. Having 

grown up in rural Kansas, I am keenly sensitive to the importance 

of preserving universal service to all areas of the country, especially to rural areas. I readily confess that, although the order is 

a scant 759 pages, I have not have the opportunity to dig into all 

its particulars, but I do know that the Commission is going to be 

actually considering these issues in the next year, and if confirmed, 

I certainly would take your concern to heart as the Commission 

moves forward. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, I appreciate that and I do hope so. 

Let me move to device interoperability which remains a top priority of mine. 

As we continue to transition to a broadband world, device interoperability becomes more important. Are you familiar, Ms. 

Rosenworcel, with the correspondence that Senator Rockefeller sent 

to the Agency stressing the importance of interoperability as a requirement to support public safety, as well as foster innovation? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, Senator. 

Senator WICKER. And what do you think the FCC can do to implement these principles, and specifically, how do you think interoperability can be achieved within the 700 megahertz? I know you 

are familiar with this. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. It’s a big, complex question. I would say 

it’s also a very important question, because interoperability is so 

essential to communications. Small rural carriers that have spectrum in the 700 megahertz band may find that their customers are 

unable to actually use their devices when they leave home and 

need to roam on other networks. 

And that’s a real problem. So I think something needs to be done 

to address this, while also recognizing that there are real technological challenges and costs associated with addressing it. 

I do know that industry standard-settings bodies are looking into 

this issue and I think the FCC should follow up on their work. 

Senator WICKER. You don’t have any question, do you, that the 

technological challenges can be addressed and overcome? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I am an optimist that they can be worked on. 

Senator WICKER. And, Mr. Pai, I’ll let you take a stab at that 

issue. 

Mr. PAI. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I agree that it’s 

an important balance to be struck. I think interoperability is a 

topic that has consumed a lot of this Committee’s attention and for 

good reason. It’s critical for consumers. It’s critical for public safety 

personnel and other constituencies. 

And with respect to the particular question with respect to 700 

megahertz, that’s an issue that obviously the Commission is going 

to have to grapple with. And I would take the concerns of some of 

51 

the smaller carriers you refer to into account as the Commission 

figures out what to do about that issue. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, I appreciate that, and I do hope so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. And now 

Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to congratulate our nominees on being with us today, your nominations 

to the FCC, both to Mr. Pai and Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for 

being here and we’ll look forward to working with you. 

There are lots of issues that are going to fall under your jurisdiction and I think all of us have benefited enormously from just the 

advances that we have seen in technology. 

People today conduct business, communicate with friends, pay 

bills—there are so many things that we do with technology today 

and it’s important that in a knowledge-based economy and society 

that we live in that we have broadband service that’s available to 

everyone because it has become literally an absolute necessity in 

terms of getting anything done. 

And so I’m very enthusiastic about the substantial growth that 

we’ve seen in the telecommunications sector of our economy, but I 

am also concerned that there are areas in the country that are underserved and continue to lag behind the rest of the American population when it comes to the deployment of broadband. 

I believe it’s important in USF reform that it help give all Americans, including those in tribal areas and rural areas, access to 

broadband service. So, I hope that if confirmed you will both continue to monitor the reform efforts to ensure that USF is not only 

fiscally responsible but also sustainable over the long run. 

And ultimately an economically sound USF is going to create 

fairness and certainty in the competitive marketplace. And I know, 

Mr. Pai, you’re from Kansas. Ms. Rosenworcel from—I think from 

Connecticut. Is that right? 

So you probably have some experience in your states with some 

of the more rural areas, but I certainly would welcome you to travel to South Dakota as well, to gain a perspective on how these 

issues play in rural areas of the country. So I would like to extend 

that invitation to you today. 

Another important topic in my state is the issue of telecom mergers and the associated divestiture packages. I am concerned about 

the effect the divestitures on rural states like South Dakota have 

had and I would also ask you if confirmed to look into that issue 

to make sure that those packages are truly preserving competition 

and not negatively impacting certain regions of the country. 

And to that point, and I have raised that with Mr. Pai, we had— 

in my state of South Dakota when Verizon acquired Altel back in 

2009, the Justice Department permitted the merger to go forward 

on the condition that a divestiture take place that ultimately allowed AT&T to take over Altel’s assets in South Dakota. 

As a result, Altel’s customers suddenly found themselves in dead 

spots where there hadn’t been any before. And now AT&T, of 

52 

course, is reportedly floating a package of divestitures in an attempt to obtain Justice Department approval of its merger with TMobile. And I have concerns about how those proposed mergers 

might impact my state. 

And so I wonder if you might be able to comment on that issue, 

sort of your perspective on it, and how you intend to deal with 

those issues as they come before you. 

Mr. PAI. I can take this one, Senator. Senator, thanks for the 

question. As a general matter, I would take a case-by-case look at 

every transaction to determine whether or not a divestiture were 

in the public interest. And to the extent that I believe that a divestiture actually would harm consumers rather than benefit them, 

that is not something that I would support. 

I think the very purpose of a divestiture is to address a competitive harm that would be presented by the consummation of a merger and so it seems, as highlighted in the article that you mentioned 

from South Dakota, it seems counterintuitive then that the FCC or 

the Department of Justice would insist on a divestiture that ultimately did not redound to consumer benefits. 

So, whether it’s in Deadwood or Detroit, I think, the FCC should 

be very careful about imposing conditions of that type. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Divestiture is a traditional tool of antitrust 

in order to make sure that a transaction maintains competitive 

markets. But I do think it is fair in a divestiture situation to first 

ask if that divestiture will harm or benefit consumers. 

I am familiar with the article you are talking about, from the 

Wall Street Journal, and it makes some interesting points. And I 

think it should be studied further. 

Senator THUNE. But I hope that you will, it’s something that you 

will pay close attention to, is those issues—as you deal with those 

issues in the Commission. 

As I travel around my state and around the country, one of the 

reasons that employers say they are not hiring people is because 

of economic uncertainty caused, in some cases, by Federal regulatory actions, and whether that’s health care reform, regulations 

coming out of EPA, Dodd-Frank, you can kind of go down the list. 

And I guess I would be interested in knowing, one, your thoughts 

on whether or not excessive regulation is a contributing factor to 

high unemployment. And if confirmed, how you would use your positions to limit the types of harmful regulations that limit economic 

growth and kill jobs, and furthermore, how would you promote the 

kind of economic certainty that I think businesses are looking for 

out there today? 

I just think dealing in a world of uncertainty makes it very difficult for people to make investments and for our economy to create 

the types of jobs that are necessary to get people back to work. 

I know it’s a fairly broad question. So feel free to approach it 

however you would like, but I am interested in your sort of overall 

perspective. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, Senator, I think that clear rules of the 

road inspire investment. And investment creates economic growth. 

So if I were confirmed, I would certainly try to make sure that in 

my position as FCC Commissioner that I contributed clarity in any 

regulatory policy. 

53 

Mr. PAI. And, Senator, I agree with that completely. I think uncertainty disserves the parties to a transaction, the parties in the 

rulemaking proceeding, and ultimately consumers. Because if companies feel reluctant to invest in next generation networks and 

other technologies, ultimately economic growth suffers and consumers suffer. 

I would also suggest, with response to your second question, I 

think it was, were I fortunate to be confirmed, I would urge the 

Commission, either explicitly or implicitly to really view whatever 

proposed order or proposed action it was taking through the prism 

of job creation and economic growth. 

I think obviously these are very difficult times for Americans. 

Millions of people are out of work. The unemployment rate is much 

higher than we would like it to be, for a longer period than it ever 

has been. 

The telecommunications sector by some measures represents onesixth of the American economy and I think our recent experience 

is that it has been one of the more dynamic areas of the economy. 

So to the extent that the Commission can adopt a regulatory 

framework that incentivizes the industry to continue to be dynamic, to continue to be vibrant, to continue to create jobs, I think 

that’s something that I would find valuable, both as a consumer, 

frankly, but also as a Commissioner at the Agency. 

Senator THUNE. Good. Thank you. Appreciate that answer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I have an announcement to 

make, a couple of announcements to make. 

Actually I have one more question because nobody has even come 

close to asking this question. So I am going to use my prerogative. 

I have been around long enough as Chairman to go ahead and ask 

it. And I know everybody wants to get out. 

But I think not in some ways, again because of the largeness of 

this decision. And I think that you both have been absolutely superb witnesses. Senator Thune says it’s been inspiring, and he is 

quite right. 

Senator DeMint wants to keep the record open until December 

6, and I agreed to that. On the other hand, as for questions, I 

would like to be able to have all questions provided as quickly as 

possible, hopefully by tomorrow. Questions that Members and their 

staffs being here will circulate that, the questions that they might 

have wanted to ask, or some came and actually left because they 

felt they were too far down the list and we did it after myself and 

Kay Bailey Hutchison and the sub-committee folks. We did it by 

order of appearance. 

So some left but they probably had questions and we want you 

to have a chance to see those questions, and I want them to have 

a chance to get those to us by tomorrow. 

I have always been, and Ms. Rosenworcel knows this—this is a 

commerce committee, but it has taken on in the last several years, 

very much of a consumer orientation. And we spend a lot of time 

worrying about, let’s say, insurance companies and health care and 

scamming and cramming all kinds of things which we simply had 

not done before. 

54 

Obviously, the media landscape is changing enormously. And this 

is especially true for children, which is what I want to ask you 

about. 

Our children have been watching programming primarily over a 

television multimedia universe switch and it’s often interactive. 

Cable television and the Internet inundate kids today with images, 

social networks, multiplayer games, that many parents don’t understand and have absolutely no idea how to work a controlling remote or a remote control. They simply have no idea. 

So there is always the possibility that things can be controlled, 

that things can be cutoff. But there is a greater probability that 

they will not be, because the parents will either not be there or 

they will not understand. 

And I’ve had many of these meetings around West Virginia, and 

parents are deeply concerned about content. I think the diversity 

of media is very exciting but it’s very hard for parents and very 

available for their children. 

I personally believe that there has been a substantial coarsening 

in the media that children watch. It has been dumbed down. And 

I think that is true of news and I think that is true in—kids don’t 

watch that quite as much, but in programming in general, it’s more 

obscene, it’s more violent, it’s more promiscuous, it’s more whatever 

you want that isn’t good, than it was before. 

And I think that’s really bad. Everybody yells First Amendment 

so you never really get much done about it. On the other hand, you 

do have recourse at the Federal Communications Commission—not 

to do all things, but to do some things. 

And so I just put before you this question that the legal landscape is very difficult and I understand that. But so is the problem 

of what it is the children now watch and you get depressed by it. 

I’m not a great fan of Facebook. Everybody else is—750 million 

people certainly are, around the world, but I’m not. Because I think 

what it does essentially—and not just them but others—it leads 

children to expose themselves, thinking that they are just doing it 

to—making a comment to a friend, but then it is available to all 

of Indonesia, and all of China and all the world, and then you get 

bullying and you get picking on. You get sort of cyber-suicide-type 

thoughts. And there are examples of this. 

Children have been mortified by this system that they can’t penetrate, what their parents have no idea how to penetrate, what it 

does to them. And then they can’t do anything about it because 

they are caught up in it, their humiliation. And they can do harm 

to themselves and to others and some, of course, make it a practice 

to make sure that they have a chance to do that. And do this to 

children. 

It makes me very angry. And I think it should make all of America angry, First Amendment or not. 

So my question to you simply is I do recognize that the legal climate is constrained, but I can’t believe that two nominees of your 

distinction wanting on the FCC, one of whom quite obviously has 

two children who are here, but not yet probably television-watching. 

Senator WICKER. They are back watching TV, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

55 

The CHAIRMAN. But I am interested in what can be done to protect children and parents. 

Mr. PAI. Senator, having recently joined the ranks of parents, I 

have a firsthand concern about the images that my son sees, the 

words that he hears over any type of media, whether it’s television, 

radio, or frankly even a video on a smart phone. 

And so I think it is important for the Federal Communications 

Commission to do what it can to give parents knowledge about the 

technologies that are out there, about the tools that are at their 

disposal to prevent their children from viewing inappropriate content or viewing inappropriate content or hearing inappropriate 

words. 

Obviously, as you pointed out, the legal landscape is a little uncertain. The Supreme Court is going to consider a constitutional 

challenge to the entire framework of the Commission’s rules in this 

area. Depending on how the court rules, of course, I would be dutybound to implement the statute that Congress has said the Commission has said it should enforce, and I would do that to the best 

of my ability, mindful of the concerns you have expressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you said ‘‘what I can.’’ That’s what I took 

from your answer. 

Mr. PAI. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is not wholly sufficient to me. I remember extensive conversations—and I apologize for the time here—but 

with Chairman Martin over ‘‘Saving Private Ryan.’’ 

And the question was—there was some—obviously that was a 

wartime situation and there was a question of—if somebody said 

an obscenity, who could say it and who couldn’t say it. And sort of 

his rule was if the soldier said it, it was OK, but if a commentator 

on the situation said it, it was not OK. I mean, to that level that 

he, at least, was willing to immerse himself. 

Now, this is not the time or the cultural desire to face these 

issues, except that it is. Except that that is exactly what parents 

want and exactly what children need. And the courts will rule—I 

don’t think—Jessica Rosenworcel, do you want to tell me that the 

FCC is so constrained that you can’t think of anything that might 

possibly happen to alleviate this problem? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I should start by saying that I appreciate that Members have come in and updated me about what my 

children are doing and what they are watching back there. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. But leaving that aside, video programming is 

really powerful stuff. And at its best, it can entertain and even 

educate. But some of it is not so enlightening and not so healthy. 

Traditionally, the FCC has had authority to limit indecent and 

profane language and content. But the legal landscape, as my colleague here mentioned, is probably changing. What is not changing 

is that this is very important. 

And I think it is incumbent upon the FCC and frankly all of us 

to make sure that we both provide quality content, foster it and 

stimulate it—the good stuff for kids—and that we also help parents 

be good parents by providing them with the tools to protect their 

children. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good answer. And we’ll leave it at that. 

56 

I am very serious about this and I worry about it greatly. I think 

that there are a lot of wonderful things to be said about the Internet and a lot of wonderful things to be said about telecommunications, but people are talking to each other less, they don’t have 

to take responsibility for what they put on Facebook or other such 

social networks because it doesn’t come back to haunt them. It’s 

usually somebody else except when it’s them and then they are 

mortified. And it has an enormous effect. 

So, just hear me on that and we will work together to see what 

can be done. You have both been absolutely wonderful. You have 

done yourself proud, you have done your families proud and you 

make us proud. 

So I think, as was indicated, you should feel pretty good about 

your chances and I thank you for your testimony. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(57) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I believe we 

have before us two well-qualified nominees to serve at the FCC, and I hope and expect we can move them through the full Senate before we break for the holidays. 

The last few days and months have reminded us that the biggest threat to our 

economy is not a phone company, but an army of government lawyers and bureaucrats that create uncertainty. And the biggest threat to investment and innovation 

is not a private Internet service provider, but a public agency hell-bent on over-regulating at any cost. 

Ms. Rosenworcel and Mr. Pai, I sincerely hope you go to the FCC with the 

mindset of humble public servants and not activist agents seeking to expand the authorities of the Commission and manipulate the marketplace to your own preferred 

ends. 

We cannot predict the future, especially in the communications market. Unfortunately, our telecom laws and regulations are littered with policies that locked in 

paradigms that are now 15, 20, and even 80-year old. Many of our current telecom 

policies are better suited for more static industry structures like railroads, aviation, 

and pipelines. 

We need to be moving toward a comprehensive update of our communications 

laws and regulations. If we simply continue the rigid structure we know today, we 

will not have the innovation, investment, and competition that we could have in this 

industry, and we won’t see the subsequent jobs and growth in our broader economy. 

I have previously introduced, and plan to reintroduce a Digital Age Communications Act as a template, an example of how we need to reform the regulatory structure. It is not an attempt to manage economic functions within a particular industry 

but an attempt to, in effect, create a framework for freedom to thrive. Within this 

framework, if there is damage or harm done, or if there is anti-competitive activity 

going on, it gets addressed. 

What we have today is a structure that is complex, rigid, and expensive to navigate. In fact, it seems designed more to help particular companies and business 

models than actual competition. It creates a structure that forces private enterprise 

to conform, rather than innovate. It creates uncertainty and benefits those with the 

most lawyers and lobbyists instead of encouraging innovators. 

Innovation and entrepreneurship flourish when we have people developing ideas 

for millions of consumers who can make their own individual decisions. And when 

we have competitors and millions of people making their own decisions, that creates 

vibrant economies. That is what the American economy, at its best, is all about. But 

the American economy is in jeopardy today as we look at our expanding regulatory 

state. 

And that is why your roles at the FCC are going to be critically important during 

the next several years. Some people in this room see communications as a government utility, something the government should operate, something the government 

should manage. Some honestly believe that the government can efficiently manage 

economic functions. History has proven many times that this is a false utopian 

dream. 

I hope you both help to move America back toward a free market economy. We 

must believe in the power of individual freedom and private enterprise to create a 

vibrant marketplace and American economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

58 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. What are the guiding principles you will rely on if you have to consider whether the owner of a daily newspaper should be licensed to operate a television station or radio station in that same market? 

Answer. Localism, competition, and diversity are the principles that have long-informed FCC media policy. If confirmed, these principles will inform my review, as 

will the statute, rules, precedent, and the record. Finally, it is important to note 

that while Americans can seek news online, newspapers and broadcast stations are 

still the primary source of local news and information in most communities. As a 

result, in any deliberation, the impact on local news should be given attention. 

Question 2. In some markets broadcasters are coordinating their activities 

through contractual and other arrangements to get around the FCC’s local television 

ownership rules. These arrangements include shared services agreements, local 

marketing agreements, and joint operating agreements. Such arrangements typically lead to layoffs of station staff, more consolidated local news gathering and programming, and reduced competition for audiences and advertisers. It also changes 

the leverage in retransmission agreements negotiated with cable and satellite providers. Do you believe that these types of contractual arrangements are intended to 

circumvent the FCC’s local television ownership rules? 

Answer. The record before the FCC reflects that there are an increasing number 

of sharing agreements, including Local Marketing Agreements, Shared Services 

Agreements, and Joint Sales Agreements. While it is not clear if such arrangements 

are pursued in order to circumvent the FCC’s local television ownership rules, it is 

important for the agency to study them further to determine if in practice they have 

that effect. To date, the FCC has acknowledged that these arrangements may be 

‘‘at odds with the purpose and intent of rules against duopoly operations.’’ In addition, critics charge that they can result in increased rates for retransmission consent, which can lead to raised rates for customers of multichannel video programming distributors. At the same time, supporters contend that they result in economies of scale that support better programming. 

If confirmed, I will review the law, the rules, and the record to assess if these 

arrangements are intended to circumvent the FCC’s rules, and more broadly what 

their impact is on the public. 

Question 2a. Do you believe that these types of contractual arrangements require 

the FCC to define what an independently owned and operated television station is 

for purposes of its media ownership rules? 

Answer. I believe the FCC should consider this issue in its ongoing quadrennial 

review of its media ownership rules. 

Question 3. Unlicensed spectrum is an integral part of the Nation’s wireless network. It is estimated that by 2015 over half of all mobile traffic will be offloaded 

to Wi-Fi networks. Today, in Washington state, Wi-Fi mesh networks connected to 

fiber support economic development in places such Stevenson, located along the Columbia Gorge. The local economy is supported by visitors who come for the rugged 

beauty of the mountains and the recreational opportunities of the Columbia River 

but who want to stay connected. In addition, as more types of devices become Internet enabled, they too will need unlicensed spectrum to enable device-to-device communications and the development of new products and offerings. Do you support 

policies that that will make more unlicensed spectrum available? 

Answer. Yes. Spectrum policy requires a mix of licensed and unlicensed services. 

Licensed services provide reliability and interference protection. Unlicensed services 

can stimulate innovation because they have low barriers to entry. As you note, they 

also can assist with network congestion and facilitate rural deployment. Both are 

important components of communications policy. 

Question 3a. As you know I have long supported use of the broadcast white spaces 

for unlicensed fixed wireless and personal portable devices. Obtaining additional 

spectrum for unlicensed so-called super Wi-Fi is key to providing new and innovative broadband offerings in addition to more cost effectively providing broadband in 

rural areas. There is work that needs to be done at the FCC to make these exciting 

new devices and services commercially possible. Progress seems to move in fits and 

starts. Do you support policies, like the FCC’s ‘‘White Spaces’’ orders, that make 

spectrum available for unlicensed use below 1 gigahertz band? 

Answer. Yes. I support the FCC’s efforts to make unused white spaces available 

for unlicensed fixed wireless and personal portable devices. At the same time, I believe that additional efforts should be made with respect to databases and sensing 

59 

technologies, to reduce any interference associated with their use for broadband purposes. 

Question 3a. Can I count on your support in getting the Commission’s bureaus 

to focus on completing its work on the white spaces in a timely manner? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will strive to vote in a timely way on all issues, including those involving white spaces. To this end, I believe it is important for the 

FCC to complete its work on pending petitions for reconsideration. I also believe 

that the agency’s Office of Engineering and Technology should continue to work 

with database administrators to verify that their efforts comport with FCC rules. 

I believe the same office should also work with manufacturers that submit devices 

for certification to ensure that these devices comply with FCC rules. 

Question 4. Assume Chairman Rockefeller’s S. 911 becomes law. The D-block goes 

directly to public safety. There are going to be incentive auctions. The FCC is then 

going to repack the broadcast television channels into a narrower band. 

One of the challenges I see in repacking broadcasters operating in markets on our 

northern border is that coordination with Canada is required. I imagine it is similar 

on our southern border. There is a formal role for the State Department to play 

through treaty modifications. I believe FCC coordination with its Canadian counterpart will go a long way to ensure that channel repacking goes smoothly for television stations operating along the northern border. If confirmed, will you commit 

to working with your Canadian counterparts to ensure a smooth repacking of television stations after any incentive auction? 

Answer. Yes. In the first instance, any repacking of stations that may occur will 

be governed by new legislation authorizing voluntary incentive auctions. If confirmed, I will follow the direction in this legislation and will work with the FCC’s 

Canadian counterparts to ensure that the process for any repacking is smooth. 

Question 5. A constituent contacted my state office and told my staff that after 

twice being informed by his Internet Service Provider that he had exceeded his 

monthly data cap, he was blacklisted from receiving broadband Internet service for 

a year. He said he was streaming video and audio. He also backed up two decades 

of high-resolution photographs and music files onto a cloud-based storage application. He is clearly what is known as a power user. 

Even so, my understanding is that the data cap is only somewhat linked to managing network congestion. At certain times of the day, excessive bandwidth use by 

an individual consumer may impact the quality of service experienced by other 

broadband users. At other times of the day though, it is not so clear. If large 

amounts of data is uploaded or downloaded to remote servers in the middle of the 

night, I have my doubts whether it will really interfere with the functioning of the 

network. 

More broadly, I am concerned that data caps are becoming the broadband industry norm—particularly for the 4–G wireless broadband services. If you work out the 

numbers between the download speeds and the data cap on many plans, consumers 

will not be able to take advantage of the 4–G features for very long. Do you believe 

that data caps are becoming more of a standard industry practice for all residential 

and wireless broadband providers? 

Answer. Yes. Many, but not all, broadband subscriber connections in the United 

States are now limited by some kind of data cap. 

Question 5a. Do you believe there is a strong linkage between data caps and managing network congestion? 

Answer. I believe there is some link between the use of data caps and the management of network congestion. I believe further study is necessary to determine 

whether that link is a strong one. 

Question 5b. Do you believe there is a need for the Commission to look into the 

nature, purpose, and impact of data caps on consumers? 

Answer. Yes. On the one hand, if data caps are transparent and address real network capacity concerns, they can be a legitimate tool to mange congestion. On the 

other, if they are set only to generate fees for exceeding the caps, this can reduce 

incentives for robust broadband deployment. Consequently, I believe the FCC should 

consider monitoring the development of these caps and their impact on consumers. 

Question 6. Our communications network is transitioning from circuit switched to 

Internet Protocol (IP) and the FCC has begun to discuss the possibility of sunsetting 

the public switched telephone network. As the network transitions, innovators are 

offering consumers new and interesting ways to communicate. For example, there 

are a variety of VoIP products including some that replace telephone services, supplement telephone service, or provide conveniences as click to call offerings. As IP 

services evolve, it remains important that policy makers refrain from regulating 

60 

them too quickly and instead proceed with a light touch enabling these new IP 

based service to emerge and flourish. Do you support a light touch approach when 

addressing public policy issues concerning IP services? 

Answer. Yes. I believe a light-touch approach is an essential part of ensuring that 

nascent communications services have the chance to develop and thrive. Moreover, 

I believe this kind of approach can facilitate new services, and the ability to realize 

innovation on a large scale. At the same time, it is important to recognize that as 

these services grow to become full substitutes for traditional telephony, it may be 

necessary to reassess some aspects of this approach. For instance, I believe it is important that services that market themselves as a substitute for basic voice service 

provide the ability for their user to make emergency calls. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. The FCC has a pending NPRM that would make changes in the administration and eligibility requirements of the Lifeline and Link-Up programs, 

which provide telephone service for low-income people. There have been increased 

allegations of potential fraud in the programs, particularly around eligibility documentation and people receiving multiple phones. This is disturbing because we need 

to ensure that people who need the services are getting it rather than directing 

funds to those who may be cheating the system. 

GAO issued a report in October, 2010, on the low-income programs. The report 

stated that the FCC has not taken sufficient steps to develop performance goals and 

measures for the programs and has limited insight on the intent of the program and 

what it is accomplishing. GAO has not specifically looked into potential fraud that 

may be occurring in the programs. 

The NRPM appears to be taking some steps to address the problems in the programs, including limiting phones to one per household, requiring better documentation for eligibility and creating a national database to track customers. I am pleased 

that the FCC is taking these steps. In your view, what is the core purpose of these 

programs and who should they primarily serve? What are the most important benefits of the programs? Do you think the programs in their current form may need 

reform or to be narrowed? 

Answer. For decades, the Lifeline and Link-Up program has provided qualified, 

low-income subscribers with assistance setting up and receiving basic telephone 

service. It is part of a long-standing FCC effort to support telephone service for lowincome households. After all, having access to telephone service is essential for calling 911, being able to secure a job, take care of loved ones, and manage routine 

interactions with government and health care providers. 

Today, the Lifeline and Link-Up program is one of four universal service programs that is run by the FCC. Historically, the program only provided support for 

traditional wireline telephone service. But during the last Administration, it was expanded to wireless services, and notably pre-paid wireless services. As a result, the 

program has grown substantially. Last year, it provided roughly $1.3 billion in support—an historic high. 

On the one hand, this might mean that more low-income people have the telephone service they need to conduct and manage their daily lives. This is a good 

thing. But on the other hand, this tremendous growth deserves attention and focus. 

I understand that the FCC is studying this growth and considering reforms. If 

confirmed, I will fully support these efforts. For the program to be successful, it 

must be free of waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Question 2. In your view, is the NPRM going far enough to address the fraud that 

may be occurring? Do we need GAO or the FCC IG to do a more thorough review 

and/or audit to determine how much fraud there is? 

Answer. The NPRM is a good start. Additional study from the GAO or FCC Inspector General is also always appropriate. 

Question 3. The disbursements on these programs have doubled since they were 

opened up to wireless phones in 2008. Much of the potential fraud appears to be 

growing in the wireless use, particularly with duplicate phones being used at the 

same household. Why do you think the FCC has not taken a stronger approach in 

monitoring eligibility for the programs when they can see their rapid growth? Since 

these programs have no caps on the disbursements, don’t we need to get a better 

handle on how they are managed so that we can help direct funding to those who 

really need it and avoid fraud? Will you commit to providing this issue increased 

attention and ensuring more is done to prevent fraud, waste and abuse in the program? 

61 

Answer. I do not have insight into why the FCC has not taken a stronger approach in monitoring eligibility for Lifeline and Link-Up, in light of recent growth. 

But I note approvingly that in June 2011 the FCC took action to address waste associated with duplicative payments, and is contemplating taking additional steps. 

Going forward, it is necessary for the agency to continue to study this program carefully to ensure it is free of waste, fraud, and abuse. If confirmed, I commit to supporting these efforts. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. Digital Divide on Tribal Lands. The mission of the Federal Communications Commission is to make communications services available to all the people 

of the United States. However, the first people of the United States—Native Americans—face a significant digital divide on Tribal lands. 

Most people probably cannot imagine life without a telephone. Yet today more 

than 30 percent of households in Indian Country do not have access to basic telephone service. Broadband access is much worse with probably more than 90 percent 

lacking broadband. These statistics do not truly convey the hardships created by 

this lack of telecommunications service. Imagine not being able to call an ambulance 

when you or someone you love is in medical danger. Phones and broadband also 

help keep friends and family members in touch when they are far apart. Imagine 

not being able to speak with a loved one who is serving in the military and won’t 

be home this holiday season. 

Although Tribal lands are among the least connected, this is precisely where modern communications technologies can help the most. By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation, broadband can help improve economic development, 

education, and access to health care. 

I am pleased that the Commission is paying particular attention to this challenge. 

There is a new Office of Native Affairs and Policy to help work with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. The recent Universal Service order proposes a 

Tribal Mobility Fund to expand wireless access. It will also require engagement with 

Tribes. These are welcome steps in the right direction. So, I would like to ask that, 

if confirmed, will you seek to ensure that the Commission continues to work with 

Tribes and telecommunications carriers to tackle the digital divide facing so many 

Native American communities? 

Answer. Yes. I have traveled to tribal communities. Consequently, I am aware 

that telecommunications deployment in Indian Country for both basic and advanced 

services lags the rest of the country. This is a troubling problem that requires attention. If confirmed, I will support the FCC Chairman’s creation of the Office of Native 

Affairs and Policy. Specifically, I will support this office’s work to ensure that Native 

voices are heard on matters that affect Indian Country. I also believe that universal 

service reform of the high-cost fund may assist with further deployment of service 

in Indian Country. If confirmed, I will strive to make sure that the implementation 

of universal service reform proceeds in a way that can help address the important 

needs of our tribal communities. 

Question 2. Support for Telemedicine. New Mexico is a rural state where many 

rural communities are not only underserved when it comes to in communications, 

but also underserved in health services. We have some great folks at the University 

of New Mexico and in our hospital systems who are working hard to improve rural 

healthcare by using new innovative tele-health technologies. 

The Government Accountability Office has criticized the FCC’s management of the 

Rural Health Care Program. Some of the telemedicine proposals contained in the 

FCC’s National Broadband Plan also seem to be on hold at the moment. I realize 

that the FCC is engaged in substantive reform in areas such as universal service. 

But tele-health is another area that should be a priority. Can you assure me that, 

as Commissioners, you will support efforts to improve and increase telemedicine opportunities, especially for rural communities? 

Answer. Telemedicine offers tremendous opportunities to improve health care access for patients, especially in rural areas. It can bring world-class expertise to people far from urban centers, cut costs, and help improve health care results. 

For this reason, if confirmed, I believe the FCC’s rural health care program deserves a fresh look. The legacy program provides discounts to rural health care providers for telecommunications and Internet access services to ensure that eligible 

providers are paying no more than their urban counterparts for services. The pilot 

program has provided, for a limited time, support for the construction of a state or 

regional broadband network assisting rural health care providers. As you note, howVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
62 

ever, the Government Accountability Office has suggested that performance management weaknesses exist in these programs. 

I believe the challenge for the FCC is identifying a way to make the rural health 

care mechanism more effective within the agency’s statutory authority. It also must 

do this conscious of the fact that—like all universal service programs—the rural 

health care fund is supported by a line item on everyone’s telephone bill. This line 

item is growing, making the cost of reform difficult. But the importance of this issue 

is also growing—as is the good it can do, if properly conceived. Consequently, as 

noted above, if confirmed, I will support efforts to rethink and reinvigorate this program. 

Question 3. Support for Low-income People. The Commission recently published 

its proposals for reforming how universal service funds will support building out 

broadband networks in rural areas. 

But we know that having broadband available where you live is not the only aspect to tackling the digital divide. People need to see the value of having it. And 

they need to be able to afford to pay for it. 

The universal service Life Line and Link Up initiatives have helped many people 

with low incomes get basic telephone service. In rural Tribal areas, Enhanced Life 

Line and Link Up help not just with adoption rates but also service deployment to 

some high cost areas where many potential customers could not afford phone service. 

In addition to the Commission’s efforts, some cable and phone companies have 

committed to offering reduced price broadband options for certain low income families. Could you share your thoughts on how the Commission can use universal service initiatives, and also work with private companies, to increase broadband adoption, particularly among people with low incomes? 

Answer. The broadband challenge in this country has two fronts—supply and demand. With respect to supply, recent reforms of the universal service high-cost fund 

are designed to increase broadband deployment in areas where service is not available today. It is essential that the FCC implement and carefully monitor these reforms. If confirmed, I pledge to do so. 

With respect to demand, the problem is equally challenging. Studies from the Pew 

Internet and American Life Project have demonstrated that adoption is lower in 

low-income households than in the population at large. If this continues, over time 

the cost of this digital exclusion could grow, as more forms of commerce, education, 

and government interaction occur online. 

For this reason, I believe recent commitments private companies have made to 

support low-cost broadband service for low-income households are promising. In addition, I believe more research is necessary to identify what programs and outreach 

efforts lead to sustainable broadband adoption. 

Finally, it is important to note that the National Broadband Plan recommended 

expansion of the Lifeline and Link-Up program to include not only basic telephony, 

but also broadband service. This merits consideration. However, ongoing efforts to 

reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the existing program should proceed first. 

Question 4. Importance of Broadcast TV and Radio. Today, there is a lot of excitement about mobile broadband, which puts the power of the Internet into the palm 

of your hand. I am amazed by what new smartphones and tablets like the iPad can 

do. 

Yet, with all the excitement about new mobile technologies, it is easy to forget 

that broadcast TV and radio are truly the first ‘‘wireless’’ technologies. They continue to play a valuable role today. Not everyone can afford cable or satellite TV. 

Not everyone has access to the Internet at home. 

Free broadcast TV and radio are especially important in times of emergency. For 

example, this year when northern New Mexico faced severe winter storms and summer forest fires, people turned to their local broadcasters for the latest weather and 

safety information. Outside of emergencies, local businesses also appreciate how advertising on local broadcast stations can help them reach customers in their communities. Can you share your views on the value of over-the-air broadcasting and the 

importance of its role in an evolving telecommunications landscape? 

Answer. Millions of Americans rely on free, over-the-air television as their primary source of news, information, and entertainment. Even in a world where technologies are evolving, and information is plentiful online, the Pew Internet and 

American Life Project has found that 78 percent of the population surveyed still relies on local television for local news. 

63 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. Interoperability issues have become more important over the last few 

years. I am concerned about interoperability problems that seem to limit the ability 

of smaller players, in particular, to be competitive. This problem appears to be particularly acute for smaller companies and markets. This concerns me for several reasons. First, if future auction participants do not know they will be able to acquire 

devices, then they are less likely to bid on spectrum licenses. Second, the proliferation of band classes means that device chipsets have to cover more band classes in 

order for a device to be able to traverse an entire band. Third, I worry that a lack 

of predictability regarding interoperability may have led some companies to withhold investments which would benefit the economy and potentially foster more innovation. Can you provide me with an explanation of your views on interoperability 

requirements? 

Answer. I understand that the FCC currently is reviewing the interoperability of 

mobile devices that make use of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Some critics, including small wireless providers, charge that the market is developing in ways that 

are at odds with interoperability—and the public interest. As a result, there is concern that some consumers will not have access to up-to-date devices and may not 

be able to roam on other networks when they travel from home. At the same time, 

others suggest that an overly broad obligation could result in technical difficulties 

and unnecessary costs. 

Interoperability is an essential component of a diverse communications system. It 

is important that consumers are not stranded without service. It is also important 

that our networks are not unreasonably balkanized by devices that cannot speak 

with one another. Consequently, the FCC should carefully monitor the work of industry standards-setting bodies regarding this issue. If those technical bodies fail 

to make progress, the agency should study its authority and identify how to improve 

interoperability in the 700 MHz band. 

Question 1a. Issues in the 700 MHz band plan have been raised in this committee 

over the past year. Should the FCC take a serious look at this issue? If not, why 

not? If so, what do you think the FCC could do to make sure the benefits of interoperability are fully realized? 

Answer. As noted above, I believe that the FCC should carefully monitor the work 

of industry-standards setting bodies. If those technical bodies fail to make progress, 

the agency should study its authority and identify how to improve interoperability 

in the 700 MHz band. 

Question 2. With regard to the Commission’s ongoing USF reform efforts, do you 

believe the Commission is doing all it should to promote access and availability of 

broadband, particularly wireless broadband, to our Nation’s non-urban areas? If not, 

what else should the Commission do? 

Answer. The FCC recently adopted a collection of high-cost universal service fund 

reforms. These reforms transition the high-cost system from its earlier focus on 

voice telephony to a new focus on broadband. In addition, these reforms include the 

first set of funds dedicated exclusively for wireless services. 

This is the most substantial set of reforms to this system in over a decade. In 

addition to implementing these reforms carefully, it is incumbent on the FCC to 

monitor their development. To this end, if confirmed, I will do my part to make sure 

that the FCC regularly reviews data regarding broadband and wireless deployment 

to determine if universal service resources are targeted and effective at providing 

service in communities in rural and high-cost areas of the country. 

Question 3. As carriers continue to migrate to IP networks, the direct interconnection of voice networks remains vital to ensure competition, innovation, and lower 

prices. The FCC, in its recent USF order, stated that the duty to negotiate interconnection agreements in good faith ‘‘does not depend upon the network technology 

underlying the interconnection, whether TDM, IP, or otherwise.’’ What is your view 

of duty to interconnect under the 1996 Telecom Act? Would you agree that the Act 

is ‘‘technologically neutral’’ regarding interconnection? 

Answer. I believe interconnection is a critical part of communications policy. Historically, it has facilitated competition, and the associated benefits of increased innovation and reduced prices. 

Increasingly, however, it is a complex area of the law. Interconnection, for instance, in Section 251 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act, is largely dependent on the provision of telecommunications service by 

telecommunications carriers. At the same time, in its recent universal service reform decision, the FCC made a point of noting that its new rules will promote the 

64 

deployment and use of IP networks, and that interconnection between such providers is also critical. Complicating this situation further, voice roaming obligations 

for wireless carriers are built on common carrier authority in Section 201 and 202. 

In contrast, the FCC based its recent decision to support data roaming on commercially reasonable terms on its authority in Title III of the Communications Act to 

manage spectrum and modify license and usage conditions in the public interest. 

This legal patchwork provides essential interconnection, and in practice can promote technological neutrality, but it is undeniably complex. 

Question 4. Media cross-ownership rules have generated great interest over the 

past several years. Can you share your views on the current newspaper/broadcast 

station cross-ownership rule? Do you think it should be relaxed? 

Answer. I believe the media landscape is changing. In many ways, this is good 

news. Information is now more plentiful than ever before. Similarly, the range and 

variety of commentary has grown substantially. Everyone with Internet access has 

his or her own digital printing press. But the news is not all good. The ranks of 

journalists in this country have thinned considerably. More than 13,000 newspaper 

jobs have been shed in the past 4 years. Many local television stations produce excellent news. But others are producing less than just a few years ago. 

It is against this background that the FCC’s review of media ownership rules is 

occurring. If confirmed, I believe it is necessary to take these trends into consideration. But I also believe they need to be balanced with the principles of diversity, 

localism, and competition that have always informed these rules, including the 

newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. 

In addition to the regular quadrennial review, the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule is the subject of a remand from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. If 

confirmed, my review of this rule will take into account the statute, the record, the 

principles noted above, and the changing nature of news production. 

Question 5. In the last two FCC Mobile Competition Reports, the Commission was 

unable to certify the industry as competitive. What steps would you recommend taking to enhance competition within the mobile industry? 

Answer. To enhance competition in the mobile industry, additional spectrum for 

auction is important. At the same time, it is important to devote efforts to making 

use of existing spectrum more efficient and more competitive. This includes the development of spectrum sensing technologies, ‘‘dig once’’ initiatives, and small cell deployment that facilitates the efficient reuse of spectrum. 

Question 6. The President set an aggressive goal of releasing an additional 500 

MHz of spectrum over the next 10 years. In the past year, Federal efforts to make 

more spectrum available have been mixed at best. NTIA released a preliminary report in January 2011 which identified 115 MHz of spectrum, but only 15 MHz would 

not need to be shared with Federal users. An updated report is expected to be released any day now. What do you think needs to happen, particularly over the next 

2–3 years, to help us achieve this goal? 

Answer. Radio spectrum is a scarce but valuable resource. The proliferation of 

wireless devices and growing demand for wireless data services puts new pressures 

on the use of our airwaves. The goal of releasing an additional 500 MHz of spectrum 

over the next 10 years is an aggressive effort to meet this growing need. Reaching 

this goal will require a variety of efforts. This includes broad-based efforts to provide incentives to Federal Government users to use their spectrum more efficiently, 

with resources for planning, and rewards for relinquishing its use, if feasible. In addition, more attention will need to be paid to sharing technologies, including spectrum sensing, and also small cell deployment, which can facilitate the efficient reuse 

of spectrum. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. Even with the current FCC focus on rural broadband deployment to 

the remote regions of Alaska most of Alaska’s rural communities still depend on free 

local over the air Television and Radio to receive emergency information and critical 

news programming. Early in November a Bering Sea Superstorm of hurricane proportions wreaked havoc on the western part of the state jeopardizing villages and 

lives with historic weather conditions. Local broadcasters effectively kept everyone 

in the storm’s path aware of the latest conditions. Can you tell us the role that 

broadcasters will play in 21st century telecommunications policy? 

Answer. Millions of Americans rely on free, over-the-air television as their primary source of news, information, and entertainment. Even in a world where techVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
65 

nologies are evolving, and information is plentiful online, the Pew Internet and 

American Life Project has found that 78 percent of the population surveyed still relies on local television for local news. 

Question 2. Many Senators have spoken about how rural markets aren’t like other 

markets, and I would add Alaskan rural markets aren’t like lower 48 rural markets—in many cases, they aren’t effective markets at all. What are your thoughts 

on how we give providers incentives to build and operate in places where investment is hard to come by? Is the ‘‘carrier of last resort’’ concept important in those 

places, in your view? 

Answer. With respect to communications deployment, I generally believe that the 

private sector should proceed first. But, as a Nation, I believe we need to be honest 

about markets in this country that the private sector alone will not reach—including 

some locations in Alaska. For this reason, I support narrowly tailoring regulatory 

policies to extend networks so that they reach all of our communities. This includes, 

but is not limited to, policies like universal service that support deployment in highcost and rural communities. 

In the 21st century all of our communities will need access to modern communications to prosper. Alaskan communities are no exception. I have traveled to remote 

communities in Alaska, including Dillingham, Manokotak, and Aniak. I have seen 

first-hand how hard it can be to secure quality communications service, and how 

essential it can be to improving the quality of life for residents. 

Carrier-of-last resort responsibilities have an important place in communications 

law. Without these duties, there never would have been deployment in many rural 

areas in this country. As communications technologies evolve, it is essential to remember the role these responsibilities play. 

Question 3. Another important issue to rural consumers in interoperability. I 

wrote a letter with Chairman Rockefeller, and Senator Wicker urging Chairman 

Genachowski to being a proceeding to ensure consumers have access to mobile devises operating on the next generation networks that use 700MHz spectrum. Interoperability between networks in important, not only to public safety, but to consumers who have rural wireless providers and travel between various commercial 

networks and should be able to utilize these networks. If confirmed, how will you 

address this important issue? 

Answer. I understand that the FCC currently is reviewing the interoperability of 

mobile devices that make use of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Some critics, including small wireless providers, charge that the market is developing in ways that 

are at odds with interoperability—and the public interest. As a result, there is concern that some consumers will not have access to up-to-date devices and may not 

be able to roam on other networks when they travel from home. At the same time, 

others suggest that an overly broad obligation could result in technical difficulties 

and unnecessary costs. 

Interoperability is an essential component of a diverse communications system. It 

is important that consumers are not stranded with service. Consequently, the FCC 

should carefully monitor the work of industry standards-setting bodies regarding 

this issue. If those technical bodies fail to make progress, the agency should study 

its authority and identify how to improve interoperability in the 700 MHz band. 

Question 4. The FCC is currently considering a proposal to reform the Lifeline 

program that would limit eligibility for the Lifeline program to one per residential 

address. The Lifeline program in Alaska has been extremely beneficial to many 

Alaskans. In fact, since the program came on board 17 years ago penetration among 

disadvantaged populations has increased dramatically. It is critical eligible low-income adults have access to Lifeline-supported phone services. This is important for 

the safety of many Alaskans, including those in rural Alaska who don’t always have 

a public safety officer in their village and are prone to extreme weather conditions 

and may need emergency services. I ask for your commitment to work with me to 

ensure benefits of this program continue to be available and serve disadvantaged 

populations. 

Answer. The Lifeline and Link-Up program is an important part of keeping everyone in this country connected. It is part of a long-standing FCC effort to support 

telephone service for low-income households. Having access to telephone service is 

essential for calling emergency services, being able to secure a job, take care of loved 

ones, and manage routine interactions with government and with health care providers. 

Today, the Lifeline and Link-Up program is one of four universal service programs that is run by the FCC. Historically, the program only provided support for 

traditional wireline telephone service. But during the last Administration, it was expanded to wireless service, including pre-paid wireless service. As a result, the proVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
66 

gram has grown substantially. On the one hand, this is a good thing, because it 

means more people have the telephone service they need to conduct and manage 

their daily lives. On the other hand, this tremendous growth deserves attention. 

I understand that the FCC is studying this growth and considering reforms. For 

this program to continue to be successful, it must be free of waste, fraud, and abuse. 

At the same time, it is imperative that reforms under consideration do not pose unnecessary hardships for those who could truly benefit from its support. If confirmed, 

I will work to make sure that this program is run capably and also capable of distributing support to those disadvantaged populations that need it. 

Question 5. The process at the FCC is very complicated and I feel is not as transparent as it could be. I would like to see this process improved to be more transparent so companies and consumers do not have to live in limbo for weeks after a 

vote before an order is published. If nominated what would you do or recommend 

to help this process along? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to vote all decisions in a timely way, without 

unnecessary delay. I believe the agency should make all reasonable efforts to release 

decisions contemporaneously with agency voting. To the extent that this is not feasible, I believe decisions should be released within a week of voting. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Broadband Expansion and Adoption 

It has been over a year and a half since the FCC released its National Broadband 

Plan, which was to be a blueprint to achieving affordable, high-speed broadband to 

all Americans. However, there has been criticism the agency has not acted quickly 

enough to implement the numerous recommendations outlined in it. While the Commission has issues several public notices related to recommendations and goals 

highlighted in the Plan, plan, some organizations have estimated only about 10–20 

percent of the recommendations in the Plan have actually been implemented/completed. 

This is somewhat concerning given how many Americans still lack broadband 

service. Thirty-five percent of American adults, or 80 million people, do not have 

high-speed Internet access in their homes. In addition, a 2008 Pew Internet & 

American Life Project survey found that approximately 62 percent of dial-up users 

said they weren’t interested in switching to broadband. That same survey also found 

that 33 percent of non-Internet users say they are not interested in using the Internet. So two digital divides (one with supply and one with demand) continue to linger 

while much of the National Broadband Plan goes unimplemented. 

Question 1. Do you believe the FCC has been as active as it needs to be in implementing the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan? 

Answer. Broadband access is essential for prosperity in the 21st century. Given 

the significance of broadband to our economic competitiveness, there is always room 

for the FCC to do more to facilitate broadband deployment and access. 

To be clear, many of the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan fall 

outside of the scope of traditional FCC authority. Some involve other Federal agencies and authorities, state authorities, and even the Congress. However, for those 

initiatives outlined in the plan that are well-conceived and within the agency’s authority, I would support taking further steps to implement them, if confirmed. 

Question 2. What outstanding recommendations in the Plan would you prioritize 

to help spur the expansion of broadband availability? 

Answer. I believe the FCC should devote additional resources to facilitating efficient spectrum use. Spectrum is a major input for provision of broadband service. 

With only a limited amount in inventory, more effort needs to be made to free up 

additional airwaves and also promote technologies that make more efficient use of 

spectrum, generally. 

I believe the FCC also should consider ways to improve its E-rate and rural 

health care programs. The E-rate is a very successful program. At the time of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, only 14 percent of classrooms had access to the Internet. Today, that number is over 90 percent. Much of this is due 

to the support of the E-rate. But great programs do not thrive without continued 

attention and care. The FCC already has taken steps to remove barriers to off-hours 

community use of E-rate funded resources. The agency should continue to look for 

ways to improve this program, and use the resources it brings to schools and libraries to spur additional broadband deployment in adjacent communities. 

67 

1 IB Docket No. 95–91. 

The FCC’s rural health care program holds great promise, but has not been as 

widely used as the E-rate. The FCC should study how, within existing law, to make 

this a more effective program—for the patients and healthcare providers that use 

it, and also for the communities that benefit from the provision of service. 

Question 3. What specific initiatives/proposals do you believe would be beneficial 

to achieving that goal of consumer awareness and education? 

Answer. As the numbers in the Pew survey indicate, the broadband challenge in 

this country is on two fronts—supply and demand. With respect to supply, ongoing 

efforts with universal service fund reform are designed to help support deployment 

in high-cost communities. With respect to demand, however, the answers are also 

important—and also complex. 

To this end, I am aware that the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, 

which was enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, provided support for some broadband adoption programs. These programs include digital literacy training and outreach campaigns, with the goal of expanding consumer 

awareness and education about the relevance of broadband in our everyday lives. 

These programs have not yet concluded. When they do, I believe it would be prudent to study them carefully. It is important to understand what practices yielded 

results and what programs contributed most to sustainable broadband adoption in 

a variety of communities. This information should be used to develop further efforts 

designed to increase consumer awareness and education. 

More Timely Decision Making 

While the FCC has a self-imposed shot clock of 180 days for merger reviews, it 

rarely adheres to it. Many recent merger reviews by the Commission have surpassed the 180 day benchmark—the NBC-Universal Comcast merger review took 

234 days, the XM-Sirius merger review took 412 days, and the CenturyLink and 

Qwest merger review took 294 days. 

The agency also has a poor record in timely decisions on other matters before it. 

At one point, the FCC had a backlog of over 5,000 petitions and more than 4,000 

license applications pending. And technical proceedings at the FCC have been, what 

Mitch Lazrus, a well respected telecommunications lawyer, calls ‘‘dismally slow.’’ 

In a letter I sent to Chairman Genachowski back in January 2010, I highlighted 

several outstanding spectrum proceedings I urged the Commission to conclude to release more spectrum for wireless broadband. One of the concerns I had about the 

proceedings I mentioned was that all had been open for 3 years or longer, and another related proceeding 1 to WCS–SDARS had been pending for over a decade. 

I am concerned that this lack of action hinders innovation and causes significant 

uncertainty to small start-up companies that are critical to job creation. 

Question 4. What steps will you take with respect to regulatory reform so that 

the agency can be more nimble in the very dynamic telecommunications industry 

and not be a bottleneck to innovation and job creation due to inaction or delays on 

petitions and applications? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to vote decisions in a timely way, without unnecessary delay. Communications is a dynamic sector in our economy, and the agency should, within its resources, make decisions in a way that facilitates investment 

and expedites the opportunity for consumers to benefit from new and innovative 

services. This is especially important for small businesses, which are so essential 

to job creation. 

To facilitate more timely decisionmaking, I believe the agency should explore how 

to make greater use of Administrative Law Judges. I also believe the FCC should 

study the source of delay. If regulatory inertia is responsible, that needs to be addressed. If the technical expertise necessary to render a timely decision is not available, that likewise needs to be addressed. If, however, applicants are resolving disputes on their own, that is generally preferable to regulatory intervention. Similarly, if delays are the result of ongoing litigation, that is a right that should be 

respected by the agency decision-making process. 

Question 5. What criteria will you use when reviewing future wireless mergers 

and petitions? Will you strongly push for more timely decisions on pending mergers 

given the dynamic nature of the industry? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would follow the statute. The Communications Act, in Sections 214 and 310, prohibits the transfers of licenses absent a finding by the FCC 

that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. This 

analysis traditionally involves weighing both the benefits and harms of a proposed 

transaction. The agency should, within its resources, make these decisions in a timeVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
68 

2 47 U.S.C. 155. 

3 47 U.S.C. 157. 

ly way. It should be conscious that its process, if unnecessarily delayed, could impede investment and slow the opportunity for consumers to benefit from new and 

innovative services. 

Question 6. As you know, section 5(c) of the Communications Act 2 authorizes the 

Commission to delegate most of its functions to ‘‘a panel of commissioners, an individual commissioner, an employee board, or an individual employee’’ to ensure proper functioning of the Commission as well as prompt and orderly conduct of its business. Do you believe the FCC has made effective use of this provision in the statute? 

Answer. Ministerial decisions, that are not controversial and are wholly within 

the scope of existing precedent, can and should be made on delegated authority by, 

for instance, Bureau officials at the agency. At the same time, decisions of first impression, significant market effect, or with substantial policy consequence, can and 

should be made by the full Commission. 

Question 7. Another section 3 in the statute, Section 7, requires the FCC to act 

within 1 year on petitions or applications on new technologies or services. But it 

is my understanding the FCC has never implemented rules to administer this section so it has gone unutilized. What will you do to see that either the intent of Congress here is followed or the Commission requests a modification to the statute? 

Answer. Section 7 of the Communications Act states that it is the policy of the 

United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the 

public. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in this provision. 

It also directs the FCC to determine whether any new technology or device proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within 1 year after such 

petition or application is filed. On the one hand, this provision appears to expedite 

the provision of new technologies and services by directing the agency to address 

issues within 1 year. On the other hand, it puts the FCC in the awkward position 

of approving an undefined scope of new technologies and services, that if applied 

across the board, could become an unnecessary regulatory hurdle for companies with 

new and innovative ideas. 

I am aware that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA (IEEE– 

USA) has asked the FCC to provide additional guidance. To this end, the IEEE– 

USA notes that many wireless innovations would appear to be subject to the terms 

of Section 7 of the Communications Act. In addition, the IEEE–USA notes that 

other, similarly broad provisions of the law, including merger review and forbearance petitions, are the subject of FCC guidelines. 

As a result, I believe a continuing dialogue on this is needed. While additional 

regulatory guidance is important, it is equally important that any process to resolve 

Section 7 petitions does not unnecessarily increase regulatory obligations, becoming 

an impediment for the deployment of new technologies and services. 

FCC Technical Expertise 

Engineers at the FCC play an essential role in regulatory matters by providing 

technical consultation on policy matters, managing spectrum allocations, and creating new opportunities for competitive technologies. However, as I highlighted in 

letters last year to the FCC Chairman and President Obama, over the past several 

decades there has been a significant depletion of engineer staff at the Commission. 

In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 270—an astonishing 63 percent reduction—even though the FCC now must face more technical 

issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, commercial cable 

and satellite industries, and broadband. 

A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO–10–79) 

found that the agency ‘‘faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to 

adapt to a changing market place.’’ More recently, the National Research Council 

released a 2011 Wireless Report that suggested the FCC would benefit from ‘‘enhancing its technology assessment and engineering capabilities’’ due to ‘‘entering an 

era in which technical issues are likely to arise on a sustained basis.’’ 

If the agency doesn’t have both the legal and technical expertise, it could cause 

the FCC to implement poor policy and regulation because the agency doesn’t have 

the sufficient technical knowledge to understand the implications that proposed regulations have on emerging technologies. Even more concerning is the lack of technical resources hampers innovation and job creation due to excessive delays to businesses that have applied for technical waivers, experimental licenses, and filed petitions at the agency and there aren’t enough engineers to review this issues. 

69 

4http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislativelhistories/248.pdf (pg 2, second 

paragraph). 

Question 8. Do you share these concerns the technical community has about the 

lack of technical aptitude at the Commission and what specific commitments can 

you provide to helping resolve this glaring deficiency of technical resources that can 

hinder this Nation’s technical leadership and innovations in communications as well 

as hinder job creation of businesses that are waiting for approval of waivers or applications at the Commission? 

Answer. Yes. Today, there are less than 300 engineers working at the FCC. It 

puts great pressure on those who are employed as engineers at the agency, because, 

as the National Research Council suggests, we are entering an era in which technical issues are likely to come up with greater frequency. 

However, it is also critical to consider how these individuals have an opportunity 

to contribute to the decisionmaking of the agency. To this end, I believe they should 

assist with technical review, play a consulting role in major decisions, and also contribute to idea generation and policy development within the agency. In addition, 

the experts in the Office of Engineering and Technology should be freely available 

to every part of the FCC, including the Commissioner offices. 

Finally, I would like to note that the agency has run an attorney honors program. 

This two-year employment and training program is designed to introduce new and 

recent law school graduates to the field of communications law and policy. I am not 

aware that the agency has difficulty attracting bright young lawyers. Consequently, 

I believe the agency should consider developing a similar honors program for recent 

engineering graduates. Such a program could introduce young people with engineering backgrounds to how their technical expertise can be used to inform public policy 

at the FCC. 

Question 9. The FCC deals with a complex agenda of technical and nontechnical 

issues. How do you intend to staff your office to deal with such a mix? As you may 

know, prior to 1982, the statute required each Commissioner to appoint a legal assistant and an engineering assistant.4

Answer. If confirmed, I will consider the appropriate mix of expertise necessary 

to inform my office. I recognize the benefit of having individuals with diverse backgrounds and experience. 

Wireless Device Performance 

The escalating demand for spectrum presents significant challenges. As more entities use spectrum to provide services to consumers and citizens, the ecosystem becomes more crowded and efforts among users to coexist become more difficult. As 

a result, disputes among licensees regarding potential harmful interference are occurring with greater frequency. Just in the past few years, interference disputes 

have arisen between various parties such as MVDDS/DBS, AWS–1/AWS–3, WCS/ 

SDARS, and, more recently, with LightSquared/GPS. 

One of the problems contributing to the recurrence of these interference disputes 

is the lack of clear receiver performance guidelines. Legislation that I have introduced with Senator Kerry promotes more spectral efficiency and interference immunity of device receivers and tasks the FCC and NTIA to conduct an interference 

sensing study to provide greater predictability in the determination of harmful interference. Taking these steps or similar ones will help mitigate, and even prevent, 

future interference disputes meaning a quicker time to market for new companies 

and lower probability of disruption of existing services. 

In a recent letter I sent to the FCC Chairman on spectrum policy I included a 

comment from Michael Gallagher, the former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, who once stated ‘‘receiver standards mean less interference 

and more available spectrum.’’ So if more spectrum is to be made available, receiver 

performance must be included in any general spectrum policy discussion and as part 

of the equation to prevent a spectrum shortage. 

Question 10. Do you believe the FCC should promote spectral efficiency and interference immunity of device receivers? How would you recommend the FCC do that? 

Answer. The FCC should consider how it can promote spectral efficiency through 

receiver standards. As noted above, they can mean less interference and more available spectrum. This, in turn, can reduce disputes regarding harmful interference, 

increasing the potential for development of new and innovative services, while reducing the probability of disruption for existing services. 

The authority of the FCC to proceed to regulate receiver standards was last addressed by the agency in a 2003 Notice of Inquiry regarding the Interference Immunity Specifications for Radio Receivers. The record reflects some dispute about the 

70 

agency’s ability to impose receiver standards under the Communications Act. The 

proceeding was subsequently terminated in 2007. Regardless, I believe it is time for 

the FCC to take a fresh look at this issue, and if confirmed, would support efforts 

to do so. 

Question 11. Do you believe the FCC and NTIA should more clearly define what 

‘‘harmful interference’’ constitutes? 

Answer. Radio spectrum is a scarce but valuable resource. The demands placed 

on it are only going to grow over time. Reducing harmful interference is an essential 

part of making more efficient and more reliable use of our limited spectrum resource. 

As a general matter, clear regulation can inspire confidence and investment. To 

this end, further definition for harmful interference may yield some benefit. At the 

same time, however, I believe additional guidance also could result in rigid application over time, denying necessary flexibility, and stifling the ability to innovate. 

Consequently, I believe the FCC and NTIA should monitor this issue carefully, before determining if additional guidance is useful. 

Piracy and Network Neutrality 

As you may know, I have been a long-time champion of network neutrality and 

providing fundamental protections to ensure that the inherent openness and freedom of the Internet remain intact so users can leverage the uninhibited power and 

benefit it has to offer. While I have serious reservations with the FCC’s Open Internet order and question their authority to implement such rules, in light of the last 

year’s D.C. Court Comcast decision, I have concerns with how such rules will impact 

network management and piracy. 

There has to be an appropriate level of flexibility for network operators to effectively manage their networks to ensure quality of service (QoS) to all customers as 

well as to combat the growing problem of piracy that plagues the Internet. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), 40 billion 

songs were illegally downloaded in 2008 worldwide and that 95 percent of online 

music downloads are completed illegally. 

In addition, the website Torrentfreak.com reported that more than 52.5 million 

copies of the top 10 most pirated movies on the Internet were illegally downloaded 

in 2008. Obviously this illegal traffic attributes to the congestion that some 

broadband consumers experience when surfing the web and there is also a dollar 

value associated with transportation of this illegal traffic, which increases the operational cost to network operators, not to mention the lost revenue to the owners of 

that content. 

Question 12. Do you have concerns about the growing problem of piracy? How 

should the FCC balance its efforts ensure the openness and freedom of the Internet 

with our concerns that ISPs must be able to manage their networks in an appropriate way to maintain QoS and to protect against unlawful activities such as piracy 

and child pornography? 

Answer. Yes. It is my understanding that FCC network neutrality policy applies 

only to the transmission of lawful content. I support this approach. I also acknowledge this is a complex issue, and piracy is a growing problem. On the one hand, 

Internet Service Providers are in a unique position to limit online piracy. They control facilities over which infringement occurs. On the other hand, this is a task that 

is traditionally the province of courts and law enforcement. Finding a way to balance the openness and freedom of the Internet with the need for reasonable network 

management and adequate protection against unlawful activities is critically important. 

Universal Service Fund Contribution Factor 

Both the industry’s ABC proposal and the FCC’s current reform of the Universal 

Service Fund deal primarily with the distribution side of the program and don’t 

really address reforming the contribution mechanism of USF. However, the contribution factor has increased from 5.6 percent in 2000 to over 15 percent present 

day (Appendix A—figure 1), in part due to the shrinking contribution based that is 

assessed. To illustrate, the adjusted contribution base for the 4th Quarter of 2011 

is $14 billion compared to a contribution base of $17 billion for the 4th Quarter of 

2007 (Appendix A—figure 2). So if no changes are made to the contribution mechanism, the financial burden to consumers could continue to increase due to a continued decrease in interstate and international revenue. 

As the statute stipulates, companies must pay a percentage of their interstate and 

international telecommunication service revenues to the Universal Service Fund, 

intrastate revenues are excluded as well as information services such as broadband 

71 

5 Recommendation 8.10: The FCC should broaden the universal service contribution base. 

Internet access. A key recommendation within the National Broadband Plan is to 

broaden the USF contribution base.5

Question 13. Should the contribution base for USF be expanded to: (1) lessen the 

financial burden on consumers and (2) make such assessment more equitable but 

done so in a way that doesn’t expand the overall size of the fund? 

Answer. The FCC should be studying ways to lessen the financial burden of universal service on consumers. Similarly, the agency should be studying ways to make 

assessment more equitable, while constraining the fund from unnecessary growth. 

If confirmed, these concepts will inform my thinking about contribution methodology 

reform. 

Question 14. If you agree the contribution base should be expanded, what suggestions of reform do you have to meet the previous questions criteria? 

Answer. I believe the FCC should consider replacing the current system, funded 

by an assessment on interstate telecommunications services, with a connectionsbased system. I believe this would be a more stable system over time and also lessen the financial burden on consumers. However, the complexities of contribution 

methodology reform are significant. While this is my preference, further review may 

lead to a different result. If confirmed, I will study the record and the Communications Act and strive to support an outcome that is fair to consumers and also honors 

the essential principles of universal service that inform the law. 

Advanced Technology Deficit 

The United States has run an advanced technology deficit every month since June 

2002, meaning we consistently import more advanced technology than we export. 

For 2010, our advanced technology deficit totaled an astounding $80.8 billion. And 

one of the most significant technology gaps related to this deficit is with information 

and communications technologies (ICT)—for the month of August 2011 alone, we 

imported over $10.5 billion more in ICT products and services than we exported. 

This deficit weakens the Nation’s 21st Century high-tech job market, the long-term 

health of our economy, and our ability to remain competitive globally. 

A recent BusinessWeek article about the deficit pointed out that, as demand for 

innovative products continues to increase here domestically, the production benefits 

are primarily felt overseas. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 

that employment in Computer and Electronic Product sector is expected to decline 

19 percent over the 2008–18 period. 

Question 15. Given how important ICT is to our economy and society and the role 

the agency plays in regulating communications, what can the FCC due to help reverse this trend in such an important sector of our economy? Improving this deficit 

would mean more jobs not just in manufacturing but also research and development 

and engineering—the very high-tech jobs we need to be more competitive in this 

global economy. 

Answer. I believe that the long-term health of our economy, ability to remain competitive, and facilitate job and wage growth depends, in critical part, on innovation. 

As a result, the FCC should consider all of its policies in light of the importance 

of innovation. In addition, the agency should develop processes that facilitate smart 

and swift decision-making. This can, in turn, speed the deployment of new technologies and services. Finally, the FCC should engage in dialogue with other government authorities as well as business leaders, to make sure that government efforts, 

across the board, promote economic growth. 

72 

Appendix A.—Contribution Factor & Base Historical Charts 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JIM DEMINT TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question. If confirmed, would you support closing the FCC’s June 17, 2010, Notice 

of Inquiry (GN Docket No. 10–127), in which the Commission, among other questions, asks ‘‘for comment on the legal and practical consequences of classifying Internet connectivity service as a ‘‘telecommunications service’’ to which all the requirements of Title II of the Communications Act would apply’’? 

Answer. I do not believe all the requirements of Title II of the Communications 

Act should apply to all new services. Regulations designed for the era of basic telephony are not uniformly appropriate for the technologies and services of the digVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

1130RO6Q1.eps 1130RO6Q2.eps
73 

ital age. At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize that there are values in the Communications Act that endure, including the importance of public safety, universal service, competition, and consumer protection. 

Communications technology changes at a fast pace. This, on occasion, puts the 

FCC in the difficult position of identifying where services fit best in the existing regulatory framework. It is not an easy task, and is best approached with humility. 

If confirmed, my deliberations would be governed by the statute, available precedent, and a survey of the record. 

In light of this, I believe that the choice to close the docket should be considered 

in conjunction with the upcoming decision from the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Verizon v. FCC. I also recognize that the 

Congress ultimately has the authority to legislate in this area, and it is the duty 

of the FCC to faithfully implement any such legislation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

Question 1. Do you believe a bipartisan majority of Commissioners should be allowed to meet in private for collaborative discussions, subject to appropriate disclosure requirements and oversight and should a bipartisan majority of Commissioners 

be able to place an item on the Commission’s agenda? 

Answer. The Government in Sunshine Act requires Federal agencies headed by 

a body of two or more members to hold regular public meetings. Agencies are required to provide the public with advance notice that the meeting will take place. 

The agenda for this meeting must be made public at least 1 week before the meeting. In practice, this law also prohibits more than two of the five FCC Commissioners from deliberating with one another to conduct agency business outside of the 

context of the public meeting. 

Over the last decade, there have been calls for reform of the Government in Sunshine Act, specifically as it applies to the FCC. On the one hand, reform would facilitate discussions among Commissioners. This could expedite the agency decisionmaking process. On the other hand, this would reduce transparency, as it diminishes incentives for open dialogue at regular public meetings. 

While I could support such reform, I believe the conditions you note are essential, 

namely that any meeting is bipartisan and that there are appropriate disclosure requirements. In addition, because the Government in Sunshine Act applies to many 

Federal agencies, I believe it would be prudent to study its operation in other contexts, before determining what changes, if any, are required at the FCC. 

Finally, I believe the idea of allowing a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to 

place an item on the Commission’s agenda merits further thought. Specifically, I believe additional study of how such a process works in other government agencies 

would be prudent before making this change at the FCC. 

Question 2. As you know, President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 on regulatory 

reform cannot compel independent agency compliance on important matters such as 

performing cost-benefit analyses. While Chairman Genachowski may comply, it does 

not guaranty the FCC will follow the exact same methodology as required by Executive Branch agencies, nor does it bind the actions of future chairmen. Do you feel 

the use of cost-benefit analyses in the development of rulemakings is important 

enough that the Commission should adopt a rule requiring its use, at least with respect to major rulemakings? 

Answer. I support the objectives of Executive Order 13563. Cost-benefit analysis 

can be a useful tool for evaluating the relative merits of any particular policy. In 

many cases, balancing benefits with costs can help identify efficient outcomes and 

facilitate good public policy. 

At the same time, as analytical method, it may not always be fully compatible 

with the statutory direction in the Communications Act. It would be complex, for 

instance, to integrate cost-benefit analysis with the six principles governing universal service policy that are enumerated in the law. It would be similarly complex 

to use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate obligations under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which defines the duty of carriers to cooperate 

in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes. 

As a result, the utility of cost-benefit analysis must be considered in light of other 

objectives in the law. However, with this caveat, I believe it is a useful analytical 

tool that the agency may use in its decision-making process in major rulemakings. 

Question 3. When considering approval the transfer of control of licenses, which 

is what the Commission is really doing when it reviews a merger, the FCC often 

attaches conditions not relevant to the transaction, but which allow the FCC to purVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
74 

sue a policy goal without benefit of a public rulemaking. How would you approach 

the FCC’s consideration of such transfers of control? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would follow the statute. The Communications Act, in Sections 214 and 310, prohibits the transfers of licenses absent a finding by the FCC 

that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. This 

analysis traditionally involves weighing both the benefits and harms of a proposed 

transaction. Any conditions should be rationally related to the transaction. 

Question 4. In 1993, Congress voted to fund the FCC entirely through fees levied 

on regulated entities. Congress directed the FCC to adopt a funding mechanism that 

would adjust automatically to reflect changes in the agency’s workload, its staffing 

in particular bureaus, and economic shifts in regulated communications sectors. To 

my knowledge a requirement that the FCC provide annual updates on its efforts to 

develop a fair & adjustable fee system existed and I do not believe any such report 

has ever reached Congress. Would you add your voice to those of other commissioners and chairmen who earlier have pledged to finally bring the agency into compliance and rationalize the fee system? 

Answer. In 2008, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding regulatory fee reform. This led to a change in the bearer circuit methodology for calculating regulatory fees, the elimination of two regulatory fee categories, 

and the conversion of UHF and VHF stations from analog to digital television. By 

the end of this calendar year, the agency has committed to initiate another rulemaking to update the record on regulatory fee rebalancing, as well as expand this 

inquiry to include issues and services not covered by the 2008 proceeding. If confirmed, I would support this effort. I also would support any efforts to keep Congress fully informed of agency deliberations regarding these issues. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

AJIT PAI

Question 1. What are the guiding principles you will rely on if you have to consider whether the owner of a daily newspaper should be licensed to operate a television station or radio station in that same market? 

Answer. I believe that the Commission’s media ownership regulations should promote the core values of diversity, localism, and competition while taking account of 

the changing nature of the media and technological landscape. If I am fortunate 

enough to be confirmed, I would study closely the updated record to be compiled by 

the Commission in the current media ownership rulemaking proceeding prior to 

reaching any firm conclusions on these issues. 

Question 2. In some markets broadcasters are coordinating their activities 

through contractual and other arrangements to get around the FCC’s local television 

ownership rules. These arrangements include shared services agreements, local 

marketing agreements, and joint operating agreements. Such arrangements typically lead to layoffs of station staff, more consolidated local news gathering and programming, and reduced competition for audiences and advertisers. It also changes 

the leverage in retransmission agreements negotiated with cable and satellite providers. Do you believe that these types of contractual arrangements are intended to 

circumvent the FCC’s local television ownership rules? 

Answer. Before reaching a conclusion on this issue one way or the other, I would 

need to review an appropriately developed record. However, to the extent that any 

Commission licensee or regulatee engages in conduct that violates the Commission’s 

rules, I would support appropriate enforcement action against such a licensee or 

regulatee. 

Question 2a. Do you believe that these types of contractual arrangements require 

the FCC to define what an independently owned and operated television station is 

for purposes of its media ownership rules? 

Answer. Before reaching a conclusion on this issue, I would need to review the 

record compiled by the Commission in the current media ownership rulemaking proceeding. In particular, I would look at the impact that such contractual arrangements have on diversity, localism, and competition. 

Question 3. Unlicensed spectrum is an integral part of the Nation’s wireless network. It is estimated that by 2015 over half of all mobile traffic will be offloaded 

to Wi-Fi networks. Today, in Washington state, Wi-Fi mesh networks connected to 

fiber support economic development in places such Stevenson, located along the Columbia Gorge. The local economy is supported by visitors who come for the rugged 

beauty of the mountains and the recreational opportunities of the Columbia River 

but who want to stay connected. In addition, as more types of devices become InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
75 

net enabled, they too will need unlicensed spectrum to enable device-to-device communications and the development of new products and offerings. Do you support 

policies that that will make more unlicensed spectrum available? 

Answer. The innovation that has occurred in the context of unlicensed spectrum 

has provided great benefits to American consumers. As suggested in your question, 

Wi-Fi is perhaps the best example of ingenuity in this area. Were I fortunate to be 

confirmed, I would work with my colleagues at the Commission to find ways to promote technically and economically feasible innovation using unlicensed spectrum. 

Question 3a. As you know I have long supported use of the broadcast white spaces 

for unlicensed fixed wireless and personal portable devices. Obtaining additional 

spectrum for unlicensed so-called super Wi-Fi is key to providing new and innovative broadband offerings in addition to more cost effectively providing broadband in 

rural areas. There is work that needs to be done at the FCC to make these exciting 

new devices and services commercially possible. Progress seems to move in fits and 

starts. Do you support policies, like the FCC’s ‘‘White Spaces’’ orders, that make 

spectrum available for unlicensed use below 1 gigahertz band? 

Answer. Were I fortunate to be confirmed, I would work with my colleagues at 

the Commission to find ways to promote technically and economically feasible innovation using unlicensed spectrum. With respect to the ‘‘White Spaces’’ order specifically, I understand that there is a pending petition for reconsideration before the 

full Commission, as well as a judicial appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. If confirmed, I will review the record compiled in 

response to the petition for reconsideration and take appropriate action. 

Question 3b. Can I count on your support in getting the Commission’s bureaus 

to focus on completing its work on the white spaces in a timely manner? 

Answer. If I am confirmed, you would have my support in that endeavor. 

Question 4. Assume Chairman Rockefeller’s S. 911 becomes law. The D-block goes 

directly to public safety. There are going to be incentive auctions. The FCC is then 

going to repack the broadcast television channels into a narrower band. 

One of the challenges I see in repacking broadcasters operating in markets on our 

northern border is that coordination with Canada is required. I imagine it is similar 

on our southern border. There is a formal role for the State Department to play 

through treaty modifications. I believe FCC coordination with its Canadian counterpart will go a long way to ensure that channel repacking goes smoothly for television stations operating along the northern border. If confirmed, will you commit 

to working with your Canadian counterparts to ensure a smooth repacking of television stations after any incentive auction? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would commit to working with my Canadian counterparts 

to ensure a smooth repacking of television stations after any incentive auction. 

Question 5. A constituent contacted my state office and told my staff that after 

twice being informed by his Internet Service Provider that he had exceeded his 

monthly data cap, he was blacklisted from receiving broadband Internet service for 

a year. He said he was streaming video and audio. He also backed up two decades 

of high-resolution photographs and music files onto a cloud-based storage application. He is clearly what is known as a power user. 

Even so, my understanding is that the data cap is only somewhat linked to managing network congestion. At certain times of the day, excessive bandwidth use by 

an individual consumer may impact the quality of service experienced by other 

broadband users. At other times of the day though, it is not so clear. If large 

amounts of data is uploaded or downloaded to remote servers in the middle of the 

night, I have my doubts whether it will really interfere with the functioning of the 

network. 

More broadly, I am concerned that data caps are becoming the broadband industry norm—particularly for the 4–G wireless broadband services. If you work out the 

numbers between the download speeds and the data cap on many plans, consumers 

will not be able to take advantage of the 4–G features for very long. Do you believe 

that data caps are becoming more of a standard industry practice for all residential 

and wireless broadband providers? 

Answer. While it is my impression that data caps have become more prevalent, 

I have not had the opportunity to study recent FCC or other detailed analyses of 

industry practice with respect to data caps on residential and wireless broadband 

users. If confirmed, I will examine the record in current, relevant proceedings to ascertain whether the practice has become standard. 

Question 5a. Do you believe there is a strong linkage between data caps and managing network congestion? 

76 

Answer. While there is a link between data caps and managing network congestion, I would need to study industry policies more closely before reaching any firm 

conclusion as to the strength of that link. 

Question 5b. Do you believe there is a need for the Commission to look into the 

nature, purpose, and impact of data caps on consumers? 

Answer. The Commission should take note of any policies, including data caps, 

that impact consumers. 

Question 6. Our communications network is transitioning from circuit switched to 

Internet Protocol (IP) and the FCC has begun to discuss the possibility of sunsetting 

the public switched telephone network. As the network transitions, innovators are 

offering consumers new and interesting ways to communicate. For example, there 

are a variety of VoIP products including some that replace telephone services, supplement telephone service, or provide conveniences as click to call offerings. As IP 

services evolve, it remains important that policymakers refrain from regulating 

them too quickly and instead proceed with a light touch enabling these new IP 

based service to emerge and flourish. Do you support a light touch approach when 

addressing public policy issues concerning IP services? 

Answer. As a general matter, I support a light-touch regulatory approach in order 

to incentivize private investment and innovation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

AJIT PAI

Question 1. Digital Divide on Tribal Lands. The mission of the Federal Communications Commission is to make communications services available to all the people 

of the United States. However, the first people of the United States—Native Americans—face a significant digital divide on Tribal lands. 

Most people probably cannot imagine life without a telephone. Yet today more 

than 30 percent of households in Indian Country do not have access to basic telephone service. Broadband access is much worse with probably more than 90 percent 

lacking broadband. These statistics do not truly convey the hardships created by 

this lack of telecommunications service. Imagine not being able to call an ambulance 

when you or someone you love is in medical danger. Phones and broadband also 

help keep friends and family members in touch when they are far apart. Imagine 

not being able to speak with a loved one who is serving in the military and won’t 

be home this holiday season. 

Although Tribal lands are among the least connected, this is precisely where modern communications technologies can help the most. By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation, broadband can help improve economic development, 

education, and access to health care. 

I am pleased that the Commission is paying particular attention to this challenge. 

There is a new Office of Native Affairs and Policy to help work with Tribes on a 

government-to- government basis. The recent Universal Service order proposes a 

Tribal Mobility Fund to expand wireless access. It will also require engagement with 

Tribes. These are welcome steps in the right direction. So, I would like to ask that, 

if confirmed, will you seek to ensure that the Commission continues to work with 

Tribes and telecommunications carriers to tackle the digital divide facing so many 

Native American communities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners and agency staff 

to ensure that the Commission continues to work with tribes and telecommunications carriers on communications issues involving Native American communities. 

Question 2. Support for Telemedicine. New Mexico is a rural state where many 

rural communities are not only underserved when it comes to in communications, 

but also underserved in health services. We have some great folks at the University 

of New Mexico and in our hospital systems who are working hard to improve rural 

healthcare by using new innovative telehealth technologies. 

The Government Accountability Office has criticized the FCC’s management of the 

Rural Health Care Program. Some of the telemedicine proposals contained in the 

FCC’s National Broadband Plan also seem to be on hold at the moment. I realize 

that the FCC is engaged in substantive reform in areas such as universal service. 

But telehealth is another area that should be a priority. Can you assure me that, 

as Commissioners, you will support efforts to improve and increase telemedicine opportunities, especially for rural communities? 

Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners and agency staff 

to find ways to improve and increase telemedicine opportunities, especially for rural 

communities. 

77 

Question 3. Support for low-income people. The Commission recently published its 

proposals for reforming how universal service funds will support building out 

broadband networks in rural areas. 

But we know that having broadband available where you live is not the only aspect to tackling the digital divide. People need to see the value of having it. And 

they need to be able to afford to pay for it. 

The universal service Life Line and Link Up initiatives have helped many people 

with low incomes get basic telephone service. In rural Tribal areas, Enhanced Life 

Line and Link Up help not just with adoption rates but also service deployment to 

some high cost areas where many potential customers could not afford phone service. 

In addition to the Commission’s efforts, some cable and phone companies have 

committed to offering reduced price broadband options for certain low income families. Could you share your thoughts on how the Commission can use universal service initiatives, and also work with private companies, to increase broadband adoption, particularly among people with low incomes? 

Answer. I believe that it is important for the Commission to continue its efforts 

to update the Universal Service Fund (USF) to meet the needs of the 21st century. 

In particular, USF reform should focus on ways to promote the greater deployment 

and adoption of broadband, including through the Lifeline and Link Up programs. 

This can have a particular impact on people with low incomes, whose adoption rates 

are relatively low. While I have not yet had the chance to review in detail the Commission’s recent 751-page order reforming the USF, I understand that it has taken 

some steps to reform the program in this direction. I also understand that the Commission is currently looking at ways to reform the Lifeline program. If confirmed, 

I would work with my fellow Commissioners and agency staff on ways to ensure 

that the USF addresses this important issue. 

Question 4. Importance of broadcast TV and Radio. Today, there is a lot of excitement about mobile broadband, which puts the power of the Internet into the palm 

of your hand. I am amazed by what new smartphones and tablets like the iPad can 

do. 

Yet, with all the excitement about new mobile technologies, it is easy to forget 

that broadcast TV and radio are truly the first ‘‘wireless’’ technologies. They continue to play a valuable role today. Not everyone can afford cable or satellite TV. 

Not everyone has access to the Internet at home. 

Free broadcast TV and radio are especially important in times of emergency. For 

example, this year when northern New Mexico faced severe winter storms and summer forest fires, people turned to their local broadcasters for the latest weather and 

safety information. Outside of emergencies, local businesses also appreciate how advertising on local broadcast stations can help them reach customers in their communities. Can you share your views on the value of over-the-air broadcasting and the 

importance of its role in an evolving telecommunications landscape? 

Answer. I believe that over-the-air broadcasting has provided valuable benefits to 

the American people. From educational television programming to emergency-related radio broadcasts, over-the-air services have improved our quality of life. If confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners and agency staff to ensure that 

over-the-air broadcasting continues to be a positive presence in the communications 

landscape. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

AJIT PAI

Question 1. Interoperability issues have become more important over the last few 

years. I am concerned about interoperability problems that seem to limit the ability 

of smaller players, in particular, to be competitive. This problem appears to be particularly acute for smaller companies and markets. This concerns me for several reasons. First, if future auction participants do not know they will be able to acquire 

devices, then they are less likely to bid on spectrum licenses. Second, the proliferation of band classes means that device chipsets have to cover more band classes in 

order for a device to be able to traverse an entire band. Third, I worry that a lack 

of predictability regarding interoperability may have led some companies to withhold investments which would benefit the economy and potentially foster more innovation. Can you provide me with an explanation of your views on interoperability 

requirements? 

Answer. I believe that consumers benefit from interoperability and that interoperability requirements can bolster the competitive standing of smaller providers. On 

the other hand, it has been argued that such requirements may impose technoVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
78 

logical challenges on manufacturers and carriers as well as costs that may be passed 

along to consumers. If confirmed, I will carefully study the record before the Commission before making any decision in this area. 

Question 1a. Issues in the 700 MHz band plan have been raised in this committee 

over the past year. Should the FCC take a serious look at this issue? If not, why 

not? If so, what do you think the FCC could do to make sure the benefits of interoperability are fully realized? 

Answer. Earlier this year, the FCC convened a workshop to explore commercial 

and technological issues related to 700 MHz interoperability. I believe that the FCC 

should continue to study such issues carefully, and if confirmed, any conclusion I 

reach regarding interoperability requirements in the 700 MHz band will be based 

on my own thorough review of the Commission record. 

Question 2. With regard to the Commission’s ongoing USF reform efforts, do you 

believe the Commission is doing all it should to promote access and availability of 

broadband, particularly wireless broadband, to our Nation’s non-urban areas? If not, 

what else should the Commission do? 

Answer. While I have not yet had the chance to review in detail the Commission’s 

recent 751-page order reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF), I am pleased 

that the Commission is focused on modernizing the USF to prioritize the deployment of broadband. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues on adapting the 

USF to serve the communications needs of the 21st Century. Apart from reforming 

the USF, I believe that the Commission must work to create a regulatory environment that encourages the private sector to innovate and to invest in communications infrastructure for rural America. Finally, when auctioning spectrum, build-out 

requirements can play an important role in ensuring that service is provided to nonurban areas. 

Question 3. As carriers continue to migrate to IP networks, the direct interconnection of voice networks remains vital to ensure competition, innovation, and lower 

prices. The FCC, in its recent USF order, stated that the duty to negotiate interconnection agreements in good faith ‘‘does not depend upon the network technology 

underlying the interconnection, whether TDM, IP, or otherwise.’’ What is your view 

of duty to interconnect under the 1996 Telecom Act? Would you agree that the Act 

is ‘‘technologically neutral’’ regarding interconnection? 

Answer. Section 251 of the Communications Act specifies, among other things, 

that telecommunications carriers have ‘‘the duty to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers.’’ When 

discussing interconnection, this provision neither mentions any particular technology that may be used by a telecommunications carrier nor distinguishes between 

telecommunications carriers using different technologies. 

Question 4. Media cross-ownership rules have generated great interest over the 

past several years. Can you share your views on the current newspaper/broadcast 

station cross-ownership rule? Do you think it should be relaxed? 

Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would study closely the updated record to be compiled by the Commission in the current media ownership 

rulemaking proceeding prior to reaching a firm conclusion on this issue. I believe 

that the Commission’s media ownership regulations should promote the core values 

of diversity, localism, and competition while taking account of the changing nature 

of the media and technological landscape. These are the principles that will guide 

my assessment of any proposal to change the newspaper/broadcast station crossownership rule. 

Question 5. In the last two FCC Mobile Competition Reports, the Commission was 

unable to certify the industry as competitive. What steps would you recommend taking to enhance competition within the mobile industry? 

Answer. The FCC should create a regulatory environment that both enhances 

competition within the mobile industry and encourages investment. Right now, the 

most important steps that the Commission could take to enhance competition and 

encourage investment in the wireless industry are to allocate additional spectrum 

for mobile broadband and provide regulatory certainty. 

Question 6. The President set an aggressive goal of releasing an additional 500 

MHz of spectrum over the next 10 years. In the past year, Federal efforts to make 

more spectrum available have been mixed at best. NTIA released a preliminary report in January 2011 which identified 115 MHz of spectrum, but only 15 MHz would 

not need to be shared with Federal users. An updated report is expected to be released any day now. What do you think needs to happen, particularly over the next 

2–3 years, to help us achieve this goal? 

79 

Answer. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration recently prioritized the evaluation of various bands of spectrum (encompassing 1,500 

MHz of spectrum in total) to see whether they could be made available for mobile 

broadband. The Federal Government must quickly assess all of these bands in a coordinated fashion and identify those that can be most easily and effectively 

repurposed for mobile broadband. Once a band has been prioritized in this fashion, 

the FCC must work to complete necessary allocation and service rulemakings in an 

expeditious manner and then rapidly take steps to place that spectrum in use, for 

example through auctions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

AJIT PAI

Question 1. Even with the current FCC focus on rural broadband deployment to 

the remote regions of Alaska most of Alaska’s rural communities still depend on free 

local over the air Television and Radio to receive emergency information and critical 

news programming. Early in November a Bering Sea Superstorm of hurricane proportions wreaked havoc on the western part of the state jeopardizing villages and 

lives with historic weather conditions. Local broadcasters effectively kept everyone 

in the storm’s path aware of the latest conditions. Can you tell us the role that 

broadcasters will play in 21st century telecommunications policy? 

Answer. I believe that broadcasting has a vital role to play in 21st century telecommunications policy. As indicated in your question, when emergencies occur, 

Americans often rely on broadcasters to provide them with critical news and information. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United States continues to benefit from a vibrant broadcasting industry and that broadcasters continue to provide 

important services to their communities. 

Question 2. Many Senators have spoken about how rural markets aren’t like other 

markets, and I would add Alaskan rural markets aren’t like lower 48 rural markets—in many cases, they aren’t effective markets at all. What are your thoughts 

on how we give providers incentives to build and operate in places where investment is hard to come by? Is the ‘‘carrier of last resort’’ concept important in those 

places, in your view? 

Answer. In order to give providers incentives to build and operate in rural markets, the Commission must continue to reform the Universal Service Fund to 

prioritize effective broadband deployment in rural America. We must also create a 

regulatory environment that encourages the private sector to invest in communications infrastructure for rural America. Finally, build-out requirements can be an important mechanism for ensuring that carriers provide service to those in rural areas. 

Carrier of last resort obligations require a carrier to provide service to any customer 

who requests it in a given geographical area and thus can be important in ensuring 

that all consumers in that area have access to communications services. 

Question 3. Another important issue to rural consumers in interoperability. I 

wrote a letter with Chairman Rockefeller, and Senator Wicker urging Chairman 

Genachowski to being a proceeding to ensure consumers have access to mobile devises operating on the next generation networks that use 700 MHz spectrum. Interoperability between networks in important, not only to public safety, but to consumers who have rural wireless providers and travel between various commercial 

networks and should be able to utilize these networks. If confirmed, how will you 

address this important issue? 

Answer. Earlier this year, the FCC convened a workshop to explore commercial 

and technological issues related to 700 MHz interoperability. The FCC should continue to study such issues carefully, and if confirmed, any conclusion I reach regarding interoperability requirements in the 700 MHz band will be based on my own 

thorough review of the Commission record. 

Question 4. The FCC is currently considering a proposal to reform the Lifeline 

program that would limit eligibility for the Lifeline program to one per residential 

address. The Lifeline program in Alaska has been extremely beneficial to many 

Alaskans. In fact, since the program came on board 17 years ago penetration among 

disadvantaged populations has increased dramatically. It is critical eligible low-income adults have access to Lifeline-supported phone services. This is important for 

the safety of many Alaskans, including those in rural Alaska who don’t always have 

a public safety officer in their village and are prone to extreme weather conditions 

and may need emergency services. I ask for your commitment to work with me to 

ensure benefits of this program continue to be available and serve disadvantaged 

populations. 

80 

Answer. I have appreciated the opportunity to learn from you during our private 

meeting and the public hearing about the impact that FCC policies can have on 

Alaskans, especially disadvantaged and rural residents. If confirmed, I commit to 

working with you to ensure that that the Lifeline program meets the goal of serving 

disadvantaged populations. 

Question 5. The process at the FCC is very complicated and I feel is not as transparent as it could be. I would like to see this process improved to be more transparent so companies and consumers do not have to live in limbo for weeks after a 

vote before an order is published. If nominated what would you do or recommend 

to help this process along? 

Answer. I agree that it is extremely important for the FCC to be transparent. 

Once a vote on an order is taken, I do not believe that the Commission should wait 

for weeks to release it publicly. If confirmed, I will work to shorten any delays in 

releasing Commission decisions. One step that would minimize delays would be for 

the language of an item to be finalized before the Commissioners cast their votes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

AJIT PAI

Broadband Expansion and Adoption 

It has been over a year and a half since the FCC released its National Broadband 

Plan, which was to be a blueprint to achieving affordable, high-speed broadband to 

all Americans. However, there has been criticism the agency has not acted quickly 

enough to implement the numerous recommendations outlined in it. While the Commission has issues several public notices related to recommendations and goals 

highlighted in the Plan, plan, some organizations have estimated only about 10–20 

percent of the recommendations in the Plan have actually been implemented/completed. 

This is somewhat concerning given how many Americans still lack broadband 

service. Thirty-five percent of American adults, or 80 million people, do not have 

high-speed Internet access in their homes. In addition, a 2008 Pew Internet & 

American Life Project survey found that approximately 62 percent of dial-up users 

said they weren’t interested in switching to broadband. That same survey also found 

that 33 percent of non-Internet users say they are not interested in using the Internet. So two digital divides (one with supply and one with demand) continue to linger 

while much of the National Broadband Plan goes unimplemented. 

Question 1. Do you believe the FCC has been as active as it needs to be in implementing the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan? 

Answer. I believe that the Commission deserves credit for implementing many of 

the recommendations set forth in the National Broadband Plan. Nevertheless, not 

all of the benchmarks for implementation of the National Broadband Plan have 

been met in a timely manner, so the Commission has much more work ahead of 

it. If confirmed, I look forward to working with my colleagues to make further 

progress in expanding broadband availability and adoption. 

Question 2. What outstanding recommendations in the Plan would you prioritize 

to help spur the expansion of broadband availability? 

Answer. I would prioritize implementation of the recommendation that 500 MHz 

of additional spectrum be made available for mobile broadband use by 2020. Wireless broadband will play an important role in expanding broadband availability, and 

there is a long way to go to meet the 500 MHz objective set forth in the National 

Broadband Plan. I also believe that we need to prioritize the improvement of data 

and transparency regarding spectrum allocation and utilization. This objective must 

be met in order to enhance spectrum policymaking by the Commission, other government agencies, and Congress. 

Question 3. What specific initiatives/proposals do you believe would be beneficial 

to achieving that goal of consumer awareness and education? 

Answer. In order to improve broadband adoption, it is obviously necessary for educational efforts to stress the numerous benefits that come with broadband access. 

It is also necessary, however, for such initiatives to address the concerns that many 

Americans have about going online. For example, some individuals fear that they 

will be victimized by financial crimes or privacy intrusions because of their online 

activities. Some parents are also concerned their children will be exposed online to 

those that wish to harm them. It is important for both the private sector and the 

government to provide Americans with the information that will allay their concerns 

and allow them to feel comfortable about adopting broadband. 

81 

1 IB Docket No. 95–91. 

2 47 U.S.C. 155. 

More Timely Decision Making 

While the FCC has a self-imposed shot clock of 180 days for merger reviews, it 

rarely adheres to it. Many recent merger reviews by the Commission have surpassed the 180 day benchmark—the NBC-Universal Comcast merger review took 

234 days, the XM-Sirius merger review took 412 days, and the CenturyLink and 

Qwest merger review took 294 days. 

The agency also has a poor record in timely decisions on other matters before it. 

At one point, the FCC had a backlog of over 5,000 petitions and more than 4,000 

license applications pending. And technical proceedings at the FCC have been, what 

Mitch Lazrus, a well respected telecommunications lawyer, calls ‘‘dismally slow.’’ 

In a letter I sent to Chairman Genachowski back in January 2010, I highlighted 

several outstanding spectrum proceedings I urged the Commission to conclude to release more spectrum for wireless broadband. One of the concerns I had about the 

proceedings I mentioned was that all had been open for 3 years or longer, and another related proceeding 1 to WCS–SDARS had been pending for over a decade. 

I am concerned that this lack of action hinders innovation and causes significant 

uncertainty to small start-up companies that are critical to job creation. 

Question 4. What steps will you take with respect to regulatory reform so that 

the agency can be more nimble in the very dynamic telecommunications industry 

and not be a bottleneck to innovation and job creation due to inaction or delays on 

petitions and applications? 

Answer. I share your view that the FCC must make decisions in a timely manner 

and that the Commission’s record in this area can be improved. Among other things, 

delays in Commission decisionmaking can slow broadband deployment, stall innovation and investment, and impede job creation. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will work with my fellow Commissioners to try to address this problem. 

In particular, I believe that the Commission should consider flagging in a systematic 

manner those petitions and applications that have the greatest potential to lead to 

innovation, investment, and job creation and then place the greatest priority on deciding those petitions and applications. 

Question 5. What criteria will you use when reviewing future wireless mergers 

and petitions? Will you strongly push for more timely decisions on pending mergers 

given the dynamic nature of the industry? 

Answer. Yes, I will push for the Commission to make timely decisions in merger 

proceedings. I support the Commission’s 180-day shot clock and believe that it is 

important for the Commission to comply with it. 

As for the criteria I will use to review future wireless mergers and petitions, I 

will evaluate whether they are in the public interest by looking at the effect of any 

proposed transaction on competition, consumers, innovation, and investment. 

Question 6. As you know, section 5(c) of the Communications Act 2 authorizes the 

Commission to delegate most of its functions to ‘‘a panel of commissioners, an individual commissioner, an employee board, or an individual employee’’ to ensure proper functioning of the Commission as well as prompt and orderly conduct of its business.Do you believe the FCC has made effective use of this provision in the statute? 

Answer. Based upon my experience in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, I believe that the Commission does rely extensively and, for the most part, effectively 

on the ability to delegate power granted by Section 5(c) of the Communications Act. 

In fact, the bulk of Commission action is taken on delegated authority; the full Commission simply does not have sufficient resources to review and render judgment on 

the countless petitions, applications, and other items that require agency action. 

Thus, section 0.5(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that ‘‘Pursuant to section 5(c) 

of the Communications Act, the Commission has delegated authority to its staff to 

act on matters which are minor or routine or settled in nature and those in which 

immediate action may be necessary.’’ 47 C.F.R. § 0.5(c). The rules go on to grant the 

various Bureaus and Offices over which the full Commission has supervisory responsibility the power to perform a wide variety of functions. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.231, 

0.241, 0.251, 0.261, 0.271, 0.283, 0.291, 0.311, 0.314, 0.331, 0.351, 0.361,0.371, 

0.391, and 0.392. (The Commission’s rules also permit a party aggrieved by a decision made on delegated authority to seek review by the full Commission by filing 

an application for review. See 47 C.F.R. § 0.5(c).) The frequent exercise of delegated 

authority by the Commission’s Bureaus and Offices enables agency decision-making 

to be much more prompt and efficient than it otherwise would be. All this said, I 

am not aware of any recent cases in which the full Commission has delegated authority to a Commissioner or panel of Commissioners pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.218 

82 

3 47 U.S.C. 157. 

4http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislativelhistories/248.pdf (pg 2, second 

paragraph). 

(permitting individual Commissioner or Commissioners to be designated as presiding officers in hearing proceedings and to review initial decisions in hearing 

cases). 

Question 7. Another section 3 in the statute, Section 7, requires the FCC to act 

within 1 year on petitions or applications on new technologies or services. But it 

is my understanding the FCC has never implemented rules to administer this section so it has gone unutilized. What will you do to see that either the intent of Congress here is followed or the Commission requests a modification to the statute? 

Answer. I am not aware of any Commission rules specifically implementing Section 7 of the Communications Act. However, should a party file a petition or application relating to a ‘‘new technology or service’’ and invoke Section 7, or should the 

Commission initiate its own proceeding under Section 7, I will work with my fellow 

Commissioners and agency staff to ensure that the Commission meets the one-year 

statutory deadline. 

FCC Technical Expertise 

Engineers at the FCC play an essential role in regulatory matters by providing 

technical consultation on policy matters, managing spectrum allocations, and creating new opportunities for competitive technologies. However, as I highlighted in 

letters last year to the FCC Chairman and President Obama, over the past several 

decades there has been a significant depletion of engineer staff at the Commission. 

In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 270—an astonishing 63 percent reduction—even though the FCC now must face more technical 

issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, commercial cable 

and satellite industries, and broadband. A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO–10–79) found that the agency ‘‘faces challenges in 

ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing market place.’’ More 

recently, the National Research Council released a 2011 Wireless Report that suggested the FCC would benefit from ‘‘enhancing its technology assessment and engineering capabilities’’ due to ‘‘entering an era in which technical issues are likely to 

arise on a sustained basis.’’ 

If the agency doesn’t have both the legal and technical expertise, it could cause 

the FCC to implement poor policy and regulation because the agency doesn’t have 

the sufficient technical knowledge to understand the implications that proposed regulations have on emerging technologies. Even more concerning is the lack of technical resources hampers innovation and job creation due to excessive delays to businesses that have applied for technical waivers, experimental licenses, and filed petitions at the agency and there aren’t enough engineers to review this issues. 

Question 8. Do you share these concerns the technical community has about the 

lack of technical aptitude at the Commission and what specific commitments can 

you provide to helping resolve this glaring deficiency of technical resources that can 

hinder this Nation’s technical leadership and innovations in communications as well 

as hinder job creation of businesses that are waiting for approval of waivers or applications at the Commission? 

Answer. I believe that it is invaluable for the Commission’s decisions to be informed by technical experts, particularly where important technical matters are at 

issue. If confirmed, I therefore commit to informing both my fellow Commissioners 

and Congress if I ever conclude that the agency does not have enough staff with 

technical expertise to discharge its responsibilities in an effective and prompt manner and then to working with them on meaningful solutions to such a problem. 

Question 9. The FCC deals with a complex agenda of technical and nontechnical 

issues. How do you intend to staff your office to deal with such a mix? As you may 

know, prior to 1982, the statute required each Commissioner to appoint a legal assistant and an engineering assistant.4

Answer. Should I be fortunate to be confirmed, I would seek to hire staff capable 

of addressing all of the FCC’s complex agenda of technical and nontechnical issues. 

In particular, I would endeavor to have staff members that have different strengths 

and backgrounds so that my staff as a whole would be well versed on all aspects 

of the Commission’s work. As appropriate, I would also consult with technical experts in the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to aid my 

understanding of issues facing the Commission. 

83 

Wireless Device Performance 

The escalating demand for spectrum presents significant challenges. As more entities use spectrum to provide services to consumers and citizens, the ecosystem becomes more crowded and efforts among users to coexist become more difficult. As 

a result, disputes among licensees regarding potential harmful interference are occurring with greater frequency. Just in the past few years, interference disputes 

have arisen between various parties such as MVDDS/DBS, AWS–1/AWS–3, WCS/ 

SDARS, and, more recently, with LightSquared/GPS. 

One of the problems contributing to the recurrence of these interference disputes 

is the lack of clear receiver performance guidelines. Legislation that I have introduced with Senator Kerry promotes more spectral efficiency and interference immunity of device receivers and tasks the FCC and NTIA to conduct an interference 

sensing study to provide greater predictability in the determination of harmful interference. Taking these steps or similar ones will help mitigate, and even prevent, 

future interference disputes meaning a quicker time to market for new companies 

and lower probability of disruption of existing services. 

In a recent letter I sent to the FCC Chairman on spectrum policy I included a 

comment from Michael Gallagher, the former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, who once stated ‘‘receiver standards mean less interference 

and more available spectrum.’’ So if more spectrum is to be made available, receiver 

performance must be included in any general spectrum policy discussion and as part 

of the equation to prevent a spectrum shortage. 

Question 10. Do you believe the FCC should promote spectral efficiency and interference immunity of device receivers? How would you recommend the FCC do that? 

Answer. As a general matter, I believe that the FCC should take appropriate action to promote spectral efficiency and minimize interference. If I am fortunate to 

be confirmed, I would look forward to working with you and Senator Kerry to explore ways in which the Commission can meet these goals with respect to device 

receivers. 

Question 11. Do you believe the FCC and NTIA should more clearly define what 

‘‘harmful interference’’ constitutes? 

Answer. I believe that the FCC and NTIA should provide as much clarity as possible as to what constitutes harmful interference. Lack of guidance on this question 

creates regulatory uncertainty, which can inhibit innovation and investment, ultimately harming consumers. If I am fortunate to be confirmed, I would look forward 

to working with you and Senator Kerry to explore ways in which the concept of 

harmful interference can be more clearly defined. 

Piracy and Network Neutrality 

As you may know, I have been a long-time champion of network neutrality and 

providing fundamental protections to ensure that the inherent openness and freedom of the Internet remain intact so users can leverage the uninhibited power and 

benefit it has to offer. While I have serious reservations with the FCC’s Open Internet order and question their authority to implement such rules, in light of the last 

year’s D.C. Court Comcast decision, I have concerns with how such rules will impact 

network management and piracy. 

There has to be an appropriate level of flexibility for network operators to effectively manage their networks to ensure quality of service (QoS) to all customers as 

well as to combat the growing problem of piracy that plagues the Internet. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), 40 billion 

songs were illegally downloaded in 2008 worldwide and that 95 percent of online 

music downloads are completed illegally. 

In addition, the website Torrentfreak.com reported that more than 52.5 million 

copies of the top 10 most pirated movies on the Internet were illegally downloaded 

in 2008. Obviously this illegal traffic attributes to the congestion that some 

broadband consumers experience when surfing the web and there is also a dollar 

value associated with transportation of this illegal traffic, which increases the operational cost to network operators, not to mention the lost revenue to the owners of 

that content. 

Question 12. Do you have concerns about the growing problem of piracy? How 

should the FCC balance its efforts ensure the openness and freedom of the Internet 

with our concerns that ISPs must be able to manage their networks in an appropriate way to maintain QoS and to protect against unlawful activities such as piracy 

and child pornography? 

Answer. I am concerned about the problem of piracy. Broadband service providers 

must be able to take appropriate actions to prevent their networks from being used 

to facilitate unlawful activities. For example, I am pleased that the Commission has 

84 

5 Recommendation 8.10: The FCC should broaden the universal service contribution base. 

said that there should be no doubt that broadband providers may block transfers 

of child pornography. I also believe that broadband service providers must have the 

ability to manage their networks in an appropriate way in order to preserve the 

quality of service offered to their customers. From my perspective, network congestion can impede openness and freedom on the Internet since such congestion can 

hamper customers’ ability to access the content on the Internet that they wish to 

access. 

Universal Service Fund Contribution Factor 

Both the industry’s ABC proposal and the FCC’s current reform of the Universal 

Service Fund deal primarily with the distribution side of the program and don’t 

really address reforming the contribution mechanism of USF. However, the contribution factor has increased from 5.6 percent in 2000 to over 15 percent present 

day (Appendix A—figure 1), in part due to the shrinking contribution based that is 

assessed. To illustrate, the adjusted contribution base for the 4th Quarter of 2011 

is $14 billion compared to a contribution base of $17 billion for the 4th Quarter of 

2007 (Appendix A—figure 2). So if no changes are made to the contribution mechanism, the financial burden to consumers could continue to increase due to a continued decrease in interstate and international revenue. 

As the statute stipulates, companies must pay a percentage of their interstate and 

international telecommunication service revenues to the Universal Service 

Fund,intrastate revenues are excluded as well as information services such as 

broadband Internet access. A key recommendation within the National Broadband 

Plan is to broaden the USF contribution base.5

Question 13. Should the contribution base for USF be expanded to: (1) lessen the 

financial burden on consumers and (2) make such assessment more equitable but 

done so in a way that doesn’t expand the overall size of the fund? 

Answer. I believe that the contribution methodology for the Universal Service 

Fund needs to be reformed and that the Commission should tackle this issue next 

year. In particular, I am concerned about the growth of the contribution factor and 

am interested in exploring ways that we can reduce the financial burden on consumers while still advancing the important objective of universal service. 

Question 14. If you agree the contribution base should be expanded, what suggestions of reform do you have to meet the previous questions criteria? 

Answer. The Commission should develop a full record that addresses various proposals for reforming the USF’s contribution methodology. If confirmed, I will study 

that record closely before endorsing any specific reforms. 

Advanced Technology Deficit 

The United States has run an advanced technology deficit every month since June 

2002, meaning we consistently import more advanced technology than we export. 

For 2010, our advanced technology deficit totaled an astounding $80.8 billion. And 

one of the most significant technology gaps related to this deficit is with information 

and communications technologies (ICT)—for the month of August 2011 alone, we 

imported over $10.5 billion more in ICT products and services than we exported. 

This deficit weakens the Nation’s 21st Century high-tech job market, the long-term 

health of our economy, and our ability to remain competitive globally. 

A recent BusinessWeek article about the deficit pointed out that, as demand for 

innovative products continues to increase here domestically, the production benefits 

are primarily felt overseas. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 

that employment in Computer and Electronic Product sector is expected to decline 

19 percent over the 2008–18 period. 

Question 15. Given how important ICT is to our economy and society and the role 

the agency plays in regulating communications, what can the FCC due to help reverse this trend in such an important sector of our economy? Improving this deficit 

would mean more jobs not just in manufacturing but also research and development 

and engineering—the very high-tech jobs we need to be more competitive in this 

global economy. 

Answer. I agree that ICT is vitally important to our economy. The largest part 

of our trade deficit in ICT is with China, and generally stems from broader economic 

and trade issues that the FCC does not have the ability to solve alone. The FCC, 

however, should promote innovation, investment, and job creation in our Nation’s 

communications industry, and one of the most crucial things the FCC can do to promote these goals is to eliminate unnecessary regulation wherever possible. Such regVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
85 

ulation can inhibit investment and job creation, and lead innovators to seek more 

hospitable environments abroad. 

APPENDIX A.—CONTRIBUTION FACTOR & BASE HISTORICAL CHARTS

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JIM DEMINT TO

AJIT PAI

Question. If confirmed, would you support closing the FCC’s June 17, 2010, Notice 

of Inquiry (GN Docket No. 10–127), in which the Commission, among other questions, asks ‘‘for comment on the legal and practical consequences of classifying InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:23 Jul 17, 2012 Jkt 075046 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75046.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

1130PA5Q1.eps 1130PA5Q2.eps
86 

net connectivity service as a ‘‘telecommunications service’’ to which all the requirements of Title II of the Communications Act would apply’’? 

Answer. If I am fortunate to be confirmed, I would support closing the FCC’s June 

17, 2010 Notice of Inquiry (GN Docket No. 10–127). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

AJIT PAI

Question 1. Do you believe a bipartisan majority of Commissioners should be allowed to meet in private for collaborative discussions, subject to appropriate disclosure requirements and oversight and should a bipartisan majority of Commissioners 

be able to place an item on the Commission’s agenda? 

Answer. I believe that allowing a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to discuss 

agency-related matters in private, subject to appropriate disclosure requirements 

and oversight, would improve Commission decisionmaking and could be implemented without compromising principles of transparency and accountability. Many 

have suggested that current law has the unintended effect of impeding collaboration 

and collegiality among Commissioners, and I sympathize with that view. If confirmed, I would pledge to review Commission-level administrative policies and procedures in order to ascertain whether it would be useful to permit a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to place an item on the Commission’s agenda. 

Question 2. As you know, President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 on regulatory 

reform cannot compel independent agency compliance on important matters such as 

performing cost-benefit analyses. While Chairman Genachowski may comply, it does 

not guaranty the FCC will follow the exact same methodology as required by Executive Branch agencies, nor does it bind the actions of future chairmen. Do you feel 

the use of cost-benefit analyses in the development of rulemakings is important 

enough that the Commission should adopt a rule requiring its use, at least with respect to major rulemakings? 

Answer. I agree with the principle set forth in Section 1 of Executive Order 13563 

that the benefits of a regulation should justify its costs. I also believe that the Commission must have a clear understanding of both the benefits and costs of any proposed regulation before deciding whether to adopt it, especially in major rulemaking 

proceedings. Indeed, one could argue that implicit in the ‘‘public interest’’ standard 

is the notion that the benefits of Commission action should outweigh its costs. My 

understanding is that Chairman Genachowski recently initiated a comprehensive 

regulatory review in response to Executive Order 13563, and if confirmed, I would 

support him in efforts to apply cost-benefit analysis to existing regulations. It is also 

my understanding that he has directed agency staff to comply with Executive Order 

13563 on a going-forward basis, and I support that decision as well. 

Question 3. When considering approval the transfer of control of licenses, which 

is what the Commission is really doing when it reviews a merger, the FCC often 

attaches conditions not relevant to the transaction, but which allow the FCC to pursue a policy goal without benefit of a public rulemaking. How would you approach 

the FCC’s consideration of such transfers of control? 

Answer. By statute, the Commission must consider whether the transfer of licenses serves ‘‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity.’’ I would approach the 

consideration of a license transfer by determining, after a thorough review of the 

record, whether this standard is met. I would approach the consideration of merger 

conditions in particular by asking two basic questions. First, has the agency identified with particularity a harm that would specifically result from consummation of 

the transaction? Second, is there a merger-specific condition that is narrowly tailored to address that harm? The Commission runs risks when it adopts conditions 

that do not directly remedy transaction-specific harms. For instance, the merger 

proceeding can become an unwieldy forum in which all types of issues not specifically related to the transaction are pressed before the agency. This not only decreases agency efficiency, but it also inhibits transparency because merger conditions are not subject to the same notice-and-comment requirements as industry-wide 

regulations are. Additionally, public confidence in the public interest standard diminishes to the extent that the public believes the agency is simply trying to 

achieve through piecemeal adjudication what it properly should do through a generally-applicable rulemaking. Thus, even if a non-merger-specific condition is a good 

idea as a policy matter, I believe that the appropriate context for considering that 

condition is in a rulemaking proceeding, rather than an adjudicatory proceeding applicable only to specific parties. 

87 

Question 4. In 1993, Congress voted to fund the FCC entirely through fees levied 

on regulated entities. Congress directed the FCC to adopt a funding mechanism that 

would adjust automatically to reflect changes in the agency’s workload, its staffing 

in particular bureaus, and economic shifts in regulated communications sectors. To 

my knowledge a requirement that the FCC provide annual updates on its efforts to 

develop a fair & adjustable fee system existed and I do not believe any such report 

has ever reached Congress. Would you add your voice to those of other commissioners and chairmen who earlier have pledged to finally bring the agency into compliance and rationalize the fee system? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would commit to working with Congress and my fellow 

Commissioners to make sure that the regulatory fee system is fair and to ensure 

that the Commission meets its statutory reporting obligations. 

Question 5. Does the fact that the FCC’s budget is a function of regulatory fees 

that it collects from the industry mean that the FCC has too big of an incentive 

to increase, or at least maintain, its regulatory authority? If the FCC imposed fewer 

regulations and regulated fewer entities, would that mean it would have to be a 

smaller agency? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would commit to reviewing the extent to which the current regulatory fee structure provides an incentive to increase regulatory burdens. 

Generally speaking, I believe the Commission’s regulatory fee structure should be 

fair and that the agency should be no larger or more active than is necessary to 

fulfill its obligations under the Communications Act. 

Æ