U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–924 2016

A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON FOUR 

COMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 12, 2016 

Serial No. 114–110 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 6 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan .... 93 

WITNESSES

Robert McDowell, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute 9 

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

Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge ........................................ 31 

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

Elizabeth Bowles, President & Chair of the Board, Aristotle, Inc. (on Behalf 

of Wireless Internet Service Providers Association) .......................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 119 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 2669 .................................................................................................................. 82 

H.R. 1301 .................................................................................................................. 86 

H.R. 2666 .................................................................................................................. 89 

Small Business Broadband Deployment Act ......................................................... 91 

Statement of the Amateur Radio Relay League, Inc. ........................................... 94 

Statement of the Community Associations Institute ............................................ 101 

Statement of the Federal Communications Commission ..................................... 113 

Statement of CTIA—The Wireless Association ..................................................... 116 

(1) 

A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON FOUR 

COMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Collins, 

Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, DeGette, 

Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for Communications and Technology; Leighton Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Andy Duberstein, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; 

Charlotte Savercool, Professional Staff, Communications and Technology; Gregory Watson, Legislative Clerk, Communications and 

Technology; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Minority 

Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; and Ryan 

Skukowski, Minority Policy Analyst. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I will call to order the subcommittee on Communications and Technology and welcome everyone here for our first 

hearing of 2016. 

I thank our distinguished panelists for being here to share your 

views on these bills with us today and I want to welcome my colleagues back as we get underway in what should be another very 

busy and hopefully productive year for the subcommittee on Communications and Technology. 

I would like to thank you all for the great work we have done 

not only last year but over the last few years that have produced 

bipartisan legislation that has become law. And, actually, as you 

look to—I think today’s the deadline for broadcasters to decide if 

they are going to participate in the auction. Another big auction 

could be underway, the first of its kind, that could produce more 

revenue for the taxpayers and more wireless broadband for people. 

2 

So pretty exciting times in which we live and we will be continuing to do oversight on the auction and the issues associated 

with it. We will continue to do oversight on FirstNet and those 

issues as we go forward and other issues that members have 

brought to our attention. 

So look forward to another big and productive year for our subcommittee and I thank the great participation that we get. 

Now onto today’s hearing. We will hear from a panel of distinguished witnesses on four bills, each designed to improve the legal 

and regulatory environment for consumers and small businesses. 

First, the subcommittee will consider H.R. 2669. This is the AntiSpoofing Act of 2015 introduced by Representatives Meng, Barton, 

and Lance. It is a reintroduction of legislation that came out of this 

subcommittee last Congress. H.R. 2669 would extend the provisions 

of the Truth in Caller ID Act to text messaging and VoIP services. 

This legislation passed the House unanimously last Congress. I expect it will enjoy a similar level of support in this Congress. 

Second, we will examine H.R. 1301. This is the Amateur Radio 

Parity Act of 2015. As a HAM radio operator and perhaps one of 

the only in Congress, I am acutely aware of the passion that amateur radio operators have for their service. Despite its widespread 

use and importance in times of emergency, some land-use restrictions in some areas have prioritized aesthetics over the rights of 

HAMs. H.R. 1301 seeks to ensure that amateur radio operators get 

a fair shake and protection from unnecessary bans on their equipment by instructing the FCC to adopt rules to this end. Now, I 

know some have said that this is opening the door to 40-foot towers 

in town home backyards. That is not the case. HAM equipment can 

be as small as over-the-air digital television antennae that are becoming popular with cord-cutters. Surely HAM radio operators’ 

communications deserve no less protection than access to prime 

time television. This is a common sense bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. 

Finally, we will consider two bills that concur with FCC’s own 

policy. H.R. 2666, Representative Kinzinger’s No Rate Regulation 

of Broadband Internet Access Act, seeks to codify the assurances 

of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler by prohibiting the FCC from using 

its new authority under the Open Internet Order to regulate rates 

charged for broadband. Simply put, this is what President Obama 

and Chairman Wheeler have stated publicly time and again, but 

put in statutory form. President Obama, in his now infamous 

YouTube directive to the FCC, directed the FCC to reclassify 

broadband under Title II ‘‘while forbearing from rate regulation.’’ 

In front of multiple congressional committees in both the House 

and the Senate, Chairman Wheeler has continually repeated what 

he stated succinctly in his statement when the FCC adopted the 

Open Internet Order, that ‘‘that means no rate regulation, no filing 

of tariffs and no network unbundling.’’ 

H.R. 2666 simply does what President Obama and Chairman 

Wheeler cannot—it binds future chairmen to live by the commitments that this administration has made as to how the sweeping 

authority the FCC granted itself is to be used. Some have been 

critical of this bill, seeking to change the language to preclude the 

use of tariff authority, an authority the FCC has already forborne 

3 

from using, while leaving the Commission and its enforcement bureau free to use enforcement authority to regulate rates. Rate regulation by after-the-fact second guessing is rate regulation nonetheless. We should ensure that the specter of rate regulation of 

broadband is off the table permanently. 

In addition to Mr. Kinzinger’s rate regulation bill, we will also 

examine a discussion draft of a bill that I am offering to make permanent the exception to the Commission’s enhanced transparency 

rule for small businesses. In the Open Internet Order, the Commission rightly recognized that the work required by the enhanced 

transparency rule would be an undue burden on small businesses 

and it provided a temporary exception from the rule. Just last 

month, the FCC extended that exception through the end of 2016. 

While I am sure that small businesses are appreciative of the reprieve from the costs of compliance with this rule, the reprieve is 

not a pardon. Small businesses deserve the certainty of a permanent exception from this unnecessary burden. Additionally, this 

draft would also harmonize the FCC’s definition of a small ISP 

with the definition used by the U.S. Small Business Administration. It makes no sense to subject businesses to different definitions 

of small across different agencies and deference to the SBA definition ensures that the part of the federal government charged with 

small business issues reigns. 

These four bills will ensure that consumers and small businesses 

are protected from unnecessary burdens and misuse of the authorities granted in law and I look forward to advancing these bills to 

the House floor as soon as possible. I thank our witnesses for being 

here to discuss the diverse sets of bills and I look forward to their 

counsel. 

I ask unanimous consent now to enter into the record a letter 

from Mr. Chris Imlay, general counsel of the Amateur Radio Relay 

League, expressing support for the Amateur Radio Parity Act, as 

well as a letter from Mr. Thomas Skiba, CEO of the Community 

Association’s Institute suggesting changes to the legislation from 

the perspective of homeowners and community associations. Without objection. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I also want to thank both the ARRL and CAI for 

their comments on this legislation and we look forward to working 

with them and with the ranking member as we advance this important legislation. 

I would also like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter from FCC Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly expressing concern with the impact of the enhanced transparency rule on 

small businesses and questioning the veracity of the FCC’s Paperwork Reduction Act analysis. Without objection. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Today the subcommittee will hear from a panel of distinguished witnesses on four 

bills, each designed to improve the legal and regulatory environment for consumers 

and small businesses. First, the subcommittee will consider H.R. 2669, the AntiSpoofing Act of 2015. This legislation, introduced by Reps. Meng, Barton, and Lance, 

4 

is a reintroduction of legislation that came out of this subcommittee last Congress. 

H.R. 2669 would extend the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to text messaging and VoIP services. This legislation passed the House unanimously last Congress and I expect it will enjoy similar support this Congress. 

Second, we will examine H.R. 1301, the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015. As a 

HAM radio operator, I am acutely aware of the passion that amateur radio operators have for their service. Despite its widespread use and importance in times of 

emergency, land-use restrictions in some areas have prioritized aesthetics over the 

rights of HAMs. H.R. 1301 seeks to ensure that HAMs get a fair shake and protection from unnecessary bans on their equipment by instructing the FCC to adopt 

rules to this end. Now, I know some have said that this is opening the door to 40- 

foot towers in townhome backyards. Hogwash. HAM equipment can be as small as 

the over-the-air digital television antennae that are becoming popular with cord-cutters. Surely HAM radio operators’ communications deserve no less protection than 

access to primetime television. This is a common sense bill and I urge my colleagues 

to support it. 

Finally, we will consider two bills that put me in a position I have not been in 

all that often in the last year: agreement with the FCC. 

H.R. 2666, Representative Kinzinger’s No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet 

Access Act seeks to codify the assurances of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler by prohibiting the FCC from using its new authority under the Open Internet order to regulate the rates charged for broadband. Simply put, this is what President Obama and 

Chairman Wheeler have stated, time and again, in statutory form. President 

Obama, in his now infamous YouTube directive to the FCC, directed the FCC to reclassify broadband under title II ‘‘while forbearing from rate regulation[.]’’ In front 

of multiple Congressional committees, in both the House and the Senate, Chairman 

Wheeler has continually repeated what he stated succinctly in his statement when 

the FCC adopted the Open Internet order: ‘‘That means no rate regulation, no filing 

of tariffs, and no network unbundling.’’ 

H.R. 2666 simply does what President Obama and Chairman Wheeler cannot— 

it binds future chairmen to live by the commitments this administration has made 

as to how the sweeping authority the FCC granted itself is to be used. Some have 

been critical of this bill, seeking to change the language to preclude the use of tariff 

authority—an authority the FCC has already forborne from using—while leaving 

the Commission and its enforcement bureau free to use enforcement authority to 

regulate rates. Rate regulation by after-the-fact second guessing is rate regulation 

none-the-less. We should ensure that the specter of rate regulation of broadband is 

off the table, permanently. 

In addition to Mr. Kinzinger’s rate regulation bill, we will also examine a discussion draft of a bill that I am offering to make permanent the exception to the commission’s ‘‘enhanced transparency rule’’ for small businesses. In the Open Internet 

order, the commission rightly recognized that the work required by the enhanced 

transparency rule would be an undue burden on small businesses and provided a 

temporary exception from the rule. Just last month, the FCC extended that exception through the end of 2016. 

While I am sure that small businesses are appreciative of the reprieve from the 

costs of compliance with this rule, the reprieve is not a pardon. Small businesses 

deserve the certainty of a permanent exception from this unnecessary burden. Additionally, this draft would also harmonize the FCC’s definition of small ISP with the 

definition used by the U.S. Small Business Administration. It makes no sense to 

subject businesses to different definitions of ‘‘small’’ across different agencies and 

deference to the SBA definition ensures that the part of the federal government 

changed with small business issues reigns. 

These four bills will ensure that consumers and small businesses are protected 

from unnecessary burdens and misuse of the authorities granted in law and I look 

forward to advancing this bills to the House floor as soon as possible. I thank the 

witnesses for being here to discuss this diverse set of bills and look forward to their 

counsel. 

Mr. WALDEN. I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the 

committee’s indulgence and I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for opening comments. 

5 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy New Year to 

everyone and thank you to the witnesses. 

It is wonderful to see you, and I want to associate myself with 

what the chairman said about looking forward to this year. 

We have a lot on our plate. There are exciting things that are 

taking place and I think that the full engagement of this subcommittee not only in oversight but legislative ideas that come up 

that we will make optimum use of this year. 

It is always said that in the presidential election year nothing 

happens but I don’t think that that tagline is going to apply to our 

subcommittee. 

So I too look forward to working with you and with all of the 

members on both sides of the aisle to uphold the work that the 

committee does. 

So today is our first subcommittee meeting of the year and we 

have some important bills in front of us. I think it is a mixture of 

good and perhaps not so good bills. But I think that with the key 

witnesses that we have here today I will raise my questions with 

them. 

First up is H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband 

Internet Access Act. I agree, Mr. Chairman, about no rate regulation. So you can put my name down next to the president, to the 

FCC chairman and Anna Eshoo. 

I am not for the FCC regulating the monthly recurring rate that 

consumers pay for broadband Internet access service. Now, consistent with this view, last year, as we all know, Chairman Wheeler adopted what some of us call a modern light touch approach that 

foregoes the unnecessary provisions of Title II such as rate regulation, tariffing and cost accounting rules. 

At the same time, the commission has an important role to 

play—and this is what I want to highlight on this issue—in consumer protection, which includes the billing practices of the nation’s broadband providers. 

You will recall that I raised the issue over and over again of 

below-the-line fees and I think that in our discussions with the witnesses it is something that we really should kind of pull apart and 

examine to make sure that there aren’t any unintended consequences of the legislation for consumers. 

I think it is an area that we can come to an agreement on because it includes discriminatory data caps or some future practice 

that we don’t even foresee right now. So I think it is an area that 

we need to take a good look at. 

Secondly, the subcommittee is considering the Small Business 

Broadband Deployment Act. Now, this is proposed so that small 

businesses will not be burdened—small broadband providers—and 

I think that that is very important. 

The bill exempts companies with hundreds of millions in annual 

revenue from complying with the enhanced transparency requirements included in the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. 

Now, this includes disclosure of promotional rates, fees, charges 

and data caps. But it would leave millions of consumers, particuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:51 May 31, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-110 CHRIS
6 

larly those in rural areas, with fewer protections than those in big 

cities. 

I think that we can reach some common ground on this and I 

want to work with everyone on this. But I don’t think that rural 

areas that are particularly hard hit—when you see the report that 

came out of the FCC, rural areas are really lagging behind in our 

country with broadband. 

Third, while I have been a long-time supporter of amateur radio 

operators including you, Mr. Chairman, and the services that they 

provide—and I have a lot in my district—I do have some concerns 

with the Amateur Radio Parity Act. 

As written, the legislation could violate the rights of homeowners 

associations and that is who I have heard from. So I think, again, 

we have got to take a look at this and make sure that we can blend 

the underlying purpose of this and not stick it to the homeowners 

associations—the HOAs in the country—by overruling covenants 

and easements that are conveyed with the purchase of a property 

from one seller to another. 

And I am proud to be a co-sponsor of Congresswoman Grace 

Meng’s legislation, the Anti-Spoofing Act. It is a bipartisan bill. It 

is a good bill. 

I think there are, what, nearly 20 members of the subcommittee 

that are co-sponsors of it and it deserves to move forward the way 

it did before. 

So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. 

Look forward to this year and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady for—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yield back though. Thank you for your patience. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Comments and we look forward to 

working together on these and other issues this year. 

We turn now to the vice chair of the full committee, the 

gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. Good morning. Welcome. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say 

welcome to our witnesses. We are pleased that you are here and 

I am appreciative of the four bills that we are going to discuss this 

morning. 

I want to touch on two of these. First, the Small Business 

Broadband Deployment Act, protecting the small ISPs who really 

don’t have the resources to comply with net neutrality’s enhanced 

disclosure requirements. 

This is important for us. The small ISPs and serving their footprint are many times the way we can increase that access to affordable broadband. So we are going to be anxious to talk about 

that and to get your insights on that. 

Secondly, H.R. 2666, which codifies Chairman Wheeler’s pledge 

that he made and President Obama’s pledge likewise, to not engage 

in rate regulation. 

7 

This is something that is important to us to do. I thought it was 

so interesting last March in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress. 

Chairman Wheeler said, ‘‘This is not regulating the Internet. 

Regulating the Internet is rate regulation, which we don’t do.’’ 

We want to make certain that he is good to that promise. Rate 

regulation is something that causes us tremendous concern. 

I appreciate Congressman Kinzinger bringing the legislation forward and look forward to a full discussion of that proposal with 

you all. 

And at this time, I yield the balance of the time to Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding and also 

thank the chairman for holding today’s hearing and I would also 

like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Greatly appreciate it. 

All four bills before us today are good legislative measures that 

will eliminate unnecessary government regulations and protect consumers. 

I would like to focus my time on the two bills that stem from the 

FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication 

service under Title II of the Communications Act. 

First, they resolved Title II; the FCC extended its authority to 

regulate rates charged for broadband. The threat of rate regulation 

would chill network investments and stifle innovation. 

H.R. 2666, of which I am a co-sponsor, would prohibit the commission from regulating rates and remove regulatory uncertainty 

for Internet service providers. 

Secondly, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act would 

help eliminate a burdensome regulation created by Title II by making permanent the temporary exemption for small ISPs from enhanced transparency requirements. 

Providers in my district have made it clear to me that this exemption is vital for their continued operation. I look forward to today’s hearing and I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back, and now we will turn 

to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking member, Ms. Eshoo, for holding this hearing, and let me also thank our 

witnesses for being here. 

I know you are not strangers to the subcommittee and I appreciate your willingness to come up to testify. 

I also appreciate the commitment that Chairman Walden is 

showing to regular order. Legislative hearings like this one we are 

holding today do not simply check a box. 

They help our members and the public better understand the potential effects of the bills before us. When the committee is given 

8 

opportunities to make reasonable and thoughtful decisions, we end 

up with better results. 

I am particularly interested in learning more today about the bill 

prohibiting the FCC from regulating rates for broadband Internet 

access. I agree with the sentiment driving this bill. 

The commission should not be setting rates for broadband access. 

In fact, we have heard from FCC Chairman Wheeler himself that 

he does not intend to set rates. 

Nonetheless, I have also heard concerns that as drafted this bill 

may result in significant unintended consequences. For instance, 

some believe that it could spur endless litigation, leading to uncertainty in the market and deterring investment. 

Worse, the bill could seriously curtail the FCC’s ability to protect 

consumers. Obviously, that result is not acceptable. Today’s hearing gives us the chance to learn more about these potential consequences and whether the bill can be better targeted to avoid 

these pitfalls. 

I would also look forward to hearing more about the other three 

bills on today’s agenda. Amateur radio, transparency into service 

provider practices and prevention of fraudulent caller ID are all important topics worthy of a fair hearing. 

But while today’s hearing marks a good start for the year, I hope 

that this is only the first legislative hearing we hold. 

I further hope that future hearings include ideas put forward by 

Democratic members such as Congressman Welch’s Digital Learning Equity Act, Congresswoman Matsui’s Spectrum Challenge 

Prize Act, Congressman Lujan’s FCC Transparency Act and even 

my own Viewer Protection Act, or SANDy Act. 

All of these bills address pressing issues the American people 

care about and they deserve the opportunity to be heard. 

So with that, I look forward to the rest of the discussion and I 

yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. 

Two of the bills on our agenda address the FCC’s net neutrality 

order. Like millions of Americans who made their voices heard last 

year, I support a free and open Internet. 

At the same time, I do not believe the FCC needs to get into the 

business of regulating consumer broadband rates. Chairman 

Wheeler has also stated many times that he is not interested in 

rate regulation either. 

What I am concerned about is the potential for paid prioritization 

schemes to create fast and slow lanes on the Internet and that is 

why I introduced a bill with Senator Leahy to instruct the FCC to 

write rules to ban paid prioritization, and I was pleased that the 

FCC included a ban on paid prioritization in the net neutrality 

rules. 

I am concerned that the two net neutrality bills we are considering today could undermine important consumer protections like 

the paid prioritization rule. 

I do look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about all four 

bills under consideration today. I thank the witnesses for being 

here today and I yield back to the ranking member to give time to 

anybody else, if he so feels. Thank you. 

9 

Mr. WALDEN. All time has been consumed and yielded back and 

we appreciate the comments of all of our members. 

We will now go to our witnesses and thank them for being here: 

the Honorable Robert McDowell, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP, and 

Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute—we thank you for being 

here; Mr. Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge— 

good to have you back before our committee as well; and Ms. Elizabeth Bowles, President and Chair of the board of Aristotle, Inc. on 

behalf of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. Ms. 

Bowles, we appreciate your being here to testify, too. 

So I think we will start with Mr. McDowell. We have always enjoyed having you before the committee and we are glad to have you 

back this time. 

So welcome to—as the first witness in the new year before our 

subcommittee. Don’t blow it, OK? 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MCDOWELL, 

PARTNER, WILEY REIN LLP, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE; HAROLD FELD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC 

KNOWLEDGE; ELIZABETH BOWLES, PRESIDENT & CHAIR OF 

THE BOARD, ARISTOTLE, INC. (ON BEHALF OF WIRELESS 

INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION) 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCDOWELL 

Mr. MCDOWELL. No pressure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

happy New Year to all distinguished members of the committee 

and Ranking Member Eshoo as well. It is an honor to be here again 

and to be your first witness of 2016. 

And by the way, although I am a partner at Wiley Rein and a 

senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, the opinions I express today 

are strictly my own. 

Congress has a terrific opportunity to pass the legislation before 

this subcommittee today on a bipartisan basis. 

Specifically, and in the observance of time, I will refer to just two 

bills and then we can talk about the other two bills later—one 

being the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act 

and the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. 

As has been pointed out, both President Obama and FCC Chairman Wheeler have expressed their opposition to rate regulation of 

broadband services. 

Although in 2014 the president called on the FCC to classify 

broadband services under Title II before it did so last year, he also 

asked that it forebear from rate regulation. 

Similarly, Chairman Wheeler stated last May that broadband 

providers should be, ‘‘free from any limiting rate regulation.’’ 

He also testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee 

that, ‘‘If Congress wants to come along and say that’s,’’ meaning 

rate regulation, ‘‘is off the table for the next commission, I have no 

difficulty with it.’’ 

These sentiments also echo the policies of the Clinton-Gore White 

House and the Clinton era FCC under then Chairman Bill 

Kennard. 

They, as well as the Federal Trade Commission on a unanimous 

bipartisan vote in 2007 and the Obama Department of Justice, 

10 

have all warned against regulating the rates of broadband networks. 

Why? Because they and scores of independent market analysts, 

entrepreneurs, economists and think tanks agree that rate regulation deters investment and constructive entrepreneurial risk taking, stifles innovation and would slow the evolution of a lightningfast Internet, and we appear to have a bipartisan consensus here 

today on rate regulation. 

In short, H.R. 2666 merely codifies what Democrats and Republicans have been seeking, essentially, for decades: a ban on rate 

regulation of Internet services. 

The bill could benefit, however, from clarifying at least two ambiguities. The first would be to make it clear that it prohibits all rate 

regulation including ex post, or after-the-fact, determinations that 

rates are unjust or unreasonable. As written, it applies only to ex 

ante, or before-the-fact, regulation. 

The second would be to clarify which rates it addresses. Currently, with the Open Internet Order the FCC attempted to give 

itself the authority to rate regulate all Internet access services including interconnection and peering. 

It is the bipartisan consensus, it appears, that these services 

should not be rate regulated. This bill simply offers to codify that 

bipartisan spirit and hold future FCCs to that promise through 

clear statutory language. 

Similarly, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act would 

codify on a permanent basis what the FCC has attempted to do on 

a temporary basis, which is to exempt small ISPs from the order’s 

transparency requirements. 

As the current regulatory regime now stands, the commission 

will review the exemption on an annual basis, leaving small business owners in a perpetual state of limbo. 

There is a lot more to discuss. I do support the other two bills 

and look forward to a robust in-depth discussion of amateur radio. 

In 7 years as an FCC commissioner, I think I spent maybe ten 

minutes on amateur radio. But I think five of them are renewing 

your license, Mr. Chairman. So—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I am glad you took a personal interest in it. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes. So I look forward to discussing it. Thank 

you again. 

[The prepared statement of Robert McDowell follows:] 

11 


99924.001
12 


99924.002
13 


99924.003
14 


99924.004
15 


99924.005
16 


99924.006
17 


99924.007
18 


99924.008
19 


99924.009
20 


99924.010
21 


99924.011
22 


99924.012
23 


99924.013
24 


99924.014
25 


99924.015
26 


99924.016
27 


99924.017
28 


99924.018
29 


99924.019
30 


99924.020
31 

Mr. WALDEN. At least I didn’t have to take the code test again. 

We will now go to Mr. Feld of Public Knowledge. Good to have 

you back before the committee, Mr. Feld. Please go ahead with 

your comments. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD FELD 

Mr. FELD. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, for inviting me here to testify. 

I am pleased to support H.R. 2669, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2016, 

and H.R. 1301, the Amateur Radio Parity Act. Both bills are carefully drafted and narrowly tailored to address clear and pressing 

problems. 

As a result, these bills may be seamlessly integrated into the 

Communications Act without unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the broadband bills under consideration. 

Let me start with H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of 

Broadband Internet Access Service Act. As everyone agrees, there 

is no evidence that the FCC plans to start regulating broadband 

prices. 

Supporters support the bill from the fear that a future FCC may 

someday change the policy. Unfortunately, the broad sweeping language of H.R. 2666 virtually guarantees a host of unintended consequences that are bad for consumers and bad for competition. 

The bill prohibits any FCC action under any law to ‘‘regulate the 

rates broadband providers charge for broadband access.’’ 

This would appear to prevent FCC enforcement action of laws 

against deceptive billing practices, deliberate overcharges or even 

outright fraud. 

Further, although the bill’s supporters claim it leaves the core 

protections of the FCC’s net neutrality rules alone, it is easy to 

argue that enforcing the rule against paid prioritization or prohibiting providers from favoring their own content and services either 

directly or indirectly regulates the rates charged for broadband 

Internet access service. 

Finally, the bill’s broad sweeping language will disrupt the FCC’s 

ongoing efforts to reform the Universal Service Fund. The proposed 

bill’s broad sweeping language would force the FCC to halt and 

perhaps discontinue the already complicated process of making 

broadband in rural America affordable, as affordable, of course, is 

a price regulation. 

Similarly, the proposed Small Business Broadband Deployment 

Act raises the spectre of significant unintended consequences. 

Consider the impact on the millions of residential and small business subscribers the bill strips of the protections of transparency. 

This puts every family-owned business at risk from fly-by-night 

providers that the proposed legislation will render unaccountable 

for incomplete and dishonest disclosure. 

The proposed Small Business Broadband Deployment bill will 

create an incentive for small business broadband subscribers to select national providers over local small providers so that their businesses can enjoy the full protection of the transparency rule. 

It would be ironic if, in the haste to protect small broadband providers from possible paperwork, the proposed bill accidentally 

32 

drives away the very small business customers these small providers need to survive. 

Finally, the bill expands the size of the current FCC exemption 

to providers with up to 1,500 employees or 500,000 subscribers. 

These providers, which most of us would consider mid-size providers rather than small providers, are already subject to the 

FCC’s transparency rules. Nothing since the rules went into effect 

shows that these larger firms need relief. 

Nevertheless, the bill strips millions of consumers and small 

business subscribers of valuable protections they currently enjoy. 

Bluntly, before Congress strips millions of people of important 

protections against fraud and abuse, it should have clear evidence 

of a real need and should narrowly tailor the language to address 

that need. 

At the very least, making the small business exemption through 

the commission’s enhanced transparency rules is premature. The 

FCC has not yet finished its paperwork reduction analysis or 

adopted a final rule. 

At a minimum, Congress should wait for the FCC to assess the 

burden estimates submitted by stakeholders and see whether the 

FCC adopts stakeholder suggestions such as those made by the 

ACA to minimize the estimated burden. 

Let me conclude with this analogy. We have all experienced the 

frustration of downloading an update to our phone or laptop and 

discovering that a poorly written line of code has created a new security breach or caused key applications to crash. 

The same unfortunate leak can happen with the Communications 

Act. Rushing to pass bills with broad sweeping language to address 

vaguely defined hypothetical problems will create bugs in our legal 

code that bad actors can exploit and will crash FCC efforts to bring 

affordable broadband to all Americans. 

Congress should not release this legal software update until it 

has been thoroughly debugged and checked for compatibility with 

the existing operating system. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any further questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Harold Feld follows:] 

33 


99924.021
34 


99924.022
35 


99924.023
36 


99924.024
37 


99924.025
38 


99924.026
39 


99924.027
40 


99924.028
41 


99924.029
42 


99924.030
43 


99924.031
44 


99924.032
45 


99924.033
46 


99924.034
47 


99924.035
48 


99924.036
49 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Feld. 

We will now go to Ms. Bowles. Thank you for being here. We look 

forward to your testimony as well. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH BOWLES 

Ms. BOWLES. Thank you for having me. 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am 

going to limit my remarks in the interest of time to the H.R. 2666 

and the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. 

WISPA represents the interests of more than 800 providers all 

over the United States and my company, Aristotle, provides 

broadband service to approximately 800 residential and business 

subscribers in central Arkansas including small underserved rural 

Arkansas communities such as Sardis, Vilonia, and Shannon Hills. 

Our members use unlicensed spectrum primarily to provide 

broadband to underserved areas that are not cost effective for traditional wireline companies to serve and they operate in diverse 

communities like Scott, Arkansas, Stony Bridge, Ohio, and La 

Grande, Oregon, all of which are very small towns. Scott, for example, has 72 people. 

There are hundreds of other places where service from a WISP 

may be the only terrestrial means to access the Internet and the 

vast majority of our members have built their networks without 

the benefit of federal subsidies. 

Under any definition, nearly all of WISPA’s members including 

my company are small businesses. Some WISPs have only a handful of employees who do everything from climbing the towers to 

doing the accounting to customer service. 

According to the FCC, 17 broadband access providers serve 93 

percent of the population. The remaining 7 percent—21 million 

people—is served by the over 3,000 broadband Internet access providers that are considered small ISPs. 

As Congresswoman Eshoo said, what is going on in rural America is critical. We have to get broadband into rural America and the 

3,000 small ISPs are bringing that service to those people. 

WISPA believes in an open Internet and in the effectiveness of 

the 2010 ‘‘light touch’’ regulatory regime. My company has never 

throttled, never capped usage nor required anyone to pay to 

prioritize traffic. 

The FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II service was 

misguided and WISPA is concerned about the effects that the 2015 

order will have on small businesses. 

My company is already feeling the impact of the FCC’s rules. Because of the risks and costs imposed by the order, Aristotle has reassessed its plan to expand its service pending the clarification of 

the regulatory regime. 

Instead of expanding our network to cover a three-county area, 

we are now deploying in three smaller communities. We cannot justify a greater investment in light of regulatory uncertainty. 

Small businesses, those with providers of 100,000 or fewer, are 

temporarily exempt from the new enhanced disclosure requirements. But the uncertainty still exists. 

50 

The FCC’s decisions may have provided short-term relief but the 

agency failed on two occasions to make the exemption permanent 

despite an overwhelming record supporting that move. 

First of all, the FCC received not a single comment alleging that 

small ISPs were flaunting the 2010 disclosure rules or that those 

rules were insufficient to protect consumers. 

In fact, the records show that consumers, including rural consumers, will bear the cost burden as small businesses are forced to 

pass on additional regulatory compliance costs. 

The FCC failed to consider adequately the cost that will be imposed on consumers which in turn led to the flawed decision to impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime that penalizes small business. 

Second, the FCC failed to analyze properly the impact on small 

businesses required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. It estimated 

with no supporting facts that the burden on small business would 

be less than that on larger businesses. 

That conclusion failed to grasp that small ISPs do not have inhouse lawyers to review and understand the new disclosure rules, 

do not have the administrative staff to maintain the ongoing compliance or the means to measure packet loss. 

Every dollar a small business spends on unnecessary regulatory 

compliance is a dollar not being spent on new hires, network upgrades and expansion. 

Third, the record in the follow-on proceeding overwhelming supported a permanent exemption. Not a single one of the millions of 

consumers who wrote in to the FCC in the months before open 

Internet was adopted wrote to oppose a permanent exemption. 

The FCC has had two opportunities to get it right and we would 

not be here today if the FCC had followed the clear record. But 

they didn’t, and now small ISPs face the prospect of more FCC proceedings and continuing uncertainty. 

As I sit here today, WISPA members have been declined funding. 

One of our members in Oregon was told by his bank that he would 

not be funded because they were uncertain about the regulatory regime. 

Other WISPA members have changed their business plans, cut 

back or redirected investment funding and ordered a higher regulatory counsel. 

The reality is clear. Imposing excessive and unnecessary burdens 

on small ISPs has dampened the very investment that has made 

broadband service to rural America possible. 

And as for rate regulation in H.R. 2666, WISPA supports any 

legislation that would prevent the FCC from regulating the rates 

we charge our subscribers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Bowles follows:] 

51 


99924.037
52 


99924.038
53 


99924.039
54 


99924.040
55 


99924.041
56 


99924.042
57 


99924.043
58 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Bowles, thank you for your testimony, and to 

all of our witnesses, thank you. 

I would like to go back to you and start off the questioning. Having been a small business owner with my wife for 20 years in the 

broadcast business—we are out of it now for more than, well, quite 

a while—I know what it was like to deal with government regulations and all of this. 

Can you tell us what does it really mean to you if you had to 

comply with these new transparency rules? Fundamentally, what 

does that mean? 

What would you have to start monitoring and doing and reporting and the kind of staff levels that would take and what it takes 

away from expanding your service? 

Ms. BOWLES. Well, what it means specifically is we have to get 

our arms around what the regulations actually require us to do and 

I don’t have a grasp of that because my company has never been 

under Title II and I don’t know which of these provisions are locking and loading and which of them are not. 

So there has to be an analysis done over what applies and what 

doesn’t apply. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Ms. BOWLES. And there is a lot of conversation on the list from 

our members asking just those questions—what does this mean, 

what does it mean that I have to do a transparency statement, 

what does it mean that I need to be more open, what does it mean 

that I have to make my rates available? They don’t actually understand what the regulation is saying. 

So that is an expense. I need regulatory counsel to explain even 

what I am doing and then there is an ongoing regulatory compliance burden. 

And I didn’t have a chance to really get into it but in addition 

to that there is the threat of litigation because if there is a problem 

in the net neutrality statement or if there is a reason that a consumer feels that they are not being dealt with frankly, then there 

is a potential risk of litigation. So I need counsel to deal with that 

as well. 

One member got a quote from $40,000 is what it would cost 

them. That is the cost of deploying a tower. So I am looking at 

choosing between deploying a tower into a rural community or hiring regulatory counsel. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. McDowell, in a letter to the committee yesterday, Commissioners Pai and O’Rielly expressed their concerns with the process 

by which the FCC decided to extend the exemption, focusing primarily on the lack of a cost benefit analysis prior to adoption of the 

rules and the use of the Paperwork Reduction Act process as an excuse to delay a final decision. 

How could a thorough cost benefit analysis in this situation have 

benefited the final rules? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, it would glean facts and analyses that 

would help the commission render a final decision. So actually the 

commission sort of got the cart before the horse if it is going to 

adopt a rule and then do the analysis rather than doing the analysis and then decide whether or not to adopt the rule. 

59 

But it seems to be the intent of the commission to at least have 

a temporary exemption, and if it is going to be a temporary exemption why not make this a permanent exemption. 

So there appears to be enough evidence in the mind of the majority of the commission that there is an undue burden on these 

smaller companies such as WISPs and others so why not make that 

the permanent public policy. 

Mr. WALDEN. And by the way, the size of the exemption that we 

picked for the draft legislation or the proposal we are talking about 

here is actually the federal government’s definition of a small business. 

It is the SBA that comes up with this, size of provider. So if you 

are going to have a small business exemption then we ought to 

have one standard is the theory here and the government already 

sets that standard. 

Does this kind of—and I will get to the rate regulation issue and 

the issue of post facto rate regulation—does that, Mr. McDowell, 

limit innovation? 

I am concerned that companies will be unwilling to create new 

products or engage in new services if they are uncertain as to how 

they will be received by the agency after the fact. 

I am concerned that inquiries like the commission’s recent request to the wireless providers for information on sponsored data 

plans will create a mother-may-I environment for innovation. 

Is that a legitimate concern? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. It is. I mean, let us let history be our guide real 

quickly. Under the Carter administration airlines were deregulated—prior to that, trucking and railroads as well—from common 

carrier rate regulation. 

And what we found was the opposite of what all the critics of 

that said happens. So rates went down for consumers. 

Quality went up. Investment went up. Transit time shrunk. So 

in other words, the consumer experience got better at a lower cost 

with more investment. 

So that tells us a couple of things, and by the way, similar effect 

after the 1996 Telecom Act, which was partially deregulatory, and 

this has happened in Europe with railroads and telecoms and other 

contexts, too. 

That tells us that rate regulation, by the way, keeps rates artificially high and inhibits constructive risk taking and investment. 

And I kept on my desk at the FCC my grandmother’s black rotary dial phone from St. Angelo, Texas, to remind me of the innovation you get from Title II in general and rate regulation and that 

was the state of the art for decades—the black rotary dial phone. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. Indeed. All right. My time is expired. 

I thank our panelists again for your comments and your answers 

to our questions and I will turn to my friend from California, Ms. 

Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again to the 

witnesses for your fine testimony. 

I want to go to Ms. Bowles first. It is my understanding that 

there is a—you spoke of, essentially, time and cost of time and 

rural areas and the number of customers. 

60 

And I don’t know what is based in actual facts, though. It 

seemed as if we are afraid of some big boogeyman out there and 

we think that this might happen and therefore we need a law. 

And laws are a big deal. They are a big deal. So some have told 

me that these revisions are estimated to develop and draft and revise the disclosures would require an annual expenditure of 16 to 

24 hours. 

You are talking about having to hire suites of lawyers. I don’t 

know what other word to use. It sounds like an exaggeration to me. 

Now, burdens are burdens and small businesses are small businesses. 

What is the largest outfit that you represent? How many employees do they have? 

Ms. BOWLES. I actually don’t know the number of employees. 

They have 200,000 subscribers. 

Ms. ESHOO. Two hundred thousand subscribers. 

Ms. BOWLES. And they are probably ten times larger than the 

next largest WISP and the average WISP is between 1,500 and 

2,000 subscribers. 

Ms. ESHOO. So the largest of who you represent has 200,000 subscribers? 

Ms. BOWLES. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Nothing larger than that? 

Ms. BOWLES. Not at this time. But they are continuing to grow. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, on this whole issue of what the burden would 

be if it is 16 to 24 hours, as has been reported to me, that is about 

2.9 seconds a day per year. 

That doesn’t seem—see, what I am worried about the end result 

on the consumers and it is being said well, they are going to call— 

they are going to want to have a question answered. 

That is the life of a business. You don’t have a business unless 

you have customers. Customers are always going to have questions. 

So I just want to make sure in this and I am not sure from your 

testimony that it really is clear that the very customers that are 

consumers don’t end up being screwed somehow, in plain English. 

I have every empathy and respect for small businesses. I am the 

daughter of a small business owner. I worked in that business with 

my father. But I do think that there needs to be a balance. 

So I think we are going to have to get more information from you 

because there seems to be an overstatement, in my view, of the 

case and if the largest number of those served is 200,000, I don’t 

think the burdens that you are talking about, it doesn’t seem to fit. 

So we are going to be able to ask more questions in writing and 

I plan to do that. So thank you. 

To my friend, Commissioner McDowell, in your statement you 

stated that the no-rate regulation legislation would be improved by 

clarifying two ambiguities. 

In your view, could the current language impact the FCC’s ability to take action on special access or USF reform? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, I think clarity is always good coming from 

Congress to the FCC. 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

61 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So if you have concerns really on any issue I 

think there are probably a whole host of friendly amendments that 

could help clarify. So—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is what I was referring 

to in my opening statement. So I think that that is an area that 

we should work on relative to Mr. Kinzinger’s legislation so that 

there is real clarity. 

To Mr. Feld, by the FCC’s own data on the small business 

Broadband Deployment Act, it represents over 11 million households. 

Do you think it is premature that these rules will have a deleterious effect on broadband providers without a determination of 

what the actual burden is on small businesses? 

Mr. FELD. I do think this is premature and that Congress will 

definitely benefit from allowing developments to move forward. The 

FCC is in the middle of its evaluation process. 

I am sympathetic to the problems and burdens for small business 

and this is not the first time the FCC has dealt with the very difficult question of how do you balance the needs of the customers, 

which include many small businesses, and the needs of the small 

providers who are, clearly, not in the same place as a Comcast or 

an AT&T where they can do these things trivially. 

Nevertheless, I also just would like to point out that oftentimes 

when there is a change in regime people are concerned. They have 

a tendency to look at oh my god, all of these terrible things are 

going to happen, to think about worst-case scenarios and, ultimately, these things work out. 

And I do think that Congress will have significant opportunity— 

the FCC will have significant opportunity to recalibrate if things do 

not work out. 

But I do think that we need a record before we move forward, 

particularly in light of the potential unintended consequence to 

consumers and small businesses. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WALDEN. Just for the record, our legislation has nothing in 

it advocating regime change. 

We will now go to Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McDowell, I want to come to you for just a couple of 

points. I am concerned about private sector investment, and as we 

look at 3.9 billion network devices by the time we get to 2019, 

which is not my number, not your number—it is a number that the 

experts give us—and we look at a billion dollars in investment that 

has already taken place by the private sector to handle broadband 

expansion. 

And one of the things those of us that have constituents that live 

in underserved areas when it comes to high-speed Internet—one of 

the things we constantly hear is when is this going to reach us. 

And we know the fastest path is primarily through private sector 

investment and the ability to do this. But my concern is as you look 

at the private sector investment the effect that having the FCC’s 

authority to do rate regulation, having that sitting out there undefined, not being corralled, if you will, the effect that that is going 

to have on that investment. 

62 

And I would like to know if you all have looked at what you 

think the decrease in private sector investment will be for expansion and building out these networks if the FCC takes this authority and runs with it. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you for the excellent question. 

And now that I am in the private sector I work a lot and talk 

a lot with investors and market analysts, both sort of on the venture side and all the way to the secondary market end of the ecosphere, and the record in 2010—in May of 2010 the FCC initiated 

its Title II proceeding which then was shelved by Chairman 

Genachowski for the other open Internet order of 2010. 

But during the course of that, during the comment period, the 

record was filled by investors and market analysts of all stripes 

and flavors—small businesses, large businesses—indicating that 

Title II and rate regulation in particular would squelch investment. 

What the exact number is is hard to tell and also, we don’t have 

rate regulation yet but this can be a slow grinding halt. It is not 

like one day it just falls off of a cliff. But the reduction in investment over time can slow down considerably. 

So you see just a slow decay or sort of a hardening of the arteries, if you will, in the lightning-fast Internet space and that would 

be a shame. 

So it is potentially, in the tens of billions of dollars. But every 

analyst I talk to every week asks me about what the future potential rate regulation is on broadband and they are very concerned 

about it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, conversely, then let us look at if you provide certainty to the space and the FCC is prohibited from moving 

forward with rate regulation, what do you think the increase would 

be? Is it exponential? Is it unlimited? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Again, let history be our guide. If you look at 

the investment, the hundreds of billions in infrastructure investment since just the mid-90s I think you would see that sort of 

growth line continue. 

I think without some sort of assurance or if there is actually the 

sword of Damocles hanging over—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Mr. MCDOWELL [continuing]. These investors, it will slow down. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Let me quickly go to the Small Business 

Deployment Act. I am concerned about that. 

I know these temporary extensions are good but we need something that is going to make it permanent. 

And I think of some of my smaller providers like Ritter Communications, which serves some of west Tennessee and is one of the 

small disclosures. 

What can they expect if the exemption is not made permanent 

and how will these disclosure requirements affect their ability to 

serve some of these rural and underserved areas which are just 

clamoring they need access to broadband for economic development, 

for enhanced educational opportunities. 

So tell me what Ritter and other small providers would expect. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Is that for Ms. Bowles? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is for you. 

63 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Oh, for me. Certainly. And I think she is actually going to give you an even better answer. 

But the notion that more regulation is going to help smaller providers deploy and serve customers in hard to reach areas sort of 

turns all the logic on its head, right. 

So I will let Ms. Bowles elaborate on that but—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. That is good. Go ahead. Go ahead. 

Ms. BOWLES. Yes. Right now, companies like Ritter and like Aristotle are moving into rural areas and deploying and bringing muchneeded service into the very areas that you are talking about and 

regulation will slow that down. 

It isn’t going to augment that in any way. Even taking some of 

the numbers that Congresswoman Eshoo put out there and saying 

that they are accurate, 24 hours is a lot of time in a company. Like, 

there is one in Colorado run by Eaton Rakour and he is the only 

employee of that company. 

He recently hired a second employee. It is his daughter. That 

man doesn’t have 24 hours. If a tower goes down, he has to go out 

there. He doesn’t have 24 hours in a year to be dealing with this 

regulation, and that is assuming it can all be done in-house. 

We don’t mind dealing with customer complaints. We don’t want 

to pay attorneys to have to deal with this regulation. That takes 

away from our ability to deploy into the same rural areas that we 

all agree are in desperate need of this service. 

We are in Arkansas. You don’t have to go very far outside of Little Rock and they have, literally, nothing. And this regulation and 

the fact that I have to be concerned about spending 80 hours a year 

on an attorney even that is expensive for a business of my size. 

We are not talking about businesses with hundreds of millions 

of dollars in revenue. We are talking about very small businesses 

with one employee and under a thousand customers. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to our panelists and, Commissioner McDowell, it is good 

to see you again. 

Mr. Feld, I have been fighting for a long time for reforms to the 

competitive market for business-to-business high capacity data 

lines, or what we call special access. 

This market is ripe with allegations of price gouging, predatory 

terms and conditions and anti-competitive behavior by incumbent 

telecommunications companies and I am glad to see the FCC acting 

to make the much needed reforms to these markets. 

Tell me, what effect do you think the rate regulation bill before 

us will have on the FCC’s ability to complete its special access proceedings? 

Mr. FELD. Well, as written I believe it will bring everything to 

a crashing halt. 

It is important to recognize that a legal argument does not have 

to ultimately prevail to prevent the FCC from moving forward on 

important competitive policies and consumer protections. 

64 

Some years back, we were involved in the bill shock proceeding 

where, as members know, they were receiving letters from constituents that their folks were receiving bills for $5,000 because their 

phone got turned on in Canada. 

And when the FCC went to take action they ran into the concern 

about their authority, that what is called the common carrier prohibition would prevent them from applying basic consumer protections. 

A requirement to send an alert that you are about to generate 

an overcharge would be preempted by the common carrier prohibition because broadband at that time was a Title I service. 

It is very easy to see how in the special access proceeding, which 

has been going on for more than 10 years, where the GAO has 

twice reported that the FCC needs to take action and where we 

are, finally, after a mound of evidence has been collected, a framework established, we are on the verge of being able to put this 

thing to bed and get it done and stop monopoly pricing, now, a new 

broadly-worded sweeping law will be introduced which will bring 

everything to a halt and may force the process to be discontinued 

altogether. 

Mr. DOYLE. A number of ISPs have announced plans to institute 

zero rating policies. These plans allow ISPs to designate certain 

types of Internet traffic as not counting against a consumer’s data 

cap. 

I am very concerned that some of these plans involve ISPs zero 

rating their own services, particularly video services that compete 

against over-the-top services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes, 

forcing consumers to use their own data with a competing service 

while zero rating their own services. 

It seems blatantly anti-competitive to me. And additionally, there 

is reports that ISPs are establishing paid zero rating agreements 

where edge providers have to pay the ISP to get their data zero 

rated. 

Most worrisome is reports that companies are using the guise of 

zero rating to throttle entire classes of content without even notifying their customers. 

Aggressive zero rating policies paired with restrictive data caps 

threaten the very core of the open Internet in the dynamic ecosystem of the competitive services we have all come to enjoy. 

What effect do you think this rate regulation bill before us will 

have on the FCC’s ability to police this type of behavior? 

Mr. FELD. Well, I am very concerned about that. It would seem 

that—as Commissioner McDowell said, he would like to actually 

have this clarified to make sure that it would absolutely prevent 

the FCC from going after even basic fraud. 

There are 12,000 complaints at the FCC already about Comcast 

having inaccurate broadband data meters. So that even if we accept that it is OK for them to not count their own product stream 

as opposed to counting everybody else’s streaming product like 

Amazon or Netflix, even if we were to accept data as OK and not 

anti-competitive, which raises particular concerns, we have thousands of customers complaining that the broadband meters that 

they use are inaccurate, that Comcast does not adequately explain 

the charges of where they come from. 

65 

And I think everyone on this committee has read the joys of trying to work your way through the Comcast complaint system to 

have these charges explained and potentially reversed. 

It is, even from a basic consumer protection standpoint, very 

troubling to have such a sweeping, broadly-worded law injected 

into this process, and when we look at defending the core net neutrality principles, which everybody has said there is broad consensus on from many Republicans as well as from Democrats, I 

would say that Ms. Matsui is absolutely correct, that it becomes effectively impossible for the FCC to enforce its core net neutrality 

principles, which are exceedingly popular and on which there is 

widespread consensus, because any of them can be interpreted as 

either directly or indirectly regulating the rate by—at which 

broadband services are offered. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are more than welcome. 

And we will now turn to the vice chair of the subcommittee, the 

very capable Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. I can be more complimentary now that Ohio and 

Oregon aren’t playing the national championship. 

Mr. LATTA. That is right. But, again, thanks for holding today’s 

hearing. Again, thanks for our panel for very good testimony today. 

Ms. Bowles, if I could start with you. I would like to kind of combine a couple questions right off the bat because I think that we 

all have—a lot of our districts look very similar to one another. 

And last year I was contacted by a company in my district called 

Amplex, which serves about 5,500 customers, and they made me 

aware of their concerns about losing the exemption to enhanced 

transparency rules for small providers because if the exemption 

were to expire they would incur additional legal costs, which you 

have been really explaining here in what it would do in network 

and monitoring costs that they simply could not afford. 

In your testimony you also recognized how making the transparency exemption for small ISPs permanent keeps resources 

where they should be—expanding the company, hiring more employees, upgrading the network and providing better service to 

rural and underserved Americans. 

Two questions, and I am going to also have you maybe back up 

to what the gentlelady—the ranking member—had asked to Mr. 

McDowell. 

First, why do you think the FCC ignored hundreds of comments 

and letters to make the exemption permanent and only extended 

it by one year? And if you would also like to elaborate a little bit 

on the ranking member’s question to Mr. McDowell. 

Ms. BOWLES. I think that the FCC has some discomfort and, obviously, I am not in their mind and so I don’t know what their 

thinking is. The record was extremely one-sided. 

There is not anything in the record that indicates that small 

businesses are the bad actors. There is not a single idea in the 

record that the small businesses are the ones that are engaging in 

these predatory practices. 

66 

Companies like mine don’t have the market power to influence 

in the way of a company like Comcast. And so I believe that the 

FCC hasn’t done its homework. 

I go back to what Commissioner McDowell said. It didn’t do its 

homework. It got its cart before the horse. I think that is a very 

good way of putting it. 

It wanted to get this out there as quickly as it could and it, essentially, punted on the issue of the small business exemption. 

Mr. LATTA. Why would they want to get it out there that quickly 

then? 

Ms. BOWLES. Hmm? 

Mr. LATTA. If they didn’t do their homework, why do you think 

they wanted to get it out there so quickly? 

Ms. BOWLES. I think they wanted to get the open Internet order 

out, and when we had our meetings with the FCC prior to that 

order and we were saying you have not looked under the Paperwork Reduction Act, you haven’t looked at the impact on small 

businesses, I think they realized that they hadn’t. 

And so they put in the exemption so that they could get the order 

out and, like, punt that down the road and deal with it later. And 

then at the very last minute on the last day when that order was 

set to expire, they punted it for another year. 

I think they are trying to figure out a way—I don’t know what 

they are trying to get to. I don’t know whether they are trying to 

find a compromise. 

I don’t know if they don’t like the 100,000 number that they were 

using and if they should be using the SBA definition. I don’t know 

where they are coming from on that front. 

But I do know that there was no justification in the record for 

making the exemption temporary. The exemption should have been 

made permanent. It should have been made permanent in December. 

There was absolutely nothing to support a temporary let us extend this again and create more regulatory uncertainty for another 

year, and that is really the problem. The problem is we don’t know 

what to expect. 

Nobody knows what the regulation is going to be at the end of 

the day and it is very difficult to assess how we are supposed to 

respond to something when we don’t actually know what is going 

to come out at the very end. 

We live in these communities. We work in these communities. 

We support these communities and we want to bring broadband 

into the communities in which we live. We are very, very small 

businesses and I can’t emphasize that enough. 

Even $10,000—I know the owner of Amplex and he has a very 

robust business but it is small by any measure. By any definition 

his business is small, and having to come up with even $10,000, 

$15,000 for regulatory counsel is a huge amount of money for a 

company of that size. 

So I don’t feel that it is an exaggeration to say that it is impacting our businesses very severely even to get the legal advice necessary to understand what we are supposed to do to deal with this. 

And we would like certainty. We encourage Congress to act to 

give us that certainty and I think that the appropriate thing in 

67 

light of the record, in light of the fact that we are not the bad actors, that is to make this exemption permanent. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Feld, if I could ask in my remaining 30 seconds here, and 

you testified about the rural broadband subscribers who are in 

need of protection from fraud or fly-by-night providers. 

Could you describe some of the business models of a fly-by-night 

rural broadband provider? 

Mr. FELD. Certainly, and I need to emphasize that we have a 

long history that wherever we establish a permanent exemption exempting an entire class of businesses bad actors move in. 

And as a consequence, it is not a question of the providers that 

we are—that we have today in the market that troubles me. 

I have worked with WISPA and with Ms. Bowles on a number 

of spectrum issues and I am, in fact, very supportive of their efforts 

to bring broadband to rural America and I am happy to testify to 

that when we have a spectrum hearing. 

But I do worry that once we put out a sign out there that says 

this is a great place to go if you want to set up a scam operation 

because you can’t be held accountable that people will take advantage of that. 

In particular, I worry about a failure to disclose about network 

management practices where extra charges would be put in. If I 

were a bad actor looking to scam small businesses, I would offer 

them great introductory rates. I would offer an—— 

Mr. LATTA. Yes. We are running out—if I could just ask real 

quickly, could you point us to one of those actors, like, an example? 

Mr. FELD. As in an example in the real world today? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. One of those type of nefarious type operators. 

Mr. FELD. I am sorry. I am not sure that I understand the question. Specifically with regard to the FCC’s transparency rules? 

Mr. LATTA. Do you have the evidence to those type of operators 

and can point us to one of those type of operators? 

Mr. FELD. Well, the FCC continues to receive complaints on a 

regular basis. Most of them, it is true, concern the larger operators, 

which is not surprising because they have the larger number of 

customers. With regard to small businesses, I am happy to—— 

Mr. LATTA. If I could ask you to follow up to the committee with 

some written examples, we would appreciate that. 

Mr. FELD. Certainly. 

Mr. WALDEN. We now need to turn to the gentlelady from New 

York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 

our ranking member for holding this hearing. To the panelists, 

thank you for lending your expertise to the examination of today’s 

legislation. 

Mr. Feld, the transparency rule has been an important staple of 

the FCC’s net neutrality rules for some time. As they say, knowledge is power. 

Could you briefly explain what the transparency rule and its enhancements seek to accomplish and why it may be so important? 

Mr. FELD. Certainly. The transparency rule, and there has been 

broad bipartisan consensus about the value of transparency, seeks 

to provide to subscribers a clear understanding of how the provider 

68 

will manage the network—what the capacities of the network is— 

from a business perspective, whether the network is actually up to 

the task that you need to hire it for. 

This encourages market competition, protects consumers, businesses and innovators. We have a broad policy in this country of 

encouraging telecommuting, of increasing traffic to broadband and 

if I am a small business operator—an architect, for example, that 

uses very heavy data-intense files, gigabits of data which is not 

necessarily the same as the needs of another small business, I need 

to know if the broadband provider I am choosing can handle the 

kind of business that I am running. 

I am a private subscriber but I spend a lot of time doing high 

bandwidth things—following hearings in Congress, for example, 

but also talking to my mother in Boston with Parkinson’s—and 

those sorts of things take a lot of bandwidth. 

I need to know when I am choosing, since I am lucky enough to 

be in an area with choice, which providers are going to impose limits on things like my video calls and my streaming and how they 

will manage these things when there is congestion. 

Ms. CLARKE. And I understand there is a difference between the 

small business definition that the FCC uses for transparency exemption compared with the definition in the discussion draft. 

Can you briefly explain the difference and the impact it has? 

Mr. FELD. Certainly. One of the things that is important to recognize is the SBA, and for many years the FCC and other agencies 

that deal with specific industries, do not employ a single definition 

for what constitutes a small business. 

SBA and the FCC have always looked to the particular sectors 

of the telecommunications market. So a small business from a television perspective means something different from a small business, from a cable perspective, from a wireless provider and so on, 

including broadband providers. 

We have, in the broadband industry, a huge disparity between 

the large cable providers and the large telephone providers and 

wireless companies, which have millions of customers and where 

they are able to achieve economies of scale, and very small providers who do not have the economies of scale, who have different 

costs and expenses for whom relief may be appropriate. 

So the FCC, in using its general definition, crafts a definition 

and SBA similarly crafts a definition suitable to the broadband industry specifically. 

In this case, we are talking about an expansion of, I am given 

to understand, about 85 percent over and above the current SBC 

exception. 

These are businesses that have been subject to the transparency 

requirements for six months and there is no evidence that these 

businesses are suffering any of the concerns that Ms. Bowles has 

suggested afflict smaller companies. 

And as a consequence, we would look at doubling the number of 

Americans who lose the benefits of transparency and include companies that, by the standard definitions in the industry, would be 

considered to be mid-size carriers rather than small carriers. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. 

69 

Ms. Bowles, in your testimony you noted several times the enhancements to the transparency rule would place an inordinate 

burden on your members. 

Could you explain precisely what this burden would be for your 

members? 

Ms. BOWLES. The enhanced transparency requires additional disclosures which have to meet certain standards that have been set 

by the FCC. 

Those standards are vague. It is not clear what it is exactly that 

we are supposed to be doing and a lot of the FCC’s determinations 

are going to be made sort of after the fact or through litigation and 

in the courts. 

This is more of a direct regulation but what determines reasonable rates is not defined. 

What includes sufficient transparency or adequate transparency? 

That has all got to be litigated through the courts or done through 

rural rate making through the FCC. We don’t really know. 

So we are taking our best guess at what we are supposed to be 

doing, and we may do our absolute best effort to find out 6 months 

later that it wasn’t what the FCC had in mind or it isn’t sufficient. 

We may end up in litigation. We are subject to frivolous complaints, potentially, from customers who feel that they haven’t been 

disclosed properly and we don’t have enough guidance to know 

what it is that we are supposed to be doing. 

So we are looking to regulatory counsel to give us that guidance 

but they don’t know either because the guidance is not coming out 

of the FCC and it is not coming out of anywhere else. 

And so until this is settled and we understand what it is, we 

have to have some better guidance, and just to speak personally 

from my business, we do believe in an open Internet. We do disclose our policies to our customers. 

I have no idea whether that disclosure is sufficient under these 

enhanced disclosure requirements and I have no way to find that 

out other than to hire an attorney to give me an opinion as to 

whether our disclosures are sufficient, and it is expensive. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

We will turn to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have from the CTIA, the wireless association, fine information 

regarding the blocking of robocalls perhaps that might be utilized 

and I ask unanimous consent to place that information in the 

record. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner McDowell, you say that the order does not proscribe ex post facto rate regulations. Could you describe an example in which the FCC might engage in an ex post facto rate regulation and what would it look like? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So, hypothetically, what we are talking about 

there is if whether it is the interconnection points or for end users 

or whatever. It could be at any point in the network. 

Someone brings a complaint to the FCC. They say look, they are 

giving us access or whatever but we think the rate is too high. And 

70 

the commission will say look, we are not going to engage in rate 

regulation but you are right, that rate is too high. 

So through an enforcement proceeding it would be essentially a 

rule making and that is essentially the implementation of what we 

call a price cap regime. This is not rate of return. It is sort of a 

de facto price cap. 

So that then creates more uncertainty in the market—well, what 

is too high, what is just right, what is the Goldilocks price here? 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. And any response to the claim that the 

bill prohibiting rate regulation could result in prolonged litigation 

uncertainty, from my perspective, doesn’t current ambiguity and 

overly broad rules also lead to the fact that there might be litigation? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Sure. I mean, it is important to note that just 

Sections 201 and 202 of the 1934 Act have been litigated about 400 

times in the appellate courts and over 1,000 times within the FCC 

administrative regulation. And that is just two sections of Title II, 

both of which, by the way, deal with rate regulation. 

So I think we can expect that in the future, should there be rate 

regulation, even if it is sort of this de facto ex post type regulation. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Would anybody else on the panel like to 

comment? Mr. Feld, yes. 

Mr. FELD. Thank you. I do wish to express a couple of points. 

One is what concerns me is when Congress took this approach 

in 1984 with regard to cable and in the 1984 Cable Act preempted 

all forms of rate regulation including the kinds described by Commissioner McDowell, it turned out to be a disaster. 

The price of basic cable service escalated. Cable operators were 

quick to take advantage of their incumbency and engage in broad 

anti-competitive action. 

By contrast, the Title II Section 201, which is what we are talking about here, is the period where Commissioner McDowell agrees 

that investment telecommunications under the 1996 act flourished. 

Those are the conditions under which the wireless industry flourished, and when those industries have begun to consolidate and 

begin to overcharge consumers it is the ability of the FCC to come 

in and act, which has helped to restrain them. 

If the prices are generally monopoly rate prices and therefore 

people come to the FCC saying they are too high, I would hope that 

the FCC would act to constrain genuine monopoly rate prices. 

I think that, additionally, as Commissioner McDowell noted earlier, this is not going to happen overnight in terms of impacts. 

When we are talking about these things potentially if there are 

problems it will be a gradual process that emerges. 

I think the Congress will benefit enormously from seeing how 

this develops, allowing the FCC to resolve the existing uncertainty 

rather than perpetuating uncertainty by passing laws before we 

know what the final effect will be. 

Mr. LANCE. Mr. McDowell. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you very much. 

So a couple things. First of all, cable rates are not regulated. So 

the notion that they have been or should be is incorrect. 

By the way, also information services, which is what we called 

these things until last year—broadband internet access—had no 

71 

transparency requirement before the 2010 open Internet order, 

right. 

So as Ms. Bowles has pointed out, the record before the FCC 

does not contain really even a scintilla of evidence that certainly 

WISPs or smaller Internet services providers are engaging in fraud 

and deceptive practices and all the rest. 

And, by the way, one of the problems with the Title II classification is that it took away jurisdiction from the Federal Trade Commission under Section V of the Federal Trade Commission Act to 

protect consumers. 

That was the cop on the beat that people say is needed. They 

took a cop off of the beat and sent it to a different agency which 

doesn’t have the same expertise as the Federal Trade Commission 

does. 

So we haven’t had information services rate regulated, cable has 

not been rate regulated forever, and so the notion that somehow 

there was this utopia where there was command and control rate 

regulation and everything was fine is just not true in this space. 

The Internet has flourished precisely because it migrated further 

away from government involvement. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Let us see. Next up the gentlelady from Colorado, 

Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panelists for coming today. I am sorry I was 

late but I actually had my own bill out for hearing in another subcommittee. 

I did want to ask—as the FCC’s net neutrality order continues 

to be implemented, one of the concerns that we heard is that there 

is regulatory uncertainty costs to potential Title II regulation and 

so I wanted to talk about that a little bit. 

First of all, Mr. Feld, H.R. 2666 seeks to bar rate regulation 

under the net neutrality order and I am wondering without clearly 

defining regulating the rates would this bill create more or less uncertainty for telecom companies and, being a lawyer, I always ask 

this question—would it result in additional litigation? 

Mr. FELD. Well, I think that it definitely, when you have broadsweeping language with undefined terms but where the breadth of 

the language indicates a congressional intent to prevent even basic 

consumer protection such as protection against monopoly rates, 

this is going to create enormous uncertainty. 

There is a conflict here in that there is a claim that we are not 

going after the core Title II protections. We are not going after the 

core bright line rules that the FCC established. 

We are only going after rate regulation. But without defining this 

we have essentially said yes, but anything you do to actually enforce the rules you have could be considered rate regulation and 

that is just going to encourage an enormous amount of uncertainty 

and litigation. 

I also must respond just a little bit to Commissioner McDowell 

in saying the sweet spot we have now is exactly the one. It is not 

command and control tariffing, which everybody agrees is bad. 

72 

It is not the Wild West, where a handful of companies in a concentrated industry decide what the prices are to be on critical infrastructure. It is the current sweet spot of just don’t rip off consumers and keep things reasonable, OK? 

Can we just make an honest profit and not a monopoly profit? 

And I think the FCC ought to remain in a position to make sure 

that broadband companies make healthy returns but have to work 

for a living and satisfy consumer demands to do so. 

Ms. DEGETTE. What do you think about that, Commissioner 

McDowell? Obviously, you have a few. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. There is a lot there so which are you referring 

to? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, in particular, the definition of regulating the 

rates. Do you think that is going to lead to more litigation 

since—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, regulation is going to lead to more litigation, absolutely, even if it is—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. But the fact that it is not so clearly defined in the 

legislation. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, I sort of offered a couple of ideas—general 

categories of ideas as to how you could define it, I think, better. 

You know, in terms of consumer protection I think there could 

be probably friendly amendments offered to where you could find 

consensus on that. I don’t think—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you share my concern that that term might be 

over broad in the legislation? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Well, my testimony speaks for itself. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes or no will work. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes, there could be some clarity involved there. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thanks. OK. I think it would be really great if you 

could work with us on helping to clarify that if you have some 

ideas—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Be happy to. Happy to work with you. 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. We would love to hear it. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. OK. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, it is my understanding that the FCC forbore 

itself from the portions of Title II that it would need an order to 

set the rates of Internet service providers. 

So I am wondering, Commissioner, what would be required for 

a future FCC commissioner to set the rates for ISPs. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. To prohibit a future FCC from doing that? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes. So I think the seeds for that are definitely 

in the legislation before you today so to help prevent that from 

happening. And, again, this could be the bipartisan consensus from 

President Obama on down. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So you really think that we could work to really 

hammer out this legislation for more clarity? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I am very optimistic, absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. But you think it—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. It would be an honor for me to work with you. 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. You think it needs some work? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Absolutely, as I said in my written testimony. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Great. Thanks. I yield back. 

73 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. 

And Mr. Feld, I want to ask you a question. You argue that there 

is no need to grant an exemption for small businesses for the enhanced transparency rules. 

But in my opinion, the record does not support your contention. 

The record actually indicates that the burdens imposed by the enhanced transparency rules could require hundreds of hours of compliance work by small ISPs like Ms. Bowles’ who can ill afford to 

spend that money on anything that does not improve underlying 

ISP service. 

There are very few arguments that the rules are necessary for 

small businesses. One argument that you make is that the transparency requirements are necessary to catch the ‘‘fly-by-night actors and scammers.’’ 

But isn’t that more like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly? And 

the question I had, really, is why should all small business operators be saddled with onerous and costly transparency requirements 

so that we can catch a few bad actors? 

Mr. FELD. I am sorry if I am unclear. 

What I believe I said, and what I certainly mean, is not that we 

should not have a set of rules that are sensitive to the needs of 

small carriers. 

I am not even opposed to the FCC deciding that at this time we 

could make the exemption permanent. What I worry about is Congress’ preemptive effect, and when Congress passes a law, as Ranking Member Eshoo said, that is a big deal because it makes it impossible for the agency to respond to changing circumstances. 

As we move forward and things settle we may need to revisit 

this. We may find that we see the emergence of scams. 

That has been, as I have said, a long history that wherever we 

have set up a permanent congressional exemption to oversight or 

accountability that bad actors move in because they can. 

So, again, I am not against a permanent exemption on a complete record. I simply believe the moment now is premature. The 

FCC is in the process of evaluating the record and I believe their 

process is correct. 

I know there has been some suggestion that the cart was before 

the horse. But I would suggest that the FCC determined that the 

enhanced transparency was in the public interest. That is self-evident. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. I appreciate you clarifying that, but it 

gets to the fundamental question, and I think throughout this city 

and throughout this history written about this era in government 

is I think Congress has in the past—I think some of this is Congress’ own fault. 

They have been very deferential to the administration and not 

just here. Everything that we are talking about here. Well, I was 

just in a meeting beforehand in the labor area, and in doing so it 

allows the vagueness. 

It is too hard to get things changed, let us make it open, let us 

make it where the administration can administer—why should 

74 

Congress put something that is too hard to get it undone if it needs 

to be undone? 

And I would argue in EPA, and not just labor meeting, whatever, 

then what happens if the administration doesn’t do the intent of 

Congress. And I would certainly say that I think it is our responsibility to clarify. 

So I appreciate your position. I think it is our responsibility to 

make sure if it is something we think is in the good interest that 

it is congressionally enforced and mandated. 

And, Ms. Bowles, you said the FCC—earlier the FCC punted on 

making the small business exemption permanent? Do you think 

they fell back when they should have? 

Ms. BOWLES. That they failed to make it permanent when they 

should have? Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. You think that it would be—so the question also 

that I hear, and it is not just in this world but it is in the entire 

government world, everywhere I go—and you are a small business 

person—in my district my family has a small business, a mediumsized business, so everywhere I go it is not just what the rules and 

regulations are. 

It is just that people don’t know what they are going to be from 

day to day or month to month. I had a bill out of this full committee in another subcommittee on the health care bill for small 

businesses and even the witness against the bill said exactly what 

was just said is that I believe we should do this but let us not 

make it permanent—let us do a waiver for a year to see if this 

works or not work. 

And that is what I said—throughout government and people trying to implement business, grow business and hire people to put 

them to work or just—there is so much uncertainty. 

That is a common word I hear if you go into a restaurant, a manufacturing business or in a high-tech business, such that you are 

in. 

So what does the uncertainty of these reporting requirements 

prevent you or help you? I’ll let you say——I’m not going to prejudice the question—how does it help or hurt you in what you want 

to do as a business person? 

Ms. BOWLES. Well, I want to reiterate that all members are 

small. The average WISP has 1,500 to 2,000 customers. They are 

small businesses with very few employees, usually less than a 

handful of employees that are doing this. 

They live in the communities they serve. They are working next 

to their neighbors. They live in the real world and they are dealing 

with real world problems. 

And so what the regulatory uncertainty does is it distracts them 

from dealing with the real world that they are in and getting 

broadband service to their neighbors with this thing that is not 

necessary, based on the record, that causes them to turn their attention away from expanding their networks and getting 

broadband into rural America. 

Rural America can least afford additional regulatory expense and 

that is what essentially is happening. The 3,000 small ISPs are 

serving the areas in this country that the larger providers cannot 

financially justify going into. 

75 

We are able to do it because the barriers to entry are so low because the cost for our members coming in to serve it are low 

enough that we can justify it. If those costs go up, then that justification changes. Their community—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. I understand my time has expired. Appreciate the answer. Mr. Feld, I appreciate you for clarifying as well. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. McNerney, 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman. I thank the witnesses 

this morning. 

Ms. Bowles, looking at the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act, one of the contentious issues is how to define a small 

business. 

If you look at the earlier definition of 100,000 subscribers, that 

sounds like a lot to me. I mean, if each subscriber is $100 a month 

and you have 100,000 subscribers that’s $10 million a month, $120 

million a year. 

That is not a small business, in my mind. So what would be— 

how could you define a small business? What would be the measure 

of a small business, in your mind? 

Ms. BOWLES. Honestly, I have to defer to the experts in the 

United States government who define that. I understand that there 

are a lot of different definitions for small business and the 100,000 

number or the SBA’s use of a 500,000 subscriber number. 

As I said, the majority of our members are significantly smaller 

than that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Ms. BOWLES. That would fit under any definition of small business. So from our perspective, the important thing is whatever 

number you end up with it needs to embrace the smallest of the 

small businesses so that they are protected so that they can continue to grow their business and continue to serve rural America. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, is the number of subscribers a good metric 

to define small business—— 

Ms. BOWLES. It is an adequate metric. It is a proxy for revenue. 

So I suppose it is fine. 

But number of employees is also significant because if you have 

only five employees, even if you have 10,000 subscribers it would 

be a very substantial burden for a company of that size. 

So I think you need to look both at how many employees you 

have as well as your revenue or the number of subscribers that you 

have. I don’t think it is a singular number necessarily. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Commissioner McDowell, would you want to 

weigh on this? How would you—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I think it is a healthy discussion to have exactly 

how you are defining small business—is it on a subscriber basis, 

an employee basis, revenue basis, although employees and subscribers, I think, capture a lot. 

I think the point that Ms. Bowles is making is that the vast majority, in fact, if not 99.99 percent of WISPA’s members are mom 

and pop organizations, quite literally, or dad and daughter, as you 

pointed out, organizations. And so—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, 100,000 subscribers seems like a modest—— 

76 

Mr. MCDOWELL. If you are at a WISP and you have 100,000 subscribers, roughly, how many employees would you have? 

Ms. BOWLES. Oh, wow. You would have to have several hundred 

employees to have 100,000 subscribers. You have to have several 

hundred employees. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. But that could still fit within a small business 

definition? 

Ms. BOWLES. That could still fit within a small business and it 

is correct, 99.98 percent of our members fit underneath the small 

business definition provided by the FCC. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I mean, it sounds like moving from 100,000 to 

500,000 subscribers is a bit of an overreach. 

Mr. Feld, my next question has to do with the Universal Service 

Fund. I think in your testimony you indicated that the 2666 might 

impede that development. What is your feeling on that? 

Mr. FELD. I have a lot of concerns. The USF reform has been 

very complicated. Part of it is based on a core provision of the statute, Section 254, which directs that services should not cost substantially more in rural areas than comparable services in urban 

areas. 

So if the core purpose of the statute, particularly for the rural 

high cost fund, is to regulate rates and make them more affordable 

for people and you have a law that says absolutely no—under any 

law can you do anything that regulates rates, then I don’t see how 

you avoid the problem of well, the purpose of the whole law is to 

make the broadband affordable. That is rate regulation—indirectly 

through a subsidy, but still rate regulation. 

The additional problems are that one of the goals in high cost in 

particular has been to end the system of implicit subsidies, intercarrier compensation and termination fees and shift to a more 

straightforward explicit compensation through the high cost fund. 

That was in order to balance these things out without raising the 

rate on the ratepayers done by price regulation. So and that was 

challenged and affirmed in the Tenth Circuit. 

But this would give those folks who lost a fairly lengthy and contentious litigation a second bite at the apple, and I don’t see how 

the FCC doesn’t just throw up its hands and put everything on 

hold or abandon the operation altogether. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. I am going to let the commissioner answer 

but please keep it brief. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes. I am sorry. I know we are short on time. 

First of all, I think it will give both of you some comfort that in 

October 2011, three Democrats and one Republican, we got together for the first time in history and incorporated some reforms 

for the universal service to extend those subsidies to broadband 

services when they were deemed an information service prior to the 

Title II order of last year. 

So it was the unanimous consensus of the commissioners and of 

the staff at the FCC that you did not have to have broadband classified as common carriage and therefore subject to rate regulation, 

which is where I am going with that. 

So that is number one, and that was litigated before the Tenth 

Circuit and upheld. So that was challenged and upheld by the 

courts. So I don’t think there is going to be an issue here at all. 

77 

But if there is an issue, then the other comfort I would like to 

offer is that perhaps there could be a friendly amendment to that 

regard saying universal service is a carve out. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you for the suggestion. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. The chair recognizes Mr. Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to the folks 

here and thank you for holding this hearing to the committee. 

I want to just talk about a couple of bills I introduced: 2666 and 

1301. The Amateur Parity Radio Act has over a hundred bipartisan 

co-sponsors including the chairman, and as a point of interest every 

member of Congress throughout the country has at least a few 

hundred licensed amateur radio operators in their district. 

Under current law and regulation in certain areas, ham radios 

are outright prohibited from placing any form of antenna on their 

home, even those as small as a four millimeter diameter wire that 

would run under an awning or flat against a house. 

For some, this is merely a nuisance but for others—those that go 

through additional training and certification to become an emergency communications volunteer—this can be dangerous. 

During times of emergency, like a hurricane or a tornado, amateur radio operators are able to use their skills and equipment to 

create a network of communications for first responders when all 

other networks have failed. 

And as a point of interest, as a military pilot, there were a number of times overseas where we would actually use phone patches 

and passcoded messages through ham radio operators to our command post, and so I think that is very interesting to note that they 

serve that purpose, too. 

And a quick summary from the FEMA director, Mr. Fugate, on 

the issue he said, ‘‘I think that there is a tendency to believe that 

we have done so much to build infrastructure and resiliency in all 

of our other systems. When everything else fails, amateur radio oftentimes is our last line of defense. When you need amateur radio, 

you really need them.’’ And I think this is very important. 

H.R. 1301 would change some of these issues by implementing 

a reasonable accommodation standard. There is no mandate on the 

placement size aesthetics, as those decisions are left to the discussion to take place between ham radio operators and their jurisdictions. 

We would just simply add the same standard that has been used 

successfully in municipal areas to other areas. 

Switching gears, the rate regulation bill comes about as a result 

of comments and statements made by the president and by Chairman Wheeler. 

Following those statements, Chairman Wheeler and I had a conversation in this subcommittee where I asked him the question of 

would you support legislation that simply said notwithstanding any 

provision of law the Federal Communications Commission may not 

regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service— 

very simple. And the chairman agreed and so we have this bill before us today. 

Simply put, the government should not be in the business of regulating the rates of private industry and that is a lesson that we 

78 

learn when we look at failed governments of the 1980s in the past 

in terms of regulating private industry. 

Chairman Wheeler has stated that he will not go down the path 

of rate regulation and I give him credit for that, rightfully so. But 

the power is still there for any future chairman. 

In listening to the debate today, some legitimate concerns have 

been raised and I would offer that if it takes some small changes 

to address those concerns I am more than happy to sit down with 

any interested parties. 

We want to do this in a bipartisan way. But I think it is important that we have this conversation and I appreciate you being 

here. 

Mr. McDowell, you bring up the risk of not only this FCC regulating broadband access rates but a future commission as well, and 

I know you have served under different administrations. 

Can you elaborate how that is a concern for you? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Absolutely. Statutory interpretations can change 

based on the political philosophy and ideology of whoever is chair 

and who constitutes a majority of the commission. 

So 8 years ago, for instance, Section 706 was never contemplated 

as giving the FCC some sort of secret expansive power over the 

Internet space. But that came out of the 2010 order and then it 

was blessed by two judges on the D.C. circuit. 

So that changed dramatically, just the interpretation of Section 

706, which, at the time of the 1996 act, was considered deregulatory, not more regulatory. 

So you want to make sure that what the interpretation by an 

FCC is today remains the same. You want to codify that, enshrine 

that in the statute. That is the only way to really have certainty 

for the long run. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes, and I know we are involved in this committee in terms of process reform for the FCC, which I think is necessary in opening up a lot of the process. 

But I think what is important to note is that big decisions like 

this, without this codified, can be made by a few people—a few people that make the decision at the moment, and it is the jurisdiction 

of this committee and this Congress to regulate things like interstate commerce. 

And when we say we don’t want broadband regulated by the government, I think we have a rightful position to have that debate, 

have that argument and to get this done. 

And, frankly, again, I would just reiterate my position is very bipartisan because the chairman of the FCC agreed with me. The 

president agrees with me. So at this moment of bipartisanship in 

this committee we may as well codify that into law. 

So with that, I want to say thank you to you all and I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. I thank the gentleman for his questions. The chair 

recognizes Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel 

for being with us today. 

Ms. Bowles, can you point to any specific flaws in the FCC’s 

analysis when the agency attempted to determine how much the 

enhanced transparency requirements would cost small businesses? 

79 

How did the agency fail to account for the specific needs of small 

businesses? Can you comment on that? 

Ms. BOWLES. Yes. The FCC drew its conclusion from having 

made an assumption that because the business is smaller the regulatory burden would be smaller and that is almost exactly backwards from the reality. 

A smaller business doesn’t have the armies of lawyers. It doesn’t 

have the teams that are already meeting regulatory burdens that 

many of the people who are affected by open Internet already have 

in place. 

So the small ISPs weren’t in the record and there wasn’t an analysis done of the actual cost, the actual monetary costs or the impact on the networks or the impacts on expansion. 

And I have said this before but we have very, very small WISPs 

for whom this could literally put out of business. They have one 

employee. 

So it is very hard to—I don’t think the FCC really did any analysis of that side of the equation. They just came off—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And it is your assessment that that impact on 

small business would be significant? 

Ms. BOWLES. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Feld’s testimony discusses significant unintended consequences of the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act including customers turning instead to national providers. 

As a representative of the small business community, would you 

like to respond to that? 

Ms. BOWLES. I don’t think that is a realistic concern. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. And it is not—— 

Ms. BOWLES. We compete in an open marketplace right now with 

larger providers. My company serves rural communities but we 

also compete in Little Rock, Arkansas. 

We compete directly with AT&T and Comcast and larger providers and we compete on service, we compete on locality and we 

compete on price. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Ms. BOWLES. And in the rural communities we serve, these are 

our neighbors and our friends and we compete, again, on service 

and on price and it is a competitive marketplace. It doesn’t concern 

us at all. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

Finally, Ms. Bowles, was there overwhelming support for making 

the small business exemption permanent? 

Ms. BOWLES. Yes. To my knowledge, there were no comments opposing until the very last moment and before the closing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I want to get into that. 

Mr. Feld, based on the FCC’s order, it appears that Public 

Knowledge did not file comments in response to the bureau’s public 

notice on this issue. 

In fact, it appears that the only party to disagree with the extension at all in the proceeding was Free Press doing so not in comments but in an ex parte submission made the Friday before the 

order was released. That is 97 days after the close of the comment 

period. 

80 

So is it correct that Public Knowledge did not file? 

Mr. FELD. We believe the extension for the FCC to complete its 

work was justified. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, that is not the question I asked you. 

Mr. FELD. You are correct. We did not file. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You did not file? 

Mr. FELD. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. I thank the gentleman for his questions and as we 

bring this hearing to a conclusion, I will recognize myself for a couple of minutes here as we wind down. 

So Mr. Feld, I am a little bit confused or concerned about Public 

Knowledge not being supportive of H.R. 2666, which is the no rate 

regulation. 

So I want to make sure if we are on the same page here in saying I think, and hopefully you would agree, that the president was 

clear in saying that the FCC should forbear from rate regulation. 

You would agree with this, I am assuming? 

Mr. FELD. Yes, from standard rate regulation. 

Mr. COLLINS. And then we have Chairman Wheeler also saying 

time and again that he believes in forbearing no rate regulation, 

no filing tariffs. Again, I—— 

Mr. FELD. Having once upon a time and long ago done tariffing 

and rate regulation through that fashion, I would not wish it on 

anyone. 

Mr. COLLINS. So with both the president and the chairman saying this, I am a little confused by why Public Knowledge wouldn’t 

support H.R. 2666. 

Mr. FELD. Well, as we have heard, there are a number of interpretations of what the broad sweeping language of H.R. 2666 would 

mean. 

I certainly don’t think of preventing monopoly providers from 

charging monopoly prices as being rate regulation. 

On the other hand, we have heard views expressed that even 

that kind of ex ante enforcement of traditional consumer protection 

should be considered rate regulation under the statute. 

So while I think that there is agreement on a very broad principle, nobody wants to go back to the old days when we were all 

quibbling about what went into the rate base and concerned about 

the ability to raise prices through rate regulation in the fashion 

that Commissioner McDowell described earlier. 

I think that we do have a great deal of concern that where providers are charging fraudulent prices, billing in ways that are designed to confuse consumers—what I like to refer to as the nickel 

and diming of the American people, which it is the FCC’s job to 

stop. I am greatly concerned that the statute as written, given its 

broad sweeping language, would have that effect. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I can appreciate your interpretation, perhaps, 

but I would like to think forbearance is forbearance and the rate 

regulation piece was the key sticking point with a lot of Republicans on this and we were always uncomfortable with the president saying he would forbear on the rate side, as did Chairman 

Wheeler. 

81 

And since a year from now we will have both a new president 

and at some point probably a new chairman, I think at some point 

this Congress could codify where we stand on that. 

So I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the 

ranking member has certainly indicated, I think, we have a context 

we can all work with here. That is what the hearing is all about. 

Your input has been very valuable, and as we move forward in 

the next month or so into a markup we will take your testimony 

into account and I want to thank you for that and also encourage 

you for the members that ask for some follow up if you could provide that in a timely manner that would be appreciated. 

So I would remind all members there are ten business days to 

submit questions for the record. I ask the witnesses to respond accordingly. 

And without objection, the committee is adjourned. 

[H.R. 2669 follows:] 

82 


99924.073
83 


99924.074
84 


99924.075
85 


99924.076
86 

[H.R. 1301 follows:] 


99924.077
87 


99924.078
88 


99924.079
89 

[H.R. 2666 follows:] 


99924.080
90 


99924.081
91 

[Small Business Broadband Deployment Act follows:] 


99924.082
92 


99924.083
93 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRED UPTON

Reducing red tape and making the law work for consumers and small businesses 

has been a focus of this committee under my chairmanship. Today, this subcommittee will hear from a panel of witnesses on four bills that further this important goal in the communications and technology sectors so vital to continued economic growth and job creation in Michigan and across the country. 

H.R. 2669, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2015 and H.R. 1301, the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015, are both focused on protecting consumers. Whether it is the abuse 

of technology by bad actors or the abuse of powers provided by law, consumers deserve honesty and a fair shake. These bills are designed to provide just that. H.R. 

2669, introduced by Reps. Meng, Barton, and Lance, would extend the provisions 

of the Truth in Called ID Act to text messaging and VoIP services—helping protect 

consumers from fraud. And H.R. 1301, authored by Rep. Kinzinger, would ensure 

that those empowered to impose land-use restrictions don’t place unnecessary bans 

on HAM radio equipment. 

Additionally, we’ll discuss two bills designed to protect consumers and small businesses from future FCC Chairmen. H.R. 2666, Representative Kinzinger’s No Rate 

Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act and a discussion draft offered by 

Chairman Walden would ensure that the commitments of this administration 

against regulating rates or unduly burdening small businesses have staying power. 

These are both ideas that were generated by the FCC, this legislation would simply 

make them permanent. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

94 


99924.044
95 


99924.045
96 


99924.046
97 


99924.047
98 


99924.048
99 


99924.049
100 


99924.050
101 


99924.051
102 


99924.052
103 


99924.053
104 


99924.054
105 


99924.055
106 


99924.056
107 


99924.057
108 


99924.058
109 


99924.059
110 


99924.060
111 


99924.061
112 


99924.062
113 


99924.063
114 


99924.064
115 


99924.065
116 


99924.066
117 


99924.067
118 


99924.068
119 


99924.069
120 


99924.070
121 


99924.071
122 

Æ 


99924.072