U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–754 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON FOUR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2018 

Serial No. 115–113 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 2 

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

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 4 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jersey, prepared statement ................................................................................. 108 

WITNESSES

Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs, Competitive Carriers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 137 

David L. Donovan, President and Executive Director, New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. ....................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

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

Robert Gessner, President, Massillon Cable TV, Inc., and President, American 

Cable Association ................................................................................................. 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

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

John H. Madigan, Jr., Vice President and Chief Public Policy Officer, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention ............................................................. 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 159 

Sarah Morris, Director of Open Internet Policy, Open Technology Institute, 

New America Foundation .................................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2017 .................... 104 

H.R. 2903, the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Access Act of 

2017 ....................................................................................................................... 110

H.R. 3787, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act of 2017 ........... 115 

Discussion Draft, the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement 

Act ......................................................................................................................... 122 

Report of the New York State Broadcasters Association, ‘‘Field Measurements 

of Unauthorized FM Band Radio Signals in New York, NY Metropolitan 

Area Phase 4,’’ May 19, 2016, 1 submitted by Mr. Lance 

Statement of Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer, American Foundation 

for Suicide Prevention, March 22, 2018, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .......... 127 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108059. 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON FOUR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:24 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, 

Latta, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores, Brooks, Collins, 

Costello, Doyle, Welch, Loebsack, Eshoo, Engel, Matsui, McNerney, 

and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also present: Representatives Tonko, Schrader, and Chris Stewart. 

Staff present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator, Communications 

and Technology; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications 

and Technology; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and 

Coalitions; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Deputy 

Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; Austin Stonebraker, 

Press Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications 

and Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jennifer 

Epperson, Minority FCC Detailee; David Goldman, Minority Chief 

Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Jerry 

Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; and C.J. Young, Minority 

Press Secretary. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [presiding]. We are going to call the hearing to 

order and get our panelists to take seats. That’s to help us get our 

arrangement for how we ask questions. They’ve called votes. So we 

are going to adjourn—I mean, recess. 

We are going to go vote, and then we are going to come back. 

So you can keep walking around. But your place in line has been 

saved. 

So with that—— 

[Recess.] 

2 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN [presiding]. All right. The committee will reconvene, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

And I want to welcome you all. I apologize to everyone. We 

thought we had votes at 10:00, and then it was going to be 10:10 

and come on back over here—you know, it’s just one of those 

days—a getaway day, an omnibus day, and we are going to go 

ahead and start this hearing because you never know when the bell 

is going to go off. 

A little less than 2 months ago, we did our first legislative hearing. This is our second. We sat here in this room discussing 25 

pieces of legislation addressing broadband infrastructure, representing all the views on the table. 

Last month, we shocked the naysayers by shepherding many of 

the subcommittee’s top priorities through the full committee unanimously in RAY BAUM’S Act. 

Today, just as that package is about to head to the President’s 

desk, we’ve got four more bipartisan bills that address everything 

from combating illegal pirate radio to identifying ways technology 

can help prevent suicide across the country. 

I couldn’t be more pleased with the work of members of the subcommittee and all the important initiatives we’ve gotten some work 

going on this year. 

I’d also like to commend Congressman Stewart on being a champion for the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, which currently has 78 cosponsors, including seven of our subcommittee 

members: Bilirakis, Clarke, Eshoo, Flores, McKinley, Rush, and 

Tonko. 

Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in Tennessee, and this 

legislation would make it easier for those facing a mental crisis to 

get the help they need with a dedicated N–1–1 number. 

We’ll also be discussing Mr. McKinley and Mr. Welch’s bill, the 

Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Access Act, which 

takes a new perspective on getting wireless broadband out to rural 

areas. 

This subcommittee has long been looking for ways to close the 

digital divide, and today we have got another potential solution— 

bipartisan, I will add. 

And speaking of infrastructure, another bill which could help 

spur investment in broadband infrastructure is Mr. Latta and Mr. 

Schrader’s Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act, or 

SERRO. 

Small entities across the country, regardless of technology, face 

miles of red tape at the FCC to comply with regulations designed 

for large providers. 

Money that those small, often rural entities spend on complying 

with regulations is money that could be used for investing in 

broadband deployment, and it’s important for us and the Commission to keep this in mind instead of assuming that one size should 

fit all in every case. 

3 

Finally, we’ll be discussing Mr. Lance and Mr. Tonko’s PIRATE 

Act, which many members of the subcommittee have worked on, including Mr. Collins, Tonko, Bilirakis, Green, Moulton, King, and 

Mrs. Dingell. 

Illegal pirate radio disrupts access to important public safety 

communications, including our Nation’s Emergency Alert System 

and critical aviation frequencies. These illegal broadcasts deprive 

Americans of important programming provided by legitimate license holders serving the public interest. 

It’s high time we pay more attention to the harm being done to 

consumers and broadcasters alike. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Good morning and welcome to our second legislative hearing of 2018. A little less 

than 2 months ago, we sat here in this room discussing 25 pieces of legislation addressing broadband infrastructure representing all the views on the table. Last 

month, we shocked the naysayers by shepherding many of the subcommittee’s top 

priorities through the full committee unanimously in RAY BAUM’S Act. Today, just 

as that package is about to head toward the President’s desk, we’ve got four more 

bipartisan bills that address everything from combating illegal pirate radio to identifying ways technology can help prevent suicide across the country. I couldn’t be 

more pleased with the work of members of the subcommittee and all the important 

initiatives we’ve got going on this year. 

I’d also like to commend Congressman Stewart on being a champion for the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, which currently has 78 cosponsors, including seven of our subcommittee members: Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. 

Flores, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Rush, and Mr. Tonko. Suicide is the 10th leading cause 

of death in Tennessee, and this legislation would make it easier for those facing a 

mental crisis to get the help they need with a dedicated N–1–1 number. 

We’ll also be discussing Mr. McKinley and Mr. Welch’s bill, the Rural Reasonable 

and Comparable Wireless Access Act, which takes a new perspective on getting 

wireless broadband out to rural areas. This subcommittee has long been looking for 

ways to close the digital divide, and today we will be discussing another potential 

solution. 

And speaking of infrastructure, another bill which could help spur investment in 

broadband infrastructure is Mr. Latta and Mr. Schrader’s Small Entity Regulatory 

Relief Opportunity Act, or SERRO. Small entities across the country, regardless of 

technology, face miles of red tape at the FCC to comply with regulations designed 

for large providers. Money that these small, often rural entities spend on complying 

with regulations is money that they could instead be investing in broadband deployment, and it’s important for us and for the Commission to keep this in mind instead 

of assuming that one size should fit all in every case. 

Finally, we’ll be discussing Mr. Lance and Mr. Tonko’s PIRATE Act, which many 

Members of the subcommittee have helped work on; including Mr. Collins, Mr. 

Tonko, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Green, Mr. Moulton, Mr. King, and Mrs. Dingell. Illegal 

pirate radio disrupts access to important public safety communications, including 

our Nation’s Emergency Alert System and critical aviation frequencies. These illegal 

broadcasts deprive Americans of important programming provided by legitimate license holders serving the public interest. It’s high time we pay more attention to 

the harm being done to consumers and broadcasters alike. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here, and with that I will yield 1 minute 

to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lance. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here, 

and Mr. Lance is not here, so would anyone like the 1 minute? 

Mr. Latta, you’re recognized. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate you 

holding today’s hearing on these four bills, including my own, the 

Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act, or SERRO. 

4 

Recognizing that small businesses are the engines of our economy and do not require the same level of regulatory oversight as 

large entities, the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, and I put 

forth a commonsense proposal to create a regulatory environment 

that encourages innovation, spurs competition, and fosters consumer choice. 

SERRO offers a pathway for regulatory relief for small entities 

by directing the FCC to streamline their existing waiver process. 

This will benefit small business and their customers by providing 

greater certainty, fewer costs, and administrative efficiency. 

Since introducing H.R. 3787, Mr. Schrader and I have made 

countless efforts to consider all stakeholder feedback and input, 

and today’s discussion is a continuation of those efforts. 

I look forward to hearing from our panelists, and I thank the 

gentlelady, the chair of the subcommittee, for yielding. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. I appreciate the chairman for holding today’s 

hearing on four promising bills, including my own—the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act or SERRO. 

Recognizing that small businesses are the engines of our economy and do not require the same level of regulatory oversight as large entities, Mr. Schrader and I 

put forth a commonsense proposal to create a regulatory environment that encourages innovation, spurs competition, and fosters consumer choice. 

SERRO offers a pathway for regulatory relief for small entities by directing the 

FCC to streamline their existing waiver process. This will benefit small business 

and their customers by providing greater certainty, fewer costs, and administrative 

efficiency. 

Since introducing H.R. 3787, Mr. Schrader and I have made countless efforts to 

consider all stakeholder feedback and input, and today’s discussion is a continuation 

of those efforts. I look forward to hearing from the panelists. I thank the chairman 

and yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Doyle, you’re recognized. 

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

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

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

and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

Today we are considering four pieces of legislation. In particular, 

I am happy to see before us a bill by my good friend Peter Welch, 

H.R. 2903, the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Act. 

This bipartisan legislation seeks to establish national standards 

for mobile service, mobile data service, and broadband services in 

rural America that are comparable to those in urban America. 

I know this is an issue that my friend and colleague is very passionate about, and as this bill points out, under the Communications Act, Congress tasked the FCC with ensuring that rural areas 

had similar access and availability of service as their urban counterparts. 

But I don’t have to tell anyone here that we have fallen short of 

that goal. Get on a highway that isn’t the I–95 corridor, and wireless service gets spotty fast. 

5 

Or move from Pittsburgh or DC to rural Tennessee and try to get 

fiber internet. We need to make sure that people in rural America 

can get the same kind of widespread high-speed access as we have 

in urban areas and along urban corridors. 

I am proud the committee Democrats have proposed a plan with 

Ranking Member Pallone’s LIFT America Act that seeks to close 

this gap with a $40 billion investment in capital investments. 

Congressman Lance and I have also introduced the AIRWAVES 

Act along with a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

that sets aside 10 percent of the revenue from the spectrum auctions set out in the bill for deployment of broadband infrastructure 

in unserved and underserved communities in rural America. 

Another bill we have under discussion today is Congresswoman 

Bernice Johnson’s National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, 

which would require the FCC to work in coordination with 

SAMHSA to explore the feasibility of a three-digit dialing code 

similar to 9–1–1 or 3–1–1 for suicide prevention. 

This legislation passed by UC in the Senate, a seemingly rare 

feat these days, and I hope we can continue to move this important 

legislation forward. 

We are also discussing a bill on unlicensed radio broadcasts 

today, and while I have heard anecdotes that there is a problem 

on the rise in major cities like New York and Miami, I am concerned that the proposed solution is to increase fines for these 

broadcasts tenfold. 

Years ago, I worked with Congressman Lee Terry on the Low 

Power FM Radio legislation. We saw that there was an issue of illegal broadcasts but also that there weren’t many opportunities for 

communities around the country to express themselves on the air. 

We sought to address this by increasing the opportunities available to these communities by opening a Low Power FM application 

window, which resulted in thousands of new stations across the 

country. 

As we consider this legislation, I think we need to balance the 

legitimate concerns of broadcast licensees with the limited opportunities for expression available to some communities. 

My hope is as we consider this bill we can take an approach that 

addresses both groups’ needs. 

And the last bill we are considering today is Congressman Latta’s H.R. 3787, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act. 

I am very concerned about this bill. The way that it is drafted 

would open up a huge regulatory hole at the FCC and would enable 

companies with over a billion dollars in revenue to be exempted 

from a wide range of rules intended to protect consumers and, to 

be honest, small businesses as well.I am very skeptical about the 

merits and need for this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

Today we are considering four pieces of legislation. I’m happy that we’ve decided 

to take these up and hope that we can proceed with consideration of these bills 

under regular order. 

6 

In particular, I’m happy to see before us a bill by my good friend Peter Welch: 

H.R. 2903 the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Act. This bipartisan piece 

of legislation seeks to establish national standards for mobile service, mobile data 

service, and broadband services in rural America that are comparable to those in 

urban America. I know this is an issue that my friend and colleague is very passionate about. As this bill points out, under the Communications Act, Congress 

tasked the FCC with ensuring that rural areas had similar access and availability 

of service as their urban counterparts. I don’t have to tell anyone here that we have 

fallen far short of that goal. 

While we’ve done an enviable job of electrifying the rural parts of our country, 

we’ve fallen far short in getting broadband not just to people’s homes, but to the 

areas they live, work, and commute. Get on a highway that isn’t the I–95 corridor, 

and wireless service gets spotty fast. We need to make sure that people in rural 

America can get the same kind of widespread high speed access as we have in urban 

areas and along urban corridors. 

I’m proud that committee Democrats have proposed a plan with Ranking Member 

Pallone’s Lift America Act that seeks to close this gap with $40 billion in capital 

investments. 

Congressman Lance and I have also introduced the AIRWAVES Act along with 

a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that would set aside 10 percent 

of the revenue from the spectrum auctions set out in the bill for the deployment 

of broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities in rural 

America. 

Another bill we have under discussion today is Congresswoman Bernice Johnson’s 

National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, which would require the FCC to work 

in coordination with SAMHSA to explore the feasibility of a three-digit dialing code 

similar to 9-1-1 or 3-1-1 for suicide prevention. This legislation passed by UC in the 

Senate, a seemingly rare feat these days, and I hope we can continue to move this 

important legislation forward. 

We are also discussing a bill on unlicensed radio broadcasts today. While I have 

heard anecdotes that this is a problem on the rise on major cities like New York 

and Miami, I’m concerned that the proposed solution is to increase fines for these 

broadcast tenfold. 

Years ago I worked with Congressman Terry on Low Power FM radio legislation. 

We saw that there was an issue of illegal broadcasts, but also that there weren’t 

many opportunities for communities around the country to express themselves on 

the air. We sought to address this by increasing the opportunities available to them 

by opening a Low Power FM application window, which resulted in thousands of 

new stations around the country. As we consider this legislation I think we need 

to balance the legitimate concerns of broadcast licensees with the limited opportunities for expression available to some communities. My hope is that as we consider 

this bill, we can take an approach that addresses both groups’ needs. 

The last bill that we are considering today is Congressman Latta’s H.R 2787, the 

Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act. I am very concerned about this bill. 

The way that it is drafted would open up a huge regulatory hole at the FCC and 

would enable companies with over a billion dollars in revenue to be exempted from 

a wide range of rules intended to protect consumers and, to be honest, small businesses as well. I’m very skeptical about the merits and need for this legislation. 

With that I want to yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. With that, Madam Chair, I want to yield the balance 

of my time to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

You know, as we sit here today we all know that rural broadband 

infrastructure is insufficient and rural America is being left behind. 

The FCC, in my view, is not meeting its congressionally mandated goal, which is ensuring rural America has access to, quote, 

‘‘reasonably comparable service to their urban areas.’’ 

We basically haven’t had a definition of what ‘‘reasonably comparable’’ is, and my bill, with Mr. McKinley, is designed to get at 

this issue and make ‘‘reasonably comparable’’ real and meaningful 

in rural America, just like electricity was when we made that public policy commitment in the 1930s to wire rural America. 

7 

The FCC, under this bill, would have to gather data from the 20 

most populous metro areas and detail the average signal strength 

and speeds of mobile voice and mobile internet services. 

It would also require the FCC to determine the extent to which 

mobile and fixed broadband service provided in rural areas is reasonably comparable. 

That’s what the bill would do. It is absolutely essential we do 

that in order to be able to say yes or no, that rural America has 

reasonably comparable services. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member 

Doyle. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. DOYLE. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Chairman Walden is not here. Are there Members seeking to claim the chairman’s time for an opening? 

No one seeking the time? 

Mr. Pallone, you’re recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Our hearing today will examine four bipartisan communication 

bills. Though communications is the thread that binds them all, 

they each touch on vastly different but important issues. 

First, I am pleased we are considering the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2017, which aims to quickly connect individuals experiencing a mental health crisis with a professional. 

Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death for people of all ages, 

and every year hundreds of thousands of people are injured in attempted suicides or other mental health emergencies, and this bill 

would require the Federal Communications Commission to study 

how to establish a nationwide three-digit number to access the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. 

With rates of suicide increasing each year, we must do all we can 

to get support services to those in need, and I’d like to thank one 

of our witnesses, Mr. Madigan, for all the important work you do 

at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and thanks 

also for being with us today. 

We will also be discussing the Rural Reasonable and Comparable 

Wireless Access Act introduced by Congressmen Welch and McKinley. 

This bill would shine a light on the quality of voice and 

broadband services offered in rural areas. It would direct the FCC 

to examine whether people in rural communities actually receive 

the same level of service as those in urban areas, and the FCC has 

talked a lot over the past year about improving connections in 

rural areas. 

This bill would require the FCC to collect and analyze the facts 

on the ground and make sure that it’s actually getting the job done. 

I am also glad we will be discussing the problems caused by pirate radio broadcasters—people who broadcast illegally on our pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Jul 26, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X113TELECOMLEG\115X113TELECOMLEGWORKING WAYNE
8 

lic airwaves. Pirate broadcasters flout the law and interfere with 

the licensed broadcasters who follow the law. 

These pirate broadcasts can be frustrating for people but, more 

critically, they prevent people from hearing important communications and public safety information in times of emergency, and 

that’s simply unacceptable, and I look forward to hearing about 

ways that we can work to solve this problem. 

And finally, we will discuss the Small Entity Regulatory Relief 

Opportunity Act. While I certainly appreciate the difficulties faced 

by small businesses across the country, I have concerns with the 

ways this bill would try to solve those problems. 

The bill would allow the FCC to roll back or delay consumer protections for subscribers of telecommunications and cable companies 

that serve as many as 6.5 million customers. 

These supposedly small businesses could be larger than 35 

States, and many of the millions of customers of the providers have 

fewer or no choices. 

But aside from size, given the current FCC’s animosity for consumer protections, I don’t think this is the right time for Congress 

to encourage the agency to strip away more safeguards for millions 

of people, and we would be better off figuring out ways to better 

protect the American people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Our hearing today will examine four bipartisan communications bills. Though 

communications is the thread that binds them all, they each touch on vastly different, but important, issues. 

First, I am pleased we are considering the National Suicide Hotline Improvement 

Act of 2017, which aims to quickly connect individuals experiencing a mental health 

crisis with a professional. Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death for people of 

all ages, and every year hundreds of thousands of people are injured in attempted 

suicides or other mental health emergencies. This bill would require the Federal 

Communications Commission to study how to establish a nationwide three-digit 

number to access the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. With rates of suicide increasing each year, we must do all we can to get support services to those in need. 

I’d like to thank one of our witnesses, Mr. Madigan, for all the important work you 

do with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and thanks also for being 

with us today. 

We will also be discussing the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Access 

Act, introduced by Congressmen Welch and McKinley. This bill would shine a light 

on the quality of voice and broadband services offered in rural areas. It would direct 

the FCC to examine whether people in rural communities actually receive the same 

level of service as those in urban areas. The FCC has talked a lot over the past 

year about improving connections in rural areas. This bill would require the FCC 

to collect and analyze the facts on the ground to make sure that it is actually getting the job done. 

I’m also glad that we will be discussing the problems caused by ‘‘pirate’’ radio 

broadcasters-people who broadcast illegally on our public airwaves. Pirate broadcasters flout the law and interfere with the licensed broadcasters who follow the 

law. These pirate broadcasts can be frustrating for people, but more critically, they 

prevent people from hearing important communications and public safety information in times of emergency. That is simply unacceptable. I look forward to hearing 

about ways that we can work to solve this problem. 

Finally, we will discuss the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act. 

While I certainly appreciate the difficulties faced by small businesses across the 

country, I have concerns with the ways this bill would try to solve these problems. 

The bill would allow the FCC to roll back or delay consumer protections for subscribers of telecommunications and cable companies that serve as many as 6.5 million customers. These supposedly small businesses could be larger than 35 States. 

And many of the millions of customers of the providers have few or no choices. 

9 

But aside from size, given the current FCC’s animosity for consumer protections, 

I do not think this is the right time for Congress to encourage the agency to strip 

away more safeguards for millions of people. We would be better off figuring out 

ways to better protect the American people. 

I look forward to the discussion today and hearing from all of the witnesses before 

us. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. So I look forward to discussion today and hearing 

from all the witnesses, and I’d like to yield my remaining 2 minutes to Mr. McNerney. 

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

and I thank the committee for having this hearing today. 

I am very glad that we were able to get the Improving 

Broadband Access for Veterans Act into the omnibus bill, and I say 

this is an important piece of legislation that will set us on a path 

towards closing the digital divide for veterans. I’d like to thank my 

colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, for working with me on the bill. 

One of the bills before us today would help further achieve the 

critical goal of closing the digital divide by setting targets for building out high-speed broadband in rural America—very important in 

my district. 

Another bill before us would help Americans, including veterans, 

when they are in crisis. I am glad these commonsense proposals 

are before us today. 

However, I have a concern about one of the bills, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act. While I am very open to finding ways to streamline compliance for small businesses, I am troubled by the larger trend we are witnessing of protections across the 

board being eliminated. 

I am very concerned that this bill will be another step backwards 

for consumer protection. 

And with that, I’ll yield back to the ranking member and to the 

committee. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman yields back. 

This concludes our Member opening statements. Members are reminded that all opening statements are made a part of the record. 

At this time, I want to welcome our witnesses and give them the 

opportunity for their opening statements, which will be followed by 

a round of questions. 

We are welcoming Mr. Tim Donovan, vice president of legislative 

affairs at the Competitive Carriers Association; Mr. David Donovan, president and executive director of the New York State Broadcasters Association; Mr. Robert Gessner, president of MCTV; Mr. 

John Madigan, vice president and chief public policy officer of the 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; and Ms. Sarah Morris, director of Open Internet Policy at the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation. 

We appreciate that you are each here today. We will begin today 

with you, Mr. Tim Donovan, and you are recognized for 5 minutes 

for your opening statement. 

10 

STATEMENTS OF TIM DONOVAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; DAVID L. DONOVAN, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION, 

INC.; ROBERT GESSNER, PRESIDENT, MASSILLON CABLE TV, 

INC., AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION; 

JOHN H. MADIGAN, JR., VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF PUBLIC POLICY OFFICER, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION; AND SARAH MORRIS, DIRECTOR OF 

OPEN INTERNET POLICY, OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, 

NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on meeting 

Congress’ mandate for universal service and policies that will help 

close the digital divide for mobile connectivity between urban and 

rural areas. 

I am here on behalf of CCA, representing nearly 100 wireless 

carriers as well as the companies that make up the wireless ecosystem. 

All CCA members have an interest in closing the digital divide, 

and the vast majority of CCA members employ the same consumers 

that live and work in their communities. 

I thank the subcommittee for steadfast efforts to preserve and 

expand mobile broadband nationwide. We support several committee initiatives included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

and thank the leadership, Members, and staff for their hard work 

and long hours to make that happen. 

Today, I will focus primarily on H.R. 2903, the Rural Reasonable 

and Comparable Wireless Access Act of 2017. 

While the title is a mouthful, the underlying issue is critically 

important: making sure that rural America has the same opportunities as urban areas, from economic growth and jobs to public 

safety, health, and education because of access to robust mobile 

broadband services. 

CCA thanks Representatives McKinley, Welch, and their nine bipartisan cosponsors for focusing on this important issue. 

Universal service is not only a good policy objective, it is the law. 

Congress was clear in its mandate to the FCC to ensure that all 

consumers have access to reasonably comparable services as those 

provided in urban areas. 

H.R. 2903 will provide important transparency into whether the 

FCC is meeting the universal service mandate or if work remains 

by having the FCC promulgate regulations to determine whether 

services available in rural areas are reasonably comparable to 

those in urban areas. 

This committee has been hard at work on addressing issues necessary to expand broadband and pave the way to 5G. CCA supports 

those efforts. 

While 5G promises to support services that were once considered 

science fiction, we cannot neglect Americans living in areas that 

lack service. 

11 

We need not look far to see how H.R. 2903 will immediately support the FCC in its USF mission. The FCC recently released a map 

depicting areas initially deemed eligible for Mobility Fund phase 2 

support. 

Because the technical parameters selected by the FCC were not 

sufficient to produce a map that reflects the experience you have 

as you travel your districts, significant portions of your States may 

not be eligible for funding through the mobility fund. 

It is now clear that standardizing data as directed in the Housepassed Rural Wireless Access Act as part of RAY BAUM’S Act is 

not enough to produce an accurate map if the standard is not sufficiently calibrated to meet the goal of the program. 

Final maps for eligible areas must reflect the statute’s call for 

reasonably comparable services. Further, without a set standard, it 

is not clear that resources allocated by the FCC are sufficient. 

Without a goal, it is not possible to set a budget. H.R. 2903 will 

help guide funding levels necessary to achieve universal service. 

Other important policy decisions also rest on comparable service, 

including access to spectrum and streamlined deployment of infrastructure. 

Any evidence that rural Americans do not enjoy comparable services as their urban peers should reinvigorate the need for policymakers to take steps to support deployment. 

For example, spectrum is a finite resource, and all carriers must 

have access to low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum to deploy nextgeneration mobile broadband, whether in urban or rural areas. 

It is necessary to make additional spectrum available for all carriers to provide rural areas with the latest services, and Congress 

should first complete the 600 megahertz repack as safely, swiftly, 

and efficiently as possible to allow winning bidders to put the spectrum to use to serve consumers, and second, auction all available 

millimeter wave bands as soon as possible. 

I thank Representatives Lance, Doyle, and a dozen bipartisan cosponsors for their leadership on setting time lines to auction this 

spectrum in the AIRWAVES Act and creating a fund from auction 

proceeds to support deployment in rural areas. This makes the bill 

a win-win for rural America. 

Carriers cannot provide comparable services without comparable 

infrastructure, and any challenges with cost delays or permitting 

are magnified in areas with sparse populations. 

The goals of H.R. 2903 again demonstrate how important efforts 

from the FCC and Congress are to support deployment. Separately, 

CCA appreciates H.R. 3787, sponsored by Representatives Latta 

and Schrader, also under consideration today. 

Smaller carriers already must overcome challenges larger carriers take for granted, and any appropriate regulatory relief Congress can provide will allow them to marshal resources to better 

serve their customers. 

With Congress, the FCC, and the administration all focused on 

closing the digital divide, the time to act is now, and H.R. 2903 

provides a yardstick to measure where efforts remain necessary to 

make sure that rural America is not left behind. 

12 

CCA looks forward with you to making the promise of reasonably 

comparable services a reality as access to mobile broadband becomes even more essential for modern life. 

Thank you again for holding today’s hearing, and I welcome any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tim Donovan follows:] 

13 


cca rural. 

regional. 

nationwide. 

"Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills" 

Executive Summary of Testimony of 

Tim Donovan, SVP, Legislative Affairs, Competitive Carriers Association 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 22, 2018 

Competitive Carriers Association ("CCA") Supports H.R. 2903, The Rural Reasonable and Comparable 

Wireless Act of 2017. 

H.R. 2903 will ensure the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") establishes reasonably 

comparable service standards based on what is available to consumers in urban areas and periodically 

requires the Commission to update these standards. 

H.R. 2903 Will Improve the Universal Service Fund ("USF"). 

Congressional mandate requires that all Americans have access to telecommunications and 

information services that are reasonably comparable to those provided in urban areas. This must 

include mobile broadband services. Congress created USF to serve areas where private capital alone is 

not sufficient to provide such services. Determining what constitutes reasonably comparable services 

will guide the FCC as it administers the fund. 

Current Data Parameters for Determining Mobility Fund Phase II Eligible Areas Are Insufficient. 

Technological parameters selected by the FCC for establishing areas initially eligible for Mobility Fund II 

("MF II") do not reflect reasonably comparable services. The FCC must base decisions on standardized 

data using parameters that are reasonably comparable to urban areas to direct support to areas that 

are unserved or underserved, and to determine if resources allocated by the FCC are sufficient. 

H.R. 2903 Will Support Access to Spectrum and Streamlined Deployment of Infrastructure. 

Comparable services standards also guide policymakers as they work to support mobile broadband 

deployment in rural areas and provide access to low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. 

H.R. 3787, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity ("SERRO"} Act of 2017 Provides Helpful 

Guidance. 

Policymakers should ensure that small carriers have appropriate regulatory relief to direct resources to 

providing service. 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

805 15th St NW, Suite 401 I Washington, DC 20005 I ccamobile.org 
14 


Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills 

Testimony of Tim Donovan 

Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs 

Competitive Carriers Association 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 22, 2018 
15 


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

the opportunity to testify about policies that will help close the digital divide for mobile connectivity 

between urban and rural areas. 

I am testifying on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association ("CCA"). the nation's leading 

association of competitive wireless providers. CCA is made up of nearly 100 carrier members ranging 

from small, rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional and national providers 

serving millions of customers as well as vendors and suppliers that provide products and services 

throughout the mobile communications ecosystem. 

CCA applauds this Committee's steadfast efforts to preserve and expand mobile broadband 

nationwide. To provide mobile broadband, carriers must have access to finite spectrum resources, 

available only through license or lease from the Federal Communications Commissions ("FCC"). 

Operators must be able to deploy infrastructure, the towers, small cells, and fiber that make up the 

physical network, to keep up with exponentially increasing demands for mobile broadband data 

services. And finally, carriers must be able to make a business case to deploy and upgrade these 

services. In rural and high cost areas, carriers need funding mechanisms to provide resources where 

private capital alone is not sufficient to deploy and operate networks in unserved and underserved 

areas. Led by this Subcommittee, there are currently dozens of bills pending to meet these three critical 

pillars and support carriers' abilities to meet consumers' insatiable demands for mobile broadband. CCA 

supports these efforts and encourages Congress and the FCC to move swiftly to enact policies that 

provide streamlined access to spectrum, infrastructure deployment, and funding where necessary. 

CCA supports H.R. 2903, the Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Access Act of 2017, a 

focus of today's hearing. CCA thanks Representatives McKinley and Welch, along with the seven 

bipartisan cosponsors, for their leadership on this issue. Specifically, H.R. 2903 provides important 
16 


transparency into FCC processes by having the agency "show its work" regarding its efforts to support 

reasonably comparable services. late last year, the FCC announced the launch of an online dashboard 

to provide the public with greater insight into the agency's work, the fruition of an idea FCC Chairman 

Pai proposed in 2013. The regulations promulgated as directed by H.R. 2903 can further this 

transparency, letting the public know whether the mandate for reasonably comparable services in urban 

and rural areas are "heading in the right direction" or need work, to use the parlance of the dashboard. 

Having a clear and updated understating of the mission is critical to design policies both from Congress 

and the FCC to achieve the goal of closing the digital divide. 

Comparable mobile broadband services in rural areas are vital to ensure that rural Americans 

have the same opportunities for economic growth and jobs, healthcare, public safety, education, social 

engagement, and countless new innovations powered by mobile networks as those living in more 

densely populated areas. CCA looks forward to continued work with the Subcommittee to advance 

ideas enshrined in H.R. 2903 to provide all Americans with a yardstick to measure whether the 

congressional mandate for Universal Service is being met. 

USF Policies Must Meet Congress's Mandate 

Universal service is not only a good policy objective, it is the law. Congress was clear in its 

mandate that the FCC enact policies to ensure that "[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including 

low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to 

telecommunications and information services ... that are reasonably comparable to those services 

provided in urban areas." To provide ubiquitous service in areas where private capital alone is not 

enough to make a business case, the FCC administers the Universal Service Fund ("USF"), which seeks to 

implement Congress's direction that "[t]here should be specific, predictable and sufficient Federal and 

State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service." In today's modern economy, universal 

2 
17 


service must include access to mobile broadband. While next-generation technologies and SG promise 

to support the Internet of Things and services that were once considered science fiction, we cannot 

neglect Americans living in areas lacking 4G or any G service. 

Importantly, H.R. 2903 provides proper oversight of USF by directing the FCC to establish 

reasonably comparable service standards based upon what is available to consumers in urban areas and 

to periodically update those standards. An established standard will help to guide the FCC on data 

needed to update or enact new policies while making sure programs are funded to meet these 

objectives. 

H .R. 2903 Will Ensure Appropriate Data is Collected 

We need not look far to see how H.R. 2903 will immediately support the FCC in its USF mission. 

The FCC recently released mobile broadband data depicting areas initially deemed eligible for Mobility 

Fund Phase II ("MF II") support from the USF High Cost Fund. The technological parameters selected by 

the FCC were not sufficient to produce a map that reflects the true consumer experience you have as 

you travel throughout your districts. For example, the initial areas of eligibility map shows that 

Representative Welch's home state of Vermont enjoys near-ubiquitous availability of 4G LTE service 

through unsubsidized providers, yet his constituents know this is not the case. Unfortunately, many 

members of this Subcommittee share the same frustration. These maps have failed in part because the 

standards do not reflect reasonably comparable services. 

In addition to H.R. 2903, CCA commends this Committee for advancing H.R. 1546, the Rural 

Wireless Access Act, as part of the House passed H.R. 4986, RAY BAUM'S Act, and thanks 

Representatives Loebsack and Costello for their commitment to standardize any collection of mobile 

coverage data. This is an important step in the right direction. However, as is clear from the initial MF II 

3 
18 


eligibility map, standardized data is not enough if the standard is not sufficiently calibrated to meet the 

goal of the program. 

Working in concert with the Rural Wireless Access Act, H.R. 2903 will guide the FCC going 

forward with directions to collect data that is standardized and a sense of what qualifies as reasonably 

comparable services to produce a map depicting where advanced mobile broadband services are 

available. Only then can the FCC direct USF support to areas that are unserved or underserved to meet 

Congress's direction. 

H.R. 2903 Will Help Size USF to Achieve its Objectives 

Without a set standard for what services are considered reasonably comparable, it is not clear 

that resources allocated by the FCC are sufficient. CCA is realistic in understanding that USF cannot 

provide an unlimited amount of support; however, it is not possible to set a budget without knowing 

what the project strives to achieve. H.R. 2903 will provide a guide for funding levels necessary to 

achieve Universal Service. Just as Congress strives to adjust budgets and appropriations to meet current 

objectives, the FCC should not base funding levels for USF programs based on amounts that were 

previously determined to be adequate. 

H.R. 2903 Will Support Access to Spectrum and Streamlined Deployment of Infrastructure 

In addition to policies regarding USF, other important policy decisions rest on comparable 

service standards to support policies to advance services in rural America. Carriers cannot provide 

reasonably comparable services without access to the inputs necessary to provide that service, namely 

spectrum and infrastructure. Spectrum is a finite resource, and all must have access to low-, mid-, and 

high-band spectrum to deploy next-generation mobile broadband, whether in urban or rural areas. 

Accordingly, this bill complements efforts to make spectrum available for carriers to serve rural areas. 

For low-band use, this includes completing the 600 MHz repack process to clear broadcasters out of the 

4 
19 


600 MHz band as safely, swiftly, and efficiently as possible. Regarding higher frequency millimeter-wave 

bands, H.R. 4953, the Advancing Innovation and Reinvigorating Widespread Access to Viable 

Electromagnetic Spectrum ("AIRWAVES") Act, sponsored by Representatives Lance and Doyle along with 

another dozen bipartisan cosponsors, supports the mission of reasonably comparable service by making 

additional spectrum available at auction and also creating a fund from those auction proceeds to 

support deployment in rural areas. CCA supports these efforts. 

To put this spectrum to use, all carriers must deploy physical infrastructure to serve their 

customers. Where rural areas are not currently receiving reasonably comparable services, policymakers 

must use all available options to support deployment. This includes streamlining the infrastructure 

process, including where application review time lines, fees, and other regulations stand to delay 

deployment in rural America or make the business case for deployment untenable. The FCC is 

scheduled to vote on an Order addressing some of these concerns today, and both Congress and the 

FCC must remain focused on streamlining the deployment process not only to expand services in urban 

areas but also in rural America, in line with the promise of reasonably comparable services. 

SERRO Can Provide Helpful Guidance for Policies that Disproportionately Affect Small Carriers 

Also under consideration at today's hearing, H.R. 3787, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief 

Opportunity ("SERRO") Act of 2017, sponsored by Representatives latta and Schrader, takes an 

appropriate look at regulatory relief for small carriers. Small carriers serve the communities they call 

home, often offering services to rural locations with sparse populations. Small carriers are innovative 

and they provide critical mobile broadband service to many Americans in rural areas. However, no 

amount of ingenuity can overcome their smaller size and subscriber base, particularly when regulatory 

mandates carry flat implementation costs and other compliance burdens. 

5 
20 


Small carriers already must overcome challenges larger carriers take for granted, and any 

appropriate regulatory relief Congress can provide will allow them to marshal resources to better serve 

their customers. Smaller wireless carriers do not enjoy the same economies of scale as their larger 

competitors and face challenges accessing the latest equipment and devices. Specifically, many 

competitive carriers serving rural America continue to struggle to get access to the latest devices and 

are often 12 to 24 months delayed as compared to the largest providers. This harms competition, and 

results in technology denial for certain rural Americans. While frustrating for consumers and carriers 

alike, lack of access to devices and other equipment can make it harder or nearly impossible to comply 

with regulatory mandates premised on the latest technology, including Next-Generation 9-1-1 services 

and Wireless Emergency Alerts. Even where rural and regional carriers have access to devices or 

network equipment, they may face increased costs based on lower purchasing power from smaller-sized 

orders. Policymakers should ensure that competitive carriers are not punished simply because they are 

small businesses. 

Today's hearing considers important legislation to support the clear objectives of Congress, the 

FCC, and the Administration to close the digital divide. CCA supports H.R. 2903 and encourages 

Congress's continued efforts to facilitate mobile infrastructure deployment, spectrum access, and 

funding mechanisms. Policymakers must enact solutions that ensure rural America is not left behind 

without the critical mobile broadband networks being deployed in urban areas. 

Thank you for your attention to these issues and for holding today's important hearing. 

welcome any questions you may have. 

6 
21 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Donovan, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. DONOVAN 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. On behalf of the New York State Broadcasters Association and along with the National Association of 

Broadcasters, I am honored to support the PIRATE Act. 

Let me start by thanking Congressman Leonard Lance and Congressman Paul Tonko for their leadership in drafting this legislation. I also want to thank Congressman Chris Collins, who’s been 

a leader on this issue for several years. 

But before I begin, I also want to thank the committee for their 

work in helping to secure repacking funding, which is in today’s 

omnibus, and I truly want to thank you for all your work in that, 

and also Congressman Pallone for his work in the SANDy Act. 

FCC Chairman Pai and Commissioner Mike O’Rielly have made 

pirate enforcement a priority, and I want to recognize Rosemary 

Harold, who works in the enforcement bureau, and her team for 

her efforts. 

They were on the front lines, and their work is essential. But despite these efforts, it’s become clear that the FCC needs additional 

tools to combat this problem, and the PIRATE Act provides those 

tools. 

There are hundreds of illegal stations transmitting from balconies and rooftops of residential and commercial buildings across 

New York City and northern New Jersey. There are more illegal 

stations in the New York metropolitan area than there are legally 

licensed stations, and the problem is growing. It is spreading to 

Boston, it is spreading to Connecticut, and it is spreading throughout the United States. 

Pirates disrupt the emergency alert system. Their interference 

prevents listeners from hearing life-saving information broadcast 

by legal stations. 

Pirates do not participate in the EAS system. So consumers listening to these stations will not hear EAS messages. 

But more importantly, they undermine the basic fabric of the entire EAS system, which is premised on one station monitoring another station, and so on down the line, similar to a row of dominoes. 

Pirate interference breaks this chain, which means stations who 

are relying on the EAS messages and consumers listening to those 

EAS messages will not hear them. 

Moreover, in the event of an emergency, whether it’s local news 

or public affairs, that lifesaving information consumers won’t hear 

because of pirate interference. 

Pirates threaten public health. Their transmitters operate and 

they threaten the health of unsuspecting citizens to RF frequency 

radiation. 

Let me provide you just with a few examples from our engineering analysis in 2016. You have slides before you, and they’re also 

appearing on the board. 

[The slides appear at the end of Mr. David Donovan’s prepared 

statement.] 

22 

What you see before you are pictures of illegal pirate radio stations operating in New Jersey and in New York. But the critical 

issue here, why I want you to see these stations, is because none 

of these stations comply with FCC and Government RF radiation 

standards. 

They’re broadcasting at power levels between 10 and 3,000 watts, 

and if you look at the slides, included in there is how close you 

should be to these pirate antennas. And as a result, there are folks 

who are receiving above Government standard levels of RF radiation that can range from 20 to 80 feet. 

Now, on the last slide I will also notice it’s right next to the East 

Orange, New Jersey, police station, which we found ironic. 

But the bottom line is that, if you live in the top floors of these 

buildings or if you use a rooftop deck, you are being exposed to levels that are above Government standards, and this is occurring in 

communities throughout New York, throughout New Jersey. 

They’re occurring in—we have pirates in Albany. You’re seeing 

them in Connecticut. You’re seeing them in Boston. 

This requires, we believe, action. But pirates also interfere with 

airport communications on frequencies assigned to the FAA, creating an extremely dangerous situation. They ignore all consumer 

protections laws, whether it’s sponsorship ID laws, indecency, public file requirements, alcohol and tobacco advertising laws. 

They have absolutely flouted all FCC political rules and regulations. Whether it’s access to candidates, equal time, all the rules 

that have been set down by the Federal Communications Commission are flatly ignored. 

The PIRATE Act solves this problem. It gives the FCC additional 

tools. It significantly increases the fines for operating an illegal station. It clarifies existing law with regarding to liability for those 

who facilitate pirates. 

It also provides working with State laws and recognizes those 

State laws, and it streamlines the FCC’s enforcement process. 

In conclusion, in 2015, 33 Members of Congress asked the FCC 

to increase its pirate radio enforcement. The FCC under Chairman 

Pai have done that. But they need more tools. 

The fundamental purpose of the FCC is to manage the spectrum 

and avoid interference. 

I thank you and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement and slide presentation of Mr. David 

Donovan follow:] 

23 


Statement of 

David L. Donovan 

President and Executive Director 

New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE PIRATE ACT 

Before the 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications & Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 

March 22, 2018 
24 


Executive Summary 

The New York State Broadcaster's Association, Inc. and the National Association of Broadcasters 

strongly support the PIRATE Act, which combats the growing problem of illegal pirate radio stations. In 

New York City and Northern New Jersey alone, the number of illegal pirate radio stations exceeds the 

number of licensed stations. But this has become a nationwide issue. Illegal pirate radio stations harm 

the public in several ways: 

Pirates undermine the Emergency Alert System (EAS) 

Pirates threaten public health by exposing to RF radiation 

• Pirate stations interfere with airport communications 

Pirates ignore federal and state consumer protection laws 

Pirate ignore all FCC engineering, public interest and political broadcast rules 

The PIRATE Act gives the FCC additional tools to address the growing pirate radio problem. It 

significantly increases fines to a maximum of $2 million and $100,000 per violation. Upon prior notice, it 

holds liable persons, including property owners, who "knowingly" facilitate illegal pirate operations. It 

gives the FCC the ability to go to Federal District court and obtain court orders to seize equipment. The 

PIRATE Act streamlines the enforcement process. It also authorizes the FCC to seize illegal pirate radio 

equipment if it discovers someone broadcasting illegally in real time. Finally, the PIRATE Act requires 

the FCC to conduct pirate radio enforcement sweeps in cities with a concentration of pirate radio 

stations. 

We are reaching the point where illegal pirate stations undermine the legitimacy and purpose of 

the FCC's licensing system to the detriment of listeners in communities across the country. The PIRATE 

Act will help the FCC restore integrity to the system. 

-i-
25 


I. INTRODUCTION 

The New York State Broadcaster's Association, lnc. 1 and the National Association of 

Broadcasters2

, strongly support the PIRATE Act, legislation that gives the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) additional and much needed tools to combat illegal radio 

operators. For years unauthorized pirate radio stations have harmed communities across the 

country both by interfering with licensed stations' abilities to serve their listeners, undermining 

the Emergency Alert System (EAS), and by posing direct health and safety risks. The time has 

come to take significant steps to resolve this vexing problem. 

We want to thank Congressman leonard lance {NJ-07) and Congressman Paul Tonko 

(NY-20) for their leadership in drafting this legislation, and Congressman Chris Collins {NY-27), 

who has been a leader on this issue. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O'Rielly 

are to be applauded for making pirate enforcement a priority. In addition, we want to thank 

Rosemary Harold, Chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, and her team. They are on the front 

lines. Chasing down illegal radio stations is not glamorous. This is difficult and sometimes 

dangerous work. Nonetheless, the work is essential to protecting the public. 

Spectrum enforcement in general and enforcement against illegal pirate radio 

operations in particular, lies at the heart of the FCC's mission. It is the very reason the FCC was 

1 The New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. is a not for profit trade association representing approximately 

450 radio and television broadcasters licensed to communities throughout New York State. Our mission is to 

foster an economic and regulatory environment that helps local broadcasters serve their communities in the public 

interest. convenience and necessity. 

2 The National Association of Broadcasters is a nonprofit trade association that advocates on behalf of free local 

radio and television stations and broadcast networks before Congress, the Federal Communications Commission 

and other federal agencies, and the courts. 

1 
26 


created. Absent strong FCC spectrum enforcement, the airwaves will become nothing more 

than a "cacophony" of radio transmissions. Economists refer to this as a "tragedy of the 

commons." In the real world it means that interference from unauthorized and illegal radio 

transmissions will clutter the airwaves, causing widespread interference. The result is that no 

one will hear anything. The American public will lose access to a vital information service -no 

emergency "EAS" alerts, no local news, no emergency weather or tornado alerts, no music and 

no traffic reports during drive time. 

The importance ofthe PIRATE Act must be viewed in context. The enforcement 

mechanisms in the Communications Act are aimed primarily at communications systems that 

are, or want to be, licensed or authorized by the FCC. Current enforcement mechanisms are 

really designed to regulate entities that fundamentally agree to be regulated. The current FCC 

enforcement process is not designed to address truly bad actors that willfully ignore the law 

including all FCC regulations. Fundamental changes are needed to address these situations. 

II. ILLEGAL PIRATE RADIO HARMS THE PUBLIC 

A. Illegal Pirate Stations are a Pervasive Problem 

Illegal pirate radio stations are not ships off shore broadcasting "rock and roll." We 

have all seen the movie. This is not a movie. Illegal pirate radio stations are widespread and 

growing in the United States. Their illegal broadcasts emanate from rooftops, apartment 

balconies and back yards in major urban areas such as New York City, Northern New Jersey, 

Miami, Tampa, and Boston. Pirates have operated in upstate New York, Colorado, Texas, 

2 
27 


Louisiana, Tennessee, California and Connecticut. 3 The FCC has documented enforcement 

actions against pirate radio operators in many states across the country. 

The New York State Broadcasters Association commissioned the noted engineering firm 

of Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace (MSW) to conduct engineering sweeps of illegal pirate activity 

in New York City and Northern New Jersey. MSW estimated that there may be more than 100 

illegal pirate operators in the New York Metropolitan Area. 4 In fact there may be more illegal 

pirate operators in New York and Northern New Jersey than there are legitimately licensed 

stations. 

The pervasiveness of the problem can be seen in a "Go Fund Me" page for the Brooklyn 

Pirate Sound Map Project. The purpose of the project is to create a map showing the locations 

and frequencies of all the illegal pirate stations in Brooklyn. 

The Brooklyn Pirate Radio Sound Map (BPRSM) documents a homegrown 

cultural phenomenon at once aesthetically vibrant, technologically tumultuous, 

and undeniably illegal. Every night, over 30 stations take to the air transmitting 

a wide array of programming to the West Indian Community . ... For the past 

four years, I've been recording the local pirate radio scene from my home in 

Flat bush Brooklyn while seeking out station owners and listeners on both sides 

of the legal divide to dig into the history and understand the context in which 

these stations thrive. 

This high level of radio activity goes back at least to the early 90's when 

unlicensed radio stations, popularly called pirates, began popping up on the local 

FM broadcast band. Originating from secret studios scattered around Brooklyn, 

they transmit adjacent to and often right on top of legal stations. This creates a 

certain amount of risk for the pirate operators, but the combination of cheap 

3 See FCC website at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/fcc-enforcement-actions-against-pirate-radiolocation/ 

4 Wallace Dennis, Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace, Field Measurements of Unauthorized FM Band Radio Signals in New 

York NY Metropolitan Area; Phase Four, May 19, 2016 at 2. The study may be found at 

http:l/nysbroadcasters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pirates-MSW-2016-study-final-pdf.pdf 

3 
28 


FM transmitters and the sheer number of stations offer a sort of protection 

from an understaffed FCC enforcement division ..... 5 

The Brooklyn Pirate Map Sound Project is not a pirate radio operation. Nonetheless it plans to 

map and lists the frequencies on which pirates operate in Brooklyn and perhaps the other 

boroughs. 

From our perspective it confirms two basic facts. First, illegal pirate stations are a 

pervasive problem in New York City. The 30 stations listed confirm our engineering survey in 

2016 that found you could receive 30 pirate stations in Brooklyn from one location. Second, 

the FCC's enforcement policies have little or no deterrent effect. The lack of deterrence has 

been a well-known fact for years. The chances of being caught are minimal. Even where a 

pirate is caught by the FCC, most simply received a Notice of Unlicensed Operation, i.e., a paper 

warning. In the past, there has been very little follow up, very few fines and only a few 

seizures. 

B. Illegal Pirate Operations May Be Part of a Larger Criminal Activity 

Illegal pirates are not benign disc jockeys playing "rock and roll" to their fans from ships 

off shore. They are not college students firing up a transmitter or experimenting with radio. 

Pirate radio is an illegal, coordinated and highly profitable business. Most illegal pirate 

operators have been broadcasting for years. Some broadcast in multiple markets. Many have 

advertising "rate cards." Pirates have web sites, and Facebook pages. They will accept 

advertising for both legitimate and illegal businesses. Some even broadcast political ads. 

5 Brooklyn Pirate Sound Map at https://gogetfunding.com/the-brooklyn-pirate-radio-sound-map/ visited March 

18, 2018 at 8:54pm. 

4 
29 


Some illegal pirate operators are part of a much larger criminal enterprise. For 

example, in Miami the Orange County Gang Unit arrested an illegal pirate operator. 

Apparently, the complaint filed with the FCC alleged, illegal operations, vulgar language and 

telling people where to buy drugs and prostitutes. 6 In Alaska a pirate radio operator was 

arrested after making threats of violence to law enforcement over his illegal pirate radio 

station.7 

While the level of collateral illegal activity may vary, there is one undeniable fact- those 

operating illegal pirate operations do so in direct violation of the law. Most would never 

receive a license to operate a legitimate broadcast station under the FCC "character" policies. 

More importantly pirate operations jeopardize the lives of American citizens. Even if 

one were to find an illegal pirate operator of "sufficient character," the failure to follow the 

FCC's engineering rules damages the public. The harm is real and palpable. 

C. Interference From Illegal Pirate Stations is Pervasive 

Interference from pirate radio stations is generated in two ways. First, "co-channel 

interference" which is caused by operating on the same frequency at the same time in the 

same geographic area will cause interference. The second type of interference is "adjacent 

channel interference," which results from operating a radio station on frequencies that are next 

to or adjacent to a frequency used by a licensed station. To avoid this type of interference, the 

FCC has strict engineering rules requiring stations operating on adjacent channels to be 

6 Orlando Weekly, at https://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/killing-the-messenger/Content?oid=2255711 

visited March 17,2018 at 2:37pm. 

7 Anchorage Daily News, "FBI arrests Anchor Point man for threatening law enforcement in pirate-radio 

broadcasts" Anchorage Daily News, October 2, 2015 at https://www.adn.com/crime-justice/article/fbi-arrestsanchor-point-man-over-pirate-radio-threats/2015/10/02/ visited March 17, 2018 at 3:08PM. 

5 
30 


geographically separated. Illegal pirate stations ignore these separation requirements, often 

operating within the coverage areas of licensed stations. In fact, the 2016 engineering analysis 

found that most of the "adjacent" channels in the New York Metropolitan area have one or 

more pirates operating on those channels. 

By violating the FCC's channel and adjacent channel spacing rules, all pirate stations in 

New York are, by definition, causing interference to legitimately licensed stations. In other 

words, under its engineering rules, the FCC would not grant these pirate stations a license to 

operate because they would interfere with legitimately licensed stations. 

The problems with pirate station interference are exacerbated because illegal 

operations do not comport with sound engineering practices. Power levels may fluctuate 

considerably. They may also drift and spill over on to other frequencies. In many instances 

illegal pirate stations are using transmitting equipment that has not been approved by the FCC. 

Equipment that has been approved is often altered. 

The interference caused by pirate stations in pervasive and insidious. MSW's 

engineering analysis found that the power levels for these illegal stations may range from 10 

watts to as high as 3000 watts. Depending on the height of the building the signal from these 

stations may range from a few blocks to several miles. This means that you can have multiple 

pirates operating on the same channels in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and 

Northern New Jersey. Collectively, this means there is interference from hundreds of pirate 

stations that operate on nearly every adjacent channel and many co-channels throughout the 

New York Metropolitan area. 

6 
31 


The impact on licensed stations is profound. For example, depending on the type of 

station, a licensed station in New York may have a coverage area that spans 30 to 50 miles. 

Within this coverage area there may be dozens of illegal pirate stations operating on the same 

channel or adjacent channels. These illegal stations create pockets of interference in 

neighborhoods throughout the station's coverage area. In effect, the coverage area of the 

licensed station begins to resemble "Swiss Cheese," with interference holes appearing 

throughout the protected coverage area of the station. 

From a consumer's perspective, service from the licensed stations will be disrupted. 

For example, a person listening to a legal station in the car will start the trip receiving a good 

quality signal from the legal station. As the driver gets closer to a pirate transmitter, he will first 

receive interference, blocking out the signals of both the legal and illegal station. As the driver 

gets closer to the illegal pirate station, the pirate's signal will overwhelm the signal from the 

legitimate station in the radio receiver, and the listener will hear only the pirate station. 

Depending on the power of the pirate station and the height of its antenna, this could last for a 

few city blocks or a few miles. With a number of pirate stations located within the stations 

service area, a stations licensed coverage area becomes filled with interference zones, where 

consumers no longer receive service from the licensed station. 

D. Pirates Stations Undermine the Emergency Alert System 

Interference from pirate stations is not confined to entertainment programs. Such 

interference also affects the Emergency Alert System (EAS). EAS is critically important to 

protect the public and national security. During national, regional and local emergencies, the 

broadcast EAS system is essential to saving lives. Whether it's a tornado, flash flood, and 

7 
32 


hurricane or man-made disaster, the system must function properly. It is monitored closely by 

the FCC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which have conducted several 

national tests of the system. There are required monthly tests for EAS participants. Every state 

has an EAS plan that is required to be filed with the FCC. 

The system is built on a basic principle. Stations participating in the EAS system must be 

able to transmit and receive interference-free signals. This becomes impossible with hundreds 

of illegal pirate stations operating in a region. The EAS system is undermined in three ways. 

First, illegal pirate stations do not participate in the EAS system. They do not follow the 

FCC's rules regarding EAS participation. They have no equipment to monitor other EAS stations. 

They have not installed the required Common Alert Protocol equipment to receive messages 

via the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. These stations do not participate in any 

required monthly tests or in the national EAS test conducted by FEMA and the FCC. In short, a 

consumer listening to an illegal pirate station will not hear an EAS alert. 

Second, as noted above, these stations cause interference to licensed radio stations. 

The interference also blocks the EAS messages from licensed stations. Thus consumers located 

near an illegal pirate radio transmitter will not hear the legitimate station's EAS alert. 

Moreover, they will not hear any follow up newscasts which provide life-saving information in 

the event of an emergency. The situation becomes truly dangerous with hundreds of illegal 

pirate stations interfering with many licensed stations located throughout a metropolitan area. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, illegal pirate radio stations interfere with the 

technical foundations of the off-air EAS system. The EAS system is based on alerts being 

broadcast from primary stations, which first receive the message directly from the government. 

8 
33 


These primary stations then transmit the EAS message over the air on their assigned channels. 

Other "secondary" stations in the market monitor these primary channels for the EAS 

messages. These messages are received by the secondary stations and broadcast over the air 

on their channels. The process is repeated by other stations in the market, across the state and 

ultimately nationwide in a "daisy chain." Any break in the "daisy chain" will mean that stations 

and listeners further down the chain will not receive the EAS message. It is similar to a row of 

dominos where one domino fails to fall. 

Interference from illegal pirate stations may cause a break in this vitally important 

system. An example of this problem was the basis for a complaint at the FCC in 2015. WWRV 

1330 AM, which served the Hispanic community in New York City and Northern New Jersey, 

was required to monitor two stations as part of the New York State EAS plan -WINS 1010 AM 

and the New York public radio station- WNYC FM 93.9. However, because of an illegal pirate 

station operating in New Jersey on FM 93.7 (a channel adjacent to WNYC's 93.9) it became 

difficult to monitor and receive a clear signal from WNYC. As a result, the WWRV had to change 

its EAS monitoring assignment to WABC AM 770. 

The danger is compounded because pirate radio stations are unpredictable. Power 

levels rise and fall. Stations switch channels and locations at will. As a result legitimate stations 

may not realize they have an issue with the stations they are monitoring until an emergency 

requiring an EAS alert takes place. Fortunately, the EAS system requires that each station 

monitor two primary stations. Nonetheless, the ability oft he system to function will become 

more challenged as the number of illegal pirate radio stations grows. 

9 
34 


E. Pirate Radio Stations Threaten Public Health 

Legally licensed stations are required to meet the FCC Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) 

rules. The standards defining exposure limits to RFR are governed by the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements' (NCRP's) Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) 

limits.8 These standards ensure that consumers and workers are not exposed to harmful levels 

of RF radiation that emanate from broadcast transmissions. It is the reason why broadcast 

towers are surrounded by fences or have special precautions if located on the top of a building 

like the Empire State Building or One World Trade in New York City. It is also one of the reasons 

broadcast stations "power down" when technicians are working on broadcast towers and 

transmitting antennas. 

Pirate radio stations completely ignore these public health considerations. Transmitting 

antennas are located in neighborhoods on rooftops, balconies and fire escapes with little 

concern about the residents living or working next to these transmitting antennas. 

In 2016 MSW conducted an analysis of several pirate radio locations in the Bronx, 

Brooklyn and Northern New Jersey. 9 Of course, pirate radio stations operate at power levels 

below full service radio stations, ranging from 10 to 3000 watts. Nonetheless, MSW found RFR 

8 On August 1, 1996, the Commission adopted the NCRP's recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure limits for 

field strength and power density for the transmitters operating at frequencies of 300kHz to 100 GHz. In addition, 

the Commission adopted the specific absorption rate (SAR) limits for devices operating within close proximity to 

the body as specified within the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 guidelines. (See Report and Order, FCC96-326) 

https:l/www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequencysafety-O 

9 Wallace Dennis, Meintel, Sgrirnoli & Wallace, Field Measurements of Unauthorized FM Band Radio Signals in New 

York NY Metropolitan Area; Phase Four, May 19, 2016 at 16 -23. The study may be found at 

http:l/nysbroadcasters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pirates-MSW-2016-study-final-pdf.pdf 

10 
35 


levels in excess of the MPE standards. 1° For example, a pirate station located in Clifton, New 

Jersey operated at 2,573.3 watts. This means that anyone located within 68 feet of the 

transmitting antenna would be exposed to RF levels above the MPE standard. In the Bronx, a 

pirate station was found to be operating at 288.4 watts, meaning that anyone located within 

22.76 feet of the transmitting antenna would be exposed to RF above the MPE standard. In 

other words the power level of the pirate transmitter will dictate how close you can get to the 

illegal transmitter before exceeding the MPE standards. 

While the distances may seem small, the risk of harm in congested urban areas is very 

real. While the level of constant exposure may depend on the types of construction materials 

used, families living or working in the top floors of the buildings are well within 22 or 68 feet of 

the transmitting antenna. MSW also found that many of the buildings containing pirate 

antennas are located on two or three story wood framed buildings. Apartments in these 

buildings, as wells as in adjacent buildings, are well within 22 or 68 feet ofthe transmitting 

antenna. If the illegal antenna is on a balcony, those living in the adjacent apartment may be 

exposed to RF levels above the MPE standard. A person using a roof top deck or working on the 

roof would be located in an area above the MPE standard. 

The problem is compounded because there are hundreds of illegal pirate stations 

operating in the New York City Metropolitan area. Citizens living and working near illegal pirate 

transmitting antennas have absolutely no idea that they are at risk. The risk to public health 

means that the FCC and Congress should make pirate radio enforcement a top priority. 

10 See Appendix A for examples of the locations where RFR exposure analysis was conducted. 

11 
36 


F. Illegal Pirate Radio Stations Interfere with Airport Communications 

Pirate stations interfere with airport communications on frequencies assigned to the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), creating an extremely dangerous situation. For example, 

in 2013, the FCC and the Department of Justice shut down an unauthorized radio station 

operating on 91.7 MHz in Boston, MA. According to the Department of Justice's Press Release, 

the FAA complained about pirate radio interference: 

"According to an affidavit filed with the civil complaint, the unlicensed FM radio station 

was causing interference to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) frequency 120.6 MHz, 

which is one of the primary frequencies used by pilots to communicate with FAA 

controllers when flying in the Boston metropolitan area. The FCC issued verbal and 

written warnings to the residents of 9 Rutland Street on several occasions, but the radio 

station continued to broadcast."11 

The growth in illegal pirate radio stations increases the probability there will be more 

interference issues with airport communications. The FM broadcast band is adjacent to 

aeronautical frequencies (108 to 137M Hz). Interference from pirate stations could cause errors 

in navigational guidance, interference to pilot to ground communications, as well as other 

aeronautical systems. Because illegal pirate stations ignore all engineering rules and standards, 

there is a significant chance that their signal will spill over on to airport communications 

systems. 

The risk of interference grows as the number of illegal pirate stations increase. For 

example in 2016, MSW found a pirate stations in Newark, NJ, operating on 107.7 MHz, which is 

only one channel away from being directly adjacent to the FAA frequencies that start at 108 

11 Department of Justice Press Release, Tuesday March 12, 2013 at https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/radioequipment-seized-pirate-radio-station: visited March 18, 2018 at 12:03pm. 

12 
37 


MHz. Newark has an extremely busy airport. The survey found an unauthorized pirate station 

in Brooklyn operating on 107.9, which is directly adjacent to FAA frequencies. This station 

could potentially affect communications at JFK airport. 

The interference concern is not limited to pirate stations operating on FM channels that 

are adjacent to FAA frequencies. Pirate stations may unexpectedly cause "intermodulation 

products" that cause interference to frequencies assigned to the FAA. lntermodulation is a 

commonly known interference mechanism caused by strong local signals overloading or 

overpowering the tuner in a receiver. Typically, this non-linear effect will produce interfering 

signals on multiple frequencies at the front end of the aeronautical radio. For example, a 

strong pirate signal on 105.1 MHz may mix with an aeronautical signal on 115.05 MHz and 

produce an intermodulation product at 125.0 MHz, potentially causing interference to the voice 

communications of aircraft. 

The potential harm from this type of interference cannot be overstated. Because pirate 

stations may start transmitting at any time, without notice, neither the FCC nor the FAA can 

predict when interference to aeronautical frequencies will occur. Enforcement can only be 

taken after the interference has affected FAA frequencies. To reduce the risk of this type of 

interference, the FCC must take affirmative steps to reduce the overall number of illegal pirate 

stations. 

G. Pirate Stations Ignore All Consumer Protection and FCC Regulations and 

Undermine Investment in Legitimately Licensed Stations 

Because they operate outside the law pirate stations need not comply with any of the 

FCC rules. They may ignore sponsorship identification requirements, indecency rules, on-line 

public file requirements, or issue responsive programming obligations. They may completely 

13 
38 


ignore all state and federal consumer protection laws. Pirates may broadcast advertisements 

for illegal products with impunity. They may avoid all federal and state taxes. Pirates pay no 

FCC regulatory fees. They may ignore demands for copyright payments from BMI and ASCAP. 

Sadly, some pirates broadcast political ads for certain candidates. Of course, illegal pirate 

operators have no obligation to provide access to federal candidates, comply with the lowest 

unit charge rules or provide equal opportunities to candidates under Section 315 of the 

Communications Act. 

Radio stations are licensed by the FCC to serve the public interest. By ignoring these 

laws, most of the illegal pirate radio stations do not serve their communities. To the contrary 

they often prey on the most vulnerable populations. 

Beyond direct harm to their communities, illegal pirate operations create an unfair 

competitive environment for legally licensed stations. They do not have to bear the costs 

associated with legitimate broadcasters. Not only does this create an unfair business climate, it 

undermines investment. This is especially true for legitimate minority owned broadcast 

stations. 

By selling advertising in minority communities to legitimate businesses, pirates give 

themselves the false appearance of legitimacy and undermine the advertising base for 

legitimate licensed minority owned stations. It is patently unfair to NABOB members to 

invest substantial sums purchasing and operating radio stations only to discover they 

must compete against illegal operators who do not live by the same rules. These 

operators do not have to build or purchase a facility that meets the Commission's 

engineering and operating standards. They do not have to comply with the Commission 

rules, consumer protection laws, or EAS requirementsY 

12 Letter to the Honorable Thomas Wheeler, Chairman FCC from James l. Winston, President National Association 

of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB), May 7, 2015. 

14 
39 


In summary, illegal pirate radio stations do no serve the public interest. Violating the 

FCC's engineering rules, by itself, causes a direct and immediate harm to the public. Ignoring all 

consumer protection and FCC content based rules compels provides an additional, compelling 

reason, for increased enforcement by the FCC. The time has come to give the FCC the tools 

necessary to achieve its fundamental mission. 

Ill. RADIO BROADCASTERS SUPPORT THE PIRATE ACT 

We strongly agree with FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly that Congress must give the 

FCC additional tools to combat illegal pirate radio stations. For too long FCC enforcement 

efforts have been hampered by limitations contained in the Communications Act itself. These 

limitations have rendered ineffective many FCC enforcement efforts. Some complain that 

pirate enforcement is too difficult, using the "whack a mole" analogy. The reason why there is 

a "whack a mole" problem, however, is that the enforcement tools and resources employed by 

the FCC to address the problem have been ineffective. The PIRATE Act will provide the FCC 

with the tools necessary to achieve its mission. 

A. Fines for Illegal Pirate Radio Stations Should be Raised Significantly 

The PIRATE Act will increase the fines for illegal pirate radio operations to up to 

$100,000 per violation and up to a maximum of up to $2 million. By significantly increasing the 

fines the FCC will be sending a clear signal to pirate operators that it serious about pirate radio 

enforcement. Broadcasters support this increase. 

Under the Communications Act, the fines that may be assessed on a non-licensee are 

essentially limited to $10,000 per violation and capped at a maximum of $75,000. In some 

15 
40 


instances, these amounts may be increased for flagrant violations. 13 Because illegal pirate 

operators are "non-licensees," they are subject to these limits. Unfortunately, these amounts 

are well below any amount that could have a deterrent effect. Pirate radio is a business, and 

this amount is simply considered a cost of doing business. Ironically pirate radio fines are well 

below the amounts that the FCC often applies to licensed stations for a single infraction. In 

other words you can completely ignore all FCC rules and be subject to a fine of around $10,000. 

If you are a licensee, however you may be assessed a forfeiture of hundreds of thousands of 

dollars for violating a single rule. The current policy makes little sense. 

Increasing the fines will also save Commission resources. The current limit of $10,000 

per violation means that the FCC must send out its monitoring truck multiple times in order to 

assess a pirate station with a significant fine. Changing the per violation limit to $100,000, 

means the FCC may assess larger fines, without having to expend resources send out its 

monitoring trucks multiple times. 

Increasing the fines may have a salutary effect on the relationship between the 

Department of Justice and the FCC. The FCC must work with the Department of Justice to seize 

equipment and to bring a collection action in Federal District court. Increasing the fines should 

provide the local U.S. Attorney's offices with an added incentive to bring pirate radio cases in 

Federal District Court. 

13 A recent case in Miami resulted in a forfeiture of $144,344, for ignoring a number of FCC warnings. The case 

started in 2012 and the pirate radio operators ignored several orders including a prior forfeiture order and 

equipment seizures. In the context of pirate radio, such forfeitures are rare. In the Matter of Fob rice Polyniece 

and Harold Sido, Notice of Apparent Liability, FCC 17-127, released September 26, 2017. 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-17-127 Al Rcd.pdf 

16 
41 


B. Extending Liability to those who "Facilitate" Pirate Operations is Essential 

Illegal pirate radio operators are elusive. They can be difficult to track down. For 

example, Illegal stations broadcasting in New York may be provided with content via microwave 

from another state or from another country by satellite. When confronted by the FCC, illegal 

pirate stations simply move to another location. 

The PIRATE Act makes clear that people who "knowingly" facilitate illegal pirate 

operations may also be subject to a forfeiture of up to $2 million. This provision is essential, 

and perhaps the most important part of the PIRATE Act. It is especially important as it applies 

to property owners who allow access to pirate radio operators. 

Under existing FCC precedents, the Commission may impose liability on those who assist 

pirates only where there is a strong nexus between the person and the underlying pirate radio 

operation. Essentially the FCC must find that the person assisting the pirate was part of the 

pirate operation. For example, the FCC will look for a number of facts such as allowing a pirate 

exclusive access to a property, providing the pirate with electricity, providing the pirate with 

Internet access, and providing the pirate with programming. 14 

The PIRATE Act clarifies existing law by making it clear that property owners may receive 

forfeiture (i.e., a fine) if they "knowingly" provide an illegal pirate operator with access to 

property. In this regard, the FCC need not prove that the property owner was essentially part 

of the pirate operation. "Knowingly" providing access will be sufficient. 

14 /n the Matter of Fabrice Pofyniece and Harold Sido, Notice of Apparent Liability, FCC 17-127, released September 

26, 2017. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-17-127Al Rcd.pdf 

17 
42 


This standard better reflects the reality of many pirate operations. Pirate operators 

broadcast from the roofs of buildings and on balconies. Some pirates pay rent for the space. 

Others have entered into an arrangement with the building manager or supervisor. In some 

cases, the tenant of a building is operating a pirate station. In many cases, other than providing 

access to the roof or balcony, the property owner may not be involved in the day to day 

operations of the pirate. By holding building owners accountable the PIRATE Act will take a 

major step forward in pirate radio enforcement. While pirate operators are elusive, you cannot 

move a building. The PIRATE Act will deny pirate operators the physical locations they need to 

engage in their illegal broadcasts. 

Importantly, the PIRATE Act requires that those who facilitate pirate broadcasts may be 

held liable only if they "knowingly" facilitated the pirate. The bill requires that those 

"facilitating" pirates, including property owners must first receive notice from the FCC, before 

they can be held accountable. This requirement strikes the appropriate balance. It is also 

consistent with Section 503 of the Communications Act which requires that non-licensees must 

be notified before they are held liable. 

C. The PIRATE Act Recognizes the Importance of State Law Enforcement 

The PIRATE Act recognizes the legitimacy of state laws that impose criminal penalties on 

illegal pirate radio stations. Today three states, New York, Florida and New Jersey, make it a 

crime to operate a pirate radio station without an FCC license. No doubt other states will adopt 

similar laws as illegal pirate radio operations grow and spread across the nation. We do not 

believe these state laws are in conflict or preempted by the Communications Act. Nonetheless, 

18 
43 


the PIRATE Act removes any ambiguity and makes is clear that these laws will not be 

preempted. 

Recognizing state laws will also assist the Commission's enforcement efforts. Working 

with local law enforcement gives the FCC a "force multiplier," providing it with more "boots on 

the ground" to confront illegal pirate radio operators. This legislation helps solidify the FCC's 

ability to work with state law enforcement officials. 

D. Enforcement Sweeps Will Help in Markets with High Pirate Concentrations 

We support the provisions in the PIRATE Act that require the FCC to conduct pirate radio 

enforcement sweeps twice a year. This provision will ensure that the FCC keeps pace with this 

growing problem. While such a requirement will be resource intensive, we have reached a 

point where there are more illegal pirate operators in some cities than there are legitimate 

stations. We are close to the point where the federal licensing system will lose all meaning. 

Significant action is required. Enforcement sweeps will help the FCC keep pace with this 

problem and restore the integrity of the licensing process. In addition, such sweeps are 

necessary to determine whether FCC enforcement policies are effective. 

E. The FCC's Enforcement Process Must be Streamlined 

The typical process of assessing a fine against pirate stations takes several stages. The 

process is contained in Section 503 of the Communications Act. Basically, the process tracks 

the following steps: 

• Notice of Unlicensed Operation: Illegal operators are first presented with a Notice of 

Unlicensed Operation. This is the most common enforcement action, and is essentially 

a letter telling the pirate station to stop broadcasting. These notices are often simply 

ignored by the pirates. 

19 
44 


• Notice of Apparent Liability: The next step in the process is to issue a Notice of 

Apparent Liability (NAL). In this step the pirate is warned that the FCC may assess a 

forfeiture (i.e., a fine) if illegal operations continue. The illegal operator has the 

opportunity to respond to the NAL. 

• Forfeiture Order: After the NAL is issue, the FCC then moves forward and issues the 

actual Forfeiture Order. This is the order that issues the actual fine. Illegal pirate 

operators have an opportunity to appeal this decision to the Commission. lfthe fine is 

paid, they may then appeal the decision in Federal Court. 

• Federal District Court: If the illegal pirate operator fails to pay the fine, the FCC must go 

to Federal District Court, for a trial de nova, to obtain an order to collect the fine. The 

FCC must however, work the local U.S. attorney's office to obtain the court order. 

This entire process takes months, if not years to complete. It is one of the reasons 

illegal pirate radio stations do not fear the FCC. Something must be done to streamline the 

process. Today illegal pirate radio operators simply game the process. 

The PIRATE Act creates a new process for pirate radio enforcement. Under the bill, the 

FCC would be able to skip the first two steps in the process, and move directly to the step 

issuing the fine. Of course due process requires that the FCC may not issue a Forfeiture Order 

without a hearing. While rarely used, Section 503(b)(3) of the Communications Act gives the 

FCC the ability to impose such a fine, provided the person has an opportunity to appear before 

an administrative law judge. 

This provision may have the potential to streamline the process. It may require the FCC 

to secure more administrative law judges in Washington to hear these types of cases. 

Moreover, consistent with due process, new procedures may have to be enacted to streamline 

the administrative process. Nonetheless, foregoing the first two administrative steps and 

requiring illegal operators to appear before and Administrative Law judge in Washington, would 

20 
45 


not only shorten the process, but it would make it clear the FCC is serious with respect to pirate 

radio enforcement. 

F. The FCC Should Have the Authority to Go to Court and Obtain an Order to Seize 

Pirate Radio Equipment 

Seizing pirate radio equipment is an important enforcement tool. Perhaps one of the 

most significant obstacles to efficient pirate radio enforcement is the requirement that the FCC 

work through a local U.S. Attorney's offices in order to obtain a court order to seize equipment. 

This should be no surprise. U.S. Attorneys' offices are dealing with a host of vitally important 

issues ranging from organized crime, drug interdiction and terrorism. It is no surprise that 

illegal pirate radio operators are not given a higher priority. 

The PIRATE Act provides a solution to this problem. It gives the FCC the authority to go 

into Federal District Court to obtain the necessary orders to seize equipment. In addition the 

PIRATE Act gives the FCC the authority to seize equipment if it finds the equipment being used 

in "real time." 

We think both provisions are important to address the growing illegal pirate radio 

problem. Issues regarding coordination with the local U.S. Attorney's office have been around 

for decades and will not be resolved and time soon. On the other hand, policing the airwaves is 

at the heart of the FCC's mission. The Commission has a vested interest in ensuring that the 

airwaves are not overwhelmed with illegal operators. 

Granting the FCC the authority to go directly to court and obtain a seizure order raises 

resource issues. Today, the Commission has no trial attorneys with expertise in Federal District 

Court procedures. Also there are security and safety concerns regarding the Enforcement 

Bureau's ability to seize equipment. 

21 
46 


If the Congress and the FCC wants to eradicate the illegal pirate radio problem, 

however, then they must begin to rethink the enforcement process. As noted earlier, the 

current FCC enforcement process was not designed to deal with truly bad actors. The time has 

come to make changes. We believe the provisions of the PIRATE Act are a step in the right 

direction. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In 2015, 33 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the FCC 

demanding additional pirate radio enforcement. Today illegal pirate radio stations outnumber 

legitimately licensed stations in some major markets. The integrity of the federal licensing 

system is being tested. Significant steps must be taken. Resources have to be allocated to 

enforcement. The Communications Act needs to be amended to address this growing problem. 

As Commissioner O'Rielly has stated, the FCC needs Congress to provide it with additional tools. 

The PIRATE Act provides those tools. 

22 
47 


Appendix A 

Examples of RF Radiation and 

Illegal Pirate Radio Stations 

The examples in this Appendix were taken from and engineering analysis conducted by 

Meintel, Sgrignoli & Wallace, Field Measurements of Unauthorized FM Band Radio Signals in New York NY 

Metropolitan Area; Phase Four, May 19, 2016. 

The complete engineering analysis may be accessed at 

http:/lnysbroadcasters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pirates-MSW-2016-study-final-pdf.pdf 

23 
48 


24 
49 


25 
50 


26 
51 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Gessner, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GESSNER 

Mr. GESSNER. Good morning. 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the 

subcommittee, my name is Robert Gessner. 

I am president of Massillon Cable TV, a small family-owned 

broadband and cable company serving 50,000 customers in five 

Ohio counties. Mostly, really nervous, as this is my first time testifying in any sort of venue. 

I also currently serve as chairman of the American Cable Association, which represents more than 700 small and mid-size companies, a mixture of municipalities, telephone companies, electric 

companies, rural co-ops, as well as cable TV operators. 

The majority of ACA members have fewer than 1,000 customers, 

fewer than 10 employees, and almost none have an attorney on 

staff. 

Despite our small size, we make large investments in our networks to provide critical connectivity to the communities we 

serve—typically, rural communities. 

And I thank you for inviting me to testify about H.R. 3787, the 

Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act, or SERRO. 

SERRO is a narrowly tailored bipartisan bill whose purpose is to 

streamline the process by which deserving small communications 

entities may request—and I stress that word request, regulatory 

relief. 

Many regulations at the FCC are one-size-fits-all. Because of our 

limited size, small entities often are not the source of the specific 

harms that the FCC is targeting. Now, in theory, the FCC waiver 

process gives small entities an opportunity to show good cause for 

an exemption or a delay in the application of a one-size-fits-all rule. 

But, in practice, deserving small entities often are deterred from 

seeking relief because of the administrative costs and the uncertainty of the waiver process. 

To give you just one example, in 2010, my company, which had 

recently converted to an all-digital platform, went to considerable 

expense to petition the FCC for a waiver of certain analog-based 

technical performance testing requirements. 

It was not until last September, more than 7 years after we filed 

our waiver request, that the FCC finally addressed our concerns. 

Now, the goal of SERRO is to ensure that the FCC is more attentive to small entities’ well-founded need for exceptions to or relief 

from one-size-fits-all rules and it accomplishes that in three provisions. 

First, SERRO directs the FCC to adopt streamlined provisions to 

reduce the administrative burdens faced by small entities that file 

waiver petitions and to expedite the resolution of those petitions. 

Second, SERRO clarifies that Congress intends for the FCC, as 

part of its mandated triennial review process to consider the impact of its rules on any and all small entities within its jurisdiction. 

SERRO further instructs the FCC to modify or repeal the application of particular regulations to small entities where the commission determines there is good cause to do so. 

52 

And third, SERRO establishes an automatic referral period of at 

least 1 year in the application of most new regulations to small entities, subject to exceptions for rules that address public safety concerns or that reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. 

If SERRO had been in place in 2010, my company would not 

have been subjected to 7 years of regulatory uncertainty, waiting 

for the FCC to act on our petition. In fact, we might not have needed to go to the expense of filing the petition in the first place. 

I want to stress that SERRO is focused only on the procedures 

by which small entities can request regulatory relief. That’s the O 

in SERRO—an opportunity. Nothing in the bill would change the 

substantive legal standard for obtaining that relief. 

And I also want to emphasize that while I am here representing 

the American Cable Association, SERRO is not a cable-only bill. 

SERRO will apply to and has the support of small entities in every 

sector of the communications industry, as evidenced by this letter 

that was sent to Chairman Walden. 

Now, in conclusion, I do want to express my thanks to Representatives Latta and the absent Mr. Schrader to move SERRO forward. 

As Representative Latta stated in this introduction, while small 

businesses are the engines of the economy, generating two out of 

three new jobs, they also are the most susceptible to burdensome 

regulations that harm their ability to grown, expand, and hire new 

employees. 

ACA looks forward to working with you on this sensible and important piece of bipartisan procedural regulatory relief legislation 

and be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gessner follows:] 

53 


One Page Summary of Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

President, Massillon Cable TV, Inc. and 

Chairman, American Cable Association 

March 22, 2018 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills" 

The American Cable Association (ACA) is pleased to join with other organizations 

representing small communications service providers to support H.R. 3787, the Small Entity 

Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act (SERRO), a narrowly-tailored, bi-partisan bill whose purpose 

is to streamline the process by which deserving small communications entities request regulatory 

relief. 

As Rep. Latta stated in introducing SERRO, while "small businesses arc the engines of 

our economy- creating two out of three new jobs," they also are "the most susceptible to 

burdensome regulations that harm their ability to grow, expand and hire new employees." Many 

FCC regulations take a one-size fits all approach and rely on a case-by-case waiver approach to 

give small entities the opportunity to show that there is good cause for targeted regulatory relief 

(typically in the form of an exemption from the rule or a delay in its effective date). However, in 

practice, deserving small entities often are deterred from seeking such relief because of the 

administrative costs involved in pursuing a waiver, and because there is no guarantee the FCC 

will act on a waiver request in a timely fashion. 

SERRO does not change the substantive standard for requesting relieffrom one-size fits 

all rules. Rather, it ensures that the FCC will be more attentive to the impact of its rules on small 

entities by focusing on the procedural obstacles that impede small entities from requesting the 

relief to which they are entitled. It accomplishes that objective through three provisions: 

First, SERRO directs the FCC to adopt streamlined procedures to reduce the 

administrative burdens faced by small entities that file waiver petitions and to expedite the 

resolution of those petitions. 

Second, SERRO clarifies that Congress intends for the FCC, as part of its mandated 

"triennial review" process, to consider the impact of its rules on any and all small entities within 

its jurisdiction and to modify or repeal the application of particular regulations to some or all 

small entities where the Commission determines there is good cause to do so. 

Third, SERRO establishes an automatic deferral period of at least one year in the 

application of most new regulations to small entities. subject to exceptions for rules that address 

public safety concerns or that reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. 

These provisions will help reduce the cost of regulatory compliance and allow small 

entities to better meet the unserved and underserved needs of millions of customers in thousands 

of small communities throughout the country. 
54 


INTERNET ' TV I PHONE 

AMERICAN CABLE We go the extra ~mile. ASSOCIATION 

Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

President, Massillon Cable TV, Inc. 

Chairman, American Cable Association 

Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills" 

March 22,2018 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Robert Gessner and I am President of Massillon Cable TV, Inc., a small Ohio-based 

company that provides a full complement of advanced broadband products, including high-speed 

Internet, digital television, and residential and enterprise phone, to 50,000 homes and businesses 

in Stark, Wayne, Summit, Holmes, and Tuscarawas counties. I also currently serve as the 

Chairman of the American Cable Association ("ACA"). I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today in that capacity to discuss H.R. 3787, the Small Entity Regulatory Relief 

Opportunity Act ("SERRO"). As I will describe, SERRO is a narrowly-tailored, bi-partisan bill 

introduced by Representatives Latta and Schrader that, if enacted, will greatly reduce the burdens 

and uncertainty currently faced by small companies seeking regulatory relief from the FCC. 

I. The Role Played By Small Entities in the Communications Marketplace 

ACA, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, represents over 700 small and 

medium sized broadband and video service providers. These companies, which include not only 

traditional cable operators but also traditional telephone companies, municipally owned systems, 
55 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page2 

and rural electric co-ops, pass over 18 million homes mostly in rural areas and small cities and 

provide a wide range of services, including high-speed Internet, television, phone and dedicated 

fiber-optic connections to more than 7 million subscribers. Like my company, which was 

founded by my parents more than 50 years ago, a great many of ACA's members are privatelyowned, family-run entities: true "mom and pop" operations. Eighty percent of these companies 

serve fewer than 5,000 subscribers and around half serve fewer than I ,000 subscribers and have 

ten or fewer employees. 

While ACA's members are substantially smaller than the national communications 

service providers that dominate the marketplace, they are technically sophisticated and play a 

critically important role in the American economy. Over the past five years, ACA's members 

have invested more than $1 0 billion to upgrade and expand their networks. These investments 

are helping to close the digital divide by providing competition in areas served by larger 

providers and by bringing advanced telecommunications services to areas -particularly rural 

areas- that the larger service providers have passed by. As ACA President and CEO Matthew 

Polka testified before this Subcommittee earlier this year, ACA members have invested private 

funds to extend their facilities to more than 840,000 homes that the Federal Communications 

Commission would consider to be high-cost areas eligible for federal universal service support. 

ACA's members generally believe that consumers and competition benefit most when 

regulation is kept to a minimum. While there are instances where regulatory intervention is 

necessary to address specific harms, small entities frequently are not the source of the harm that 

the regulation is intended to address. Thus, it is important that the FCC be thoughtful in 

applying its rules to small entities. Furthermore, it is equally important that the FCC monitor its 

rules over time and take prompt action to modify or repeal rules when it becomes apparent that 
56 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page 3 

they are not serving their intended purpose or are imposing disproportionate burdens on small 

entities. If the Commission is inattentive to the impact of its rules on small entities, and is not 

responsive to well-founded requests for regulatory relief, the resulting burdens will inevitably 

harm the public by making it more difficult for small entities to invest in their systems aod 

deploy innovative new services. 

I should emphasize that while I am here representing ACA, the indiscriminate imposition 

of regulatory burdens on small entities is not just a "cable company" issue. Small entities can be 

found in virtually every segment of the communications industry. These small entities, which 

provide vital services to millions of consumers, likewise are vulnerable to one-size fits all 

regulation and face the same kinds of obstacles as ACA's members when they seek regulatory 

relieffrom the FCC. Thus, the procedural benefits that SERRO would provide ACA's members 

also would be shared by small entities throughout the communications industry. 

II. SERRO 

As indicated, SERRO is a modest, bi-partisao piece oflegislation that will provide 

significant benefits to the many small entities that make up an important part of the 

communications laodscape for thousaods of communities and millions of customers. Those 

procedural benefits, as reflected in the title of the legislation, come from an increase in the 

"opportunity" for small entities to request relief from unnecessary or unduly costly regulatory 

burdens. 

Among the forms of regulatory relief that would most benefit small entities are 

exemptions from one-size fits all rules or a delay in the implementation of a new rule as applied 

to small entities. Today, the principal means by which regulated entities, large and small, obtain 

such relief is by obtaining a waiver of a particular rule from the Commission. But because the 
57 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page4 

procedural and substantive requirements for obtaining a waiver are the same for all entities 

regardless of size, small entities often are deterred from seeking relief to which they would 

otherwise be entitled by the costs associated with the waiver process. Moreover, while the 

Commission is required by Congress to conduct biennial and triennial reviews of certain of its 

rules, there is disagreement about the scope of the Commission's duties under those provisions 

and the extent to which the Commission is required to take action to provide regulatory relief to 

small entities. 

Thus, even if a small entity believes there is good cause for the FCC to exempt it from a 

particular regulatory obligation or to delay the application of that obligation, it still faces a hard 

decision as to whether it can justify the cost of pursuing such relief. Those costs typically start 

with an analysis by legal counsel of the Commission's rules and decisions to determine the 

likelihood of obtaining relief and the required evidentiary showing required to support the 

requested relief. A small entity considering whether to move forward with a waiver petition also 

must be prepared to bear the significant legal costs that typically are incurred in drafting and 

filing the petition and in preparing the affidavits and exhibits that frequently are needed to 

support the petition. The Commission's filing fees vary from one type of regulated service to 

another and can add hundreds, or even thousands of dollars to the initial costs of applying for a 

waiver. Because most small entities do not have in-house counsel and have little or no budget 

for unplanned legal expenses, the absence of a sufficiently large subscriber base over which to 

spread such costs can put the option of seeking regulatory relief out of reach. 

Furthennore, assuming that a small entity is able to overcome the initial cost hurdles 

associated with the waiver process, a decision still must be made as to whether incurring these 

costs is worthwhile given that there is no guarantee that the petition will be acted on in a timely 
58 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22,2018 

Page 5 

fashion, if at all, and that additional legal costs may have to be incurred in order to see the 

process through to conclusion. As a general matter, there is no designated timetable for the 

Commission to act on a waiver request. Typically, after receiving a waiver petition, the 

Commission issues a Public Notice acknowledging receipt of the petition, assigning it a file 

number and establishing deadlines for interested parties to submit comments in support or 

opposition to the petition. How long it takes the FCC to issue the Public Notice and how long 

the comment periods run can and do vary widely. Sometimes the Public Notice appears within a 

week or two of the filing of the waiver petition; other times, it could be months before the 

Commission starts the process. Similarly, the comment periods usually run around six weeks, 

but are subject to extension and can run substantially longer. And a petitioner could face 

significant additional legal costs if it becomes necessary to file reply comments or to meet with 

Commission staff to discuss the petition. Most importantly, after incurring these costs, there is 

no guarantee when or if a decision will be issued by the Commission granting or denying the 

waiver petition. 

As you can imagine, this process can be daunting for small entities with limited resources 

and a limited customer base. I can speak from personal experience as to how frustrating it can 

be. In 2009, we converted our systems to an all-digital platform. After doing so, it dawned on 

us that the FCC's "proof-of-perfmmance" testing rules only worked with analog systems. Not 

knowing what we were supposed to do, we hired counsel and filed a petition asking the 

Commission to waive our obligation to comply with the now outmoded proof-of-performance 

rules. A half dozen other small entities filed similar waiver petitions between 2009 and 2012. 

But it was not until this past September- over seven years after we filed our petition- that the 

FCC finally got around to addressing these petitions and the issue raised therein. Being unable 
59 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22,2018 

Page 6 

to both comply with the rules and get the FCC to act on our waiver petition for this long is not a 

position that any company, let alone a small entity, should be put in. 

SERRO recognizes that small entities should not have to confront such obstacles when 

they seck regulatory relief to which they would otherwise be entitled. The legislation does not 

change the substantive standard for judging waiver requests. However, it enhances the 

opportunity for small entities to request waivers by requiring the FCC to establish streamlined 

procedures governing the filing, consideration and resolution of waiver petitions filed by or on 

behalf of small entities seeking targeted small entity relief from Commission rules. Moreover, 

SERRO does not dictate precisely what streamlined procedures the Commission is to adopt. 

Rather, it identifies certain objectives those streamlined procedures should meet, namely 

expediting the consideration and resolution of small entity waiver petitions and reducing the 

costs and administrative burdens associated with filing such petitions. These are reasonable 

objectives that the FCC has occasionally met on a case-by-case basis by shortening comment 

periods, allowing petitioners to support their waiver requests with simple certifications rather 

than extensive documentation, and deeming petition requests to be automatically granted if not 

affirmatively denied by a date certain. SERRO will remove the uncertainty that accompanies the 

current case-by-ease approach to streamlining. 

Even with streamlined procedures, relying on waiver requests may not always be the 

most certain and efficient way to ensure that the Commission's rules do not impose unnecessary 

or unwarranted obligations on small entities. Therefore, SERRO also would clarify the purpose 

and scope of the Commission's "triennial review" of its regulations under Section 257 of the 

Communications Act. That process requires the Commission to report to Congress every three 

years on the regulations it has prescribed to eliminate "market entry barriers for entrepreneurs 
60 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page 7 

and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and 

information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications 

services and information services," as well as any such statutory barriers that the Commission 

recommends be eliminated. 

Members of the Commission have differed in their interpretation of Section 257. Some 

read the provision as directing the Commission to focus solely on those regulations applicable to 

the telecommunications and information service sectors of the communications industry and only 

to report its findings to Congress. On the other hand, other members of the Commission have 

taken a more expansive view of the provision's intent and the range of regulations (and regulated 

entities) covered. Recognizing that there is no reason to limit the triennial review to the rules 

applicable to entrepreneurs and small businesses in certain sectors of the communications 

industry to the exclusion of other sectors, SERRO wisely clarifies that the triennial review 

conducted pursuant to Section 257 should consider the impact of Commission rules on any and 

all small entities within the agency's jurisdiction. Moreover, as amended by SERRO, Section 

257 requires the Commission not only to report its findings to Congress, but also to repeal or 

modify particular regulations impacting small entities where the Commission determines good 

cause exists to do so. 

Finally, the bill proposes to establish an automatic deferral period of no less than a year 

in the application of most new rules to small entities (with exceptions for rules that implicate 

public safety or reduce waste, fraud, and abuse). Deferring the effective date of certain rules can 

be beneficial for small entities in several ways. 

In the case of rules that require small entities to acquire and install new equipment, it 

often is difficult for small entities to meet a one-size fits all compliance deadline. Manufacturers 
61 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page 8 

typically fill orders for new equipment for their largest customers ahead of orders placed by 

small entities. In addition, in some instances, the equipment needed to comply with the 

requirements of a new FCC rule initially is designed and manufactured to meet the specifications 

oflarge service providers' facilities, and only later is modified to be compatible with the 

facilities of smaller entities. The deferred application of equipment mandates thus can help 

ensure that there is a sufficient supply of compatible equipment available for small entities. 

Delaying an equipment mandate's effective date also can hold down compliance expenses for 

small entities since the initial cost of developing or bringing the equipment to market often is 

absorbed by the larger companies that purchase in volume. 

Deferring the effective date of a rule also allows small entities to save money by drawing 

on the experience oflarger entities with earlier compliance deadlines. For instance, resourcestrapped small entities can reduce the cost of implementing notice and similar requirements by 

reviewing and adopting (with such modifications as might be warranted by the small entity's 

particular circumstances) the best practices developed by the larger companies and their teams of 

lawyers and engineers. Deferral also reduces the risk that a small operator will go to the expense 

of developing a compliance program only to find that the FCC has clarified or otherwise altered 

the underlying obligation during the first year following its adoption. 

In conclusion, ACA is particularly appreciative of the efforts undertaken by 

Representatives Latta and Schrader to move SERRO forward. SERRO not only has the strong 

support of ACA, but also of a wide array of other communications industry groups, including the 

Competitive Carriers Association, the Fiber Broadband Association, INCOMP AS, ITT A, the 

LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition, NRECA-America's Electric Cooperatives, NTCA-The Rural 

Broadband Association, the Rural Wireless Association, the Wireless Internet Service Providers 
62 


Written Statement of Robert Gessner 

March 22, 2018 

Page 9 

Association, and WT A-Advocates for Rural Broadband. As Rep. Latta stated in introducing 

SERRO, while "small businesses are the engines of our economy- creating two out of three new 

jobs," they also are "the most susceptible to burdensome regulations that harm their ability to 

grow, expand and hire new employees." On behalf of ACA, I urge you to advance this sensible 

and important piece of bi-partisan legislation. 
63 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Madigan, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. MADIGAN, JR. 

Mr. MADIGAN. Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Doyle, 

thank you very much for inviting the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention to testify this morning. 

My name is John Madigan. I have the honor and privilege of 

being the association’s chief public policy officer. We are a nonprofit 

health agency about 30 years old and we are organized in all 50 

States, and I believe my team has provided all members of the subcommittee with fact sheets that illustrate the suicide issue in your 

particular State. 

I am also here to testify about H.R. 2345, the National Suicide 

Prevention Hotline Improvement Act of 2017. We want to thank, 

obviously, Representative Chris Stewart from Utah and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas for her leadership on this 

important issue, and the other cosponsors in the House, which is 

somewhere around seven cosponsors. 

Let me speak frankly. Suicide is now the tenth leading cause of 

death in our country for adults age 18 to 64. For every one suicide, 

there are 25 suicide attempts. 

The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.42 per 100,000 individuals. After adjusting for differences in age and sex, risk for suicide is 19 percent higher for male veterans than for U.S. non-veteran male adults. 

Risk is 2.5 times higher among female veterans when compared 

to U.S. non-veteran women. Men die by suicide three and a half 

times more than women and white males account for seven out of 

10 deaths in 2016. 

Suicide is often the result of unrecognized and untreated mental 

illness. Get this. One in four Americans have a diagnosable mental 

illness but only one in five are seeking professional help for this 

condition. 

Suicide tends to be the highest when multiple risk factors or precipitating events occur in an individual with mental illness. 

Despite public perception, most people with mental illness do not 

die by suicide. Mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol and drug dependence, post-traumatic stress, and 

traumatic brain injury may create the underlying risk that, when 

combined with life stressors such as transition from military life, 

job loss, relationship, financial, or legal problems increase risk. 

There’s good news. There’s a grass roots movement that’s now 

being formed, like it has for many other disease groups. 

Our movement is being catalyzed by both survivors of suicide 

loss—I lost my younger sister, Nancy, 21 years ago when she was 

37—and also the emerging voices of those that have what we call 

the lived experience—those people who have survived their own 

suicide attempts. 

So as I said earlier, I am here today to talk about why H.R. 2345 

could be a game changer for our national public safety net. It was 

discussed by Chairman Pallone. Essentially, the FCC is going to 

look into the possibility of converting the 1–800–273–TALK number into an easy-to-remember three-digit number like 9–1–1. 

64 

It will require SAMHSA to study the effectiveness of the current 

system and also to assess how veterans are being helped in this 

system. 

Finally, the study will provide cost estimates and resource needs 

for increasing Federal support for phone hotline, chat, and text. 

To hear some important facts, a national easy-to-remember single point of access free, anonymous, and toll-free for all American 

residents is necessary to provide a health safety net for all persons 

in the United States. 

The experience of SAMHSA’s national suicide prevention lifeline 

indicates that a national hotline number has been essential in addressing this public health crisis. 

Since 2005, the lifeline has served more than 11 million callers. 

In 2017, the national network answered 2 million calls. According 

to independent evaluators of the service, 75 percent are non-suicidal and 25 percent are suicidal. 

So the bottom line, in closing, is that this legislation is critically 

important. When my 25-year-old daughter texted me this morning 

and asked me, ‘‘Daddy, why are you testifying before the Communications and Technology Subcommittee?’’ I said, ‘‘Preventing suicide is all about communication, and in the 21st century it’s all 

about technology.’’ 

So I will be glad to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madigan follows:] 

65 


--··::::~:~i.~;~---

f '~ ~f ; 

.. ,, ...... 

AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR 

Suicide Prevention 

Statement 

Of 

John H. Madigan, Jr. 

Vice President and Chief Public Policy Officer 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention 

submitted to 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology 

Regarding H.R. 2345 

The National Suicide Prevention Hotline 

Improvement Act of 2017 

March 22, 2018 

440 First Street, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20001 

www.afsp.org 
66 


Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the Committee, thank you for 

inviting the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) to testify today on H.R. 2345, 

"The National Suicide Prevention Hotline Improvement Act of2017." I am John Madigan and I 

am AFSP's Chief Public Policy Officer. Many thanks to Representatives Chris Stewart (R-UT) 

and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) for their leadership on this important legislation. 

I became the VP and Chief Public Policy Officer for the American Foundation for Suicide 

Prevention in the fall in December of 2009. In the last decade, I have met with and interacted 

with experts in suicide prevention research, leaders within federal, state and local governments, 

Veterans and their families, those who have lost a loved one to suicide, and those who have 

survived their own suicide attempt. In my 32-year-career prior to AFSP I have directed advocacy 

or fundraising activities for the American Cancer Society, The Alzheimer's Association, The 

Make-A-Wish Foundation and Students in Free Enterprise. I have also worked on the staff of 

former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh ofindiana, a White House Commission on Alcohol Fuels under 

President Jimmy Carter and with quasi-nonprofit that worked to help Veterans who desired to 

become entrepreneurs. 

I am a public health advocate who has experienced the mental health crisis with family members, 

my own sister Nancy completed suicide in 1997. I have family, friends and colleagues who have 

lost sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers and those who have struggled 

with mental health and substance/alcohol use disorders. I know my work on cancer control, with 

Alzheimer's patients and their families and with Veterans living with PTS and other life issues, 

has prepared me for my current work in mental health and suicide prevention. 

2 
67 


I like my colleague, AFSP's outstanding Medical Director, Dr. Christine Moutier, who could not 

be here with us today because of weather issues, believe that many effective suicide prevention 

efforts not only save lives, but reach individuals where they are along the continuum of human 

experience. AFSP strongly believes that suicide prevention initiatives may have the added 

benefit of increasing coping skills, elevating mental health and fostering personal resilience for 

all Americans. 

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) 

Established in 1987, AFSP is a voluntary health organization, with 82 Chapters in all 50 states. 

AFSP gives those affected by suicide a nationwide community empowered by research, 

education and advocacy, to take action against this leading cause of death. 

AFSP is dedicated to saving lives and bringing hope to those affected by suicide. AFSP creates a 

culture that's smart about mental health by engaging in the following core strategies: 

• Funding scientific research, 

• Educating the public about mental health and suicide prevention, 

• Advocating for public policies in mental health and suicide prevention, 

• Supporting survivors of suicide loss and those affected by suicide in our mission. 

Scope of the Problem of Suicide 

My message today about suicide is hopeful and actionable. It is worth emphasizing the scope of 

suicide's impact on the US population: in recent years suicide has taken more lives than war, 

3 
68 


murder, and natural disasters combined. The suicide rate in the U.S. continues to climb, with the 

most recent CDC data revealing 44, 965 in 2016, and occupational loss and direct health care 

costs estimated to be more than $69 billion annually. Suicide is one of the leading, yet largely 

preventable causes of death in our country. 

Here are some facts: 

• Suicide is now the 1oth leading cause of death in adults age 18-64, 

• For every 1 suicide, there are 25 suicide attempts, 

• The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.42 per 100,000 individuals, 

• After adjusting for differences in age and sex, risk for suicide is 19% higher for male 

Veterans, than U.S. non-Veteran male adults, 

• Risk for suicide is 2.5 times higher among female Veterans, when compared to U.S. nonVeteran women, 

• Men die by suicide 3.53 x more than women, 

• White males accounted for 7 of 10 deaths in 2016. 

Our AFSP Public Policy Team has provided each member of the Subcommittee with a copy of 

"Suicide Facts" specific to your home state. 

Causes of Suicide 

Suicide is often the result of unrecognized and untreated mental illness. In more than 120 studies 

of series of completed suicides, at least 90% of the individuals involved were suffering from a 

mental illness at the time of their deaths. 1 in 4 Americans have a diagnosable mental illness, but 

only 1 in 5 of them are seeking professional help for that condition. As a country we have a lot of 

4 
69 


work to do in improving mental health literacy. We can elevate the general lay understanding of 

how mental health problems are experienced or look like in a loved one or co-worker and 

destigmatize "help-seeking" when family, friends or co-workers detect a change in their own or 

their loved one's mental health. Just like we would be proactive about any other aspect of our 

health like heart-disease, cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes. 

Suicide risk tends to be highest when multiple risk factors or precipitating events occur in an 

individual with a mental illness. Despite public perceptions, most people with mental illness, 

thankfully, do not die by suicide. Mental illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder and 

alcohol and drug dependence, Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) and Traumatic Brain Injury ('fBI) 

may create the underlying risk that when combined with life stressors such as transition from 

military life, job loss, relationship issues and financial or legal problems increase suicide risk. 

Additional stressors include social isolation, biological factors like aggression and impulsivity, 

childhood abuse, a history of past suicide attempts, serious medical problems, and a family 

history of suicide. 

The most important interventions we can start with are recognizing and effectively treating 

mental illness and related disorders. On a population level, we can implement more upstream 

approaches such as shoring up community, mentorship and peer support, teaching students how 

to problem solve and process stress, make access to mental health care available without stigma, 

train frontline citizens like teachers, first responders, and clinicians to recognize mental illness, 

and limit access to lethal means. 

5 
70 


The good news is that suicide is preventable. Thanks to a grassroots movement, catalyzed by 

both suicide loss survivors and the emerging voice of those with "Lived Experience" their own 

suicide attempts, the fight against suicide is nearing a tipping point. To answer this call to action, 

AFSP has evolved a three-point strategy that covers Research, Prevention, and Support, and if 

we push now, we hope to reduce the annual suicide rate 20% by 2025. 

Key Policy Areas for Addressing Suicide 

AFSP believes our country needs to focus on three key policy areas to prevent suicide that 

include: 

• Increased suicide prevention research; 

• Sustaining suicide prevention programs along with increased access to Mental Health 

Services; and, 

• Expanding programs and strategies that provide more support to those touched by 

suicide. 

I am here today to talk about why H.R. 2345 could be a game-changer for our national public 

policy safety net. 

A vote for H.R. 2345, as proposed by Representatives Chris Stewart and Eddie Bernice Johnson, 

will (1) require the FCC and our federal suicide prevention authorities to fully understand how a 

three-digit code (such as 411 or 611) will enable rapid access to life-saving assistance for 

persons in emotional and suicidal crisis. This change can also divert many individuals in crisis 

from the unnecessary use of precious 911 emergency services, (2) This legislation will require a 

6 
71 


study of the effectiveness of the current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-

T ALK), and (3) access how well the current system addresses the needs of veterans. The system 

study would benefit from exploring how the current system is addressing the needs of Alaskan 

Natives and American Indians, along with our LGTBQ youth. Finally, (4) the study will provide 

cost estimates and resource needs for increasing federal support for phone hotline, chat and text. 

Here are some important facts-

• A national, easy to remember, single point of access-free, anonymous and toll-free for 

all American residents--is necessary to provide a public health safety net for all persons 

in the United States experiencing emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis. With 

approximately 2/3 of persons with diagnosable mental health problems not currently 

accessing mental health providers, suicide rates and deaths related to substance misuse 

(including opioids) are on the rise, it is essential that we provide immediate access to help 

for people in crisis when, where and how they need it. 

• The experience of the SAMHSA's National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-8255) 

indicates that a national hotline number has been essential for addressing this public 

health crisis. Lifeline call volume has increased significantly every year since its launch 

in 2005, serving more than II million callers. In 2017, the Lifeline's national network of 

160 local crisis centers answered over 2 million calls. According to independent 

evaluators of the service, approximately 25% of these callers present with suicidal crises, 

with the remaining 75% reporting a non-suicidal, mental health or substance related 

problem (Gould et al, 2012). Because the VA also utilizes the Lifeline number as a single 

point of access to provide a special V A-funded service for U.S. veterans and members of 

7 
72 


military since 2007, the Lifeline network and the Veterans Crisis Line together have 

assisted millions of veterans and service members in crisis. Approximately 1 of 3 callers 

to the Lifeline presses 1 for this special service for veterans and members of military 

service. 

• This national point of access works in reducing emotional distress and suicidality. 

SAMHSA-funded evaluations of Lifeline crisis center work have consistently 

demonstrated that the service is reducing emotional distress and suicidality for persons 

engaging the service. 

• In a study of 1085 suicidal caller evaluated at beginning and end of call-and then 3 

weeks later-significant reductions in suicidality, psychic pain and hopelessness by end 

of call and 3 weeks later. Upon follow-up, 12% of suicidal callers spontaneously offered 

that the call prevented him/her from killing or harming self. (Gould et a!, 2007) 

• In another study of 1617 non-suicidal crisis callers evaluated at beginning and end of 

call-and three weeks later. Significant reductions in confusion, anger, anxiety, 

helplessness and hopelessness by end of the call, and more so 3 weeks later. (Kalafat et 

al, 2007) 

• With more than 12 million persons in the U.S. having suicidal thoughts annually, 

providing a more ready AND EASY access to this effective, lifesaving service could be 

beneficial. Lifeline Services are currently serving about half-a-million suicidal callers 

(25% of 2m callers). 

• As more people access the single number for mental health and suicidal crises, the need 

to enhance infrastructure capacity becomes essential. As the Lifeline call volume has 

grovm 60% in the past year alone, capacity has become strained. While about 85% of 

8 
73 


callers are being answered in about 30 seconds, more than 1 in 10 callers are averaging 

waits of over 2 minutes as they roll over to national back-up centers. This is because local 

centers are under-funded and under-resourccd to manage the growing number of calls. 

• It is anticipated that a separate 3-digit number for mental health/suicidal crises will 

significantly reduce burdens on the 911 system, reducing unnecessary use of emergency 

services nationally. Lifeline standards, trainings and practices of its national network of 

local call centers is designed to effectively de-escalate persons in suicidal crises, reduce 

risk for callers in crisis and ensure that they receive the most appropriate, least invasive 

care that supports their health, safety and well-being. SAMHSA-funded evaluations 

indicate that Lifeline member centers are effectively de-escalating persons in suicidal 

crisis whom might otherwise be diverted to emergency services. 

• Of Lifeline's highest-risk callers (e.g., assessed to be at "imminent risk"), 40% are 

effectively de-escalated without utilizing emergency services. In 36% of cases, imminent 

risk callers agree to the use of emergency services (collaborating with counselor to 

promote their safety), and about 24% of imminent risk callers receive emergency 

services, because they are unwilling and unable to collaborate with the counselor to 

prevent their suicide (Gould et al2016). 

• Many 911 centers report a high volume of non-suicidal callers with mental health issues 

that would more effectively and efficiently be assisted on a mental health hotline. 

Suicide touches so many lives. And now, as more and more people speak out, we have reached 

the tipping point for action. Ten years ago, we had only a handful of people banding together. 

Today we have a movement that rallies over 250,000 people who participate in over 400 AFSP 

9 
74 


Community Out of the Darkness Walks and 150 AFSP College Campus Walks. This coming 

April 21st, AFSP along with many other national suicide prevention and mental health 

organizations are sponsoring a first-ever Rally on the West Front ofthe U.S. Capitol Building 

from 5:30pm 6:30pm. We hope that many of you and your staff teams can join us for this 

important call to action. 

It's time to answer that grassroots call for action. It's time to wage war on suicide, like the war 

on cancer and Alzheimer's, and put a stop to this tragic loss of life. The first line of defense can 

be a robust, 24-7, crisis support services for all Americans, in all fifty-states, the District of 

Columbia and all US territories, accessible by phone hotline, chat and text. 

H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Prevention Hotline Improvement Act of2017 is first step in the 

right direction. 

Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, the American Foundation for Suicide 

Prevention thanks you again for the opportunity to provide testimony today and looks forward to 

working with you, other members of the Congress, the Administration, and all mental health and 

suicide prevention organizations inside and outside of government to prevent suicide. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you have today, and or follow up with you and your staff 

with any additional information. Thank you. 

10 
75 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Morris, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH MORRIS 

Ms. MORRIS. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member 

Doyle, and subcommittee members for the opportunity to testify 

today at this legislative hearing on four communications bills. 

My name is Sarah Morris and I represent New America’s Open 

Technology Institute, or OTI, where I am the director of open internet policy. 

New America is a nonpartisan nonprofit civic enterprise dedicated to the renewal of American politics, prosperity, and purpose 

in the digital age. 

OTI is a program within New America that works at the intersection of technology and policy to ensure that every community 

has equitable access to digital technology and its benefits. 

OTI promotes universal access to communications technologies 

that are both open and secure, using a multi-disciplinary approach 

that brings together advocates, researchers, organizers, and 

innovators. 

Our primary focus areas include net neutrality, broadband access 

and adoption, surveillance and security, and consumer privacy. 

My testimony will focus on concerns related to one of the four 

bills under consideration today: H.R. 3787, or the Small Entity 

Regulatory Relief Act, which I will refer to as SERRO. 

OTI’s concerns are fourfold. First, it is not clear that an immediate problems exists that this bill would effectively solve. 

Indeed, against the backdrop of the current heavily deregulated 

landscape, the proposed bill seems particularly unnecessary. 

Second, to the extent that a need for waivers from or exemptions 

to certain regulations exist, numerous processes for securing them 

also already exist at the Federal Communications Commission. 

Third, the definition of small entities in the bill is unclear. Finally, the proposed triennial review process reforms would create 

a high degree of confusion and uncertainty at the commission. 

I’ve submitted a detailed written testimony to the subcommittee 

already and I will use my time here to briefly explain each of those 

four concerns. 

Regulations of general applicability are the standard in Federal 

regulatory policy making, and for a good reason. The point of consumer protection laws, from telecommunications to food service to 

health care, is to protect all consumers from harmful practices, not 

just consumers of the biggest entities. 

All consumers are entitled to the protections of Federal telecommunications laws. There may be instances where waivers from 

certain regulations under the Communication Act are appropriate. 

As I will discuss shortly, there are mechanisms for addressing the 

need for specific waivers. 

However, neither Mr. Gessner nor the bill’s cosponsors have 

demonstrated widespread and significant harms that would be 

most effectively remedied by the reforms proposed in SERRO. 

It is unclear why the triple play proposed in the bill, an expedited waiver application process, a near blanket exemption from all 

future regulations for a period of 1 year and an expanded triennial 

76 

review of the applicability of all regulations to small entities as 

necessary. 

Indeed, the commission already provides numerous avenues of 

recourse for a small business that believes an existing or proposed 

regulation is unduly burdensome. 

The most obvious and fundamental opportunity to discuss burdens on small businesses is to engage with the commission during 

the notice and comment periods that are required each time new 

rules are created. 

In those proceedings, the commission has opportunities to hear 

from multiple perspectives on the parties’ assertion of burdens and 

can appropriately weigh those burdens with the need for the regulations in question. 

In addition, as the bill itself acknowledges, the commission’s 

rules already allow the commission to waive specific requirements 

of the rules on its own motion or upon request. 

The best approach for ensuring certainty and reducing administrative burdens is to use existing processes to identify the need for 

a narrow waivers when a need for such a waiver is clearly demonstrated. 

This bill, however, uses an arbitrary definition of small entity 

that creates considerable confusion and shifts the burden of the defending the applicability of a given regulation onto consumer 

groups and other parties every single time a regulation is considered. 

Not only is this a significant administrative cost to bear on its 

face, the problem is compounded by the fact that the 2 percent 

market share threshold will need to be defined every single time 

a regulation is considered. 

As we have seen in antitrust analysis, this type of market share 

definition is entirely dependent on how a given market is defined. 

As telecom industries become more integrated and services evolve, 

defining relevant market could become even more difficult. 

Finally, the modifications to the 257 triennial review requirement proposed in this bill could create significant administrative 

burdens for consumer groups and other parties. 

As written, the amendments to 257 would allow the commission 

to, once the bill is enacted, re-litigate every single regulation currently on the books at the commission. 

This reevaluation would require multiple proceedings to be reopened and create enormous bureaucratic strain throughout the 

communications part as well as uncertainty for consumers. 

Each of the three proposals in SERRO raise concerns. Taken together, however, they represent a fundamental shift in burdens 

and advocacy before the Federal Communications Commission. 

I urge the subcommittee to reject H.R. 3787. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:] 

77 


OOPEN 

~ TECHNOLOGY 

- INSTITUTE 

Written Testimony of 

Sarah Morris, Open Internet Director 

New America's Open Technology Institute 

Respectfully submitted to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

In advance of 

Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills 

Submitted March 20,2018 
78 


Summary 

The following testimony focuses on one bill among the four bills being 

considered in the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology's 

"Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills 2018." While New America's 

Open Technology Institute (OTI) appreciates the concerns raised implicitly in 

H.R. 3787 ("Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act of 2017" or SERRO), 

I submit this testimony to address concerns with the necessity and scope of the 

proposed bill. 

SERRO would take a multifaceted approach to expanding access to 

waivers from a variety of potential Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) regulations by 1) directing the Commission to review and 

streamline waiver processes for "small entities"; 2) creating an automatic oneyear waiver for all small entities from all Commission regulations, subject to 

limited exceptions; and 3) requiring a triennial review of agency actions' impact 

on small entities. 

OTI's concerns are four-fold. First, it is not clear that an immediate 

problem exists that this bill would effectively solve. Indeed, under the current 

heavily deregulated landscape in the communications sector, the proposed bill 

seems particularly unnecessary. Second, numerous avenues for waivers and 

exemptions already exist at the Commission. Third, the definition of" small 

entities" in the bill is unclear. Finally, a triennial review process would create a 

high degree of confusion and possible legal uncertainty at the Commission. 

2 
79 


I. Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today at this Legislative Hearing 

on Four Communications Bills. I represent New America's Open Technology 

Institute (OTI), where I am the Director of Open Internet Policy. 

New America is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, civic enterprise dedicated to the 

renewal of American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the digital age through 

big ideas, technological innovation, next generation politics, and creative 

engagement with broad audiences. 

OTI is a program at New America that works at the intersection of 

technology and policy to ensure that every community has equitable access to 

digital technology and its benefits. OTI promotes universal access to 

communications technologies that are both open and secure, using a 

multidisciplinary approach that brings together advocates, researchers, 

organizers, and innovators. Our primary focus areas include surveillance and 

security, net neutrality, broadband access and adoption, and consumer privacy. 

My testimony will focus on concerns related to one of the four bills under 

consideration today: H.R. 3787, or the Small Entity Regulatory Relief Act of 2017 

(SERRO). This testimony will: 1) query the significance of those burdens relative 

to the need for regulation; 2) explain that the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) already has mechanisms in place for assessing 

compliance burdens against the need for regulation; 3) outline specific concerns 

related to relying on a market percentage definition for small entities; and 4) 

3 
80 


review the history of the media ownership quadrennial review requirement and 

the future it may portend for the modified triennial review process proposed in 

this bilL 

II. The Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act of 

2017 appears to be a solution in search of a problem. 

Without any legislative findings in the bill, and with a highly deregulatory 

landscape at the Commission as a present backdrop, it is unclear precisely what 

problem H.R. 3787 is seeking to address. 

The point of consumer protection laws, from telecommunications to food 

service to health care, is to protect all consumers from harmful practices- not just 

customers of the biggest entities. All consumers are entitled to the protections of 

federal telecommunications laws. The Commission's mandate under the 

Communications Act is: 

"[ ... ]to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United 

States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national 

origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and 

radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable 

charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of 

promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio 

communications [ ... ]"1 

Regulatory approaches that apply differently to different entities based on a 

definition that is premised on market share would cut against this mandate, 

rather than advance it. 

1 47 u.s.c. §151. 

4 
81 


In addition, the bill does not articulate a particular sector or sectors of 

entities within the Commission's purview to which it would apply.2 Presumably 

then, any subset of sectors, from internet service providers, to cable television 

operators, to phone providers would be covered under the broad reach of the 

bill. Without comprehensive and sector-specific evidence about the relative 

burdens imposed by the various laws and regulatory frameworks applicable to 

each of these sectors, it seems impossible for Members of Congress to adequately 

weigh the relative burdens against the necessity or benefits of the entire world of 

possible regulation. 

Finally, to the extent that there are yet unidentified burdens that might 

warrant some waivers in certain circumstances, it is unclear why an expedited 

waiver application process, a near-blanket waiver of all future regulations for a 

period of one year, and an expanded triennial review of the applicability of all 

regulations to small entities, would be necessary. Indeed, the current 

Commission has taken an unabashedly deregulatory stance on major 

communications issues from consumer privacy to internet openness, and the 

Commission (or Congress, in the case of broadband privacy) has successfully 

and systematically walked back several of the reforms enacted under the 

previous Commission. 

2 The bill's definition of" small entity" contemplates the provision of a subscription service, but 

provides little other guidance. "(2) With respect to a regulation applicable to a particular 

subscription service, the entity provides such subscription service to 2 percent or fewer of the 

consumers receiving such subscription service in the United States." 

5 
82 


In this context, the proposals in this bill would merely gild the 

deregulatory lily, while upending longstanding processes at the Commission 

without clear analysis as to the ultimate effects on consumers. 

III. The Federal Communications Commission already has 

effective mechanisms in place to avoid or address undue 

regulatory burdens. 

As the section immediately above suggests, the Commission already 

provides numerous avenues of recourse for a small business that believes an 

existing or proposed regulation is unduly burdensome. 

The most obvious and fundamental opportunity to discuss burdens on 

small businesses is to engage with the Commission during the notice-andcomment period that is statutorily required before new rules or regulations are 

created. At that point, the Commission has opportunities to hear from multiple 

perspectives on the party's assertion of burdens, and can appropriately weigh 

those burdens with the need for the regulations in question. 

In addition, as the bill itself acknowledges, the Commission's rules 

already allow the Commission to "waive specific requirements of the rules on its 

own motion or upon request."3 

Indeed, the storied history of the 2015 Open Internet Order4 provides a 

useful case study in the ways in which the above two processes may play out in 

practice, even under a Commission that was decidedly not "deregulatory" in its 

3 47 C.F.R. 1.925 (a), see also 47 C.F.R. 1.3 (general waiver rule), and 47 C.F.R. 76.7 (cable-specific 

waivers). 

4 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, 

Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Red 5601 (2015) (2015 Open fnternet Order). 

6 
83 


approach. In February 2015, the Commission approved the Open Internet Order, 

which included new rules that required Internet Service Providers to be more 

transparent with their customers. The Order included a provision that exempted 

small providers from complying with these transparency rules for one year. The 

Commission determined that this exemption was warranted based on the public 

feedback it received during the notice-and-comment process. The Commission 

released a Public Notice later that year seeking comment on whether to extend 

the exemption beyond one year.5 After considering the comments in that 

proceeding, the Commission extended the exemption for an additional year.6 In 

February 2017, the Commission extended the waiver once again-this time for an 

additional five years- and broadened the scope of the exemption to include 

larger companies with 250,000 subscribers or fewer? 

This case study demonstrates the relative ease with which a small entity 

obtained a 7-year exemption from a new regulation. The fact that this waiver was 

granted and extended under both Chairman Wheeler and Chairman Pai 

demonstrates bipartisan consensus that the concerns of small entities are a 

priority at the Commission. Small internet service providers were able to receive 

a waiver based on their participation in the underlying proceeding; that waiver 

5 Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Small Business Exemption from Open 

Internet Enhanced Transparency Requirements, GN Docket No. 14-28, Public Notice, 30 FCC Red 

6409 (2015) (Public Notice). 

6 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order (Dec. 15, 

2015), https:j / transition.fcc.gov /Daily _Releases /Daily _Business j 2015 j db1215 j D A -15-

1425A1.pdf at 6. 

7 Statement of Chairman Ajit Pai On Voting to Protect Small Businesses from Needless Regulation (Jan. 

27, 2017), https:j /transition.fcc.gov /Daily _Releases/Daily _Business/2017 j db0127 /DOC343229A1.pdf. 

7 
84 


was ultimately extended; and the Order was more broadly repealed, essentially 

in total, after just two years (during which the waiver only briefly lapsed). 

IV. The vague definition of "small entity" would add 

bureaucratic costs and uncertainty to the rulemaking 

process. 

The bill's definition of "small entity" creates confusion and could result in 

exemptions being applied to entities that are much bigger than what many 

would consider to be a "small" business. Section (c)(2) defines small entities as a 

"subscription service" that "provides such subscription service to 2 percent or 

fewer of the consumers receiving such subscription service in the United States." 

The lack of any legislative findings makes it difficult to understand what, if any, 

justification exists for this two-percent threshold. 

Moreover, this language does not adequately define the market. The term 

"subscription service" is not defined, which creates significant uncertainty about 

which entities are covered by the bill. The Commission cannot identify an entity's 

market share if the market itself is not clearly defined. In absence of that clarity, 

the Commission would be forced to adjudicate fights over market definition for 

every rulemaking simply to determine which entities are covered by the bill. 

Based on the experience of the antitrust agencies, fights over market definition 

can be expensive and lengthy.8 Thus, the bill would add a layer of bureaucratic 

complexity to virtually every rulemaking at the Commission for no clear benefit. 

8 See, e.g. Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, Harvard Law Review (Dec. 17, 2010), 

https: / /harvardlawreview .org/ 2010/12/ why-ever-define-markets/. 

8 
85 


V. Adding new directives to the triennial review process 

would add complexity and create confusion and additional 

burdens for the Commission and the public. 

Mandatory, recurring review periods can cause significant problems for 

the Commission and the public. This bill would require the Commission to 

determine, upon review of every regulation promulgated during the triennial 

review period and prior to it to determine whether there is good cause to grant 

relief from that regulation to small entities.9 This more extensive inquiry under 

Section 257' s current triennial review would cause confusion and additional 

burdens for the public, and could require extensive agency resources, as the 

Commission would likely need to engage in additional rulemakings if it 

determined relief for small entities from certain regulations was warranted. 

The quadrennial review of the media ownership rules demonstrates how 

fraught these types of mandatory reviews can become.1o Originally a biennial 

review, which Congress changed to four-year review in 2004,11 the quadrennial 

review requires the Commission to review every four years its local media 

ownership rules, such as its various cross-ownership rules and local ownership 

limits.12 This review has kept the media bureau, broadcasters, and the public 

9 H.R. 3787 Sec. 13 (5)(b)(1). 

10 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 202(h), 110 Stat. 56,111-12 (1996). 

11 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, § 629,118 Stat. 3,100 (2004). 

12 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 202(h), 110 Stat. 56,111-12 (1996); 

Appropriations Act§ 629, 118 Stat. at 100. See FCC Broadcast Ownership Rules, FCC 

https:f fwww.fcc.gov f consumers/ guides/ fees-review-broadcast-ownership-rules; 47 CFR 

§73.3555. 

9 
86 


extremely busy since the early 2000s. Each docket has been voluminous. The 

Commission commissioned studies, and outside parties submitted studies, 

comments, and other data to support their arguments. There have been at least 

five court cases in the Third Circuit based on the 2002 biennial review and the 

2006, 2010, and 2014 quadrennial reviews (two of which are currently held in 

abeyance pending further Commission action).13 Each case with a decision on the 

merits remanded some portion of the Commission's order back for further 

review. Some of the early proceedings are still open pending resolution of issues 

from the relevant court case. To expect that a similar process, except more 

frequent and covering every Commission rule, would be smoother is unrealistic. 

VI. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained above, I urge this subcommittee to vote against 

H.R. 3787 and to encourage small entities to take advantage of the numerous 

avenues currently available at the Federal Communication Commission to avoid 

overly burdensome regulations. 

13 Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004) ("Prometheus I"); Prometheus 

Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Prometheus II"); Prometheus Radio Project v. 

FCC, 824 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2016) ("Prometheus III"); Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, Dkt. 17-

1107 (3d Cir. 2017) ("Prometheus IV"); Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, Dkt. 18-1092 (3d Cir. 

2018) ("Prometheus V"); In re Prometheus Radio Project and Media Mobilizing Project, Dkt. 18-

1167 (3d Cir. 2018). 

10 
87 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady concludes her statement. 

At this time, that concludes all of our opening statements. We 

are going to move to questions. I do want everyone to be mindful— 

it looks like 12:15 to 12:30 will be the next vote series, and I want 

to move through as many of these questions as we can. 

So, Mr. Shimkus, I will begin with you. You’re recognized for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, thank you. You’re very kind. 

Let me—let me go to Tim, and I want to ask Mr. Gessner this 

question, because I’ve just been wrestling with it. 

So we want competition. We want deployment. You’re in the 

rural areas—very difficult. You’re trying to get 5G in. 

I keep hearing from my local municipalities the concern that 

their input as to siting for 5G—they’re not going to—you know, 

they’ll weave a story. We’ve got this great park. We don’t want a 

refrigerator-sized 5G sitting in there. 

So talk me through this on competition 5G and how do we make 

sure that the concerns of local communities are still, at least, listened to? 

Because a lot of this is these regulatory burdens get it moved, 

right? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you, Congressman, and you’re probably also hearing from them about how they want to be one of the 

first smart cities and want to make sure that all of your constituents are able to connect to the latest services. So you do need to 

have the infrastructure to provide that. 

We are working together with ways to look at it not as a zero 

sum gain but how can we make the application process both easier 

for carriers for deploying this as well as reduce the resources needed by municipalities to review. 

If there’s some low-hanging fruit of places that make sense to 

streamline the review then that also means one less application— 

a couple less hours that somebody who works for the municipality 

has to spend reviewing that application. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, Mr. Gessner, obviously, from the rural cable 

perspective, there also could be, you know, debates. You have already done negotiations with local communities on right-of-ways 

and wires. 

And talk to me about the competitive pressure or what would be 

the response as there is a great desire to also move 5G in the areas 

and the local communities have been able to—the old historic models—what, the historic model is the cable company comes in, they 

negotiate, there’s fees, they work with the local communities. 

5G could disrupt the way this paradigm has been established. 

But a lot of us want the competition. 

So can you talk through that, from your perspective? 

Mr. GESSNER. Good question. We haven’t had a great deal of 

interaction between the 5G proponents and traditional cable companies, at least not in our size markets. 

We look forward, actually, to working with the 5G operators because we know they’re going to need a lot of back haul. When you 

have got a 5G transmitter every few hundred feet, it has to connect 

to something. 

88 

So companies like mine are certainly prepared to work with them 

through our high-capacity fiber networks to bring all of that 5G 

data back without having to have more repeater towers and that 

sort of thing. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. And I was going to spend time asking you 

to talk about some of the other challenges and problems you have. 

But in lieu of the time, Madam Chair and everybody else wants 

to ask questions. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Doyle, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Congress created an independent office of advocacy within the Small Business Administration, and the job of that office is to go out and advocate before Congress, the White House, and Federal agencies on behalf of small 

businesses in America. 

The Office of Advocacy has come on against regulation that 

harms small businesses like the FCC’s order to deregulate business 

data services. 

Much like the FCC’s rollback of business data protections, I am 

worried that this small entity bill would actually hurt small businesses. 

I want to ask you, Ms. Morris, do you believe that H.R. 3787 

could unfairly disadvantage some small businesses over others? 

Ms. MORRIS. Sure. I thank you, Ranking Member, for the question. 

And I certainly think that there is a high risk of harm to all 

types of entities, whether it’s consumers, other small—and consumers can include small businesses that are purchasing 

broadband from an entity that would be covered by this act. 

In the case of the net neutrality protections where a waiver was 

granted for certain parts of the rules, a more automatic and sweeping waiver in that case would have resulted in many small businesses that rely on an open internet access to be harmed by the 

lack of that access in certain instances. 

We want all consumers to have access to the protections afforded 

by the commission, not just those of the largest entities. 

Mr. DOYLE. So let me ask you, under this bill, the threshold for 

expedited small business relief is set at 2 percent or fewer of the 

consumers receiving such subscription service in the United States. 

It seems like a vague standard but also a rather overly inclusive 

one as well. 

In the video market, for example, 2 percent of the market would 

be over 1.6 million customers, and when you look at a couple of 

companies that fall into that range, they have annual revenues of 

over $1.5 billion. 

That doesn’t seem like a small business to me. Does that seem 

small to you? And what effect would exempting these companies 

from the FCC’s rules have on consumers? 

Ms. MORRIS. We certainly agree that the definition is both unclear and potentially much too large and as you point out, Ranking 

Member Doyle, this—implementation of this bill has the potential 

to remove protections for millions of Americans across the counVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:52 Jul 26, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X113TELECOMLEG\115X113TELECOMLEGWORKING WAYNE
89 

try—protections that the FCC would have otherwise be deemed 

necessary in a thorough rulemaking process. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. I think more to the point, the FCC interacts 

with a wide range of small businesses from radio and TV stations, 

voice video, data providers, device manufacturers, wireless licensees, and many of the FCC’s rules that these businesses comply 

with are not only tailored to the size of those businesses but also 

to ensuring that these entities uphold their obligations under the 

Communications Acts. 

So what effect would granting these wide-ranging waivers have 

on industry sectors under the FCC’s jurisdiction? 

Ms. MORRIS. We think it would create a significant uncertainty 

as we try to figure out which application—which regulations apply 

to which entities—which ones apply to other—or don’t apply to 

other entities. 

And meanwhile, I will just repeat that consumers in those industries will be harmed in the process when those protections don’t 

apply to their providers. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, in the interest of time, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Lance, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

To the distinguished panel, thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Donovan, can you comment on some of the limitations of the 

FCC’s current enforcement tools against pirate radios? Have you 

seen issues with the commission’s ability to shut down pirates in 

your role as president of New York Broadcasters? 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. Thank you, Congressman Lance. 

Yes. I think that there is some limitations and those limitations 

now are based on the statute. Let me give you some examples. 

Under the Communications Act, the fine, for example, for an entity not licensed by the FCC is, roughly, $10,000. Pirate radio operators—this is big business, and a $10,000 fine is absolutely nothing. When you actually look at someone who’s been violating the 

law literally for decades, this is just a cost of doing business. 

The second piece is is that in order to get a seizure order or an 

order to enforce the fine, the FCC is required to go through the— 

through the U.S. attorney’s office. They are busy on things like terrorism, drug interdiction, and this becomes the fourth level issue. 

What I think—and I worked at the commission for 10 years—I 

think what we really need to do is to give the FCC the authority 

to go to court to defend its own orders and also to get seizure orders as well. 

The FCC currently has the authority to go to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals to defend its orders at the appellate level. It seemed it 

would make sense to get rid of the number one issue, which is 

would love to help you but the U.S. Attorneys Office just isn’t interested. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. I am working on this issue, as you know, 

and the PIRATE Act and I want to continue to work with you and 

the other distinguished members of the panel, and I certainly agree 

with you. 

90 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108059. 

And Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit the New 

York Broadcasters’ report on pirate radio into the record. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection.1

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, and I yield back 3 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Since its creation in 2004, the Spectrum Relocation Fund has become a critical tool for Federal agencies relocating or sharing spectrum for wireless broadband use. 

In 2015, Congress made improvements to the SRF that allowed 

agencies to use funds in SRF to support engineering research that 

could lead to the repurposing of spectrum for commercial use. 

The improvements have worked. Last month, NTIA and DOD 

identified 100 megahertz of spectrum that could potentially be 

repurposed. 

However, current law limits how much of existing SRF funds can 

be used for this research and related activities. This has created an 

unintended situation that could prevent agencies from accessing 

existing SRF funds and potentially prevent more spectrum entering 

the commercial marketplace. 

I am working on legislation called the Spectrum Now Act to address this problem. 

Mr. Donovan—Tim—would you support this effort to ensure that 

we are maximizing the amount of spectrum that could be 

repurposed for wireless broadband use? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you 

for your leadership on these efforts. I think you are—it’s a proven 

case model that it works and working with spectrum relocation 

fund to reallocate Federal spectrum for commercial use, your leadership on that issue led to the single highest grossing spectrum 

auction ever in the AWS–3 auction. 

So this money is clearly well spent. We absolutely support your 

efforts to continue that. You know, spectrum is something that we 

are not making any more of it. So if we can be more efficient then 

that research is money well spent. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

To successfully expand broadband access to the rural and remote 

areas of this country, broadband maps must accurately identify 

where service is and where it isn’t. 

One of the most effective ways to get better maps is by collecting 

better standardized coverage data. I understand that a consensus 

proposal to get better mobile wireless coverage data was put forward as part of the Mobility Fund II Challenge Process. 

Specifically, that proposal suggested modelling 4G LTE coverage 

at download speeds of 5 megahertz per second at a 90 percent cell 

edge probability under cell loading factor of 50 percent. 

Mr. Donovan—Tim again—how can accurately modelling mobile 

broadband data help expand coverage? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you, and this has been an important 

issue going on, on making sure that we know where there is service 

91 

and where there isn’t so that we can direct funding where it’s appropriate. 

One thing that is missing from that model that is included in 

Congressman McKinley and Congressman Walters’ bill is also looking at signal strength. 

And while it gets technical quickly, it’s important. We measure 

signal strength in decibel milliwatt loss, but a difference of only 

five leads to a difference of about a 100 percent geographic coverage. 

In rural areas a difference of 10 we’ve developed 300 percent geographic coverage. When you look at that, you know, while there 

was consensus to move forward before, the factors selected by the 

FCC produced this map that we now know from looking at it that 

it doesn’t pass the test that you all know from your travels across 

your States that it’s not the experience that your consumers are receiving. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Well, thank you very much, and I yield back 

the remainder of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Latta, you’re recognized for five. 

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

And Mr. Gessner, when I travel around my district and meet 

with a lot of my business owners, especially the smaller business 

owners, they talk about the over regulations occurring, especially 

on the Federal side. 

And then also how that regulation affects your business and also 

a lot of times as legislators and then the regulators they don’t really see the after effect of what happens. 

And I was wondering if you might be able to look, as a small 

business owner and also in telecommunications, if you can thing of 

some real-world examples where SERRO could have helped your 

business and, consequently, your customers. 

Mr. GESSNER. Thank you for the question. 

I offered a brief explanation of my situation in 2010 during my 

testimony. I will expand on it a little bit. 

We converted from an analog cable system to an all-digital system in 2010. We thought that was the right thing to do. We were 

well before everybody else and we went along with the broadcasters 

at the same time. 

Shortly thereafter, we realized that we could no longer complete 

analog testing as required by the FCC because we had no analog 

signals to test. 

So we requested a waiver from analog testing and it was supposed to—should have been very, very easy because there had already been one operator who had received a waiver from analog 

testing. So we thought just give me one of those. 

So we went to the expense. We went to the time. Produced the 

affidavits and all that sort of thing, and there were several, maybe 

a half dozen of us, who were doing the same thing at the same 

time. 

Radio silence. We didn’t hear anything for 7 years, and what finally happened was the FCC changed the rules and told all of us 

that our petitions were moved. 

92 

Now, if SERRO had been in effect then, we could have been 

those 7 years of regulatory uncertainty. If SERRO had been in 

place then, the FCC would have been through at least two triennial 

reviews and had recognized that analog testing by digital systems 

was something that had to be addressed and they could have addressed it and no waivers would have been—no waiver petitions 

would have been required in the first place. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Eshoo, you’re recognized. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to 

each of the witnesses. It’s good to see you, and I think that you all 

did a good job in presenting what you want to present. 

To Ms. Morris, in your written testimony you noted that the 

small entity bill, 3787, is vague in its definition of a small entity. 

Now, some entities may have very few subscribers, in the thousands. But the language also applies to companies with millions of 

subscribers, and I wouldn’t consider millions of subscribers as 

small. 

If this were to become law, well, first of all, I think it’s an ambiguous definition, obviously, because millions is not small. 

So if this were to become law, what’s the outcome of this? What 

would actually take place? 

Ms. MORRIS. Thank you, Congresswoman Eshoo. I appreciate the 

question. 

And on this issue of the definition of small entities, I would note 

that the bill may seem like it clearly and cleanly defines what a 

small entity is. 

But it creates worry that gamesmanship could be used to sort of 

water down the definition and that that can change over time and 

be very costly and complicated to determine on a recurring basis. 

And because, as you point out, that the range of potential entities covered in the definition is so expansive, as I noted earlier, we 

risk disenfranchising millions of consumers from the important 

consumer protections that the commission determines that they 

need once they’re in—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Because tied to this are what you just described, correct? 

Ms. MORRIS. Yes. Essentially, what this bill would do would be 

every time the commission makes a determination that a regulation is needed at a general level, what would be otherwise a regulation of general applicability that there would be essentially an 

automatic waiver for a year’s time for small entities as defined, 

broadly, in the act. 

And so for that period of time those customers and consumers 

would be—would not have access to the protections afforded to 

those who were customers of larger companies. 

Ms. ESHOO. I think that this is an area of this bill that really 

needs to be tightened up because otherwise it can swing one way 

or another. 

One way it could be determined that small is in the thousands 

and waivers can be granted for those that have millions. 

93 

It just doesn’t—it would have been better if they just said ‘‘waive 

everything,’’ because that seems to be the intent. 

In your testimony, you also said, quote, ‘‘the point of consumer 

protection laws is to protect consumers from all harmful practices, 

not just those from the biggest entities.’’ 

It seems to me that this is a Trojan Horse, because it’s going to 

hamstring the FCC’s ability to do the job that’s been laid out relative to the protection of consumers. 

Again, small companies would not have to play by the rules that 

everyone else has to play by in terms of the—how it’s defined or 

not defined in the language of the bill. 

Can you describe if there’s an alternative to burden? Is there significant consumer risk there as well? 

Ms. MORRIS. I am sorry. If there’s an alternative burden—if a 

new burden is placed on—I think that, you know, there is the sort 

of immediate risk of the what happens when the 1-year waiver is 

in place. I think that there is also a concern that this will just overly complicate rulemaking processes at the FCC. 

We are going to have to pre-litigate what counts as a small entity 

in every proceeding. We’ll probably have to litigate after the fact 

as well, and meanwhile there will be less focus on the—making 

sure that we get the rules right so that they don’t create the types 

of situations that—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, I think that there is always a legitimate case 

to be made for streamlining. But I think that this is going to turn 

into a hairball. I really do. And I would just suggest to the authors 

that they tighten up the language because the definition is so wide 

a Peterbilt truck can drive through it. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. The lady yields back. 

And if everyone, I am told, can try to keep it 3 minutes or less, 

we should be able to dismiss our panel before we go for votes. 

Mr. Olson, you’re recognized. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. 

Welcome to our five witnesses. My comments and questions are 

for you, Mr. Madigan, on suicide and H.R. 2345. 

Like you, suicide has hit me directly as a Congressman and even 

in my family. 

In 2014, a Marine veteran, Casey Owens, killed himself in Colorado. He was 32 years old. I met Casey in 2007 in our hometown 

of Sugarland, Texas. 

He had lost both legs. PTSD, TBI—when a small Humvee hit a 

tank mine, the thing flew up 30 feet in the air. He found peace in 

Colorado, snow skiing. He was a competitive monoskier. His goal 

was to ski for our country in the Paralympics. 

But he never found true piece. He was on CBS News in 2012 and 

he responded this way, quote, ‘‘I really don’t think I will ever be 

free. I don’t think the burden of war is ever gone,’’ end quote. And, 

sadly, it wasn’t. 

And now my family. When I was in high school, my mom got a 

master’s in family therapy for kids. She met a little girl named 

Sherri Silvas at the Harris County Youth Village. 

Sherri had been abused by her father. Her mom was worthless. 

She was in the gangs, drugs, and she also had a natural chemical 

94 

imbalance. All those came together to make her regularly think 

about committing suicide. 

Mom became very close to Sherri. In fact, she became a de facto 

fourth child in my family. But she was a handful. She disappeared 

for three months. My dad found her halfway across the country. He 

brought her back. 

But 2 years after that, Sherri took her own life, as well. My 

mom, my dad, and my entire family are still haunted we couldn’t 

stop her from taking her own life. 

And in your written testimony you said that having a verbal 

counselor—a line to call a person—is so effective that it actually reduces suicides and their feelings of hopelessness. 

Would that have helped Sherri, and how important is that number to have, that 3–1–1 number? 

Mr. MADIGAN. Well, Congressman, first of all, I am sorry for all 

of your experiences, and I hope you find some closure and peace. 

And I think the legislation that we are looking at today is one 

piece of the puzzle in that, the data that we have, 25 percent of 

the callers have some suicidal ideation. 

So they do get immediate help in terms of talking out what is 

currently going on. 

Clearly, with veterans, there’s a whole host of—as I described in 

my oral statement but more detailed in my written statement—the 

life stressors that then set off a preexisting mental health condition. 

So that’s the bottom line, is that we, as a nation, need to more 

quickly recognize someone’s mental illness situation, much like you 

would someone having a diabetic attack or having heart disease, 

and then—I love to talk about the face when you go ask a 5-yearold, you know, what’s the biggest organ in the body and they normally say the heart. 

And I say, well, wrong—the biggest organ in the body is the 

brain. And if your heart is broken, you gp to the heart doctor to 

get it fixed. If your brain is broken, you need to go to the brain doctor. 

So it’s part of that process, and we believe a three-digit number 

would make access for counseling more readily available. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, and hopefully DOD can use that three-digit 

number, because there has been a report by JO that says, hey, you 

guys were overwhelmed by some calls—people aren’t getting the 

therapy they need via phone call. 

So hopefully this helps them, gives them a chance to get to guys 

like Casey. 

Mr. MADIGAN. Yes. The phone calls from this January to now 

versus January last year have increased 60 percent. So the need 

is clearly there, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. I am sorry for your loss as well. 

Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you’re recognized. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the Chair. 

As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, I am concerned 

about the larger trend we are seeing with consumer protections 

across the board being eliminated from my constituents. 

95 

Ms. Morris, what protections do consumers currently have with 

respect to their online privacy and the information that is shared 

with their broadband provider? 

Ms. MORRIS. None. None from the Federal Communications Commission. They were repealed. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. What protections do consumers have with 

respect to their broadband provider keeping their data secure? 

Ms. MORRIS. I do less data security work. But I would imagine 

very little, because the work I did was in the broadband privacy. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, what about with respect to consumers’ 

access to information being—online being throttled or blocked? Will 

there soon be any protections left for consumers from blocking and 

throttling? 

Ms. MORRIS. Once the 2017 December order takes effect, no. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am certainly open to finding ways to 

streamlining regulatory compliance for small business but I am 

worried that the SERRO bill would move us further in the direction of eliminating safeguards for consumers, many of which have 

already been eliminated. 

Ms. Morris, in your written testimony you stated that triennial 

review process would create a high degree of confusion and possibly 

legal uncertainty at the commission. Can you explain how a high 

degree of confusion at the commission is likely to impact consumers? 

Ms. MORRIS. Sure. And what I mean by that is that once the bill 

would take effect there is this—every 3 years the triennial review 

but there’s also the initial review when it seems like it would be 

essentially open season on any regulations in the FCC’s currently 

on the books. There’s no sort of limitation. It would be a retroactive 

review as part of—I can tell from the text of their bill. 

So that would mean that what small protections remain for consumers in this deregulatory environment at the commission would 

be under scrutiny once again, presumably with new proceedings 

open to reconsider the application of all those regulations, which 

could tie up the commission’s hands for months or years on end. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Madigan, in written testimony your organization submitted 

it was noted that veterans, in particular male veterans, are more 

often at risk of suicide. 

In my experience serving in the Veterans Affairs Committee I 

found that veterans sometimes feel isolated when they return 

home. Do you think that’s one of the contributing factors? 

Mr. MADIGAN. Absolutely. Isolation, alcohol, access to guns—I 

mean, all those kinds of things are something that contribute to 

veterans contemplating suicide. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think that making sure veterans have 

access to 21st century infrastructure like broadband could help our 

veterans? 

Mr. MADIGAN. Well, as I said at the closing of my oral statement, 

I think yes, communication is the key. Talking about mental health 

issues like any other health issue and if technology can be increased and broadened I believe that’s—our organization believes 

that’s the way to go. 

96 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. And I thank the Chair, and I will yield 

back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Bilirakis, and I remind everyone if we can keep it to 3 minutes, then we’ll probably be able to gavel out. 

Mr. Bilirakis, you’re recognized. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Madigan, as vice chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, the full committee, I know the veterans are a uniquely situated population and their experiences and challenges. 

The last OIG report on the veterans crisis line identified a number of problems, including a considerable volume of calls going to 

voicemail, which is unacceptable. 

Since some time has passed since then, I agree with the intent 

of H.R. 2345 to study how the needs of veterans are addressed by 

the National Suicide Prevention Hotline—the lifeline. 

In your testimony, you say that one in three callers to the suicide 

hotline are veterans or members of the military families because 

they suffer as well. 

Can you explain the unique challenges that these callers face 

and in your position have you seen specific issues related to a call 

responder’s ability to address these needs through the hotline? 

In other words, also if some of the responders—are the veterans? 

Can they identify with the veteran? 

Mr. MADIGAN. Yes, that’s a great question. 

When you call 1–800–273–TALK and press 1, you’re immediately 

handed over to a peer-to-peer counseling service where veterans 

who have been through the same experiences that most callers 

have been through are there. 

So I think it’s an awesome program. The budget needs to be increased. The number of counselors need to be increased and, clearly, with the fact that, sir, that we lose anywhere from 18 to 22 veterans a day that we know of—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That we know of. Exactly. Yes. 

Mr. MADIGAN. That we know of—that’s a major problem. So we 

are committed. Again, that’s why we support this legislation, to 

look at the whole picture, see what’s working. 

But the bottom line, when Orrin Hatch called me last May to 

talk about this bill, I said, Senator, it’s a great idea, but if you 

make it easier to call and there’s no one there on the other end to 

answer the call or they’re not competent to answer the call then 

that’s a big problem. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So a veteran can speak—a combat veteran can 

speak to a combat veteran. Is that correct? 

Mr. MADIGAN. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Was in a similar situation? 

Mr. MADIGAN. More and more any of the veteran hotlines that 

I am aware of employ peer-to-peer counsellors. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. I would like to speak with you on that. 

Mr. MADIGAN. Yes. I will also tell you about something. Let’s talk 

offline about the—that’s for warriors out of New Jersey, which is 

Rutgers University sponsors it and it’s upstream counselling of veterans. 

97 

So before someone gets to a bridge or puts a gun in their mouth, 

it helps veterans when they might lose their home, they’re having 

personal problems or financial problems. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. I am going stick with the 3 minutes. But the 

three-digit number is obviously more—it’s easier to remember—— 

Mr. MADIGAN. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS [continuing]. As opposed to the 1–800 number. 

Mr. MADIGAN. It’s 1–800–273–TALK, but I imagine, you’re in the 

middle of a suicidal ideation, unless it’s written somewhere, it’s 

hard to remember. 

So I even think a 5-year-old knows to dial 9–1–1 when they need 

to call the police, and we also think that having a dedicated number like 3–1–1 or whatever it might be would reduce the burden 

on 9–1–1 and get people to the right location the first time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Agreed. 

Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Engel, you’re recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. David Donovan, nice to see New Yorkers here. Welcome to 

Washington. 

I am interested in the enforcement requirements of the PIRATE 

Act. 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ENGEL. You testified that pirate radio stations outnumbered 

licensed stations in some major markets and, as in understand it, 

the draft legislation in front of us today would require, and I quote 

it, ‘‘sustained enforcement and attention on pirate broadcasting,’’ 

unquote, including the requirement that the FCC conduct pirate 

radio enforcement sweeps in some markets. 

So to your knowledge, has any agency—DOJ, FCC, or any 

other—conducted regular pirate radio enforcement sweeps in the 

past? Do you have a sense for the amount of time, money, and personnel these sweeps would require? 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. To my knowledge, the Department of Justice had not done any sweeps. The FCC may have done one. 

In terms of time to do a sweep, for example, it took us four days 

to find 76 pirates in New York City and in northern New Jersey. 

So the actual amount of those sweeps does not take that amount 

of time, and in fact, with technology you can actually reduce the 

amount of time that you need. 

For example, there are pirate—there are radios that are currently on the market that you connect to the internet and you place 

them throughout New York City or northern New Jersey and you 

can sit in the FCC’s office in Washington or in New York and literally turn the dial and you know what stations you have licensed 

and you will be able to hear what stations aren’t licensed. 

That will tell you, depending on the location of where that radio 

is, that we know we have 30 pirates near Flatbush or we have 

some in the Bronx. 

What it does is by using technology in a smart way we’ll actually 

reduce the ability or reduce the burdens that are imposed by doing 

sweeps. 

98 

But, frankly, we’ve done sweeps—I’ve done four sweeps over the 

last several years and, again, I found 76 pirates in four days. So 

it’s not—the burden of doing the spectrum sweep is really not—it 

can be done, and the FCC has the capability and equipment to do 

it. 

And, sir, to be blunt, I will be more than happy work with the 

Federal Communications Commission to help get those sweeps 

done. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Ms. Morris, let me ask you a quick question. I think you point 

out something really important in your written testimony regarding the small entity regulatory bill. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

already requires the FCC to contemplate the effects of new protections on small businesses and there is already a number of opportunities for small cable or phone companies to get waivers under 

the FCC’s procedures. 

So, in your view, are there too few avenues for small business to 

be accommodated in FCC proceedings? 

Ms. MORRIS. It is my view that there are not too few—that there 

are sufficient avenues already at the FCC. I am sympathetic to situations where a waiver, as in Mr. Gessner’s case in his testimony, 

was not able to be achieved in a timely fashion. 

We would simply advocate for a more surgical solution to those 

specific problems rather than the blunt tools that are—would be 

employed under SERRO. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I yield back my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Johnson, you’re recognized. Three minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Gessner, first of all, thanks for what you do in your role as 

the president of Massillon Cable. You serve a large number of people in one of my counties of 18, so I appreciate that. 

I saw in your comments that you highlighted one example where 

the waiver process did not work in a timely fashion for you. Do you 

have other statistics or insights that you could share with us about 

that dynamic? 

Mr. GESSNER. Thank you. Thank you for your question. 

Yes, I probably have four or five current examples that would 

probably be more anecdotal than anything else. But by way of description, I would refer to a staff report that was issued to this 

committee in 2011 and it was entitled ‘‘The Staff Report on Workload at the FCC.’’ 

And part of their conclusion was, and I quote, ‘‘the commission 

faces significant challenges in its work including a significant backlog of unanswered petitions,’’ and they went on to note that more 

than 5,300 petitions, which was 20 percent of the total petitions at 

that time, had been at the FCC for more than 2 years, and that 

more than 3,000 petitions had been pending before the FCC for 

more than 5 years. 

And I think that’s—it speaks volumes to the ability of small entities who don’t have on-staff attorneys to keep after this process to 

see their petitions for needed relief through to a conclusion. 

99 

Mr. JOHNSON. And to give our Members and the American people 

some idea of what that means on the business side, I am told that 

this cost can be up to $50,000 per year for a small company that, 

while they’re awaiting resolution. So you have got 5 years, that’s $250,000 out of that small business. That’s a—that’s a big pot of money. 

Mr. GESSNER. Correct. That came from a more recent petition request where a small telephone company applied for relief, and 

while it was granted in about 3 years, they estimated the cost to 

be about $50,000 a year, which for them is enough to hire another 

full time associate to actually serve customers. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Donovan, Mr. McKinley and Mr. Welch’s bill, H.R. 2903, embodies the spirit of our effort to close the digital divide between 

rural and urban areas. 

What kind of data is necessary to close this divide on wireless 

broadband coverage? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you, Congressman. 

As you know, the data that’s currently on hand is not reflecting 

the experience that you have. Your portion of Ohio on the map 

looks like it’s covered with service. 

I think you have explained to me before how that’s not the case. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We know that’s not true. 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. So what the bill does is it takes a look at the 

services that are available in urban areas and uses that as a measuring stick to see what services should be available. 

With that in place, you can then collect data based on the experience that other Americans are having to make sure that there’s 

services available to everyone. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you. 

I wish we had more time to talk about it. But I understand you 

need to yield. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mrs. Brooks for 3 minutes, please. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am going to follow up on what my colleague from Ohio just 

talked about, Mr. Donovan. Let’s go on and allow you to answer a 

bit with a bit more time. 

What kind of analysis does the FCC do as to whether or not its 

USF policies are meeting the goals of the program and do we have 

information on how effective USF program is in ensuring that comparable service that you just started to talk about? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you 

for joining the bill as a cosponsor. We appreciate the support. 

So right now, as Mr. Welch noted during his opening statement, 

there is no determination of what is reasonably comparable services. 

So the FCC collects data. They collect Form 477 data. They collected, in the case of mobility fund, a special one-time collection of 

data. 

But they’re not then going back and applying any sort of report 

card over whether that’s working, whether we are getting the job 

done. 

100 

And so we are continuing to move forward and as we are talking 

frequently about 5G, there are places in the country that don’t 

have any G. 

We have a saying at CCA that you have to keep up with your 

G’s and when you start falling behind on the digital divide it gets 

harder and harder to catch up. 

That becomes even more important as so many different aspects 

of our society are connected. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Is it fair to say if we—if we do resolve some of 

these issues involving the digital divide, whether it is the targeted 

support through the USF program and siting reform, access to 

spectrum, is it possible that those rural areas will jump to 5G? 

Mr. TIM DONOVAN. Well, you just nailed the three-legged stool of 

infrastructure, spectrum, and USF. Those are all important to solving these problems in rural areas. 

And yes, so carriers that are now looking at making sure you get 

to the 4G services or looking at how you can layer on top of that 

at the same time the 5G services, whether it’s through technology 

or they’re using different spectrum bands to make sure that the 

same services are available in urban areas and rural areas. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. I will yield back the balance of my 

time. I know we are trying to get other Members in. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Collins, you’re recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My question is directed to David Donovan. 

Thank you again for your testimony today on pirate radio. This 

bill is going to create a database of licensed radio operators. I call 

that a commonsense kind of bill. 

I’ve been battling this for years, primarily with our former Chair 

Tom Wheeler, who, frankly, as Chair of the FCC did not seem interested at all. 

I can assure you Ajit Pai, our new FCC Chair, does take this seriously, to which I think we are going to see a big change. 

You know, obviously, these pirate radio operators are raising 

money. In some cases we have advertisers who have no idea it’s a 

pirate radio so, again, our commonsense bill will let them easily 

scan through and say oops, I am not going to be sending money 

this way. 

So to keep this brief, I will just turn it over to you, David, to 

maybe comment on how this should work in helping deprive these 

stations of revenue. 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. Congressman, and thank you for your leadership on the issue. 

I think one of the problems that you have in not just in New 

York but in Florida, in Boston, in Connecticut is that your illegal 

operators take on the aura of a legitimate station. 

As a result, advertisers, including folks buying political time, 

have no idea that they’re buying advertising on an illegal station. 

I think it would be important for the FCC to create transparency, 

which would be to list all the stations in a market that are in fact 

licensed by the FCC. 

List all the stations that it knows are illegal, and that list, making it easily accessible so you don’t have to dig down 12 layers into 

101 

the FCC database, would make it—a Web site that’s publically 

available and easily accessible would go a long way towards advertisers understanding oh, OK, this person isn’t licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. 

And I think that transparency in the marketplace would be very, 

very important to helping to resolve those who are facilitating illegal pirate operations, sir. I think it’s a great idea. 

Mr. COLLINS. And, hopefully, as you say, let’s list the illegal operators, hopefully under Chairman Ajit Pai, he’ll be putting them out 

of business instead of listing. 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. We hope. Absolutely we hope, and with the 

help of Congress to actually increase the enforcement tools and 

your suggestion, I think that will go a long way. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

I have questions that I am going to submit in the interests of 

time and, Tim and Mr. Gessner, they’ll come to you—looking at the 

efforts we are doing on streamlining and how those, with the FCC, 

how that will help speed broadband deployment. But I will submit 

that. 

Mr. Madigan, I’ve got one that will come to you. We will UC Mr. 

Tonko on for either submission or questions or a real quick ask? 

Mr. TONKO. Real quick ask, and I thank you for waiting beyond 

to the subcommittee, Madam Chair. 

I have several serious concerns with pirate radio and the weakness of current enforcement, which, in turn, has encouraged pirate 

radio operators to continue undeterred. 

For years now, I, along with many members of New York and 

New Jersey delegations, have voiced our concerns on this issue, yet 

pirate radio operators are as prevalent as every and their actions 

have been met with few consequences. 

This legislation, obviously, comes in response to the growing 

number of pirate radio broadcasters in the region that are harming 

consumers and public safety. 

According to complaints filed with the FCC, the number of pirate 

FM radio stations throughout New York City could outnumber the 

number of licensed operations while the problem in northern New 

Jersey may be equally as pervasive. 

In Albany, we had a problem with private radio operators where 

a private—a pirate radio station was interfering with another legitimate station and was a nuisance to my constituents who were 

exposed oftentimes to what was vulgar language. 

I’ve worked on this legislation and am proud to have done so in 

a bipartisan way with Congressman Leonard Lance, and I hope 

that this committee will work and move this forward. 

To Mr. Donovan—Mr. David Donovan, what effect can pirate 

radio have on the emergency alert systems? 

Mr. DAVID DONOVAN. What it does is it interferes with those who 

rely on the emergency alert system—consumers who are listening 

to the radio. 

Pirate stations don’t participate in the alert system and the pirate stations actually interfere with the EAS signals that consumers rely on. 

102 

In addition to that, it also interferes with any important lifesaving news that follows up. You take it one step beyond, and 

apart the EAS, the interference to FAA frequencies is rather scary 

because the enforcement is post hoc. 

The interference occurs while the plane is trying to land, and 

then you have to go try to find the pirate, and those situations, 

taken together, create a very dangerous situation, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Tonko, I need to limit you to that question. 

Mr. Schrader has come in, and they have called the vote. If you 

don’t mind. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Thank you. OK. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Schrader, you’re recognized, 3 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Doyle, for allowing me to sit in. 

Sorry I couldn’t spend more time here throughout the hearing. 

We are bouncing back and forth. We’ve got another hearing in the 

Health Subcommittee that we are talking care of, too. 

I just want a few minutes to speak in favor of H.R. 3787, the 

Small Entity Regulatory Relief Opportunity Act. It’s a bill I am 

working on with Representative Latta. I want to thank him and his 

team for all their help and support. Good bipartisan effort here. 

Every member of the committee wants to expand rural 

broadband. The answer to doing that isn’t necessarily always more 

money. Burdensome regulations harm many of these small entities’ 

ability to grow, expand, and hire new employees, and maybe we 

can do something to alleviate some of those burdens. 

Hopefully, by establishing some of these streamlined procedures 

in the bill, by obtaining waivers from regulations that are often unnecessary and not even designed for these smaller entities we provide a little relief for our small telecom providers, with a little 

greater certainty and efficiency to help them to continue to do the 

things they do best for our very, very small and rural communities. 

At the basic level, we are finally recognizing locally based small 

business do not have the same ability as major corporations to comply. 

Many of these small entities have an entire workforce of, like, 

eight or 10 people. They don’t have the resources or floor of lawyers 

to file petition after petition with the FCC. 

I think it’s incumbent we all recognize and acknowledge that 

these unique—that there are unique business regulatory challenges 

for these small entities and we are trying to help them with this 

bill here and would hope the committee and Congress and gentleman out there would share and consider this bill. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I think there’s been plenty of support expressed for that today, and also Representative Stewart has entered the room and we thank him for the work that he has done 

on the suicide bill. 

Seeing there are no further Members wishing to ask questions 

for the panel, I want to thank our witnesses very much for your 

patience today, for being here with us. 

103 

1The slides appear with David Donovan’s prepared statement. The New York State Broadcasters’ study has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108059. 

As we’ve said, it is a busy day, just a few things going on, both 

in Energy and Commerce and on the floor. 

Before I conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following 

documents in the record: Mr. Donovan’s slides, and Mr. Lance, the 

New York State Broadcasters’ pirate radio study. 

Without objection, so ordered.1

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that each of you witnesses respond 

to these questions within 10 business days upon receipt of those 

questions. 

Seeing no further business to come before the subcommittee 

today, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to our distinguished panel for appearing before us today. 

I am pleased we are considering the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement, or PIRATE, Act. 

Unlicensed FM and AM radio operators are a significant harm to public safety 

and public health. By disrupting and interfering with licensed broadcasts, these ‘‘pirate radios’’ can cause radio listeners to miss important updates during times of 

emergency by blocking the Emergency Alert System. As they do not adhere to FCC 

regulations, pirate radios also emit a harmful level of Radio Frequency radiation, 

posing a health risk to nearby residents and workers. 

I commend Chairman Pai and Commissioner O’Rielly for their leadership in enforcing against pirate radio operators at the FCC. However, as Commissioner 

O’Rielly has stated before this subcommittee, the FCC’s current enforcement tools 

are not sufficient to eliminate these bad actors. My bill would increase the FCC’s 

ability to crackdown on pirates by increasing the maximum fine, streamlining enforcement and holding facilitators liable among other things. 

I thank Congressmen Tonko, Collins, and Bilirakis for their leadership on this 

issue and for working with me on this important legislation. Our States are among 

the most affected by pirate radio operators in the country and I am pleased we are 

able to work bipartisanly to protect our constituents from these menaces to public 

safety and health. 

Thank you also to David Donovan from the New York Broadcasters for your advocacy on this issue and for testifying today. I look forward to our discussion. 

104 


US GOVERNMf!\19 

INI'ORMAT10N 

GPO 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R.2345 

To require the Feeler~! Communic~tions Commission to study the feasibility 

of designating a simple, easy-to-remember dialing code to be nscd for 

a national suicide prevention and mental health erisis hotline system. 

IN THE HOUSE OP llEPRESEN'l'ATIVES 

l\Lw 3, 2017 

1\Tr. STEIYART (for himself, 1\Is. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, 1\Ir. 

MCKI!\LEY, l\!Irs. NAPOLI1'ANO, ivfs. SINEAU, ?vir. GRIJALVA, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylwmia, and Mr. BISHOP of Utah) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Eneq.,ry and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require tho Federal Communications Commission to study 

the feasibility of designating a simple, easy-to-remember 

dialing code to be used for a national suicide prevention 

and mental health crisis hotlinc system. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congnss assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "National Suicide HotS line Improvement Act of 201 7". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the follmving: 
105 


2 

(l) According to the National Center for Health 

2 Statisties, suicide rates in the United States have 

3 surged to their highest levels in nearly 30 years. 

4 (2) 'l'he overall suicide rate rose by 24 percent 

5 from 1999 to 2014. 

6 (3) 'l'he National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 

7 (1-800-278-'l'ALK [8255]), created under the lead8 ership of the Center for Mental Health Services of 

9 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

10 Administration (commonly known as "SAlVIIISA"), 

11 is a network of 161 crisis centers that provide a toll12 free hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to anyone 

13 experiencing a mental health or suicidal emergency 

14 or crisis. 

15 ( 4) In 1967, the President's Commission on 

16 l.;aw Enforeement and Administration of Justice rec17 ommended the creation of a single telephone number 

18 that could be used nationwide for reporting emer19 gencies. 

20 (5) In 1968, the Federal Communications Com21 mission agreed upon the number 9-1-1, one of eight 

22 N11 dialing codes, as a simple, easy-to-remember 

23 telephone number to be the dedicated number for re24 porting emergencies, ami 9-1-1 became the national 

•HR 2345 IH 
106 


3 

emergency number for individuals in the United 

2 States to access police, fire, and ambulance services. 

3 (6) Based on the success of the 9-1-l nation4 \Vide emergency number, a study by the Federal 

5 Communications Commission regarding the usc of a 

6 simple, easy-to-remember dedicated 3-digit dialing 

7 code for a suicide prevention and mental health cri8 sis hotlinc system would be beneficial in the preven9 tion of suicide nationwide. 

10 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

11 In this Act12 (1) the term "Assistant Secretary" means the 

13 Assistant Secretary for Mental IIealth and Sub14 stance Use; 

15 (2) the term "Commission" means the Federal 

16 Communications Commission; 

17 (3) the term "covered dialing· code" means a 

18 simp!(~, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code; and 

19 ( 4) the term "N11 dialing code" means an ab20 breviated dialing code consisting of 3 di~:,rits, of 

21 which22 (A) the first digit may be any digit other 

23 than "1" or "0"; and 

24 (B) each of the last 2 digits is "1". 

•HR 2345 IH 
107 


4 

1 SEC. 4. FCC STUDY AND REPORT. 

2 (a) STUDY.-

3 (1) IN OI~NERAh-'l'he Commission, m coordi4 nation with the Assistant Secretary, shall conduct a 

5 study that6 (A) examines the feasibility of designating 

7 an Nll dialing code or other covered dialing 

8 code to be used for a national suicide preven9 tion and mental health crisis hotline system; 

10 and 

11 (B) analyzes the effectiveness of the cur12 rent National Suicide Prevention IJifeline, m13 eluding how well the lifeline is working to ad14 dress the needs of veterans. 

15 (2) REQUIHEMEN'rs.-In conducting the study 

16 under paragraph (1), the Commission shall17 (A) request that the Assistant Secretary 

18 study and report to the Commission on the po19 tential impact of the designation of an Nll di20 aling code, or other covered dialing code, for a 

21 suicide prevention and mental health crisis hot22 line system on23 (i) suicide prevention; 

24 (ii) crisis services; 

25 (iii) the National Suicide Prevention 

26 IJifeline; and 

•HR 2345 IH 
108 


5 

(iv) the Veterans Crisis l.;ine; 

2 (B) eonsider3 (i) each of the Nll dialing codes, in4 eluding the codes that are used for other 

5 purposes; and 

6 (ii) other covered dialing codes; 

7 (C) consult -vvith the North American 

8 Numbering Council; and 

9 (D) consult with the Secretary of Veterans 

10 Affairs with respect to how well the current N all tiona! Suicide Prevention Lifeline is working to 

12 address the needs of veterans. 

13 (b) RgPOR'r.-Not later than 180 days after the date 

14 of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 

15 Congress a report on the study conducted under sub16 section (a) that17 ( 1) recommends a particular Nll dialing code 

18 or other covered dialing code to be used for a na19 tional suicide prevention and mental health cns1s 

20 hotline system; 

21 (2) outlines the logistics of designating such a 

22 dialing code; 

23 (3) estimates the costs associated with desig24 nating such a dialing code, ineluding-

•HR 2345 IH 
109 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

(A) the costs incurred by service providers, 

including-

(i) translation changes in the network; 

and 

(ii) cell site analysis and reprogram6 ming by wireless carriers; and 

7 (B) the costs incurred by States and local8 ities; 

9 ( 4) provides leg·islative recommendations for 

10 designating such a dialing code; 

11 ( 5) provides a eost-benefit analysis comparmg 

12 the recommended dialing code with the eurrent Na13 tional Suicide Prevention I_.~ifeline; and 

14 (6) makes other recommendations for improving 

15 the national suicide prevention lifeline system gen16 erally, which may includc'-

17 (A) increased funding; 

18 (B) increased public education and aware19 ness; and 

20 

21 

(C) improved infrastructure and operations. 

0 

•HR 2345 IH 
110 


US CQVEJ<NMEN9 

l:-.lfORMAT!ON 

GPO 

115TII CO:-.JGRESS 

ls'r SESSION H.R. 2903 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to pr·onmlgate regulations 

that establish a national stawlard for determining whether mobile and 

broadband scrviees available in rural areas arc reasonably comparable 

to those services provided in urban areas. 

IN TilE HOUSB OF RBPRESBNTATIVES 

,JFNE 15, 2017 

Mr. McKINLEY (for himself and Mr. \VEr,cn) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy all(] Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate regulations that establish a national standard 

for determining whether mobile and broadband services 

available in rural areas arc reasonably comparable to 

those services provided in urban areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Ilmtse o.f Representa2 fives o.fthe United States ofi1merica 1;n Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Rural Rt:asonable and 

5 Comparable Wireless Access Act of 2017". 
111 


2 

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF MOBILE AND BROADBAND SERV2 ICES IN UNDERSERVED RURAL AREAS. 

3 (a) I:\f GENEHAL.-Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 

5 promulgate regulations that establish a national standard 

6 for determining, for purposes of rural, insular, and high 

7 cost universal service support pursuant to subsection 

8 (b)(3) of section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 

9 ( 4 7 U.S.C. 254), whether commercial mobile service, eom10 mercia! mobile data service, and broadband internet access 

11 service available in rural areas are reasonably comparable 

1 2 to those services provided in urban areas. 

13 (b) lJNDERSERVED RUI:U'cL AREAS.-rl'he standard 

14 established under subsection (a) shall15 (1) define a "rural area" as any area that is ei16 ther17 (A) a rural area (as defined in paragraph 

18 (1) of section 54.GOO(b) of title 47, Code of 

19 :B'ederal Regulations); or 

20 (B) a service area (as defined in section 

21 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

22 U.S.C. 214(e))) served by a rural telephone 

23 company (as defined in section 3 of such Act 

24 (47 u.s.c. 153)); 

25 (2) define a rural area as "undcrserved", vvith 

26 respect to a service described in subsection (a), if 

•HR 2903 IH 
112 


3 

1 senncc that meets or exceeds the standard cstab2 lished under such subsection is not available in the 

3 area; and 

4 (3) provide that a rural area ·will be considered 

5 "underserved", with respect to a senricc described in 

6 subsection (a), if tests show that the service avail7 able in the area does not meet or exceed the applica8 ble averages determined under subsection (c)(l). 

9 (c) DA1'A FH.0:.\1 URBAN ARI~AS.-The Commission 

10 shall11 (1) gather data on average signal strengths and 

12 average speeds of commercial mobile service and 

13 commercial mobile data service, and on average 

14 speeds of broadband internet access service, prmrided 

15 in the 20 most populous metropolitan statistical 

16 areas; and 

17 (2) specify m the standard established under 

18 subsection (a) that19 (A) commercial mobile service or commcr20 eial mobile data service available in rural areas 

21 is reasonably comparable to that service pro22 \ridcd in urban areas only if the average signal 

23 strengths and average speeds meet or exceed 

24 the averages determined under paragraph (1) 

25 for such service; and 

•HR 2903 IH 
113 


4 

1 (B) broadband internet access serv1ce 

2 available in rural areas is reasonably com3 parable to that service provided in urban areas 

4 only if the average speeds meet or exceed the 

5 averages determined under paragraph ( 1) for 

6 such service. 

7 (d) PEIUODIC UPDATING OF DATA.-The Commis8 sion shall periodically update the data gathered under sub9 section (c)(1). 

10 (e) DEI•'INITIONS.-ln this section: 

11 (1) BROADBAND INT!iiRNgT ACCESS SERVICI•J.-

12 The term "broadband internet access service" means 

13 a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that 

14 provides the capability to transmit data to and re15 ceive data from all or substantially all internet 

16 endpoints, inelnding any capabilities that arc inci17 dental to and enable the operation of the commu18 nications service, but exeluding dial-up internet ac19 cess service. Such term includes any service that the 

20 Commission finds to be providing a functional equiv21 alent of the service described in the previous sen22 tence. 

23 (2) COl\INIERCIAL :\IOBIU~ SI<JH.v'ICE.-'l'he term 

24 "commercial mobile service" has the meaning given 

•HR 2903 IH 
114 


5 

1 such term in section 332 of the Communications Act 

2 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 832). 

3 (8) COMlVIERCIAij MOBIU<J DATA SERVTCE.-rl'he 

4 term "commercial mobile data serviee" has the 

5 meaning given such term in section 6001 of the Mid6 dle Class rrax Relief and ,Job Creation Act of 2012 

7 (47 U.S.C. 1401). 

8 ( 4) COl\IlVIISSION .-The term "Commission" 

9 means the Federal Communications Commission. 

0 

•HR 2903 m 
115 


US COVEf{NMION9 1NFOR"-1ATION 

CPO 

115mCONGRESS H R 3787 1ST SBSSION 

• • 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for streamlined procedures for waiver petitions seeking relief for small entities from regulations 

issued by the Federal Communications Commission, to require the Commission to defer the applicat.ion of new reg11lations to small entities, 

and for other pnl'poses. 

IN TilE HOUSE OF REPR.ESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

l\Ir. I1ATTA (for himself and Mr. Sci-TRAHEH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

rro amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for 

streamlined procedures for waiver petitions seeking relief 

for small entities from reg11lations issued by the F'ederal 

Communications Commission, to require the Commission 

to defer the application of new rcg11lations to small entities, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Ilouse of Representa2 fives ofthe United States ofArnerica 1:n Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Small IDntity R.egu5 latory Relief Opportunity Act of 20 17". 
116 


2 

1 SEC. 2. REGULATORY RELIEF FOR SMALL ENTITIES. 

2 (a) I~ Gr~~ImAIJ.-'l'itle I of the Communications Act 

3 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 ct seq.) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following: 

5 "SEC. 13. REGULATORY RELIEF FOR SMALL ENTITIES. 

6 "(a) STHEA:VIU~ED PHOCEDlnms POI~ \VAIVEH PE7 TI'l'IONS.-

8 "(1) TN GENERAh-Not later than 180 days 

9 after the date of the enactment of this section, the 

10 Commission shall complete a rnlemaking to establish 

11 streamlined procedures applicable to the filing, con12 sideration, and resolution of any petition13 "(A) seeking a waiver of a reg·ulation 

14 issued by the Commission under this Act; 

15 "(B) in which the relief sought is limited 

16 to small entities; and 

17 "(C) that is filcd18 "(i) by a small entity on its own be19 half or jointly vvith other small entities; or 

20 "(ii) by a representative organization 

21 on behalf of one or more classes of small 

22 entities. 

23 "(2) .OBJECTIVES.-'l'hc objectives of the 

24 streamlined procedures established under para~:,'Taph 

25 ( 1) shall be-

•HR 3787 IH 
117 


3 

1 "(A) to expedite the consideration and res2 olution of petitions described in such para3 graph; and 

4 "(B) in the ease of a petition described in 

5 such paragraph that is filed by a small entity 

6 on its mm behalf or jointly with other small en7 tities, to reduce the costs and procedural obliga8 tions associated ·with filing such petition. 

9 "(b) DBFERRED APPI,ICATION OF HIWVLA'l'IONS.-

10 "(1) IN GI~NERAJ;.-Exeept as provided in para11 graphs (2) and (:-l), in the ease of a regulation 

12 issued by the Commission under this Act, the Com13 mission shall defer application to small entities of 

14 such re~::,:rulation for not less than 1 year after the 

15 latest date on which such reg11lation becomes effec16 tive for an entity that is not a small entity. 

17 "(2) Excn,vsiON.-Paragraph (1) shall not 

18 apply if the statutory provision under ·which the reg19 ulation is issued expressly states that the Commis20 sion may not exercise the authority granted under 

21 such paragTaph to defer the application of such reg22 ulation to small entities. 

23 "(3) J.JI:\UTATIONS.-The Commission may de24 cline to grant some or all small entities a deferral 

25 under paragraph (1), or may grant some or all small 

•HR 3787 IH 
118 


4 

entities a deferral under such paragraph for less 

2 than 1 year, if--

3 "(A) the Commission finds (and incor4 porates the finding and a statement of reasons 

5 therefore in the order or other decision docu6 ment in which the regulation is adopted) that7 "(i) the rq.,rulation is principally in8 tended9 "(I) to reduce waste, fraud, and 

10 abuse by a small entity; or 

11 "(II) to protect public safety; and 

12 "(ii) no deferral or deferral for less 

13 than 1 year would be in the public interest; 

14 or 

15 "(B) a shmving has been made by the 

16 small entities that would benefit from the defer17 raJ otherwise required by paragraph (1) that 

18 the benefits to such small entities of such dcfcr19 ral are outweighed by the benefits to such small 

20 entities of no deferral or deferral for less than 

21 1 year. 

22 "( 4) HEGUI;A'l'IONS SUB.JIWT TO INFORMA'l'ION 

23 COI;I,ECTION APPROVAI;.-In the case of a regulation 

24 requiring a collection of information that is subject 

25 to approval under subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 

•HR 3787 IH 
119 


5 

44, United States Code, the deferral period under 

2 this subseetion shall begin on the latest date fol3 lovving such approval on whieh sueh regulation be4 comes effeetive for an entity that is not a small enti5 ty. 

6 "(5) ENTITmS THAT CEASiiJ TO BI~ SMALL EN7 TITms.-An entity that is eligible under this subS section for deferred applieation of a regulation on 

9 the date on which the deferral commences shall con10 tinue to be entitled to the full term of the deferral 

11 notwithstanding that such entity ceases to be a 

12 small entity, whether through a change in the defini13 tion of the term 'small entity' or otherwise. 

14 "(c) Sl\TAI,L EN"TITY DEF'IN"ED.-In this section, the 

15 term 'small entity' means any entity that meets either of 

16 the follmving requirements: 

17 " ( 1) The entity is a small entity (as defined in 

18 section 601 of title 5, United States Code). 

19 "(2) With respect to a regulation applicable to 

20 a particular subscription service, the entity provides 

21 such subscription service to 2 percent or fewer of the 

22 consumers receiving such subscription service in the 

23 United States.". 

•HR 3787 Ul 
120 


6 

1 (b) THmNNIAL l{gGui,A'l'OHY REvmw.-Scction 257 

2 of the Communications Act of 1984 (47 U.S.C. 257) is 

3 amcndcd4 (1) in the heading, by striking "MARKET 

5 ENTRY BARRIERS PROCEEDING" and inserting 

6 "ELIMINATION OF MARKET ENTRY BARRIERS 

7 AND UNNECESSARY REGULATION OF SMALL 

8 ENTITIES"; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the follmving: 

10 "(d) REvmw OI<' APPI,ICA'l'ION or<' Rr~our,NL'IONS TO 

11 SNIAI,L ENTITIES.-As part of the periodic review con12 dueted under subsection (c), the Commission shall13 "(1) review all regulations issued under this Act 

14 in effect at the time of the review that apply to the 

15 operations or activities of any provider of any service 

16 subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under 

17 this Act; 

18 "(2) determine whether there is good cause for 

19 the Commission to grant relief to some or all small 

20 entities (as defined in section 18) from any such 

21 rq,'Ulation, in whole or in part; and 

22 "(3) if the determination under para6"raph (2) 

23 is affirmative, grant such relief by modif}'ing such 

•HR 3787 IH 
121 


7 

regulation as such regnlation applies to some or all 

2 small entities.". 

0 

•HR 3787 IH 
122 


G:\M\15\LANCE\LANCE_032XML [Discussion Draft] 

[DISCUSSION DRAFT] 

115TII CONGRliJSS H R 

2D SESSION 

• • 

To amend the Communications Act of Hl34 to pl'O\'ide for enhanced penalties 

for pirate radio, and for other purposes, 

IN 'l'HE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

:\k LA:<1CE intr·oduced the following bill; whieh was referred to the Committee 

on 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for 

enhanced penalties for pirate radio, and for other purposes, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and IIouse of Representa2 h>ves of the United States ofAmerica 1·n CongTess assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Preventing Illegal 

5 Radio Abuse Through l<Jnforcement Aet" or the "PIR.i~TE 

6 Act". 

7 SEC. 2. PIRATE RADIO ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENTS. 

8 Title V of the Communications Act of 19~~4 ( 4 7 

9 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) is amendedg:\VHLC\01 0318\01 0318.070.xml 

January 3, 2018 (3:07p.m.) 

(67927019) 
123 


G:\M\15\LANCE\LANCE_032.XML [Discussion Draft] 

2 

1 (1) in section 510(b), by inserting after "Attor2 ncy General of the United States" the follmving: ", 

3 or by the Commission, acting on its own behalf,"; 

4 and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the follovving new scc6 tion: 

7 "SEC. 511. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR PIRATE RADIO 

8 BROADCASTING; SEIZURE OF ILLEGAL 

9 EQUIPMENT; ENFORCEMENT SWEEPS. 

10 "(a) INCREASED GE:\EHAL PENAIIrY.-Any person 

11 who ·willfully and knowingly docs or causes or suffers to 

12 he done any pirate radio broadcasting shall he subject to 

13 a fine of not more than $2,000,000. 

14 "(h) VIOI,ATION oF Huu~s, REGUI,ATIONS, AND So 

15 POI{'l'II.-.A.ny person who willfully and knowingly violates 

16 any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or im17 posed by the Commission under authority of this Act, or 

18 any rnle, rcg11lation, restriction, or condition made or im19 posed by any international radio or wire communications 

20 treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, to 

21 which the U nitcd States is or may hereafter become a 

22 party, relating' to a pirate radio broadeasting shall, in ad23 clition to any other penalties provided by law, be subject 

24 to a fine of not more than $100,000 for eaeh day during 

25 whieh such offense oceurs. 

g:\VHLC\01 0318\01 0318.070.xml 

January 3, 2018{3:07 p.m.) 

(67927019) 
124 


G:\M\15\LANCE\LANCE_032.XML [Discussion Draft] 

3 

1 "(c) LIVI~ Pm.ATg RADIO BROADCAS'l'I)JG.-Scction 

2 503(b)(4) docs not apply for a forfeiture penalty imposed 

3 on a person if the Commission has direct evidence that 

4 the person is responsible for a pirate radio broadcast and 

5 such broadcast is oceurring in real time. 

6 "(d) FACIUTATION.-A:ny person who knowingly and 

7 intentionally facilitates pirate radio broadcasting shall be 

8 subject to a fine of not more than $2,000,000. 

9 "(e) DISPOSAIJ m' ILH,GAIJ Pm.ATg RADIO EQUIP10 l\mNT.-The Commission may dispose of any equipment 

11 seized under this section as the Commission determines 

12 to be appropriate without notice after the expiration of 

13 the 90-day time period beginning on the date on which 

14 the equipment was seized. 

15 "(f) ENFOI~cE:.vmNT s·wEEPS.-

16 "(1) Bl<'\.1'\TNUAL SWEEPS.-Not less than twice 

17 each year, the Commission shall assign appropriate 

18 enforcement personal to focus specific and sustained 

19 attention on the elimination of pirate radio broad20 casting within the top five radio markets identified 

21 as prevalent for such broadcasts. Such effort shall 

22 include identif}ring, locating, and terminating such 

23 operations and seizing related equipment under sub24 section (c). 

g:\VHLC\0 1 0318\01 0318.070.xml 

January 3, 2018 (3:07p.m.) 

(67927019) 
125 


G:\M\15\LANCE\LANCE_032.XML [Discussion Draft] 

4 

1 "(2) NO EFFECT 0:-J Im:\IAII\'I:-JG ENFORCE2 i\IEN'l'.-Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Com3 mission shall not decrease or diminish the regular 

4 enforcement efforts targeted to pirate radio broadS east stations for other times of the year. 

6 "(g) STATE Al'ID IJOCAL Gov1mN:\IE::-.J'r AUTHOR7 ITY.-

8 "(1) STATUTES OR ORDI:-JANCES PERMIT'l'ED.-

9 A State or local government may enact a statute or 

10 ordinance that imposes civil or criminal penalties for 

11 pirate radio broadcasting, or for knovv:ingly and in12 tentionally facilitating pirate radio broadcasting, 

13 provided that the determination whether a radio sta14 tion is engaged in pirate radio broadcasting shall be 

15 made exclusively by the Commission. 

16 "(2) COMMISSION AUTHORITY PRESElWED.-

17 Enforcement by a State or local government of a 

18 statute or ordinance under this section shall not pre19 elude the Commission or Pederal law enforcement 

20 authority from concurrently enforcing this section 

21 and section 301 of this Act, any other Pederal law, 

22 or any regulation of the Commission thereunder. 

23 "(h) DEFINlTIONS.-Jn this section: 

24 "(1) PIHATE HADIO BHOADCASTI:-JG.-The term 

25 'pirate radio broadcasting' means the transmission 

g:\VHLC\01 0318\01 0318.070.xml 

January 3, 2018 (3:07p.m.) 

(67927019) 
126 


G:\M\15\LANCE\LANCE_032.XML [Discussion Draft] 

5 

1 of communications on spectrum frequencies between 

2 535 to 1705 kHz or 88 to 108 lVIIIz (Alvi or FlVl 

3 broadcast bands) without a license issued by the 

4 Federal Communieations Commission, but does not 

5 inelude unlicensed operations in eomplianec with 

6 part 15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations. 

7 "(2) B'ACILITA'l'ES.-The term 'faeilitates' 

8 means providing access to property (and :improvc9 ments thereon) or providing physical goods or serv10 ices, including providing· housing, facilities, or fi11 naneing, that direetly aid pirate radio broadcasting. 

12 "(3) K"\'O\V1NGLY AND 1:-.JTgNTIONAI,LY.-Thc 

13 term 'knowingly and intentionally' means the person 

14 was previously served by the Commission with a no15 tice of unlicensed operations, notice of apparent li16 ability, or citation for efforts to facilitate pirate 

17 radio broadcasting.". 

g:\VHLC\01 0318\01 0318.070.xml 

January 3, 2018 (3:07p.m.) 

(67927019) 
127 


American 

Foundation 

for Suicide 

Prevention 

Statement 

Of 

Christine Moutier, M.D. 

Chief Medical Officer 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention 

submitted to 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology 

regarding H.R 2345 

The National Suicide Prevention Hotline 

Improvement Act of 2017 

March 22, 2018 

440 First St NW, Suite 300 I Washington, DC 20001 I 202.449.3600 I fax 202.449.3600 I afsp.org/advocacy 
128 


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

inviting the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) to testifY today on H.R. 2345, 

"The National Suicide Prevention Hotline Improvement Act of2017." I am Dr. Christine 

Moutier and I am AFSP's Chief Medical Officer. Many thanks to Representatives Chris Stewart 

(R-UT) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) for their leadership on this important legislation. 

I became the Chief Medical Officer for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention in the 

fall of2013. Previously, I was at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of 

Medicine, where I was a Professor of Psychiatry and served as Assistant Dean for Student 

Affairs and Medical Education. I maintained an active outpatient and inpatient clinical practice 

through the UCSD Medical Group, the VA Healthcare System, and UPAC (Union of Pan Asian 

Communities), a community mental health clinic for the Asian refugee population. I worked with 

both high functioning people with mood and anxiety disorders, as well as with more severely ill 

people with chronic mental illness, continuously throughout my academic career. 

I am a suicide prevention expert who has experienced the issue in a 360-degree manner with 

family members who struggle, colleagues who have died by suicide, suicidal patients and 

medical trainees, and whose research focused on optimizing treatment of depression and anxiety, 

and addressing burnout and mental health distress of physicians and trainees. I have developed 

and co-led a suicide prevention program for physicians and other health professionals at the 

University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. I have been fortunate to help advise 

national change currently underfoot related to health professionals' burnout, resilience and 

suicide prevention. 
129 


All of this has led me to a holistic way of integrating the body of clinical and suicide research 

into a framework that approaches mental health and suicide prevention along its fullest 

continuum. I believe that many effective suicide prevention efforts not only save lives, but reach 

individuals where they are anywhere along the continuum of human experience, and therefore 

suicide prevention initiatives may have the added benefit of elevating coping, mental health, and 

resilience for many more. 

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) 

Established in 1987, AFSP is a voluntary health organization that gives those affected by suicide 

a nationwide community empowered by research, education and advocacy to take action against 

this leading cause of death. 

AFSP is dedicated to saving lives and bringing hope to those affected by suicide. AFSP creates a 

culture that is smart about mental health by engaging in the following core strategies: 

• Funding scientific research, 

• Educating the public about mental health and suicide prevention, 

• Advocating for public policies in mental health and suicide prevention, 

• Supporting survivors of suicide loss and those affected by suicide in our mission. 

Scope of the Problem of Suicide 

My message today about suicide is hopeful and actionable. It is worth emphasizing the scope of 

suicide's impact: in recent years suicide has taken more lives than war, murder, and natural 

disasters combined. The suicide rate in the U.S. continues to climb, with the most recent CDC 

2 
130 


data revealing 44,965 deaths in 2016, and occupational loss and direct healthcare costs estimated 

to be more than $69 billion armually. Suicide is one of the leading, yet largely preventable causes 

of death in our country. Here are some facts: 

• Suicide is now the I 01

h leading cause of death in adults age 18-64, 

• For every suicide, there are 25 attempts, 

• The armual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.42 per 100,000 individuals, 

• After adjusting for differences in age and sex, risk for suicide is 19% higher for male 

Veterans, than U.S. non-Veteran male adults, 

• Risk for suicide is 2.5 times higher among female Veterans, when compared to U.S. nonVeteran women, 

• Men die by suicide 3.53 x more than women, 

• White males accounted for 7 of 10 deaths in 2016. 

The AFSP Public Policy Team has provided each of the members of the Subcommittee with a 

copy of your particular "Suicide Facts" in your home state. These info graphics, based on data 

from 2016, highlight the suicide situation back home for each of you. 

Causes of Suicide 

Suicide is often the result of unrecognized and untreated mental illness. In more than 120 studies 

of series of completed suicides, at least 90% of the individuals involved were suffering from a 

mental illness at the time of their deaths. When 1 in 4 Americans have a diagnosable mental 

illness, but only 1 in 5 of them are seeking professional help for that condition, we have a lot of 

3 
131 


work to do in mental health literacy, elevating the general lay understanding of how mental 

health problems are experienced or look like in a loved one or co-worker and toward 

destigmatizing help-seeking when you detect a change in your own or a loved one's mental 

health. Just like you would be proactive about any other aspect of your health such as your heart 

or kidneys. 

Mental illness is the necessary, but not sufficient, risk factor for suicide in most cases, since most 

people with mental illness thankfully do not die by suicide. Mental illnesses such as depression, 

bipolar disorder and alcohol and drug dependence, Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) and Traumatic 

Brain Injury (TBI) may create the underlying risk that when combined with life stressors such as 

transition from military life, job loss, relationship issues and financial or legal problems and a 

recipe for increased suicide risk can occur. Other important risk factors include social isolation, 

biological factors like aggression and impulsivity, childhood abuse, a history of past suicide 

attempt, serious medical problems, and a family history of suicide. 

Suicide risk tends to be highest when multiple risk factors or precipitating events occur in an 

individual with a mental illness. The most important interventions we can start with are 

recognizing and effectively treating these disorders. On a population level, we can implement 

more upstream approaches such as shoring up community, mentorship and peer support, teaching 

students how to problem solve and process stress, make access to mental health care available 

and non-stigmatized, train frontline citizens like teachers, first responders, and clinicians, and 

limit access to lethal means. 

4 
132 


The good news is suicide is preventable, and thanks to a grassroots movement, catalyzed by both 

suicide loss survivors and the emerging voice of those with their own history of attempt, the fight 

against suicide is nearing a tipping point. To answer this call to action, AFSP has evolved a 

three-point strategy that covers Research, Prevention, and Support, and if we push now, we hope 

to reduce the annual suicide rate 20% by 2025. 

Key Poliey Areas for Addressing Suielde 

I believe we need to focus on three key policy areas to prevent suicide that include: 

• Suicide prevention research; 

• Suicide prevention Pfograms; and, 

• Programs and strategies that provide more support to those touched by suicide. 

I am here today to talk about why H.R. 2345 could be a game-changer for our national public 

safety net. 

A vote for H.R. 2345 would allow the FCC and our federal suicide prevention authorities to fully 

understand how a three-digit code (such as 411 or 611) could enable rapid access to life-saving 

assistance for persons in emotional and suicidal crisis, while also diverting many individuals in 

crisis from the unnecessary use of precious 911 emergency services. This legislation will study 

the effectiveness of the current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (l-800-273-TALK), and 

how well it addresses the needs of veterans. We should also look at how the current system in 

addressing the needs of Alaskan Natives and American Indians, along with our LGTBQ youth. 

5 
133 


H.R. 2345 would also provide cost estimates and resource needs for supporting phone hotline, 

chat and text. 

Here are some important facts -

• A national, single point of access-free, anonymous and toll-free for all American 

residents--is necessary to provide a public health safety net for all persons in the United 

States experiencing emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis. With approximately 2/3 of 

persons with diagnosable mental health problems not currently accessing mental health 

providers, suicide rates and deaths related to substance misuse (including opioids) on the 

rise, it is essential that we provide immediate access to help for people in crisis when, 

where and how they need it. 

• The experience of the SAMHSA's National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-8255) 

indicates that a national hotline number has been essential for addressing this public 

health crisis. Lifeline call volume has increased significantly every year since its launch 

in 2005, serving more than 11 million callers. In 2017, the Lifeline's national network of 

160 local crisis centers answered over 2 million calls. According to independent 

evaluators of the service, approximately 25% of these callers present with suicidal crises, 

with the remaining 75% reporting a non-suicidal, mental health or substance related 

problem (Gould et al, 2012). Because VA also utilizes the Lifeline number as a single 

point of access to provide a special V A-funded service for U.S. veterans and members of 

military since 2007, the Lifeline network and the Veterans Crisis Line together have 

assisted millions of veterans and service members in crisis. Approximately l of3 callers 

to the Lifeline presses 1 for this special service for veterans and members of military 

service. 

6 
134 


• This national point of access works in reducing emotional distress and suicidality. 

SAMHSA-funded evaluations of Lifeline crisis center work have consistently 

demonstrated that the service is reducing emotional distress and suicidality for persons 

engaging the service. 

• In a study of 1085 suicidal callers evaluated at beginning and end of call-and then 3 

weeks later-significant reductions in suicidality, psychic pain and hopelessness by end 

of call and 3 weeks later. Upon follow-up, 12% of suicidal callers spontaneously offered 

that the call prevented him/her from killing or harming self. (Gould et al, 2007) 

• In another study, 1617 non-suicidal crisis callers evaluated at beginning and end of calland three weeks later. Significant reductions in confusion, anger, anxiety, helplessness 

and hopelessness by end of the call, and more so 3 weeks later. (Kalafat et al, 2007) 

• With more than 12 million persons in the U.S. having suicidal thoughts annually, 

providing more ready access to this effective, lifesaving service could be beneficial. 

Service currently serving about half-a-million suicidal callers (25% of 2m callers). 

• As more people access the single number for mental health and suicidal crises, the need 

to enhance infrastructure capacity becomes essential. As the Lifeline call volume has 

grown 60% in the past year alone, capacity has become strained. While about 85% of 

callers are being answered in about 30 seconds, more than 1 in 10 callers are averaging 

waits of over 2 minutes as they roll over to national back-up centers. This is because local 

centers are under-funded and under-resourced to manage the growing number of calls. 

• It is quite possible that a separate 3-digit number for mental health/suicidal crises would 

significantly reduce burdens on the 911 system, reducing unnecessary use of emergency 

services nationally. Lifeline standards, trainings and practices of its national network of 

7 
135 


local call centers is designed to effectively de-escalate persons in suicidal crises, reduce 

risk for callers in crisis and ensure that they receive the most appropriate, least invasive 

care that supports their health, safety and well-being. SAMHSA-funded evaluations 

indicate that Lifeline member centers are effectively de-escalating persons in suicidal 

crisis whom might otherwise be diverted to emergency services. 

• Of Lifeline's highest-risk callers (e.g., assessed to be at "imminent risk"), 40% are 

effectively de-escalated without utilizing emergency services. In 36% of cases, imminent 

risk callers agree to the use of emergency services (collaborating with counselor to 

promote their safety), and about 24% of imminent risk callers receive emergency 

services, because they are unwilling and unable to collaborate with the counselor to 

prevent their suicide (Gould et al2016). 

• Many 911 centers report a high volume of non-suicidal callers with mental health issues 

that would more effectively and efficiently be assisted on a mental health hotline. 

Suicide touches so many lives, but only recently, as more and more people speak out, has the 

need for action become so apparent. Ten years ago, we had only a handful of people banding 

together. Today we have a movement that rallies over 250,000 people to participate in over 400 

AFSP Community Out of the Darkness Walks and AFSP 150 College Campus Walks. This 

coming Apri121, AFSP and many other national suicide prevention and mental health 

organizations are sponsoring a first-ever Rally on the West Front of the US Capitol Building, 

from 5:30pm to 6:30pm. We hope that many of you and your staff can join us for this 

important call to action. 

8 
136 


It's time to answer that grassroots call for action. It's time to wage war on suicide and put a stop 

to this tragic loss of life. The first line of defense should be robust, 24-7, crisis support services 

for all Americans, by phone hotline, chat and by text. H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Prevention 

Hotline Improvement Act of 2017 is another step in the right direction. 

Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee. On 

behalf of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, I thank you again for the opportunity 

to provide testimony today and we look forward to working with you, other members of the 

Congress, the Administration, and all mental health and suicide prevention organizations inside 

and outside of government to prevent suicide. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

9 
137 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Tim Donovan 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

(!Congres-s- of tbc 'ilnttcb ~tatcs­

;t.Jou!le of l\eprc!lentattbe!l 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority (202)225-2927 

Minonty (202)225-3-641 

April9, 2018 

Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs 

Competitive Carriers Association 

805 15th Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Donovan: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Thursday, March 22, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Legislative Hearing on Four 

Communications Bills." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, April23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
138 


cca rural. 

regional. 

nationwide. 

11Legislative Hearing on Four Communications Bills" 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Tim Donovan, SVP, Legislative Affairs, Competitive Carriers Association 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 22, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn: 

1. On March 22, 2018, the FCC passed a Wireless Infrastructure Streamlining Order that provides 

exemptions from certain environmental and historic reviews. How useful is this effort to closing the 

digital divide? 

a. To what degree are the FCC's effort and this Subcommittee's efforts on streamlined 

infrastructure complimentary? 

The FCC's Second Report and Order, Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers 

to Infrastructure Investment, is a significant step toward closing the digital divide, and CCA commends its 

adoption. The Order provides competitive carriers with clarity in the National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review processes. This will give carriers the opportunity to 

make faster, more informed decisions when building out their networks and will allow operators to provide 

critical services to rural areas currently unserved or underserved. 

The Communications and Technology Subcommittee's efforts on streamlined infrastructure are complementary 

to the FCC's Second Report and Order and any further actions the FCC may take. CCA supports Congressional 

efforts to provide clarity to carriers regarding broadband infrastructure deployment, and urges Congress, the 

FCC, and the Administration to work in concert to close the digital divide. 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

1. In your testimony you noted that ensuring rural areas have comparable wireless service to urban 

areas requires streamlining infrastructure deployment. Several bills introduced by members of this 

Subcommittee would exempt broadband deployments from study requirements under the National 

Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. My bill, the SPEED Act, 

would exempt broadband facilities from NEPA and NHPA reviews on Federal property that have 

already granted another communications facility on the same property. 

a. How important is this to streamlining the digital divide? 

b. How important is this to winning the international race to SG? 

CCA thanks you for your leadership and supports H.R. 4842, The Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient 

Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure (SPEED) Act. The SPEED Act provides common-sense solutions to 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

805 15th St NW, Suite 401 I Washington, DC 20005 I ccamobile.org 
139 


broadband infrastructure deployment challenges by reducing or removing duplicative or unnecessary review 

requirements. 

As carriers work to preserve, upgrade, and expand mobile broadband services, rural America must not be left 

behind. Eliminating unnecessary reviews increases certainty and decreases costs, supporting broadband 

deployment. This is particularly true in rural and high cost areas, where enhanced services are necessary to 

bridge the digital divide and allow full participation in the modern mobile economy. 

While the United States has led the world in 4G, there are still places in our nation that lack the latest mobile 

broadband services. As technology evolves to SG services, winning the race to SG must include connecting rural 

America. Efforts to focus reviews and related costs, both monetary and opportunity, where truly necessary are 

critical to maintaining mobile broadband leadership. 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger 

1. In terms of spectrum needed to close the digital divide for wireless broadband, should the focus be on 

low-medium-or high band spectrum? Or will it require an all-of-the-above strategy? 

a. What are the implications of spectrum availability for SG deployment in rural areas? 

Spectrum is the lifeblood of the wireless industry. As demand for mobile broadband services continues to 

increase exponentially, all carriers must have access to low,-mid,-and high-band spectrum resources. 

Competitive carriers serving rural areas must have spectrum that is available in sufficiently small license sizes 

while balancing that need with technology uses, and spectrum bands must be interoperable to provide rural 

America with the same services and devices. 

CCA commends your leadership on this issue through H.R. 1814, the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act of 2017, 

which was recently enacted through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. Ensuring that low, mid, and 

high spectrum bands that are not being used are available for providing service in rural America is a necessary 

step to support deployment of the latest mobile technologies in rural areas today and eventually SG services, 

and CCA looks forward to continued work with you to provide appropriate incentives to make spectrum 

available. 
140 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. David Donovan 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR, NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ctCongrcgg of tuc W:ntteb {Sltateg 

J)ou~e of l\epn~cntatibc~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority 

Minority 

April9, 2018 

President and Executive Director 

New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. 

1805 Western Avenue 

Albany, NY 12203 

Dear Mr, Donovan: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Thursday, March 22,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Legislative Hearing on Four 

Communications Bills." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, April23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

v-~aBlack= 

~~ 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
141 


New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

May 7, 2018 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office building 

Washington DC 20515 

RE: Answers to Hearing Questions on the PIRATE Act 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on Thursday 

March 22, 2018 to discuss the continued problem of illegal pirate radio operators. Illegal 

pirate radio operations harm the public by: 1) interfering with the broadcast emergency 

alert system (EAS); 2) exposing communities to levels of RF radiation above government 

standards; 3) interfering with FAA communications channels and 4) ignoring all FCC and 

consumer protection laws. 

Attached please find my answers to questions that were sent to me following the 

hearing. The New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. and the National Association of 

Broadcasters strongly support the PIRATE Act. 

If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

cc: The Honorable Paul 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger 

Mr. Evan Viau 

1805 Western Avenue • Albany, New York 12203 

(518) 456·8888 • fax: (518) 456-8943 • www.nysbroadcasters.org 
142 


David L. Donovan, President 

New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc. 

Answers to Hearing Questions Regarding Pirate Radio 

Subcommittee Hearing: Thursday March 22, 2018 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger: 

As a pilot. it concerned me to hear that ille~:ai pirate operations have led to documented 

interference with aviation communications. Can you elaborate on the harm that these pirate 

statjons pose to aviation safety. 

a. How would policies in the PIRATE Act better enable the FCC to shut down 

pirate radio operations and minimize aviatjon safety rjsk and other harms? 

Pirate stations interfere with airport communications on frequencies assigned to the 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FCC"), creating an extremely dangerous situation. For example, 

in 2013, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and the Department of justice shut down 

an unauthorized radio station operating on 91.7 MHz in Boston, MA. According to the Department 

of justice's Press Release, the FAA complained about pirate radio interference: 

"According to an affidavit filed with the civil complaint, the unlicensed FM radio station was 

causing interference to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) frequency 120.6 MHz, which 

is one of the primary frequencies used by pilots to communicate with FAA controllers when 

flying in the Boston metropolitan area. The FCC issued verbal and written warnings to the 

residents of9 Rutland Street on several occasions, but the radio station continued to 

broadcast."! 

Over the years the FCC has documented numerous of cases involving interference to airport 

communications from pirate radio operations. For example, the FCC has found interference to FAA 

frequencies from illegal pirate operations in the Bronx NY2, Sacramento', Miami<, San Juans, San 

jose6, West Palm Beach7, Boston/Brockton sand Broward County FL9. Of course these are only the 

1Departmentofiustice Press Release, Tuesday March 12,2013 at bttps·//www justke.gov/usao-ma/pr/radjo-equipment-sejzed-pirate~ 

radio-station· visited March 18,2018 at 12:03pm 

Zfn the Matter of Ronald Reid Bronx, New York, 2009 FCC LEXIS 564-9 ljanuary 6 2010) 

'COMPLIANCE AND INFORMATION ACTION; FCC CLOSES DOWNUNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION THATTHREATENEDAIR SAFETY 

ATSACRAMENTO AIRPORT; FOURTH AIRPORT INTERFERENCE INCIDENT IN FIVE MONTHS1998 FCC LEXIS 1396,(March 20, 1998) 

'In re Veargis, 28 FCC Red 1450; 2013 FCC LEXIS 2130 (F.C.C., May 16, 2013); MIAMI PIRATE FM BROADCAST STATION SHUT DOWN, 1991 

FCC LEX IS 983 (February 26, 1991) 

'COMPLIANCE AND INFO ACTION; UNLICENSED RADIO OP/JRATION INPUERTO RICO ENDANGERING AIR SAFETYCOMMUNICAT/ONSAT 

SANJUAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SHUT DOWN BY FCC, 1998 FCC LEXIS 614 (1998) 

'In re Garcia, 26 FCC Red 3750,2012 FCC LOXIS 1043 (f~C.C .. Mar. 8, 2012) 7

/n re Robens Cherizo W. Palm Beoch,27 FCC Red 493; 2012 FCC LEX/5 1359 (F. C. C., Apr. 3, 2012) 8 /n reAntonio Miranda & Erminda Miranda, Brockton, MA2007 FCC LEXIS 8152 (October 30, 2007) 

'In the Mattero[Kedner Maxime Oakland Park, FL; 31 FCC Red 8876; 2016 FCC LEX IS 2737 (August 12, 2016) 
143 


cases where complaints have been filed and the pirates have been caught. With respect to 

interference to airport frequencies, it represents only a small portion of the much larger problem. 

The growth in pirate illegal pirate radio stations increases the probability there will be 

more interference issues with airport communications. Interference from pirate stations could 

cause errors in navigational guidance, interference to pilot to ground communications, as well as 

other aeronautical systems. 

First, there is the threat of "adjacent channel spill over" interference. The FM broadcast 

band (88 to 107 MHz] is adjacent to aeronautical frequencies (108· 137M Hz). Because illegal pirate 

stations ignore all engineering rules and standards, there is a significant chance that their signal will 

spill over on to airport communications systems. Modern aviation systems- both on-board aircraft 

and on the ground, particularly in the vicinity of airports- use radio spectrum for a variety of 

important purposes, including voice communications and navigation. Since pirate stations may 

operate at power levels far greater than FAA equipment, the chances that illegal pirate stations 

might cause electmmagnetic interference to nearby FAA facilities is significant. The result could be 

inaccurate navigational guidance to the pilot- showing the aircraft to be on course when it's not 

or interference to air-to-ground communications. We can all agree that such results are best 

avoided. 

The risk of interference grows as the number of illegal pirate stations increase. For example 

in 2016, the New York Association of Broadcasters ("NYSBA") commissioned an engineering 

analysis performed by the noted engineering firm ofMeintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace. MSW found a 

pirate station in Newark, NJ, operating on 107.7 fv!Hz, which is only one channel away from being 

directly adjacent to the FAA frequencies that start at 108 MHz. Newark has an extremely busy 

airport. The survey found an unauthorized pirate station in Brooklyn operating on 107.9, which is 

directly adjacent to FAA frequencies. This station could potentially affect communications at ]FK 

airport. To avoid this type of interference, the FCC must make sure that there are no illegal pirate 

radio stations operating in the upper portion of the FM radio band. 

The second type of interference is "intermodulation product" or "harmonic skip." This 

interference concern is not limited to pirate stations operating on Ffvl channels that are adjacent to 

FAA frequencies. Pirate stations may unexpectedly cause "intermodulation products" that cause 

interference to frequencies assigned to the FAA. lntermodulation is a commonly known 

interference mechanism caused by strong local signals overloading or overpowering the tuner in a 

receiver. Typically, this non-linear effect will produce interfering signals on multiple frequencies at 

the front end of the aeronautical radio. For example, a strong pirate signal on 105.1 MHz may mix 

with an aeronautical signal on 115.05 fv!Hz and produce an intermodulation product at 125.0 MHz, 

potentially causing interference to the voice communications of aircraft. 

The potential for interference from FM broadcasts to FAA communications is well known. 

For years the FAA sought to become involved in licensing FM stations. In 2006, however, the FAA 

decided not to become directly involved in the licensing of stations. Nonetheless it recognized the 

on-going concern and adopted a coordination policy with the FCC. 

2 
144 


FM broadcast service transmissions operating in the 88.0-107.9 MHz frequency 

band pose the greatest concern to FM navigation signals. The FAA, FCC and NTIA 

are collaborating on the best way to address this issue.!O 

If a problem arises with licensed broadcasters, which it rarely does, the FCC is able to 

immediately find the stations and resolve the problem. This is not the case with an illegal pirate 

radio operator. Because pirate stations may start transmitting at any time, at any power level, and 

without notice, neither the FCC nor the FAA can predict when interference to aeronautical 

frequencies will occur. 

The potential harm from this type of interference cannot be overstated. The FCC's current 

approach is to apply a post hoc remedy. Enforcement can be taken only after the interference has 

occurred and affected FAA frequencies. Thus, as the number of illegal pirate stations in operation 

increases, there is a concomitant increase in the potential for significant interference to FAA 

communications systems. 

The interference concerns are exacerbated because it takes time to track down an illegal 

pirate radio operations. Interference from legitimate broadcast stations can be resolved 

immediately upon detection. This is not the case with illegal pirate operations. It can take days to 

track down, find and terminate a specific pirate stations. During this time the interference 

continues. 

The PIRATE Act will help solve this problem. The enforcement tools given to the FCC will 

help reduce the overall number of illegal pirate operators broadcasting in the FM band, especially in 

major urban areas. Such a reduction will reduce the risk that there will be interference to airport 

communications. The new tools will provide the process and necessary penalties to not only 

eradicate existing pirate stations, but also deter new pirate operators. It will accomplish this in a 

number of ways. 

First, increasing the fines to $2 million sends a strong signal to illegal pirate radio operators 

that the FCC is serious about illegal pirate operations, and creates a strong deterrent to unlawful 

pirate broadcasting. 

Second, the new law would hold those who "facilitate" illegal operations liable for up to $2 

million in fines. This would include property owners who knowinglv allow their property to be 

used for illegal pirate operations. This provision is extremely important. While it may be difficult 

to track down a pirate operator, it is not difficult to find the location from which it is transmitting. 

In many cases the property owner or building supervisor is being compensated for allowing the 

pirate operator to use the property. While you can move an illegal antenna, you cannot move a 

building. Holding property owners accountable has been successful in reducing criminal activity. 

Third, the PIRATE Act would give the FCC the FCC the authority to seize illegal equipment. 

Today, the FCC must work through the various offices of the U.S. Attorneys office; pirate radio is 

not on the top of their enforcement lists. The new $2 million fines will help to get these offices' 

attention. Moreover, giving the FCC the ability to go to court and obtain an order to seize 

equipment will provide a more efficient process. 

10 Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration14 CFR Part 77 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25002; Amendment No. 77-13] 

RIN 2120-AH31 Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace 75 Fed Reg. No 39, July 21,2010 at 42296,42297 
145 


Fourth, the PIRATE Act envisions a more expedited process for assessing fines. The current 

process can take months or years to assess and collect a fine from a pirate radio operator. 

Fifth, the PIRATE Act requires the FCC a[firmative/y to conduct enforcement sweeps in cities 

with high levels of illegal pirate activity. Thus, the FCC will be obligated to seek out and eliminate 

the interference, and not simply wait for the interference to occur and then try to find the illegal 

operator. This will significantly diminish the risk to aviation. 

Finally, Florida, New jersey and New York have made pirate operation illegal under state 

law. Other states, such as Massachusetts, are looking legislation. The PIRATE Act recognizes state 

laws as an important enforcement tool. 

Taken together, these new enforcement tools will ensure that the number of illegal pirate 

stations declines. The deterrent effect provided by the legislation will serve as a preventative 

measure, significantly reducing the number of illegal pirate operators and the risk of interference to 

frequencies used for airport communications. This approach is superior to the current, post hoc, 

enforcement policy. 

4 
146 


The Honorable Paul Tonko 

1. Why is it important for us to extend liability to those who facilitate pirate operations? 

Today pirate radio operations have become very sophisticated. Upon the receipt of a Notice 

of Unlicensed operation from the FCC, illegal operators often move their facilities to a different 

building. In addition, many of the illegal pirate stations are not necessarily located on the property 

or building from which the illegal radio broadcast transmit. For example, some illegal pirate 

stations actually operate from another location. Some are from nearby states and others from out 

of the country. Thus, while the illegal transmitter may be located in New York, the actual pirate 

operates from a distant location, sending a signal to the illegal transmitter via microwave or even 

satellite. Tracking down these types of illegal operators is extremely difficult. You can find the 

illegal transmitter, but you cannot find the pirate to hold them accountable. 

Extending liability to those who facilitate illegal pirate operations will significantly help the 

enforcement effort. First, the PIRATE Act will hold liable those property owners who knowingly 

allow their property to be used for illegal pirate operations. This approach is fairly straight 

forward. You can move an illegal antenna and transmitter, but you cannot move a building. The 

goal is to deny the illegal operator a location or platform from which to engage in illegal broadcasts. 

An approach that focuses on property owners has been used successfully in other contexts, 

including drug enforcement. 

Under current law the FCC already has the authority to hold a property owner liable. The 

FCC's precedent, however, requires that the property owner be intricately involved in pirate 

operations. For example, to be held liable the property owner must provide electricity, Internet 

access, allow the pirate to have exclusive use of the property, and otherwise participate in the 

illegal operations. In other words, to be liable, the property owner must effectively be a partner of 

the pirate. 

Unfortunately this approach does not reflect most of the pirate radio scenarios. I' or 

example, pirate radio operators erect illegal transmitters on rooftops throughout New York City. 

Some instances involve cases where the building owner or supervisors have rented space on a 

rooftop or balcony. 

The PIRATE Act will allow the FCC to proceed on the basis that property owners have 

knowingly allowed a pirate station access to the property. There would be no need to provide 

additional elements, such a providing free electricity, Internet access or participation in the 

operations. Importantly, the PIRATE act would require that property owners knowingly allow such 

operators on their property. There is no strict liability. Prior to any assessment of a fine, the 

property owners would receive a notice from the FCC. It is only after the notice has been received, 

and ignored, that a property owner could be held liable under the PIRATE Act. 

The "facilitation" provision is not confined to property owners. It would also apply to those 

who knowingly provide direct financing, or supply equipment or services to illegal pirate 

5 
147 


operations. Again, the PIRATE Act will require that these entities knowingly facilitate pirate 

operations. As with property owners, we believe this approach strikes the appropriate balance. 

We believe the facilitations provisions are vitally important to resolving the illegal pirate 

radio problem. The "facilitation" provisions are a key element of this legislation. 

2, Can you explain the concerns with interference with FM frequencies 

Pirate stations interfere with airport communications on frequencies assigned to the Federal 

Aviation Administration ("FCC"), creating an extremely dangerous situation. For example, in 2013, 

the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and the Department of justice shut down an 

unauthorized radio station operating on 91.7 MHz in Boston, MA. According to the Department of 

justice's Press Release, the FAA complained about pirate radio interference: 

"According to an affidavit filed with the civil complaint, the unlicensed FM radio station was 

causing interference to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) frequency 120.6 MHz, which 

is one of the primary frequencies used by pilots to communicate with FM controllers when 

flying in the Boston metropolitan area. The FCC issued verbal and written warnings to the 

residents of 9 Rutland Street on several occasions, but the radio station continued to 

broadcast."ll 

Over the years the FCC has documented numerous of cases involving interference to airport 

communications from pirate radio operations. For example, the FCC has found interference to FAA 

frequencies from illegal pirate operations in the Bronx NY12, Sacramenton, Miami 14, San juan's, San 

jose'6, West Palm Beachl7, Boston/Brockton ' 8and Broward County FL'9• Of course these are only 

the cases where complaints have been filed and the pirates have been caught. With respect to 

interference to airport frequencies, it represents only a small portion of the much larger problem. 

The growth in pirate illegal pirate radio stations increases the probability there will be 

more interference issues with airport communications. Interference from pirate stations could 

cause errors in navigational guidance, interference to pilot to ground communications, as well as 

other aeronautical systems. 

First, there is the threat of"adjacent channel spill over" interference. The FM broadcast 

band (88 to 107 MHz] is adjacent to aeronautical frequencies (108- 137M Hz). Because illegal pirate 

stations ignore all engineering rules and standards, there is a significant chance that their signal will 

II Department of justice Press Release, Tuesday March 12,2013 at https://www justice goy(usao-ma/pr/radio-eguipment-seized-pjrater:ru:lkt:.s.ta.t!Q.n.:..visitc-d March 18,2018 at 12:03pm 12/n the Matter of Ronald Reid Bronx, New York, 2009 FCC LEXIS 5649 Oanuary 6 2010) 

"COMPLIANCE AND INFORMATION ACTION; FCC CLOSES DOWNUNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION THAT THREATENED AIR SAFETY 

ATSACRAMENTO AIRPORT; FOURTH AIRPORT INTERFERENCE INCIDENT !NFIVE MONTHS/998 FCC iEXIS 1396,(March 20. 1998) 

"In re Veargis, 28 FCC Red 1450:2013 FCC iEXIS 2130 (F. C. C., May !6, 20!3); MIAMI PIRATE FM BROADCAST STATION SHUT DOWN, 

!991 FCC iEXIS983 (February26, 1991) 

"COMPLIANCE AND INFO ACTION; UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION IN PUERTO RICO ENDANGERING AIR SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AT 

SANJUAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SHUT DOWN BY FCC, 1998 FCC LEJOS 614 (1998) 

"In re Garcia, 26 FCC Red 3750,2012 FCC LEXIS !043 (F. C. C., Mar. 8, 2012] 111n re Robens Cheriza W. Palm Beach,27 FCC Red 493; 2012 FCC LEXIS 1359{F.C.C., Apr. 3, 2012) 18/n reAntonio Miranda & Erminda Miranda, Brockton1 MA2007 FCC LEX IS 8152 {October 30, 2007) 

"In the MatterofKedner Maxime Oakland Park. Fi; 31 FCC Red 8876; 2016 FCC LEXIS 2737 (August !2, 2016) 

6 
148 


spill over on to airport communications systems. Modern aviation systems- both on-board aircraft 

and on the ground, particularly in the vicinity of airports use radio spectrum for a variety of 

important purposes, including voice communications and navigation. Since pirate stations may 

operate at power levels far greater than FAA equipment, the chances that illegal pirate stations 

might cause electromagnetic interference to nearby FAA facilities is significant. The result could be 

inaccurate navigational guidance to the pilot- showing the aircraft to be on course when it's notor interference to air-to-ground communications. We can all agree that such results are best 

avoided. 

The risk of interference grows as the number of illegal pirate stations increase·. For example 

in 2016, the New York Association of Broadcasters ("NYSBA") commissioned an engineering 

analysis performed by the noted engineering firm of Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace. MSW found a 

pirate station in Newark, NJ, operating on 107.7 MHz, which is only one channel away from being 

directly adjacent to the FAA frequencies that start at 108 MHz. Newark has an extremely busy 

airport. The survey found an unauthorized pirate station in Brooklyn operating on 107.9, which is 

directly adjacent to FAA frequencies. This station could potentially affect communications at JFK 

airport. To avoid this type of interference, the FCC must make sure that there are no illegal pirate 

radio stations operating in the upper portion of the FM radio band. 

The second type of interference is "intermodulation product" or "harmonic skip." This 

interference concern is not limited to pirate stations operating on FM channels that are adjacent to 

FAA frequencies. Pirate stations may unexpectedly cause "intermodulation products" that cause 

interference to frequencies assigned to the FAA. Intermodulation is a commonly known 

interference mechanism caused by strong local signals overloading or overpowering the tuner in a 

receiver. Typically, this non-linear effect will produce interfering signals on multiple frequencies at 

the front end of the aeronautical radio. For example, a strong pirate signal on 105.1 MHz may mix 

with an aeronautical signal on 115.05 MHz and produce an intermodulation product at 125.0 MHz, 

potentially causing interference to the voice communications of aircraft. 

The potential for interference from FM broadcasts to FAA communications is well known. 

For years the FAA sought to become involved in licensing FM stations. In 2006, however, the FAA 

decided not to become directly involved in the licensing of stations. Nonetheless it recognized the 

on-going concern and adopted a coordination policy with the FCC. 

FM broadcast service transmissions operating in the 88.0-107.9 MHz frequency 

band pose the greatest concern to FAA navigation signals. The FAA, FCC and NTIA 

are collaborating on the best way to address this issue.zo 

If a problem arises with licensed broadcasters, which it rarely does, the FCC is able to 

immediately find the stations and resolve the problem. This is not the case with an illegal pirate 

radio operator. Because pirate stations may start transmitting at any time, at any power level, and 

without notice, neither the FCC nor the FAA can predict when interference to aeronautical 

frequencies will occur. 

The potential harm from this type of interference cannot be overstated. The FCC's current 

approach is to apply a post hoc remedy. Enforcement can be taken only il.ft.IT the interference has 

2fi DepartmentofTransportation, Federal Aviation Administration14 CFR Part 77 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25002; Amendment No. 77-13] 

RIN 2120-AH31 Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace 75 Fed Reg. No 39, july 21,2010 at 42296,42297 

7 
149 


occurred and affected FAA frequencies. Thus, as the number of illegal pirate stations in operation 

increases, there is a concomitant increase in the potential for significant interference to FAA 

communications systems. 

The interference concerns are exacerbated because it takes time to track down an illegal 

pirate radio operations. Interference from legitimate broadcast stations can be resolved 

immediately upon detection. This is not the case with illegal pirate operations. It can take days to 

track down, find and terminate a specific pirate stations. During this time the interference 

continues. 

The PIRATE Act will help solve this problem. The enforcement tools given to the FCC will 

help reduce the overall number of illegal pirate operators broadcasting in the FM band, especially in 

major urban areas. Such a reduction will reduce the risk that there will be interference to airport 

communications. The new tools will provide the process and necessary penalties to not only 

eradicate existing pirate stations, but also deter new pirate operators. It will accomplish this in a 

number of ways. 

First, increasing the fines to $2 million sends a strong signal to illegal pirate radio operators 

that the FCC is serious about illegal pirate operations, and creates a strong deterrent to unlawful 

pirate broadcasting. 

Second, the new law would hold those who "facilitate" illegal operations liable for up to $2 

million in fines. This would include property owners who knowinglv allow their property to be 

used for illegal pirate operations. This provision is extremely important. While it may be difficult 

to track down a pirate operator, it is not difficult to find the location from which it is transmitting. 

In many cases the property owner or building supervisor is being compensated for allowing the 

pirate operator to use the property. While you can move an illegal antenna, you cannot move a 

building. Holding property owners accountable has been successful in reducing criminal activity. 

Third, the PIRATE Act would give the FCC the FCC the authority to seize illegal equipment. 

Today, the FCC must work through the various offices of the U. S. Attorneys office; pirate radio is 

not on the top of their enforcement lists. The new $2 million fines will help to get these offices' 

attention. Moreover, giving the FCC the ability to go to court and obtain an order to seize 

equipment will provide a more efficient process. 

Fourth, the PIRATE Act envisions a more expedited process for assessing fines. The current 

process can take months or years to assess and collect a fine from a pirate radio operator. 

Fifth, the PIRATE Act requires the FCC a.ffirmativelv to conduct enforcement sweeps in cities 

with high levels of illegal pirate activity. Thus, the FCC will be obligated to seek out and eliminate 

the interference, and not simply wait for the interference to occur and then try to find the illegal 

operator. This will significantly diminish the risk to aviation. 

Finally, Florida, New jersey and New York have made pirate operation illegal under state 

law. Other states, such as Massachusetts, are looking legislation. The PlRATE Act recognizes state 

laws as an important enforcement tool. 

Taken together, these new enforcement tools will ensure that the number ofillegal pirate 

stations declines. The deterrent effect provided by the legislation will serve as a preventative 

measure, significantly reducing the number of illegal pirate operators and the risk of interference to 

8 
150 


frequencies used for airport communications. This approach is superior to the current, post hoc, 

enforcement policy. 

3. Why do you believe the FCC needs more enforcement "tools" to help with the pirate 

radio problem? 

The enforcement mechanisms contained in the Communications Act are generally designed 

to focus on those entities that are, or want to be, FCC licensees. There is a general consensus among 

legitimate licensees and users that they avoid interference and are willing to operate by the basic 

rules established by the FCC. These entities are inclined to follow FCC regulations, including 

enforcement decisions, because they want to remain as legitimate licensees. Accordingly the 

enforcement process and sanctions, which are for the most part civil sanctions, are effective in 

policing the spectrum. While it is possible to trigger criminal liability under the Communications 

Act of 1934 ("Communications Act" or "Act"), it is rarely employed. In short, the Communications 

Act did not contemplate a class of individuals that would knowingly operate illegal radio 

transmitters outside the law. 

In recent years we have seen two critical factors leading up to the illegal pirate radio 

problem. First, there are a growing number of individuals who have determined that they can 

operate outside the law and the FCC's licensing process. There are simply no deterrent to operating 

illegally. The FCC's primary enforcement tool has been the Notice of Unlicensed Operation, which is 

simply a letter asking the pirate station to cease operations. These letters are generally ignored. 

Historically there has been little enforcement follow up, with relatively few fines and even fewer 

equipment seizures. The present enforcement system does not deter any illegal pirate operations. 

Second, adding to this problem is the rapid decline in the price and size of transmitting 

equipment. In the past, radio transmitters were huge, taking up an entire room. Today an illegal 

transmitter can be as small as a large suitcase. The costs of equipment have also declined. You can 

obtain an illegal transmitter for anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000. By purchasing equipment on 

line from a foreign country, illegal operators are able to use equipment that has not been approved 

by the FCC. 

The best evidence can be found by those who keep track of Pirate operations in New York 

City. An organization named "Brooklyn Pirate Watch" 

(https://twitter.com/BkPirateWatch?lang=en)observed recently on Twitter that on the evening of 

May 5, 2018 that if found 35 pirates operating in and around Flatbush, Brooklyn. Brooklyn Pirate 

Watch commented on the FCC's recent claims that it was making progress in a Twitter post on April 

12, 2018 (https://twitter.com/BkPirateWatch) 

"Significant progress"?! It doesn't sound all that significant to us (so far) in southern 

Bklyn. Still lots of pirates causing interference to legit stations all up & down the FM 

dial." 

Importantly, this is not a situation where there are a few anecdotal cases of illegal pirate 

operations. As noted in my written testimony, the engineering analysis performed by the noted 

9 
151 


engineering firm of Meintel, Sgrignoli and Wallace documented a systematic problem over a four 

year period. Even after the hearing, the Brooklyn Pirate Project correctly observed that nothing has 

really changed. 

There is no question that the current enforcement process is not working. Past FCC 

administrations have not been able to make significant progress in reducing the number of illegal 

pirate radio operators. Under FCC Chairman Wheeler, pirate enforcement lapsed. Under FCC 

Chairman Pai, there is a renewed attitude to enforcement. The current FCC, however, is limited in 

the tools it can use to enforce against illegal pirate operations. Historically these tools have proven 

to be inadequate. 

We believe it is time to change the Communications Act and give the FCC greater 

enforcement authority. The new tools will provide the process and necessary penalties to not only 

eradicate existing pirate stations, but also deter new pirate operators. It will accomplish this in a 

number of ways. 

First, increasing the fines to $2 million sends a strong signal to illegal pirate radio operators 

that the FCC is serious about illegal pirate operations, and creates a strong deterrent to unlawful 

pirate broadcasting. 

Second, the new law would hold those who "facilitate" illegal operations liable for up to $2 

million in fines. This would include property owners who knowingly allow their property to be 

used for illegal pirate operations. This provision is extremely important While it may be difficult 

to track down a pirate operator, it is not difficult to find the location from which it is transmitting. 

In many cases the property owner or building supervisor is being compensated for allowing the 

pirate operator to use the property. While you can move an illegal antenna, you cannot move a 

building. Holding property owners accountable has been successful in reducing criminal activity. 

Third, the PIRATE Act would give the FCC the FCC the authority to seize illegal equipment. 

Today, the FCC must work through the various offices of the U.S. Attorneys; pirate radio is not on 

the top of its enforcement list. The new $2 million fines will help to these offices' attention. 

Moreover, giving the FCC the ability to go to court and obtain an order to seize equipment will 

provide a more efficient process. 

Fourth, the PIRATE Act envisions a more expedited process for assessing fines. The current 

process can take months or years to assess and collect a fine from a pirate radio operator. 

Fifth, the PIRATE Act requires the FCC affirmativelY to conduct enforcement sweeps in 

cities with high levels of illegal pirate activity. Thus, the FCC will be obligated to seek out and 

eliminate the interference, and not simply wait for the interference to occur and then try to find the 

illegal operator. This will significantly diminish the risk to aviation. 

Finally, Florida, New jersey and New York have made pirate operation illegal under state 

law. Other states, such as Massachusetts, are looking legislation. The PIRATE Act recognizes state 

laws as an important enforcement tool. 

Taken together these new enforcement tools will ensure that the number of illegal pirate 

stations declines. The deterrent effect provided by the legislation will serve as a preventative 

measure, significantly reducing the number of illegal pirate operators. 

10 
152 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Robert Gessner 

President 

MCTV 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!Congtt!)!) of tbe Wntteb ~tates 

J!)our>t of l\tprtr>tntatibtr> 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 (202)225--2927 

(202)225-3641 

Apri19, 2018 

P.O. Box 1000 

Massillon, OH 44648 

Dear Mr. Gessner: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Thursday, March 22, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Legislative Hearing on Four 

Communications Bills." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, April23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
153 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

Attachment-Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

l. On March 22,2018, the FCC passed a Wireless Infrastructure Streamlining Order 

that provides exemptions from certain environmental and historical reviews. How 

useful is this effort to closing the digital divide? 

a. To what degree are the FCC's efforts and this Subcommittee's efforts on 

streamlined infrastructure complimentary? 

A: MCTV and most other American Cable Association members do not provide licensed 

wireless service, and so the FCC's Wireless Infrastructure Streamlining Order is less 

relevant for us. That said, this decision marks another step toward providing incentives 

for providers to accelerate their network investments and deployments so they can 

provide advanced broadband services to all Americans. We applaud these actions by the 

FCC, as well as the many pieces of"infrastructure" legislation that your Subcommittee is 

considering. Building networks is expensive, and efforts to remove or reduce barriers 

will not only expedite our builds but enable us to extend our networks into unserved 

areas, closing the digital divide. 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

l. Some of your competitors have offices here in DC with hallways full of lawyers to 

handle FCC regulation. On the other hand, I know that some of ACA's member 

companies arc very small, some of them run with just a handful of employees. Can 

you expand on the burdens your companies face in navigating and complying with 

FCC regulation? 

A: You are absolutely right- ACA's membership largely consists of very small companies 

largely serving smaller communities. For example, ACA members only have seven 

percent of the video market share in your state of Illinois. More generally, as I indicated 

in my testimony, over eighty percent of ACA's 700-plus member companies serve fewer 

than 5,000 subscribers and around half serve fewer than 1,000 subscribers. These are 

company-wide figures. In many instances, ACA members operate individual systems 

that have only a few hundred subscribers each. 

With a small number of customers, ACA member companies are "lean and mean"- half 

have fewer than 10 employees. ACA's members do not have the ability to have a team of 

in-house lawyers or to even spend significant sums on outside legal counsel. They do not 

have Washington offices. With every new proposed regulation, an ACA member must 

determine whether its limited resources would be better spent seeking regulatory relief 

where they feel it is merited, but the outcome is uncertain and costly to pursue, or to 
154 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

maintain and upgrade their facilities and services. And without larger operators' ability 

to spread their costs over a vastly larger base of customers, the cost of regulation for 

ACA members can be significant and onerous. 

The Honorable Robert E. Latta 

1. Ranking Member Doyle suggested that SERRO would open a "huge regulatory 

hole" at the FCC. Moreover, in response to a question from Ranking Member 

Doyle, Ms. Morris testified that SERRO presented a "high risk of harm" to all types 

of entities, including consumers and small businesses. How do you respond to these 

comments? 

A: While I appreciate the need to be concerned about the impact of any legislation on 

consumers and small businesses and any unintended consequences, I believe the concerns 

raised by Ranking Member Doyle and Ms. Morris are not intended by the language in 

SERRO and would support ensuring that is actually the case. 

SERRO's objective is simply to reduce the administrative and related costs that currently 

deter small entities from seeking regulatory relief to which they would otherwise be 

entitled. That is something that everyone should support. Furthermore, SERRO docs not 

lower the bar for deciding whether relief is appropriate- the FCC will still have to 

determine whether there is "good cause" to relieve a small entity, typically on a 

temporary basis, of specific regulatory obligations whose costs or burdens outweigh the 

benefits to the public. 

2. According to Representative Eshoo, SERRO is a "Trojan Horse" whose true intent 

is to "waive everything" so that small companies don't have to play by the rules. 

You obviously disagree. What in SERRO prevents it from becoming a vehicle that 

disenfranchises small entities' customers of larger companies? 

A: SERRO is a modest bill that has been carefully crafted not to alter the existing standard 

of protection for consumers. It is simply designed to make it easier for small entities to 

deal with the regulatory procedures involved in seeking waivers or exemptions that they 

may be entitled to receive. 

I understand Rep. Eshoo's concerns might have merit ifSERRO changed the test by 

which the FCC decides whether a waiver, exemption or delay of its rules is appropriate. 

That standard, known as the "good cause" test, requires a particularized determination 

that the public interest would be better served by relieving a regulated entity from a 

particular regulatory obligation than by requiring immediate and strict compliance. But 

SERRO does not change the "good cause" standard. SERRO will not result in a small 

entity getting regulatory relief to which it would not have been entitled before SERRO 

was enacted. Depending on the FCC's assessment of the facts before it in a waiver 

proceeding or in a triennial review proceeding, a small entity might get the relief it 

desires or it might be denied that relief. A small entity with ten employees might get 

2 
155 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

relief while a small entity with 1,000 employees might not. However, because of 

SERRO, in both instances, the small entity will have had the playing field leveled vis-itvis larger entities that do not face the same obstacles to seeking relief. In other words, 

contrary to what some members and Ms. Morris have suggested, SERRO does not 

preordain the outcome of a small entity's request for relief or otherwise put a small 

entity's customers at greater risk than a large entity's customers. 

And because SERRO focuses on reducing a small entity's costs, its enactment will 

produce benefits for consumers. Large companies with their own legal departments and 

sizable budgets for legal and engineering advice can spread the cost of the filings they 

make at the FCC so that it is barely noticeable to their customers. But small entities do 

not have that ability. Even where the cost of compliance clearly outweighs the benefits to 

consumers, small entities have to determine whether they- and their customers can 

afford the cost of seeking relief. Streamlined waiver processes, routine triennial reviews 

under the good faith test, and automatic deferral of certain rules will make it more likely 

that an entity that can make the showing needed to get relief is able to do so. 

3. In responding to a question from Representative Engel, Ms. Morris asserted there 

already are "sufficient avenues" for the needs of small entities for regulatory relief 

to be "accommodated." Isn't she right? 

A: She is correct that there are avenues, such as case-by-case waiver requests, by which 

small entities can seek regulatory relief. But those "avenues" are actually blocked for 

most small entities that lack the resources and expertise to use them. Ms. Morris 

expressed support for "surgical solutions" to specific problems. That is exactly what 

SERRO presents: a narrowly drawn set of solutions to the barriers that prevent small 

entities from seeking and obtaining regulatory relief to which they are entitled under the 

existing "good cause" standard. These solutions include streamlined procedures for 

seeking case-by-case waivers, a triennial review that will relieve small entities from 

having to make case-by-case filings, and an automatic deferral of certain rules for small 

entities. 

4. Ms. Morris testified that SERRO's definition of a "small entity" was vague and 

overly inclusive- statements that were echoed by Ranking Member Doyle, 

Representative Pallone, and Representative Eshoo. For example, Ranking Member 

Doyle indicated that SERRO would apply to companies with over $1 billion in 

revenue and Representative Pallone stated that it was his understanding that 

SERRO would give relief to companies with as many as 6.5 million subscribers. Are 

these accurate descriptions ofthe types of entities that would be covered by 

SERRO? 

A: No. SERRO carefully defines a small entity by reference to existing statutory and 

regulatory definitions found in the Small Business Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 

the FCC's rules. Those definitions are clear and precise and, to my knowledge, have 

never been interpreted to cover large service providers with billions in revenue or 

millions of subscribers. Today' s communications marketplace is characterized by very 

3 
156 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

large companies and small companies there is not much left in the middle. For 

example, the largest telephone and cable companies each have tens of thousands of 

employees, annual revenues in the tens of billions of dollars and millions of subscribers. 

In the wireless industry, the four largest companies control over 98.5 percent of the 

market. The remaining companies in these industry sectors almost all fall well below the 

standards that are incorporated into SERRO and that have long been accepted as 

appropriate measures for defining a small entity: 1500 or fewer employees, $38.5 million 

or less in annual revenues, or less than two percent of the subscribers to a service 

nationwide. 

5. What is your reaction to Ms. Morris' contention, echoed by Representative 

McNerney, that by requiring the FCC to review its rules every three years to 

determine whether there is good cause to modify or repeal particular requirements 

as applied to some or all small entities would complicate the regulatory process and 

result in more legal challenges to the FCC's decisions? 

A: There is no reason for SERRO to result in more litigation. The standard for relief-

"good cause"- is not changing. The definition of a small entity is based on existing 

standards that are familiar to both the FCC and industry. 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger 

1. In your testimony, you describe the need for the FCC to provide regulatory relief to 

small telecommunications companies that cannot reasonably be expected to comply 

with expansive rules. Would you say that the customer base for the majority of 

these small companies is largely rural populations? 

A: While I am more intimately familiar with ACA's membership, my knowledge of the 

communities where ACA's members provide service suggests that the customer base for 

all smaller telecommunications companies tends to be more rural than the customer base 

of the larger companies. For example, 28 percent of the US population lives in small 

cities and rural areas; however, 42 percent of the people in the service areas of ACA's 

members live in these areas. Furthermore, the areas served by ACA's members are 

significantly less densely populated than the areas served by larger companies. The 

average population density for the four largest cable television operators (i.e., Comcast, 

Charter, Cox, and Altice) is more than 709 persons per mile. ACA's member companies 

operate in areas with an average population density of under 150. The mostly rural 

character of the areas served by ACA also is reflected in the size of the other businesses 

operating in these communities: In ACA territories with a population density of under 

1,000 people per square mile, nearly 90 percent of the businesses have fewer than I 0 

employees. 

Information published by the FCC as part of its regulatory flexibility analyses confirms 

that the situation in most other sectors of the telecommunications industry is similar to 

that found in cable: most consumers are served by a few large, often national, companies 

4 
157 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

that concentrate on urban and densely populated suburban areas, while hundreds of much 

smaller companies focused on providing service to rural and exurban customers. 

The Honorable Kurt Schrader 

1. Do you think that your members require less regulatory oversight- and your 

customers require less protection- than larger businesses and their customers? 

A: In some instances, small entities do not require the same level of regulatory oversight as 

large businesses because small entities do not have the ability or incentive to create the 

harm that a regulation is intended to address. But more importantly, SERRO itself does 

not guarantee small entities a lower level of regulatory oversight. It merely reduces the 

burdens that might otherwise prevent a small entity from seeking regulatory relief that 

they are likely to merit under existing law. The cost of seeking relief is the same for a 

small entity as for a large one. But on a per customer basis, the cost is much higher for 

small entities, which can make it infeasible to pursue relief. SERRO merely would give 

small operators the "opportunity" to obtain regulatory relief that large entities already 

have. It would not make it more likely that the requested relief is granted. 

2. Ms. Morris and several members are quite concerned that SERRO will harm 

consumers. Why are those concerns unwarranted? 

A: Most importantly, SERRO does not change any standard of protection for consumers. It 

does not alter the "good cause" standard nor do we intend for it to do so in any way. 

Furthermore, small entities rarely lack scale to create market power issues that are often 

the root of many policies. That is why we are often aligned with the concerns of 

consumers when it comes to issues of mergers and other issues of concentration of 

market power. In addition, in many of our markets, small entities provide a competitive 

check on larger companies. Resources that these small entities have to devote to the legal 

and administrative costs of obtaining waivers or other forms of regulatory relief are 

resources not available to upgrade and improve the services offered by these small 

companies. 

3. Ms. Morris and several members were particularly critical of the automatic oneyear deferral provision in SERRO. How will that provision benefit small entities 

and their customers? 

A: The costs of regulatory compliance are, on a per-subscriber basis, much higher for small 

entities than large ones. For example, large entities can purchase the equipment needed 

to comply with new technical mandates in volume at a lower per-device cost than small 

entities. Indeed, small entities often cannot get the necessary equipment at any price, 

because manufacturers commit their limited supplies to the larger companies ahead of 

small entities. Deferring compliance not only will ensure the equipment is available, but 

it is likely that the eost will come down. Deferral also can reduce the need for a case-byease waiver request for a delay or exemption. Other benefits include the greater certainty 

5 
158 


Robert Gessner's Response to the Questions for the Record 

April23, 2018 

that comes with having waited a year to see if the rules are reconsidered or otherwise 

modified and the ability to take advantage of the compliance plans implemented by larger 

operators who have greater resources for determining exactly what is required by a new 

rule. That said, we appreciate her concerns and are willing to work with the Committee 

to address that issue. 

6 
159 


GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!tongre~~ of tbe Wntteb ~tate~ 

~ou!ie of l\epre!ientattbe!i 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority {:202)225--29:27 

Minonw \202)225--3641 

April9, 2018 

Mr. John H. Madigan, Jr. 

Vice President and Chief Public Policy Officer 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention 

440 First Street, N.W.; Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Madigan: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Thursday, March 22, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Legislative Hearing on Four 

Communications Bills." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, April23, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan. Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
160 


U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing Entitled "Legislative Hearing on 4 Telecommunications Bills" 

Responses to Questions for the Record of Mr. John H. Madigan Jr. 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, suicide is the 1 01

h leading cause of death in 

Tennessee, where over two times as many people die by suicide annually than by 

homicide. On average, one person dies by suicide every 8 hours in the state. That's 

simply devastating. It would be incredibly impactful if we could play even a small part in 

saving lives simply by creating a dedicated 3-digit number. Can you talk more about how 

a suicide hotline will help? 

The current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) provides free and 

confidential support to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week, across the United States. By increasing the access to lifesaving resources 

for vulnerable individuals. the National Suicide Prevention Hotline significantly reduces 

emotional distress and suicidality in callers. The use of the hotline has more than tripled 

since 20 I 0, with 2 million calls answered last year alone. Lifeline standards, trainings 

and practices of its national network of local call centers are designed to effectively deescalate persons in suicidal crises, reduce risk for callers in crisis and ensure that they 

receive the most appropriate, least invasive care that supports their health, safety and 

well-being. SAMHSA-funded evaluations indicate that Lifeline member centers are 

effectively de-escalating persons in suicidal crisis whom might otherwise be diverted to 

emergency services. Abbreviated dialing codes are easier to remember, faster to dial, 

and with nearly 12 million Americans experiencing suicidal thoughts annually, increased 

access to quality crisis services will save lives. 

The Honorable Adam Kinzinger 

1. In recent months, I've had a number of meetings with community health centers in my 

district in Illinois. They tell me they're seeing a big increase in demand for mental health 

care and behavioral health services. It's safe to say that in many rural communities, there 

is an inadequate amount of health services, that is especially so with respect to mental 

health. Healthcarc providers are trying to bridge the gaps in mental health care services. 

But addressing the lack of these services in rural America is a long-term challenge that 

will need to be confronted with a multi-pronged approach- including the use of 

technology and telemedicine. 
161 

Æ 


a. Have you seen evidence that an improved National Suicide Hotline will help mral 

populations? 

b. How would this approach benefit districts like mine? 

A National Suicide Hotline, just like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, will reduce 

the burden on emergency rooms, police, emergency responders, and behavioral 

healthcare providers who often step in during escalated emotional crises. When these 

resources are stretched thin- as is the case in many rural areas- the Lifeline's local 

crisis centers provide a safety net. Many 911 centers report a high volume of nonsuicidal callers with mental health issues that would more effectively and efficient~v be 

assisted on a mental health hotline, and nearly half of the Lifeline's highest-risk callers 

are professionally and effectively de-escalated without utilizing emergency services.