[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-34
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-530 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TONY CARDENAS, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 100
Witnesses
Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Vanita Gupta, President and CEO, and
Kristine Lucius, Executive Vice President for Policy and
Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. McNerney.. 101
Petition for Clarification or Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No.
10-90, Federal Communications Commission, May 6, 2019,
submitted by Mr. Loebsack \2\
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Mr. Walberg, et al., to Ajit Pai,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr.
Walberg........................................................ 105
Article of May 15, 2019, ``Tribes across country push for better
internet access,'' by Felicia Fonseca, Associated Press,
submitted by Mr. O'Halleran.................................... 108
----------
\1\ All five witnesses' answers to submitted questions have been
retained in committee files and also are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109479.
\2\ The petition has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190515/109479/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190515-SD004.pdf.
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Bud Thaler, Vice President of
Legislative Affairs, National Association of Federally-Insured
Credit Unions, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr.
Doyle.......................................................... 112
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Marc Rotenberg, President, et al.,
Electronic Privacy Information Center, to Mr. Doyle and Mr.
Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................................. 114
Letter of May 14, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, to Mr. Doyle and
Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.............................. 119
Statement of Edison Electric Institute, et al., May 15, 2019,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 121
ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Mike Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Loebsack, Veasey, McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo, DeGette,
Butterfield, Matsui, Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Dingell,
Pallone (ex officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member),
Scalise, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Walberg,
Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Griffith.
Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Jennifer Epperson, FCC Detailee; Evan Gilbert, Press
Assistant; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Alex
Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer
Protection; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service
Coordinator; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Policy
Analyst; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital
Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Director
of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Robin
Colwell, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Kristine Fargotstein,
Minority Detailee, Communications and Technology; Margaret
Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty,
Minority General Counsel; and Tim Kurth, Minority Deputy Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology.
Mr. Doyle. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology will now come to order. The Chair
will now recognize himself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
I would like to welcome everyone to this subcommittee's
first oversight hearing of the Federal Communications
Commission. I'd also like to thank FCC Chairman Pai and the
other Commissioners for appearing before us today.
I am also very happy to welcome Commissioner Starks, both
to this hearing and to the Commission. It's good to have the
Commission back up to full strength. Welcome, Commissioner
Starks.
It has been 9 months since this subcommittee's last
oversight hearing, and while a lot has happened in that time, a
lot of issues that were a concern then remain unresolved today.
At our last oversight hearing, I expressed concerns about
revelations that mobile carriers were selling location data. I
expressed concerns about the Mobility Fund II proceeding,
competition policy, and U.S. spectrum policy.
At that time, I expressed serious concerns to Chairman Pai
about reports that mobile wireless carriers were sharing
individuals' real-time location data with third parties.
Chairman Pai, you told us that you were investigating this
issue. Today, we still don't have assurances that these
practices have stopped. And since we first heard about this
problem, new even more troubling revelations have emerged,
namely, that this data was being sold to bounty hunters and God
knows who else.
Americans don't know who had access to this data, who sold
the data, or whether anyone is going to be held accountable
because we have heard nothing about it yet from the FCC.
At this juncture, neither Congress nor the American people
understand the scope of what happened and no one has been held
accountable for this reckless and illegal practice.
The situation as it stands is unacceptable, as has been the
lack of communication to this committee and the American people
about this situation. We need answers.
Nine months ago, I also expressed concerns about the
Mobility Fund II proceeding. In a way, I am happy that the
Commission has acknowledged that the process and the data in
this proceeding were deeply flawed.
However, rural communities around the country remain
unserved and these funds remain unobligated. All we have heard
from the Commission is that you are investigating this issue,
too. It is my understanding that the Commission has not
requested new coverage data from carriers to correct its flawed
maps.
I don't know why you've waited so long to act to fix this
problem, and today we sit here without a resolution in sight.
In the same vein, I expressed concerns about old and faulty
data being used to justify Commission decisions regarding
competition policy in the Business Data Service market.
Today, the Commission is considering using data we all
agree to be faulty and misleading as well as data collected
years ago that is long past stale in a forbearance proceeding
by USTelecom.
The Commission needs to clean up and update its data before
it makes decisions that could seriously hamper the deployment
of new fiber, limit consumer choice, and negatively affect
Government agencies that still rely on legacy infrastructure
for national security and public safety notices.
And as we look to the future of 5G and the need for more
mid-band, much thought is being given to the C-band. I have
seen this band valued as high as $70 billion, and I think
making a part of this band available for 5G service is
important for meeting the Nation's mid-band spectrum needs.
But given that much of the country has no Gs, shouldn't we
try to use the value of this band to fund the deployment of
broadband to unserved areas as well as to help with adoption
and affordability?
Simply put, it seems irresponsible and unconscionable to
give money to four foreign satellite companies when the
broadband infrastructure needs of our Nation are so great.
And finally, on the topic of robocalls, this problem is out
of control. Americans this year will receive 12 billion more
robocalls then they received last year. And since the Trump
administration took office Americans have gone from receiving 2
billion calls a month to 5 billion calls a month.
It has become a game for Members of Congress to get
robocalled while they are complaining about robocalls, which
happened to Mr. Soto at our last hearing on robocalls.
We are past the point of band aids. We need real solutions
to address the problem and we need real protections for the
American people.
I want to thank you all for being here today, and I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Good morning, I'd like to welcome everyone to this
subcommittee's first oversight hearing on the Federal
Communications Commission. I'd also like to thank FCC Chairman
Pai and the other Commissioners for appearing before us today.
I'm also very happy to welcome Commissioner Starks, both to
this hearing and to the Commission. It's good to have the
Commission back up to full strength.
It's been 9 months since this subcommittee's last oversight
hearing, and while a lot has happened in that time, a lot of
the issues that were a concern then remain unresolved today. At
our last oversight hearing, I expressed concerns about
revelations that mobile carriers were selling location data,
the Mobility Fund 2 proceeding, competition policy, and US
spectrum policy.
At that time, I expressed concerns to the Commission about
reports that mobile wireless carriers were sharing individuals'
real time location data with 3rd parties. Chairman Pai, you
told us that you were ``investigating'' this issue. Today, we
still don't have assurances that these practices have stopped.
And since we first heard about this problem, new even more
troubling revelations have emerged. Namely, that this data was
sold to bounty hunters and God knows who else. Americans don't
know who had access to this data, who sold the data, or whether
anyone is going to be held accountable, because we have heard
nothing about it yet from the FCC. At this juncture neither
Congress nor the American people understand the scope of what
happened, and no one has been held accountable for this
reckless and illegal practice. The situation as it stands is
unacceptable, as has been the lack of communication to this
committee and the American people about this situation. We need
answers.
Nine months ago, I also expressed concerns about the
Mobility Fund 2 proceeding. In a way I'm happy the Commission
has acknowledged that the process and the data in this
proceeding were deeply flawed. However, rural communities
around the country remain unserved and these funds remain
unobligated. All we have heard from the Commission is that you
are ``investigating'' this issue too. It is my understanding
that the Commission has not requested new coverage data from
carriers to correct its flawed maps. I don't know why you've
waited so long to act to fix this problem, and today we sit
here without a resolution in sight.
In the same vein, I expressed concerns about old and faulty
data being used to justify Commission decisions regarding
competition policy in the Business Data Service market. Today,
the Commission is considering using data we all agree to be
faulty and misleading, as well as data collected years ago that
is long past stale, in a forbearance proceeding by US Telecom.
The Commission needs to clean up and update its data before it
makes decisions that could seriously hamper the deployment of
new fiber, limit consumer choice, and negatively affect
Government agencies that still rely on legacy infrastructure
for national security and public safety services.
As we look to the future of 5G and the need for more mid-
band, much thought is being given to the C-band. I have seen
this band valued as high as $70 billion. I think making a part
of this band available for 5G service is important for meeting
the Nation's mid-band spectrum needs. But given that much of
the country has No Gs, shouldn't we try to use the value of
this band to fund the deployment of broadband to unserved areas
as well as to help with adoption and affordability? Simply put,
it seems irresponsible and unconscionable to give that money to
four foreign satellite companies when the broadband
infrastructure needs of our Nation are so great.
Finally, on the topic of robocalls, this problem is out of
control. Americans this year will receive 12 billion more
robocalls then they received last year. And since the Trump
administration took office Americans have gone from receiving 2
billion calls a month to 5 billion. It's become a game for
Members of Congress to get robocalled while they are
complaining about robocalls, which happened to Mr. Soto at our
last hearing on robocalls! We are past the point of band-aids.
We need real solutions to address this problem, and real
protections for the American people.
Thank you again for being here and I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Doyle. And now the Chair will recognize Mr. Latta,
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. I thank my friend, the chair of the
subcommittee. Thanks very much for having this hearing this
morning, and also welcome to the Commissioners, who are here to
discuss a variety of issues including infrastructure, spectrum,
rural broadband, and robocalls.
I think it's safe to say there is more agreement on the
issues I just mentioned than disagreement. We can all agree on
the importance of bringing the benefits of broadband to all
Americans, especially rural Americans.
But despite the work from this committee and the FCC, we
still have Members on both sides of the aisle whose
constituents lack broadband.
Earlier this year, I was fortunate to have two of the FCC
Commissioners join me in my district to see firsthand the
connectivity my constituents enjoy and the additional
connectivity they so desperately need.
Commissioner Carr joined me for a visit, and the one stop
turned to a five-stop day when we visited a local hospital and
when we talked about telehealth.
We went out to a local WISP, and the Commissioner was up on
top of the elevator. We will mention he was up on top. The rest
of them were taking great pictures of him up there. But he also
visited one of our sheriffs and talked about 9 091 091.
He was out to talk about what was happening with one of our
local TV stations, the public WBGU and questions about repack,
and then joined us at a farm where we were talking about
agriculture and what we need to do with broadband there, and we
appreciated that.
And also we had Commissioner Carr join us 2 days later in
the district in Defiance, Ohio, where he met with internet
service providers across my district to discuss broadband
access and the availability in northwest and west central Ohio,
and I want to thank both Commissioners for joining us that day
and that week.
Being about to go out into the community and experience
broadband connectivity or lack thereof is an incredibly useful
tool to know where we need to target the precious Federal
funding to support additional broadband development.
To help further inform the FCC's ability to tell where
broadband is and, more importantly, where it isn't, I
introduced legislation last week with my good friend, the
gentleman from Vermont, that would require the FCC to establish
a challenge process to verify fixed and mobile broadband
service coverage data.
Local officials in my district have conducted their own
broadband studies to evaluate their residence broadband needs
and proved that there were holes in the FCC maps.
After hearing about these local actions, I started working
on my Broadband Mapping After Public Scrutiny Act, or Broadband
MAPS Act, to enhance the data the FCC already collects by
involving additional entities, such as local and State
governments, to verify FCC's data.
I look forward to hearing more about the Commission's
mapping efforts and ways the agency is working to get a better
picture of broadband connectivity in this country so that we
can target truly unserved areas.
I also look forward to hearing about the FCC's plans to
continue making more spectrum available at 5G. As I have
learned, 5G requires a variety of spectrum inputs--low-band,
mid-band, high-band, as well as unlicensed.
This is because each part of the band has different
characteristics and all types are needed to build a robust 5G
network capable of serving this country--including rural
America.
The FCC cleared a huge swath of mid-band spectrum in the
incentive auction and carriers are now deploying innovative
broadband offerings on that spectrum.
The Commission has also successfully auctioned off spectrum
in the high band and is actively working to make more spectrum
available in the low band and unlicensed spaces.
Another issue with broad bipartisan support is the need to
stop the scourge of illegal robocalls. They are not wanted.
They are tricking people into scams, and it's costing Americans
billions of dollars.
It is one of the biggest issues I hear when I am out in the
district and it is affecting everyone. At our hearings on this
topic last month, it became clear my district is not unique
with these concerns.
We must--and will--do everything in our power to stop the
annoying and illegal robocalls while protecting the technology
for the lifesaving, pro-consumer services people use and need.
I am encouraged by the work of industry to protect
consumers from unwanted robocalls by developing a set of
procedures to authenticate caller ID information associated
with telephone calls to combat unlawful calls and caller ID
spoofing.
I also appreciate the FCC's work in holding industry
accountable for delivering that system to the public as early
as the end of this year. I am optimistic that this will curb
some of the illegal unwanted robocalls.
But, as technology continues to evolve, so do the tactics
the bad actors use to illegally spoof numbers to make
fraudulent calls.
For this reason I introduced with my friend, the chairman
of our subcommittee, the Support Tools to Obliterate Pesky
Robocalls Act, or STOP Robocalls Act. Our bill would give the
FCC additional tools in its robocall toolbox to go after the
bad actors.
Specifically, the STOP Robocalls Act would help the FCC
identify these scammers and empower consumers with robocall
blocking technology.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and I
thank the chairman again for calling this hearing.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good morning. I am happy to welcome the Commission here
today to discuss its progress on a variety of issues, including
infrastructure, spectrum, rural broadband, and robocalls.
I think it's safe to say that there is more agreement on
the issues I just mentioned than disagreement. We can all agree
on the importance of bringing the benefits of broadband to all
Americans, especially rural Americans. But, despite the work
from this committee and the FCC, we still have Members on both
sides of the aisle whose constituents lack broadband.
Earlier this year, I was fortunate to have two FCC
Commissioners join me in my district to see firsthand the
connectivity my constituents enjoy and the additional
connectivity they so desperately need. Commissioner Carr joined
me for a visit at a hospital in Toledo, Ohio where we saw how
health care professionals are embracing telemedicine for stroke
patients. We also visited a local WISP who showed us how they
provide broadband to the Wood County Sherriff's call dispatch
center and a local farmer - where, of course, the Commissioner
couldn't resist the opportunity to see an antenna up close and
personal on the top of a grain elevator! My feet stayed on the
ground. My trip with Commissioner Carr continued with a stop at
WBGU in Bowling Green and ended on a farm in Napoleon, Ohio
where we saw how they're utilizing precision agriculture
technologies to help make their farm more efficient. Two days
later, Commissioner O'Rielly joined me in Defiance, Ohio where
we met with internet service providers across my district to
discuss broadband access and availability in Northwest and West
Central Ohio.
Being able to go out into the community and experience
broadband connectivity, or lack thereof, is an incredibly
useful tool to know where we need to target precious Federal
funding to support additional broadband growth.
To help further inform the FCC's ability to tell where
broadband is, and more importantly, where it still isn't, I
introduced a bill last week with my good friend from Vermont,
Mr. Welch, that would require the FCC to establish a challenge
process to verify fixed and mobile broadband service coverage
data. Local officials in my district have conducted their own
broadband studies to evaluate their residents' broadband needs
and prove that there are holes in the FCC maps. After hearing
about these local actions, I started working on the ``Broadband
Mapping After Public Scrutiny Act'' or ``Broadband MAPS Act''
to enhance the data the FCC already collects by involving
additional entities, such as local and State governments, to
verify FCC data. I look forward to hearing more about the
Commission's mapping efforts and ways the agency is working to
get a better picture of broadband connectivity in this country
so that we can target the truly unserved areas.
I also look forward to hearing about the FCC's plans to
continue making more spectrum available for 5G. As I have
learned, 5G requires a variety of spectrum inputs - low-band,
mid-band, and high-band, as well as unlicensed. This is because
each part of the band has different characteristics, and all
types are needed to build a robust 5G network capable of
serving this country - including rural America. The FCC cleared
a huge swath of mid-band spectrum in the incentive auction and
carriers are now deploying innovative broadband offerings on
that spectrum. The Commission has also successfully auctioned
off spectrum in the high-band and is actively working to make
more spectrum available in the low-band and unlicensed spaces.
Another issue with broad bipartisan support is the need to
stop the scourge of illegal robocalls. They're not wanted.
They're tricking people into scams. And it's costing Americans
billions of dollars. It's one of the biggest issues I hear
about from families in Ohio. At our hearing on this topic last
month, it became clear that my district is not unique in these
concerns. We must -- and we will -- do everything in our power
to stop the annoying and illegal robocalls, while protecting
the technology for the life-saving, pro-consumer services
people need.
I am encouraged by the work of industry to protect
consumers from unwanted robocalls by developing a set of
procedures to authenticate caller ID information associated
with telephone calls to combat unlawful caller ID spoofing. I
also appreciate the FCC's work in holding industry accountable
for delivering that system to the public as early as the end of
this year. I am optimistic that this will curb some of the
illegal, unwanted robocalls. But, as technology continues to
evolve, so do to the tactics that bad actors use to illegally
spoof numbers and make fraudulent calls.
For this reason, I introduced the Support Tools to
Obliterate Pesky Robocalls Act or STOP Robocalls Act. My bill
would give the FCC additional tools in its robocall toolbox to
go after bad actors. Specifically, the STOP Robocalls Act would
help the FCC identity these scammers and empower consumers with
robocall blocking technology.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' views on how we
can all work together to further our existing efforts on
infrastructure, spectrum, rural broadband, and robocalls. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, 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, Chairman Doyle.
The American people look to the FCC to ensure that they can
reliably make phone calls, send text messages, watch TV, and
access the internet at reasonable rates.
They rely on these technologies to check in with loved
ones, call for help, operate their businesses, get info during
disasters, and engage with people across the globe.
To properly fulfill this duty, it has always been my belief
that the FCC must put consumers first. But over the last 2
years, this FCC has too often turned its back on the public,
putting the big corporate interests first.
This FCC has heartlessly and needlessly proposed drastic
cuts to the Lifeline program. This critical subsidy program for
telephone and internet access is oftentimes the only way that
low-income Americans can keep in touch with friends or family,
explore job options, or make medical appointments.
And then it slashed media ownership rules to allow the
biggest media companies to grow even larger, controlling more
and more of the news and entertainment that reach Americans and
making it more difficult for underrepresented populations such
as minorities and women to own or manage media companies.
The FCC has repeatedly deferred to companies on voluntary
measures to correct major consumer problems like robocalls or
widespread communication failures after disasters like
Hurricanes Maria and Michael.
And this FCC has taken more than a year to investigate the
widespread disclosure of real-time location data by wireless
carriers without taking any public action to require the
carriers to stop sharing this data.
So putting aside bad policy, the FCC has also been derelict
in its duty. In the first 2 years of the Trump Presidency we
have seen this agency abdicate many of its important roles.
For example, the Commission has, for the most part, made
itself irrelevant when it comes to protecting Americans' access
to the dominant communications technology of our time, and that
is the internet.
Even more shockingly, when the Trump administration took
over, the new FCC deliberately walked back its role in
cybersecurity, leaving Americans vulnerable.
I am hopeful things will change, but I fear even if they
do, we are starting from behind because of the decisions this
Commission has already made.
And finally, while it touts transparency and the importance
of facts, this Commission, much like the Trump administration,
has misled the public and hid some of its actions from public
view.
For example, the Commission recently claimed victory over
the digital divide, only for us to later learn that the
Commission was relying on seriously flawed data.
According to reports, the Chairman voted to release the
congressionally mandated broadband report knowing that the data
in the draft was inaccurate.
Despite what the President thinks, the truth, in fact,
matters. Nevertheless, the Chairman recently touted a new $20
billion infrastructure program, only for us to learn afterwards
that it was being funded with repurposed money from the
Universal Service Fund.
And at the very same time, the FCC hid its proposal to cap
that very same Universal Service Fund, limiting the support
that goes to struggling Americans, to veterans, to schools, to
libraries, to rural healthcare facilities, and Americans living
in rural and hard-to-reach areas.
Americans don't need repurposed funds and they don't need
gimmicks. People all over this country are looking for a real
infrastructure plan that invests in our future and strengthens
our economy, and that is why we are introducing a comprehensive
infrastructure package today, the LIFT America Act, that
includes $40 billion of broadband infrastructure funding for
unserved and underserved areas, $12 billion for Next Generation
9 091 091, and $5 billion for financing new infrastructure
projects.
The American people deserve better than what this agency
has given them. They deserve an FCC that acts in their best
interests and not on behalf of the entities it is supposed to
be overseeing.
Oversight is critical to getting the FCC back on the right
track, and I appreciate the members of the Commission coming
before us today.
I have faith in the FCC as an institution, and I do have
faith in the exemplary career public servants that work there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
The American people look to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to ensure they can reliably make phone calls,
send text messages, watch television, and access the internet
at reasonable rates. They rely on these technologies to check
in with loved ones, call for help, operate their businesses,
get information during disasters, and engage with people across
the globe. To properly fulfill this duty, it has always been my
belief that the FCC must put consumers first.
But, over the last 2 years, this FCC has too often turned
its back on the public - putting the big corporate interests
first.
This FCC has heartlessly and needlessly proposed drastic
cuts to the Lifeline program. This critical subsidy program for
telephone and internet access is oftentimes the only way that
low-income Americans can keep in touch with friends or family,
explore job options, or make medical appointments.
It slashed media ownership rules to allow the biggest media
companies to grow even larger--controlling more and more of the
news and entertainment that reach Americans and making it more
difficult for underrepresented populations such as minorities
and women to own or manage media companies.
It has repeatedly deferred to companies on voluntary
measures to correct major consumer problems, like robocalls or
widespread communications failures after disasters like
Hurricanes Maria and Michael.
The FCC has taken more than a year to investigate the
widespread disclosure of real-time location data by wireless
carriers without taking any public action to require the
carriers to stop sharing this data.
Putting aside bad policy, the FCC has also been derelict in
its duty. In the first 2 years of the Trump Presidency we've
seen this agency abdicate many of its important roles.
For example, the Commission has, for the most part, made
itself irrelevant when it comes to protecting Americans' access
to the dominant communications technology of our time--the
internet.
Even more shockingly, when the Trump administration took
over, the new FCC deliberately walked back its role in
cybersecurity, leaving Americans vulnerable. I'm hopeful things
will change, but I fear even if they do, we're starting from
behind, because of the decisions this Commission has already
made.
Finally, while it touts transparency and the importance of
facts, this Commission, much like the Trump administration, has
misled the public and hid some of its actions from public view.
For example, the Commission recently claimed victory over
the digital divide, only for us to later learn the Commission
was relying on seriously flawed data. According to reports, the
Chairman voted to release the congressionally mandated
broadband report knowing that the data in the draft was
inaccurate. Despite what the President thinks, the truth
matters.
Nevertheless, the Chairman recently touted a new $20
billion infrastructure program, only for us to learn afterwards
that it was being funded with repurposed money from the
Universal Service Fund.
And at the very same time, the FCC hid its proposal to cap
that very same Universal Service Fund, limiting the support
that goes to struggling Americans, veterans, schools,
libraries, rural healthcare facilities, and Americans living in
rural and hard to reach areas.
Americans don't need repurposed funds, and they don't need
gimmicks. People all over this country are looking for a real
infrastructure plan that invests in our future and strengthens
our economy. That's why we are introducing a comprehensive
infrastructure package today, the LIFT America Act, that
includes $40 billion of broadband infrastructure funding for
unserved and underserved areas, $12 billion for next generation
9 091 091, and $5 billion for financing new infrastructure
projects.
The American public deserves better than what this agency
has given them. They deserve an FCC that acts in their best
interest and not on behalf of the entities it is supposed to be
overseeing.
Oversight is critical to getting the FCC back on the right
track, and I appreciate the members of the Commission coming
before us today. I have faith in the FCC as an institution and
I have faith in the exemplary career public servants that work
there.
Mr. Pallone. I have a minute left, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to yield back a minute to Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
As cochair of the Spectrum Caucus, I remain focused on
ensuring our spectrum resources are allocated effectively,
equitably, and rapidly.
The C-band has been one of the most complex and high-stakes
proceedings in front of the Commission and Congress. That is
why I plan to release legislation called the Win 5G Act to
propose a comprise consensus-based approach to rapidly
reallocate the spectrum in a manner that addresses many of the
concerns raised on the Commission's record.
I thank the wireless, cable, and rural stakeholders
preparing to support this effort. Fundamentally, a quick,
equitable, and consensus-based transition process is the only
way to avoid this proceeding being slowed down or tied up in
court.
And I want to be clear that this chamber is not willing to
accept an undesirable result. I look forward to working with
all of you and all the interested parties to ensure the
spectrum necessary for the United States to win the race to 5G
is allocated rapidly.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having
this hearing. I want to welcome all the Commissioners and,
Chairman Pai, we are glad to have you all back.
Commissioner Starks, welcome aboard. We are glad to have
you here. Buckle in. It is going to be a lot of fun. So we are
glad to have you here.
And I know there is a lot of work being done and, Chairman
Pai, I appreciate your leadership and that of the other
Commissioners. I think we all have agreement we need to build
out more broadband to more places in America, period, hard
stop.
We should be all for that. Last Congress we worked together
in a bipartisan way to get that done and there is more work to
be done.
We passed the RAY BAUM'S Act to reauthorize the FCC for the
first time in, I don't know, 20, 30 years. We gave you some new
authority and we gave you new authority to go after
robocallers, which I believe you are in the process of doing.
Not as fast as some would like, including probably everybody in
the room and you, but you are headed there and I think that is
really important.
And we are wrestling with legislation here. We haven't
moved anything yet but, clearly, we have ideas on this
committee about what else we need to do stop these unwanted not
only nuisance but perhaps very risky robocallers that
interfere, as we have heard from testimony, cancer centers in
America spoofing that they are actually making calls from
there. We all need to be together on this and pulling the same
direction to put a stop to bad behavior.
And I know in some of the meetings I have had with some of
the carriers they are willing to lean in full force. But they
also said, look, when we do that we are probably going to catch
a call that isn't really a robocall, and as much as we are
sitting up here pounding to do more, we also have to understand
probably what you are looking at in terms of a safe harbor
provision is really important because we will have those same
carriers up here, pounding on them for catching what they
thought was a robocall and it wasn't.
And so I think we have got to be smart about how we do
this. We got to be aggressive about how we do this. We all know
the numbers. We all know the problem. A lot of it is offshore.
But, clearly, there is more that can be done and there is
more to connect the rural areas. I have done 20 town halls this
year, more than any Member in the House, and one of them was
out in Spray, Oregon, population 150, and they kind of do a
little booster thing to keep the signal going while you're in
town, which is one block.
But the educators there said, but when we get away from
that kids don't have connection when they go home, and I know
that's been a huge issue for Commissioner Rosenworcel and all
of us, I think. How do we do this?
And I know there are funds that have been released.
Satellite carriers say, ``We can go into these remote areas.''
This county, by the way, has one person for every 9 miles of
power line.
So this is remote. You have been out there. Others have
been out there. And so we have got to look at alternative
platforms that work to get in there.
As we honor today police officers' memorial day and the 106
officers who lost their lives, we have to remember we have got
FirstNet building out. We have got the issue that some of you
have raised--the diversion of 9 091 091 fees.
We have got the whole T-band issue as well, and
Commissioner O'Rielly, I think you point out in your testimony
the diversion rate in one State is 90 percent. This ought to be
mail fraud, frankly, because some communities and States are
telling their consumers on their phone bill you are paying for
9 091 091 when in fact they take the money and spend it
elsewhere.
And so I am glad you all are making a point of this because
we need to take care of our 9 091 091 system and take care--and
consumers ought to have a right to know that they are getting
defrauded by their own governments, in some cases, where they
say on your phone bill, I am taking money for 9 091 091 and, oh
by the way, I am going to spend it somewhere else, and I am
going to come to Washington and say, I need more money.
That is not helping our law enforcement, and the
politicians ought to be held accountable. So in the FirstNet
legislation of 2012 in the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, which I
helped to author, we did a lot to set up a system to serve our
first responders.
Part of the FirstNet deal included an agreement by public
safety to receive prime spectrum for broadband in exchange for
T-band spectrum. That was part of the agreement. I was there. I
helped negotiate it.
We all agreed that T-band would phased out over time once
mission critical features are available. However, with a 2021
start date for the process impending, concerns have been raised
about planning for the move.
So today, I am floating a proposal that I welcome your
thoughts on as we reconcile these issues. My draft would delay
the start of the T-band process for another 3 years to 2024.
To be eligible for this delay, States and localities would
simply need to comply with a very commonsense policy the
bipartisan bills have already called for, which is to put a
stop to 9 091 091 diversion.
So you want to get a delay on T-band, got it. Stop
diverting your 9 091 091 money and defrauding your own
customers. So that is a draft we are putting out.
There is a lot more we can talk about here. Look forward to
it. We are glad you are here and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning, I welcome all our returning Commissioners,
and of course our newest, Mr. Starks. I'm not sure what we
should learn from the fact that the medical community in Kansas
keeps producing telecom lawyers.
I'm pleased that subcommittee Chairman Doyle has convened
this hearing and look forward to the important discussion on
infrastructure.
And on this front, I very much appreciate the work of
Chairman Pai and the Commission to accelerate broadband
deployment, through public investment, spectrum policy, and
just as importantly, the clearing of regulatory red tape.
Last session, Republicans and Democrats on E&C shared a
successful commitment to reaching unserved communities with
broadband dollars.
So, I'm not sure why the majority leadership chose to
launch an all-Democrat rural broadband task force this week
when we have worked together so productively in the past and
shown conclusively that this is not, or at least should not be,
a partisan issue.
I hope this is not a bad sign for prospects of working
together on broadband infrastructure this year. Because this is
important.
I recently held a town hall in Spray, Oregon, a rural
community of about 150 people in my district. A social studies
teacher explained during my town hall that, while the internet
at the school is OK, he worried about the access his students
have when they get home as education and homework become
increasingly reliant upon the internet. Speeds and options are
limited since they are several miles from the nearest
commercial fiber line.
Folks in places like Spray don't have the luxury of even 10
megabits to support basic streaming video, or online education
and business opportunities. With scarce Federal dollars, this
is where our focus should be. So, I want to hear how the
interagency consultation we legislated last year is coming
along as we consider infusing much more than the six hundred
million we did during the last Congress. Eliminating the
digital divide will require a substantial investment, but focus
is important, so we do not repeat the failures of the Obama
stimulus plan.
On that note, let me also highlight the role that our
friends on the electricity side do for our rural communities.
We need them more and more as partners in these broadband
deployments, whether they are sharing facilities or deploying
broadband themselves, so in the process of doing the good work
of clearing out the regulatory red tape for 5G, the Commission
should make sure to maintain flexibility to address safety and
technical concerns that may come up.
It is also imperative that we put a stop to 9 091 091 fee
diversion so that States stop from using fees paid by consumers
to support essential public safety services as slush funds.
Judging from the FCC report in December, progress has been
mixed, despite bipartisan attention to this issue. As
Commissioner O'Rielly pointed out in his testimony, the
diversion rate was as high as 90% in one State. This situation
is very alarming as investment in Next Generation 9 091 091
(NG911) is also part of the infrastructure discussion. The
estimated cost to taxpayers starts at $10-11 billion and could
go several billion higher according to the administration's
cost study.
As an author of the legislation that created FirstNet in
2012 via the Middle-Class Tax Relief Act, I am familiar with
the commitments and the tradeoffs we have made. What we do need
to focus on, and the FCC can help us with today, is how best to
ensure that any successful infrastructure effort this year will
not be undermined by the shameful practice of fee diversion.
Part of the FirstNet deal included an agreement by public
safety to receive prime spectrum for broadband in exchange for
T-band spectrum, which all agreed could be phased out over time
once mission critical features are available. However, with the
2021 start date for the process impending, concerns have been
raised about planning for the move.
So today I'm floating a new proposal that I welcome
thoughts on as we reconcile the issues here. My draft would
delay the start of the T-band process for another 3 years, to
2024. To be eligible for this delay, States and localities
would simply need to comply with a very common-sense policy
that bipartisan bills have already called for, which is to put
an end to 9 091 091 fee diversion.
I look forward to hearing testimony from the Commissioners
on these and many other important topics, and with that I
yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing. Our FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai--welcome--Commissioners
Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr, Jessica Rosenworcel, and
Geoffrey Starks.
Commissioners, welcome. We want to thank all of you for
joining us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for
5 minutes to provide their opening statement. Before we begin,
I would like to explain the lighting system in front of you.
You will see a series of lights which will initially be
green at the start of your statement. It will turn yellow when
you have 1 minute remaining.
Please begin to wrap up your testimony when the light turns
red--your time is expired.
And with that, Chairman Pai, we are anxious to hear your 5
minutes.
Is your microphone on? We actually wanted yours to work
so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pai. We will investigate it.
Mr. Doyle. They are investigating it.
Mr. Pai. Sorry for that.
Mr. Doyle. Technology----
STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, AND MICHAEL O'RIELLY, BRENDAN
CARR, JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, AND GEOFFREY STARKS, COMMISSIONERS,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI
Mr. Pai. Pardon the esthetic challenges.
But, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today. I
appreciate this opportunity to update you on the FCC's work to
advance the public interest.
At the beginning of my chairmanship, I said that the
Commission's top priority would be closing the digital divide.
We have been busy working to do just that.
Last year, for example, we finished the Connect America
Fund Phase II reverse auction, which allocated about $1.5
billion to connect over 713,000 homes and small businesses
nationwide with high-speed broadband.
Yesterday, we gave final approval to the first batch of
final applications and money will begin flowing to these
auction winners by the end of the month.
Moreover, last December, we implemented reforms to the
FCC's Alternative Connect America Cost Model, or ACAM, that
will fund broadband deployment to an additional 106,000 rural
homes and small businesses.
Earlier this month, we made new ACAM offers to small rural
carriers that could result in over 1.1 million rural homes and
businesses gaining access to broadband service.
Later this year, we will begin rulemaking to establish a
$20.4 billion rural digital opportunity fund with the goal of
spurring deployment of high-speed broadband networks to up to 4
million rural homes and businesses.
The Commission is also committed to maintaining and
advancing American leadership in 5G, the next generation of
wireless connectivity, through our 5G FAST plan.
This is a comprehensive strategy that takes a three-pronged
approach of pushing more spectrum into the commercial
marketplace, making it easier to deploy wireless
infrastructure, and modernizing our regulations to promote
fiber deployment.
Over the past year, we made substantial progress on all
three fronts and I would be happy to discuss that with you in
greater detail later today. We have also prioritized national
security.
Just last week, the FCC denied the application of China
Mobile USA, a wireless carrier ultimately and controlled by the
Chinese government, to enter the U.S. market.
Granting that application would have posed an unacceptable
risk to our national security. We also recently took part in an
international conference in Prague where over 30 nations came
together to propose common principles for 5G security.
These proposals gained wide support in part because of the
close collaboration among U.S. Government agencies including
the FCC and direct engagement on the international stage.
The final issue that I would like to discuss this morning
is illegal robocalls. Combating these unwanted robocalls is the
Commission's top consumer protection priority.
That is why we have taken many steps to fight what the late
Senator Hollings rightly called the scourge of civilization. We
have authorized carriers to block robocalls from certain
spoofed numbers.
We have authorized the creation of a reassigned numbers
database. We have taken aggressive enforcement action against
those who unleash robocalls on consumers and we have demanded
that phone carriers establish a robust caller dedication
framework by the end of this year.
I know that this is a top concern for this subcommittee as
well. In the last Congress, as Congressman Walden mentioned,
you included in RAY BAUM'S Act a provision to extend the FCC's
truth in caller ID rules to reach calls originating from
outside of the United States.
And last month, you held a hearing to consider many pieces
of legislation to attack this problem. I applaud these efforts.
The onslaught of robocalls presents us with a complex
challenge. There is no single bullet that will get the job
done. Instead, Congress, the FCC, the FTC, and other Government
agencies all must do what we can, working together, to stem the
tide of unwanted robocalls.
In that spirit, I am pleased to announce this morning that
the FCC will vote on our June 6th monthly meeting on
significant new steps to reduce the number of unwanted
robocalls.
Specifically, I will ask my fellow Commissioners to make it
easier for carriers to block these robocalls by default. Right
now, many carriers let you know when a call is likely to be
spam. But they don't block them automatically.
I want to make clear that carriers can implement call
blocking by default so long as consumers are given the option
of opting out.
I am also proposing that we allow carriers to block on a
networkwide basis those calls that cannot be authenticated
under the SHAKEN/STIR framework once it is implemented.
I believe that these measures would have a major impact in
our fight against robocalls. American consumers deserve that
protection and peace of mind and I hope my colleagues will join
me in supporting these efforts.
Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you once again for giving me the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your
questions and to continuing to work with you on the matters
within our jurisdiction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statment of Mr. Pai follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner O'Rielly, you are now recognized for 5 minutes
for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
Latta, and the members of the subcommittee. It is a real
pleasure to appear before this subcommittee once again as it
conducts further oversight of the FCC.
With your indulgence, I would like to raise four areas of
communication policy for the subcommittee's attention.
First, there is near universal realization that far more
needs to be done to free up additional mid-band spectrum, given
its propagation characteristics and opportunities for global
spectrum harmonization.
But freeing these bands is extremely hard. Concerning what
the Chairman has put forth in the motion, the Commission must
redouble its efforts to reallocate additional mid-band
frequencies for Next Generation license services.
Part of this must be reallocating a portion of the 3.7 to
4.2 gigahertz band, or the C-band. One of my foremost concerns
is to ensure that the mechanism selected allows the quickest
possible process and I remain hopeful that the satellite
incumbents will be willing to part with closer to 300 megahertz
of spectrum.
Separately, there needs to be a greater effort to identify
more Federal agency holdings in the mid-bands for commercial
use including reallocating the 3.45 to 3.55 gigahertz band and
conducting feasibility studies to determine the exact--the
extent of the commercial offerings that can be done in 3.1 to
3.45 gigahertz.
Moreover, the Commission must take action on freeing more
unlicensed spectrum, particularly in the 5.9 and 6 gigahertz
bands.
Second, while broadband availability has improved over the
years, many unserved areas remain and we must continue our
efforts to expand access in an efficient and timely manner.
That is why I have spent so much time over the years
promoting better incentives and greater efficiency within our
Universal Service Fund programs.
At the same time, I worry that the well-intentioned desire
of Congress or selected agencies to expand broadband
infrastructure will lead to unexpected wasteful or duplicative
spending and adverse consequences for consumers.
While I would humbly suggest that the committee consider
the FCC's Universal Service Fund as a primary means to
distribute new funding, it is my foremost concern that any
funding go to unserved areas rather than areas where broadband
service already exists.
Coordination among agencies and departments is helpful but
only through clear legislative directive and necessary
oversight can Congress ensure that funding does not go to
duplicate existing programs and only goes to those Americans
without broadband today.
Third, the Commission has rightfully focused time and
attention on addressing the surge of illegal robocalls in this
country. In considering this issue, it is important to maintain
a careful and nuanced approach.
Many honest legitimate businesses use automatic dialling
technologies to communicate needed information to their
consumers and doing so is perfectly within the scope and intent
of TCPA.
Any approach to illegal robocalls should not expose law-
abiding and legitimate organizations to indeterminate and
potentially crippling legal risk.
In terms of illegal calls, I applaud those innovative
companies and carriers that have offered or are in the process
of offering free call authentication and call-blocking services
to their customers.
To protect and encourage these initiatives, I strongly
support the adoption of a safe harbor to protect carriers from
liability in their call-blocking efforts as well as a
reassigned number database safe harbor.
At the same time, carriers must adopt expeditious processes
for correcting false positives. The last issue that I will
touch upon today is 9 091 091 fee diversion.
Every month, millions of consumers pay their phone bills
only to see a good portion of the money flow into a State or
territory's general treasury and, as a result, only a portion
or small percentage goes towards emergency services.
On top of being downright deceptive, this is a serious
public safety matter that directly affects emergency call
centers and personnel.
Following the FCC's December report, the States and
territories guilty of diverting these critical funds in 2017
were New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Montana, Nevada, West
Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
I respectfully request the subcommittee's assistance as the
name-and-shame process generated by our annual report has only
been so helpful.
The State leaders of certain recalcitrant States,
specifically, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, don't
seem to care about the shaming part.
I believe new legislation is needed in addition to that
already introduced on the topic and that will take a more
forceful approach to end diversion once and for all.
Thank you to the chairman and the ranking member and
leaders for inviting me to testify. I welcome any questions you
may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statment of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Commissioner Carr, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR
Mr. Carr. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to testify.
When I first appeared before the subcommittee in 2017, the
U.S. faced significant challenges in our effort to lead the
world in 5G.
Our outdated rules meant that it took too long and it cost
too much to build internet infrastructure in this country. We
risked ceding U.S. leadership in 5G and a half a trillion
dollars it could add to our economy to our global competitors.
Indeed, China was putting up new cell sites, the building
blocks for 5G, at 12 times our pace. So we needed to take bold
action and that is exactly what we've been doing at the FCC.
For one, we updated the Federal rules that apply to the
construction of small cells. These are the backpack-size
antennas needed for Next Generation connectivity.
We did so by excluding them from the costly and time-
consuming reviews designed for the construction of large 200-
foot towers.
For another, we addressed the State and local review
process for small cells. We did so by building on the common
sense reforms already enacted by elected officials in their own
communities, reforms that provided clarity on fees and ensure
timely decisions.
These and other FCC reforms are already delivering results.
Internet speeds in the U.S. are up nearly 40 percent. Americans
saw more fiber broadband built to their homes last year than
ever before.
The number of small cells put up in this country increased
from 13,000 in 2017 to more than 60,000 in 2018. Investment in
broadband networks is back on the rise and the U.S. now has the
world's largest 5G deployment with 92 builds expected by year's
end, and China has announced plans for zero.
There is much more to do. We are heading in the right
direction. The FCC's policies are working, and I have had the
chance to see firsthand how our decisions are helping to create
jobs and benefit American workers in communities around the
country in places like South Carolina where a company I visited
last month built a new 100,000 square foot manufacturing plant
because of the increase in demand for small cells in the U.S.
In fact, our success in accelerating infrastructure
construction has created a new opportunity. Industry now
estimates that it could fill 20,000 job openings for tower
techs. That would nearly double their existing workforce and
bring thousands of families into the middle class.
So last month, I announced a jobs initiative modelled on a
program developed by Aiken Technical College in South Carolina.
It looks to community colleges as a pipeline for 5G jobs.
In 12 weeks, someone with virtually no training can learn
the technical and physical skills needed to land a good-paying
job in the tower industry. I am working to expand this program
to community colleges around the country.
While we know that broadband can create jobs, it can also
help save lives. I saw this in Ohio with Ranking Member Latta
at ProMedica Hospital. The head of neurology, Dr. Mouhammad
Jumaa, told us that every second matters in treating stroke
patients, and Dr. Jumaa showed us how we can now use a video
app right on his smart phone to quickly see and treat stroke
victims from almost anywhere. It's saving precious minutes and
changing outcomes.
I think the FCC should support this new trend in
telehealth. With remote patient monitoring and mobile health
apps that can be accessed right on your phone, high-quality
care can now be delivered to patients wherever they are.
That is why I have led the FCC's effort to stand up a new
connected care pilot program. It would provide up to $100
million so low-income patients can benefit from this new trend.
It would make a real difference in driving down costs and
delivering quality care. My goal is to move that proceeding
forward in the coming months. I look forward to working with
all stakeholders to stand it up.
In closing, I want to thank you again, Chairman Doyle,
Ranking Member Latta, members of the subcommittee, for the
chance to testify. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statment of Mr. Carr follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Rosenworcel for 5
minutes for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Ms. Rosenworcel. Good morning.
Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for having me here today. I am going to
start with a story.
So picture northeast Arkansas. This is a region known as
the Upper Delta. It's got a proud history. It's where Johnny
Cash spent his childhood years and where Ernest Hemingway
penned ``A Farewell to Arms'' in a barn.
Its fields are known the world around for the rice they
produce. But this region is also on the leading edge of an ugly
trend--increasing maternal mortality.
You see, the United States is the only industrialized
country with a growing rate of maternal mortality and the data
show that it hits women of color and women in rural areas
particularly hard.
So the week before last, I was in Little Rock and I spent
time with a team from the University of Arkansas who decided
that in the Upper Delta it was time to do something about
pregnancy-related deaths.
They described a patient in the region. She was diagnosed
with preeclampsia, and that's a hypertensive disorder that is a
leading cause of maternal mortality.
To manage this disorder, monitoring is key. But this
patient lived in a rural area. In fact, she had to drive
several hours just to give birth in a specialty hospital. There
was no way she was going to make this same drive on a daily
basis during the weeks following delivery.
So this team at the medical center, they got creative. They
sent her home with a blood pressure cuff, a special digital
scale, and a pulse oximeter to measure the levels of oxygen in
her blood.
They told her connect all of these devices to a wireless
gateway and transmit daily readings back to her healthcare
providers.
This was great, except for one small detail. The patient
had no wireless service at home. As she described it, she lived
in a dead zone. So every day after performing these rituals she
climbed into her truck, drove up to the top of a hill a mile
away where she was actually able to pick up a wireless signal
and then she sent this data along.
I cannot stop thinking about this story. It demonstrates so
clearly the wonder of modern communications but it also reminds
us that there are too many people in too many places in this
country struggling to connect.
And during the past 2 years I believe the FCC has done too
little to address these problems. That is because too often
this agency has acted at the behest of the largest corporate
forces that surround us, short-changing the American public.
For starters, we do not know with certainty where broadband
and wireless service is throughout the country. Our broadband
maps are a mess. One Cabinet official recently called them fake
news.
The FCC distributes billions of dollars each year to help
build broadband. But it is wasteful and irresponsible for the
agency to do so without having an accurate picture of where
service is and is not in every community in this country.
On top of that, we have done too little to fix robocalls.
Here are the numbers you need to know. At the start of this
administration, consumers got 2 billion robocalls a month. That
number is now above 5 billion. That is insane.
For too long, the FCC has been holding summits and holding
workshops and not holding bad actors accountable. I am pleased
to see that the Chairman has now distributed a new set of
policies for us to take a look at, but I sincerely hope it is
not too little too late.
Perhaps, however, the agency is best known for its
misguided effort to roll back net neutrality. As a result of
this decision, your broadband provider now has the right to
block websites and censor online content.
That doesn't sound good to me and it doesn't sound good to
the American public, either, 86 percent of whom support net
neutrality. Should we have a court remand, I sincerely hope we
take a cue from your Save the Internet Act and decide to change
course.
Finally, public safety is paramount. But this agency has
been totally silent when it comes to press reports that reveal
that for a few hundred dollars shady middlemen can tell you
your location within a few hundred meters, based on your
wireless data.
I don't recall consenting to this surveillance when I
signed up for wireless service and I bet neither did you. We
need to be up front with the American people about just what's
happening.
But while we have been silent, I decided to do something. I
wrote all the major wireless carriers and asked them to explain
just when they stopped selling our data in this fashion.
I also asked them to share with us what they are doing with
the data that's already been sold or shared. I expect those
letters to be responded to today and I would be happy to share
them with this committee.
In closing, I believe communications policy can create
opportunity and help solve problems including maternal
mortality. But the way to do this is for the FCC to change
course and put the public first.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statment of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
The Chair now recognizes Commissioner Starks for 5 minutes
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY STARKS
Mr. Starks. Good morning, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
Latta, and members of this subcommittee. It is a privilege to
appear before you here for the first time today.
The future is already here. It's just not evenly
distributed. Wise words and ones that excellently frame the
state of our digital divide.
I was sworn in as a Commissioner about a hundred days ago
and I am very excited about the development and deployment of
5G and fiber networks that will offer lightning-fast speeds and
more.
These networks will further open the floodgates of
innovation and turn today's cutting-edge technology into
tomorrow's everyday tools.
But that future has not yet come to over 24 million
Americans without access to affordable high-speed broadband,
and while I am committed to winning the race to 5G, I am
equally committed to the far too many communities that have no
G.
There cannot be two Americas, one where those with much get
even more and another for those who are left behind. Whenever I
step outside of Washington, people tell me how broadband
impacts their lives and a couple of months ago I met with folks
in Blue Springs, Missouri, including Chris Chin, who is the
director of agriculture for the State.
She told me how Missouri ranks 41st in terms of internet
access and how farmers in their State, including her own family
feed mill and hog farm, struggle to upload their livestock and
crop data to the cloud to help them manage their farms.
But she spoke even more passionately about how difficult it
is to convince the next generation to stay in a community that
lacks high-speed internet, and I know a lot of rural
communities share that fear.
The problem with broadband access isn't limited only to
rural America, though, and an internet inequality exists even
in well-connected urban areas where, unfortunately, your access
to quality broadband too often depends on your economic status.
And that is why the Lifeline program is so critical. It
offers a no-frills phone and internet service so that folks can
stay connected, and but rather than recognize and fully address
the affordability problem that I think is critical, this
Commission has proposed drastic changes to the Lifeline program
that would undermine this program.
The fundamental question is does this FCC know who has
broadband and how doesn't. Unfortunately, this Commission has
fallen down on this issue, I believe, beginning with our data.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Commission admitted that its draft
broadband deployment report relied in part on data from a new
provider that had inflated its coverage by nearly 62 million
persons, and the error was caught not by the FCC but by a
diligent public interest group.
We need to take a hard look at ourselves when the FCC's
data management practices miss a brand new entrant that claims
to cover a whopping 20 percent of Americans.
The stakes get higher. We manage billions of dollars that
provide targeted funding but we don't know the right places to
send that money.
Mobility Fund Phase II, one of our most important
initiatives to expand rural mobile broadband coverage, was
suspended indefinitely in December to investigate yet another
set of data problems.
We can't have good money chasing bad data. These
communities can't keep waiting and they shouldn't have to. Once
we get folks online, though, our job doesn't stop there.
Over the last year, news reports have exposed schemes that
exploited wireless carriers' customer data systems that allowed
bad actors to pay to track anyone in real-time with only their
victim's phone number and a couple hundred dollars.
We've heard stories about women being tracked by former
partners that appear to be exploiting this vulnerability, and
as a former Federal prosecutor, I've personally petitioned the
court for restraining orders to protect survivors of domestic
abuse and I am shocked to think that an abuser could legally
track a survivor's phone to a safe house or a shelter.
After writing about this issue in the New York Times, I've
heard from many members of the public who share my sense of
outrage and I understand that at least one class action is in
the offering.
But more than 1 year into the FCC's investigation, we still
have not heard a resolution. Security problems aren't limited
to our phones. The entire telecommunications network is equally
at stake.
Our networks have serious vulnerabilities that bad actors
can impersonate other folks, obtain access to sensitive
communications, and even cause our networks to crash.
The situation could not be more urgent. With 5G our
networks will connect to our utilities, healthcare, financial,
and transportation system.
We need to take our statutory responsibilities seriously
and ensure that all of our communications systems have the best
possible protections.
Finally, I would very much like to thank this subcommittee
for its hard work and passing legislation regarding net
neutrality. Millions of Americans have spoken with the same
voice that they want the internet to remain open and
unfettered, and the Save the Internet Act has given action to
that voice.
I will continue to also be a champion for this issue. There
is a lot of work to do. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to address these challenges and many more. Thank you
for having me here today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statment of Mr. Starks follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
So we have concluded our opening statements. We will now
move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Chairman Pai, I have a number of questions I would like to
ask you that I need to get through that just require yes or no
answers. So I would appreciate you answering yes or no.
Regarding mobile carriers sharing their customers' location
data, can you tell us, yes or no, has this practice stopped?
Mr. Pai. Chairman Doyle, I appreciate the question. I
cannot comment on a pending law enforcement investigation.
Mr. Doyle. Can you tell us--since the statute of
limitations for these violations is only 1 year, and a year has
already passed since we first learned about these violations--
has the FCC put in place any tolling agreements with any mobile
carrier to ensure that they can be held accountable for these
illegal practices?
Mr. Pai. Here, too, Chairman Doyle, I cannot comment on a
pending law enforcement investigation except to say with
respect to this particular question that we are mindful of the
relevant statute of limitations.
Mr. Doyle. Do you know whether or not the wireless carriers
have notified individuals whose locations was illegally
tracked, yes or no?
Mr. Pai. Again, Chairman Doyle, this relates to the pending
law enforcement investigation. I can't comment on it in an open
setting.
Mr. Doyle. As part of your investigation, have you found
any members of law enforcement, agents of the Federal
Government, or elected officials such as Members of Congress
have had their locations tracked?
Mr. Pai. Again, Chairman Doyle, I cannot comment on a
pending law enforcement investigation.
Mr. Doyle. Let me just say I find your answers to these
questions, given the time that has elapsed and the seriousness
of this issue as wholly insufficient.
This committee expects you to do more than just sit on your
hands.
I would like to talk a little bit about C-band. As we all
know, many members of this committee care deeply about the
deployment of broadband to rural communities and making it more
accessible and affordable for others.
However, there is no business case for private investment
the Government needs to pick up the slack. I have seen
estimates that peg the market value of C-band upwards of $70
billion, and for communities that currently have no Gs and see
the promise of 5G as a pipe dream, do you think it is better
for that money to go to funding broadband build out or into the
pockets of foreign satellite companies?
Commissioner Rosenworcel, what do you make of this.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Doyle. Microphone.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. I think that
we need to consult with Congress to identify what to do with
the C-band next. It appears that there is a lot of money at
stake and, as you point out, those funds could be used to
expand broadband in rural areas, help students caught in the
homework gap who don't have access to the internet service they
need for homework.
But I think the first place to start is to find a neutral
entity that can tell us with clarity just how much this
spectrum is worth. It could be tens and tens of billions of
dollars. We need to understand that as a matter of good
governance.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Commissioner Starks, how about you? What do you think of
this?
Mr. Starks. I agree with that perspective. I think the most
important thing is that we maximize the amount of spectrum that
can come in here into the marketplace.
And then the second thing that I would point out is I agree
that it's going to be important to make sure that we don't have
a private windfall here as we consider the C-band.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, what do you think?
Mr. Pai. Chairman Doyle, I am sympathetic to the gist of
your question. Three years ago, as the first member of the
Commission to propose a rural dividend from spectrum auctions
so we could retain those funds for deploying rural broadband,
with respect to this particular issue, we've teed up a variety
of different options we are meeting with stakeholders on.
My concern would be with respect to waiting for Congress to
legislate on this particular matter we've been criticized by
some, including members of the Commission, for not moving quick
enough to free up mid-band spectrum.
If that's the case, waiting for legislation to emerge from
a bipartisan--from a bicameral system along with enacting by
the President could take some time.
So we have to trade off the time value of the spectrum and
the need for spectrum for broadband deployment versus some of
the concerns you have identified.
Mr. Doyle. Well, if you think you're getting flak for not
moving quick enough, watch how much flak you get if you let
four foreign satellite companies keep all the money.
Chairman Pai, in the context of USTelecom's forbearance
petition, I am very concerned that the Commission is using Form
477 data, which industry and policy makers widely agree is
flawed and overstates broadband availability. I am also
concerned that the Commission is considering data collected as
part of the special access data request from 2015 as part of
this petition as well.
This data is years out of date and does not accurately
reflect the current state of deployment or competition. If the
FCC were to base its decision on such inaccurate data, the
decision would likely be challenged in court.
Will you commit to updating and fixing these data sets
before using them as a basis for Commission decisions,
particularly in supported claims that competitive policies that
promote broadband deployment are not necessary such as in the
case of USTelecom's forbearance petition?
Yes or no.
Mr. Pai. Chairman Doyle, unfortunately it's not a yes or no
question with respect to the BDS data, for example. One of the
reasons why we included the data from the 2015 data collection
was because USTelecom relies on the conclusions from the BDS
and the transport remand from the Eight Circuit.
We can't simply adopt those conclusions wholesale. We
wanted to make sure that the data upon which those conclusions
were based remains a part of the forbearance record in this
particular case.
We haven't agreed with it. We simply want to make sure that
we have all the data that the party petitioning for forbearance
is including in its petition.
Mr. Doyle. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
I now yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again to the
Commissioners and the Chairman, thanks very much for being with
us today.
Commissioner O'Rielly, if I could start my question with
you. When you were in the district in March we heard from my
constituents to build out broadband in rural America we need
these accurate maps so that limited Federal funds are going to
the areas that most need it.
How important is it that any new broadband funding is
allocated based on these accurate maps?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I would say maps can only be so perfect.
But through revision and including a challenge process and
verification we can improve them so the dollars go to only the
areas that absolutely need them and they don't go to
overbuilding, which is a really deep concern I have.
So I agree with your point wholeheartedly.
Mr. Latta. Well, I know in the past I've always said that
we have to differentiate to make sure we are talking about
unserved and underserved areas and we have to look at these
unserved areas.
Let me follow up. Which agency is best situated to manage
substantial new funding and ensure it goes to the right areas?
Quickly.
Mr. O'Rielly. I hate to say I am biased here. I believe the
FCC program is the most efficient program. It's not by any
means perfect. It has its own flaws and we do improve it.
The Chairman has done great work in the last couple of
years--things I've been working on for a decade in terms of
reverse auctions. We've really improved our process.
I look at other agencies and what they've done in the past
and what they currently do, and I see tremendous flaws and I
would recommend to the--and humbly suggest to the subcommittee
you consider FCC if additional dollars are made from the
Congress.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, what are your thoughts on which agency is the
most appropriate to channel those new fundings?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Latta.
Unsurprisingly, I share my colleague's enthusiasm for the
FCC as the repository for the additional funding and part of
the reason why I see it established is that we now have a
reverse auction mechanism along with accountability in terms of
the distribution of that funding resulting in broadband
deployment.
And with respect to the reverse auction in particular, I
mean, I cannot understate how important that mechanism is for
distributing funding efficiently.
If you talk to your electric utilities, Tribal carriers,
cable companies, satellite companies, and others, now they have
a chance to compete for that funding, which makes sure that the
scarce taxpayer dollars are stretched as far as possible and as
efficient a way as possible.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Let me follow up, Chairman Pai. Last month I introduced the
Stop Robocalls Act to give the FCC additional tools to go after
these bad actors.
One of the things that the Stop Robocalls Act would do is
make it easier for consumers to access technology that blocks
illegal robocalls by allowing carriers to offer it for free on
an opt-out basis.
Chairman Pai, again, I appreciate your announcement this
morning that you are adding the opt out concept in my Stop
Robocalls Act to your June meeting. I will continue to work on
this with the chairman of this subcommittee so it becomes law.
And would you commit to working with Congress to ensure
that consumers can have access to illegal robocall blocking
technology?
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Chairman Pai, we've also heard criticism that the
Commission is not moving quickly enough to make low and mid-
band spectrum available, which is vitally important to U.S.
leadership on 5G.
Would you share what you are doing on spectrum as part of
the 5G FAST plan?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
We have, obviously, been very active with respect to
millimeter wave. We were in the middle of a 24 gigahertz
auction. We just finished a 28 gigahertz auction.
We have upper 37, 39, and 47 scheduled for later this year.
With respect to mid-band in particular, we have a lot on the
table with respect to white spaces in the 2.5 gigahertz band.
We have an ongoing dialogue with the Department of Commerce
on the 3.1 and 3.55 band. We've got the 3.5 band itself, which
Commissioner O'Rielly will lead the effort on, where we expect
commercial deployment soon and an auction next year.
The 3.7 band, which the chairman has mentioned, which will
be potentially 200 to 500 megahertz, we also have an
outstanding proceeding on the 4.9 gigahertz band, the 5.9
gigahertz band, and in particular the 6 gigahertz band, which
is something that a lot of wireless innovators have thought of.
This would be, potentially, 1,200 megahertz for unlicensed
spectrum. So turbocharging Wi-Fi, allowing consumers on an
unlicensed basis to take advantage to some of the innovation
that has now become common in their lives.
So we have a lot on the table, many thousands of megahertz,
and we look forward to working with you and the members of the
subcommittee to make it a reality.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and if I, in my last
40 seconds--Commissioner Carr, you know, you spent a day out in
my district and maybe if you could just give me a quick
takeaway of what you saw out there in your five visits across
the northwest and west central Ohio.
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman.
We had a great visit to your district. I think what we saw
there was both sides of the digital divide. We saw communities
that right now have high-tech Next Generation connectivity
including at ProMedica Hospital where it is helping to change
lives for stroke patients.
We were able to go to a farm in Napoleon and see the
tremendous amount of data that smart ag is now pulling off of
combines and connected soil moisture meters, and so the real
economic upside.
There are many communities in between where we still have
work to do and that's why we are reorienting our programs at
the FCC including universal service to make sure we have
connectivity whether it's 5G or other next generation services
in every community across the country.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman. I thank the
Commissioners for your testimony this morning and for your hard
work. I know all of you have perspectives and I appreciate
that.
Chairman Pai, the FCC recently delivered its veterans
broadband report to Congress pursuant to legislation that I
signed into law but missed the statutory deadline by over a
month.
While the report did acknowledge that 1.3 million veterans
participated in the Lifeline program, it failed to mention that
your proposal to reduce the program by over 70 percent would
have harmful effects on these veterans.
I am concerned that your proposal would have harmful
impacts on veterans and millions of Americans including 56,000
households in my district.
There has been almost no support on the record for this
proposal, even though the proceeding was started in 2017.
Chairman Pai, please answer yes or no.
Will you put this proposal to rest and end the proceeding?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, the proceeding is still ongoing. We
haven't made any final determinations yet.
Mr. McNerney. Will you put this to rest? There is almost no
support in the record for this.
Mr. Pai. Again, Congressman, it's still an ongoing
proceeding. I can't forecast where the Commission is going to
end up.
Mr. McNerney. Commissioner Rosenworcel, what do you think
about his?
Ms. Rosenworcel. There are people across this country that
rely on Lifeline to stay connected. They've relied on this
program since 1985 when it was first put in place to make sure
everyone could connect to healthcare, to education, and jobs.
We are going to cut off veterans, elderly, people
recovering in Puerto Rico and so many other places if we cut
this program as the Chairman has proposed. It's time for us to
end this proceeding and this effort.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter--I would like to submit a
letter for the record on this issue from the Leadership
Conference.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. McNerney. I am deeply concerned about President Trump's
repeated attacks on journalists and broadcasters. Here is a
tweet from the President on April 5th stating that the press is
truly the enemy of the people. This is from the President of
the United States.
The President has gone on to threaten the license of
broadcasters who have reported news that he doesn't like.
That's one of--rhetoric of a dictator and beneath the dignity
of the office of our President.
Chairman Pai, a free and independent press is the
foundation of our democracy. You are the head of the agency
that is charged with overseeing the Nation's communication
sector including broadcast and media marketplace.
Starting with you, Chairman Pai, and then all the
Commissioners, do you agree with the statement that the press
is truly the enemy of the people? Please answer with a yes or
no.
Mr. Pai. Congressman, that is not language that I would or
have used. No.
Mr. O'Rielly. No.
Mr. Carr. Congressman, I have repeatedly made my views
clear on the First Amendment.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely not.
Mr. Starks. I agree this is an easy choice. Absolutely not.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Chairman Pai, just 1 week after that tweet on April 5th,
you appeared at a press conference at the White House with
President Trump. It's unusual for a Commissioner from an
independent agency to appear at a press conference with the
President.
Please answer this with a yes or no. When you saw President
Trump on that day, did he mention anything to you related to
FEC license concerns or any other issue pending before the FCC
related to an entity he thinks unfairly covered him or his
administration?
Mr. Pai. No, not to my knowledge.
Mr. McNerney. Will you commit that if President Trump or
anyone from the White House reaches out to you about anything
like this that you will personally notify our committee and my
office immediately?
Mr. Pai. Yes, and I've made, I recall, a similar commitment
to the Senate Commerce Committee, your counterparts on the
Senate side.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. We will hold you to that,
Chairman.
On the spectrum, I know that having access to mid-band
spectrum is crucial for U.S. leadership in 5G.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, why has the agency not moved more
quickly to address the issue of the 3.5 band?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
The rest of the world is running to 5G using mid-band
spectrum. We are not doing that there in the United States and
we are going to be left behind. Mid-band spectrum propagates
far, which means it will bring 5G to rural areas.
But the United States has concentrated all of its energies
on high-band spectrum in the last year and this one. We are
going to have to pivot and make mid-band a priority if we want
to catch up with the rest of the world and deliver 5G to rural
communities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Chairman in exile, as I
like to say.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. We have heard a lot today about the need to
protect privacy of mobile customers. I don't think there is any
disagreement with that on the Commission or up here.
I share my colleagues' concerns about the unauthorized use
of wireless consumers' real-time geolocation data by third
parties. That is why as chairman I started the bipartisan
process--bipartisan process here with my Democratic colleagues
last Congress that's still going on this year to look into this
matter.
From the consumer's perspective, sharing location data can
be helpful and in some cases lifesaving--services like
emergency roadside assistance. So there can be a positive
effect to this.
But from our bipartisan work on this issue, we learned that
in some cases aggregators were selling data for unauthorized
purposes without permission from either the consumer or the
carrier.
The FCC is taking a deeper dive into this issue through its
enforcement bureau, is my understanding, but the reality is
that many carriers have already completely cut off these
programs and they aren't coming back.
The alternative many of these services are now going to is
the location data collected by tech companies, operating
systems, and apps that are constantly tracking users.
The data are different and in many cases they're actually
more pervasive and more precise. Not a few meters or hundreds
of meters; it is what seat you're in.
My concern is the entire market for location data is being
shifted to relatively unregulated entities. Is this really the
best outcome for the consumer is the question I have.
So, Chairman Pai, you're investigating the interactions of
carriers with location aggregators. Does the Commission have
the authority to regulate data aggregators in these situations?
Mr. Pai. We do not. Typically, that would be under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission.
Mr. Walden. And can the Commission look into the sharing of
geolocation data by other entities such as operating systems
and apps?
Mr. Pai. Here too we don't have jurisdiction over some of
the tech giants that have collected that information.
Mr. Walden. Commissioner O'Rielly, in your testimony you
highlight additional mid-band spectrum the FCC should be
considering for unlicensed use to support 5G including the 4.9
gigahertz band.
We have got a new discussion draft which would have the
Commission conduct a census of the users and how they are
utilizing 4.9 licenses and would separately provide a delay in
the T-band relocation process for another 3 years.
You often hear Governors or legislators don't get the
message on 9 091 091 fee diversion. So the other feature here
is to tie the eligibility for the T-band delay to the integrity
of the 9 091 091 fees.
I know you have put a lot of work into this. You talked
about it in your opening statement as well. Do you think we are
on the right path?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, sitting here I am really intrigued by
your idea. There haven't been a lot of new ideas on how to
address those recalcitrant States--New York, New Jersey, and
Rhode Island.
Mr. Walden. Rhode Island especially.
Mr. O'Rielly. So I am really intrigued by this that maybe
what--the kick that is needed.
Mr. Walden. I will tell you what. If a business did this it
would be mail fraud and I--government is a business, too, and
they ought to be held accountable. But I think it's actually
worse than the fraud that is being committed because they are
denying rate payers the service they are promising them and you
all ought to be united in this cause.
Does anybody disagree with what we are trying to do here?
All right. I am going to take all the shaking heads as
yeses and move on, because I just think it is really, really
critical.
Now, I want to talk about the role of what you are doing to
build out especially 5G and all, and I appreciate the work you
are doing. I met with some of my rural electric co-op friends
and they are a little concerned about the effect of some of
what the FCC is doing when it comes to their equipment and
services and, literally, can this pole withstand that weight
and this, that, and the other.
And I assume you are taking that into some level of
understanding, right?
Mr. Pai. Yes, Congressman. And, additionally, we have
reached out in particular to those utilities to participate in
those reverse auctions I described.
Mr. Walden. All right. Perfect.
I want to go to this mapping issue. There is no
disagreement the maps that are used stink. I mean, somebody
said fake news. We have all known that. By the way, it happened
in the last administration, the one before it.
I sat right on this side in the minority when the majority
crammed through the stimulus bill and put $7 billion for
broadband knowing full well the money was going to get
allocated before we knew where the mapping was for served and
unserved.
And I had an amendment saying before the money goes out the
door, could we at least know the unserved and underserved areas
through mapping and that amendment was defeated by my friends
over here.
So we both know on both sides the maps stink, the data
stink. We got to get this right and not overbuild, and I would
just like to say, finally, that we should not discount--and I
know there are some that just want to trash corporate America
or the ISPs or whatever--they are investing far more than this
Congress has ever invested.
In the cable world they announced last night $290 billion
over the next decade to build out connectivity--broadband to
the home.
And so I think we need to be in a partnership attitude
here, not an adversarial attitude. There's a lot more we can
get done on this committee when we are working together on
these issues. Broadband shouldn't be partisan.
So thank you for being here. Thanks for the work you do. I
know it's controversial but we want to be your partners.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just--I just wanted to express my concern that, once
again, on the eve of an oversight hearing, a number of Members
finally receive answers to letters sent to the Commission, and
it should not take scheduling a hearing to get a response from
the FCC.
Even when we have gotten responses, the answers have often
been incomplete or not followed the instructions that we gave
in the letters, and I hope that this isn't an attempt to delay
this committee's oversight.
So I just wanted to ask each Commissioner, yes or no, clear
commitment from each of you--going down the line--to avoid this
in the future.
So yes or no, will you commit to responding in a timely
manner and following the instructions to Members' oversight
letters, starting with the Chairman.
Yes or no?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Carr?
Mr. Carr. Yes, happy to respond.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. Rosenworcel?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. I always mispronounce your name.
And Mr. Starks?
Mr. Starks. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I hope so. Thank you. Next.
Chairman Pai, as you know, putting a stop to the
overwhelming number of robocalls Americans receive daily is a
top priority of mine and many members of the committee.
This subcommittee in fact held a legislative hearing on my
bill and a number of other legislative efforts to curb
robocalls last month and I appreciate that in your opening you
focused on this issue.
But as I noted in my opening statement, voluntary measures
spurred by the FCC don't have a good track record and I fear
aren't going to solve the robocall problem. So that is why in
my bill the Commission would be required to ensure all carriers
implement some sort of call authentication protocol.
And I know you have been an advocate of similar technology
but, again, it seems to be adopted on a voluntary basis.
So will you commit to issuing an order by year end that
requires, not, you know, hopes or volunteers but requires
carriers to implement call authentication technology?
Yes or no.
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, I can't--I share your commitment. I
have said that, if they don't implement it this year, we will
take regulatory intervention under the Administrative Procedure
Act.
I can't commit to finishing that proceeding, but we will
take regulatory action if----
Mr. Pallone. Right. But my concern is not only over the
time period but also over the fact that it's not enough to
demand it or pressure the carriers because I consider that
voluntary.
I want a requirement. So let's forget--let's put aside the
time. Will you require it?
Mr. Pai. If they do not implement call authentication under
the SHAKEN/STIR framework, yes, we will.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And then what did you say about year end?
Will you try to meet that?
Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
All right. Now, let me ask--let me just go to a last series
of questions--I know my time is running out--about the
resiliency of our wireless and broadband networks.
The FCC had a report recently following Hurricane Michael
that raised real questions about the effectiveness, again, of a
voluntary network resiliency framework.
I have repeatedly asked the Commission to update the
framework but I haven't gotten a response to that. This recent
report indicates a need, in my opinion, for binding
requirements on carriers--again, binding, not voluntary.
So let me ask Chairman Pai. The FCC is currently re-
examining the voluntary wireless resiliency cooperative
framework. Will you commit to creating enforceable requirements
to protect consumers in the face of future disasters, yes or
no? Not just voluntary.
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, on this one I can't answer yes or
no. The career staff and the Public Safety Bureau is actively
working on that. I would be happy to keep you apprised of our
efforts and if----
Mr. Pallone. But I am not--I am asking basically that you
make a commitment definitively to create an enforceable
requirement--some sort of enforceable requirement--because
otherwise I don't think anything happens.
You don't have to tell me how but I want an enforceable
requirement. Can you say yes to that?
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share your concern about
this problem with respect to that framework. It is currently--
carriers don't have to participate in it and so we want to make
sure that we ensure that they are adopting the best practices.
But we would be happy to look at the mandates that you are
suggesting.
Mr. Pallone. Well, can I ask that you try to make it
enforceable?
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to consider that, Mr. Chairman.
We share that consideration.
Mr. Pallone. I think that is not--that is not much of a
commitment, Mr. Chairman.
After Hurricane Michael, the FCC issued very stern messages
to the carriers asking them to waive charges and fees for
customers affected by outages.
Did you--let me ask the Chairman--did you make even these
types of bare minimum public statements to carriers serving
Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, yes or no?
Talking about you waiving the charges and fees. You did
that for Michael. Was it done for Maria?
Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, I personally went to Puerto Rico
twice in the wake of Hurricane Maria and Irma, and you can ask
the Governor of Puerto Rico. You can ask the congresswoman from
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Pallone. Yes, but what about waiving the charges and
fees for customers affected?
Mr. Pai. In addition to delivering $1 billion to the people
in Puerto Rico through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund, we took
many other steps to make sure consumers were----
Mr. Pallone. Well, you didn't--again, you're not saying
whether you actually did that with regard to waiving the
charges and fees. I don't want to get into it, Mr. Chairman.
But I am just very concerned about, you know, the FCC's
response to Hurricane Maria has not been adequate. But we will
have to deal with that another day.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to the entire
FCC. A special welcome to Chairman Starks. This is your first
hearing that I've been here. Congratulations. Glad to have you
here.
And a special recognition to Chairman Pai. You are a man of
your word. You may recall the last time you came before this
committee we found out that Mr. Carr climbed up a tall cell
tower. I challenge you as a chairman of the committee to act
and lead and, my friend, you did it.
Apparently, on August 27th of last year, you climbed up a
131-foot tower in Colorado. So thank you for keeping your word,
and it was pointed out earlier Mr. Carr climbed up a 1,000-foot
tower. So you have 900 feet to go to catch up with Mr. Carr.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pai. My wife still hasn't forgiven you or him for
goading me on.
Mr. Olson. My hometown of Sugar Land, Texas, had a mini
Harvey Hurricane last week. Had nine inches of rain in less
than 2 hours. Our streets were flooded all across the city and
across Fort Bend County. The Brazos River rose very high.
As you know, viable communications are critically important
during disasters like floods and hurricanes. You guys have done
a great job on all these alerts that go out--emergency alerts.
During Harvey just got spammed with alerts. Tornadoes that
are 30 miles away and opening--coming--sent to me, all we got
this time was what was relevant to Sugar Land, Texas. So that
is well done.
As you know, communication are important during a storm for
first responders and families trying to get information--should
they evacuate, is that road flooded, are the hospitals open.
They made great progress, but as you know, in 16 days the
Atlantic hurricane season starts. How is the Commission
preparing for the upcoming storm season?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
In a variety of ways, and I've had a chance to see some of
the great work in your district. I saw Sugar Land after
Hurricane Harvey, visited Harris County 9 091 091, visited the
local NBC station that stayed on during the storm to keep
people apprised.
So we've taken a number of steps. One is by putting out a
number of best practices, recommendations for everybody to use
in advance of a hurricane. We have also been working
cooperatively with the entire industry, not just communications
providers but power companies and others, do encourage them to
work together.
We have been working on updating our wireless emergency
alert system to be more targeted so that people in this
particular neighborhood get the information they need.
Mr. Olson. And I saw it firsthand last week. You guys did
that magnificently. Thank you so much.
Mr. Pai. The credit goes to our fantastic career staff at
the FCC and the Public Safety Bureau and the Wireless Bureau
for helping make that happen.
But we are looking forward to making sure that we equip
public safety officials, first responders, and communications
companies and others with all the tools they need. We don't
want to see an active hurricane season. But if history is any
guide, it, unfortunately, might be.
Mr. Olson. It is coming.
The next question is for you, Commissioner Pai. In your
testimony you mentioned that there has been a problem in Texas
with a overbuilding of what is called the E-rate program.
This is a program that is supposed to provide affordable
access to advanced telecom services for schools in mostly poor
parts of the State, mostly rural parts of the State.
You sent a letter to a group called Universal Service
Administrative Company--the USAC. These are the people who
approve E-rate funds for Texas schools--for approving funds for
schools that already have access to fiber networks. So, in
effect, they're double dipping, taking money from the program
that is supposed to create these networks but they already have
them.
Can you share with us your actions you have taken and the
response you have gotten through your questions about the E-
rate program in Texas?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
My understanding is that Commissioner O'Rielly sent the
letter. So I might defer to him in the first instance to----
Mr. Olson. I am sorry.
Mr. O'Rielly, I understand the question was for you. My
apologies.
Mr. O'Rielly. That is OK. Thank you, Congressman.
So you are right, I did write to USAC on this specific
issue to try to get to the--whether E-rate dollars are being--
overbuilding our high cost fund as I met with a number of Texas
representatives and it turns out the USAC came forward and said
yes, it is happening.
We can't tell you how much but we can tell you that it is
happening because they came forward with the lowest bid and it
was a competitive process. And my answer is, well, they haven't
taken everything into account and they have also manipulated
the process to make it the lowest bid.
So I am in the process of trying to figure out how to best
address that, and I have to have conversations with the
Chairman on whether we need to change the rules so USAC
reflects what's happening in the marketplace today.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. If I can help in any way, let me
know.
Last question, very quickly, for you, Commissioner Pai.
Other members of the committee right here don't think the FCC
is doing enough to stop robocalls. You guys have this upcoming
summit on robocalls.
What do you expect that summit to do to show you guys have
been, are, and working hard to stop robocalls?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
It is going to do two basic things. Number one, recognize
the progress that has been made by other carriers who have been
developing and implementing the SHAKEN/STIR framework, and
number two, calling out those who have not done the requisite
work, who are not on track to meet the Commission's expectation
that they implement call authentication this year. We want to
know who's making progress and who is not.
Mr. Olson. A final challenge to the whole Commission.
There's a 2,000-foot tower in Missouri City, Texas--Texas 22.
If you want to come climb it, I am all in.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
Now I would like to recognize the vice chair of the full
committee, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
our ranking member for convening this subcommittee hearing
today on the accountability and oversight of the Federal
Communications Commission.
It's nice to have full bench before us today. All five of
our FCC Commissioners are here, and I would like to give a
hearty welcome to our newest Commissioner, Geoffrey Starks.
Chairman Pai, I've written you a letter dated May 9th
regarding my concerns about a proposed rulemaking in the matter
of the implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
In particular, the proposed reinterpretation of franchise
fee to include cable-related in-kind contributions in the
definition.
You know, Congress set up the 1984 Cable Communications Act
to compensate communities for the use of their property and
public rights of way and to provide local PEG stations the
ability to meet the information needs of Americans.
I, along with a number of my colleagues, have urged you not
to harm local communities in this rulemaking and as vice chair
of the committee I joined them in expressing my concern that
these proposed rules will harm communities in my district and I
will be closely monitoring the process to ensure that PEGs are
held harmless.
Chairman Pai, last week Senator Van Hollen I wrote to you
about the FCC's Form 395-B, a wonky name for what is a critical
issue for people of color.
Your agency has a statutory mandate to collect information
about broadcasters' racial, ethnic, gender diversity in the
workplace. But it has been 15--let me say it again--15 years
since the FCC has required broadcasters to submit a Form 395-B
disclosing their workforce diversity.
How can we work to solve the disparities in the workforce
without a complete picture of the data? Now, I understand that
the FCC has been working to address some issues about the form.
But I would like to find out how to resolve those issues and
how we can move forward.
And I understand that a draft NPRM on these issues is
currently in circulation. Does it include an action to refresh
the record on the stalled 395-B issues?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your
leadership on these issues, a goal that I share of getting more
diversity of ownership into the broadcast sector.
As you pointed out, that proceeding has been pending for
some 15 years due in part to some constitutional and statutory
obstacles that our general counsel's office for many years has
flagged and that chairs of various parties over the past 15
years have recognized.
Nonetheless, as you pointed out, we have a pending notice
of proposed rulemaking to target overall issues with the Equal
Employment Opportunity in broadcast framework and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to finalize that notice
of proposed rulemaking and release it so that we can work
together.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Starks, can I get your take on this?
Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you so much for your leadership on
this issues, Congresswoman, and from behind the camera to in
front of the news we need to make sure that we have diversity
that looks like America--the cross section of America.
It is deeply important. That is why I asked the Chairman to
make sure that we did refresh the record on this 15-year-old
rulemaking.
And the thing that I would say is in making that offering I
am happy to hear from commenters that there are constitutional
issues. I would like those to be raised--would love to hear the
merits there.
What I am asking the Chairman to do and what I have asked
him and will repeatedly ask him to do is make sure that that
issue gets the attention it deserves and then we can have a
full record built, and then we can close this out. That's just
good government.
Ms. Clarke. Well, let's make this a priority. It's becoming
more and more increasingly clear to the American people that,
particularly in front of the cameras, that diversity is really
lacking.
Chairman Pai, the FCC sent out a consumer alert last week
about so-called one-ring scams. Beyond alerting the public to
the scam, which I am glad you did, is there another action the
FCC can take to ensure consumers don't fall victim to these
scams?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman--
Congresswoman, rather. That advisory has proven very useful.
We've gotten a lot of consumer feedback--positive feedback on
it.
Ms. Clarke. And what else can we do?
Mr. Pai. But we are not stopping there and that's why the
proposal I announced this morning to allow carriers to block
calls by default--robocalls--I think would be a significant
step.
Right now, because of legal uncertainty over whether it's
consistent with the FCC's rules and regulations, some carriers
have only allowed those call-blocking tools if the consumer
affirmatively opts in. Very few consumers do. And so as a
result, companies have not developed the technology fully,
certainly have not deployed it fully.
Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Rosenworcel, your take on that?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Look, I used to think it was Rachel from
card member services I hated most and then I thought it was
that IRS individual with the imminent threat of lawsuit.
But none of us should have to choose. It is crazy the
number of scams that are coming in over our phone. Whatever
we've done to date with robocalls it is not enough.
We need call authentication technology. Every carrier
should make free tools available to consumers and the FCC
should set up a robocall division because consumers are angry
and that's where we get the bulk of our consumer complaints.
Ms. Clarke. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I want to follow up on Mr. Olson's question with regard to
the hurricanes. As you know, just last week, the FCC released
its report, Mr. Chairman, on Hurricane Michael recovery and I
appreciate that you actually went down to see the devastation
over there.
So one of the key findings of this states that many of the
communications systems were repaired reasonably quickly and I
appreciate that, only to be, unfortunately, subsequently and
accidentally taken down by debris clean-up crews,
unfortunately.
Again, Chairman Pai, I also understand, again, you toured
the area and the damage, which is great. What issues did you
see on the ground and what are the best practices to help
ensure that the delays with recovery from Hurricane Michael do
not happen again?
Mr. Pai. I very much appreciate the question, Congressman.
There were a number of lessons that we learned. Number one,
there needs to be better prearranged roaming agreements among
the carriers to ensure that if one network goes down consumers
are able to get connectivity.
Another one was making sure that companies that are in the
communication space communicate with those in the power space
and vice versa.
One of the biggest issues I heard when I was in Mexico
Beach was the fact that some of the fiber crews out there that
were going around making sure the fiber lines were back up and
running they would do their work and then there might be a
fiber cut a hour or two after because the power crew would come
through with an augur perhaps and snipped that fiber.
So I want to make sure that those folks are on the same
page. Ultimately, we all have the same goal getting energy and
getting comms back up and running quickly. Making sure they're
on the same page is a critical part of that.
Mr. Bilirakis. So you think in this respect we are ready?
Because, I mean, hurricane season is upon us.
Mr. Pai. I think we are in a much better position than we
were. For example, recently I visited Georgia Power down in
Atlanta and one of the things they observed is that they do
have a much more integrated relationship with all the
communications providers in their service area.
And so I think we are much more aware of the situation and
I think both the carriers and the energy companies have taken
that to heart.
Mr. Bilirakis. That's good to know. Thank you.
Again, Chairman Pai, many of our veterans, retirees, and
other Americans with hearing loss--I am one of them--rely on
the IPCTS service that they--that you administer. Currently,
you're considering allowing fully automated speech recognition
to replace humans in ensuring accuracy of the service.
I am concerned that such action could result in inferior
service as the testing already done does not replicate real-
world conditions. Again, Mr. Chairman, would you commit to
additional study and testing before you certify any ASR on the
provider or service?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate your concern, Congressman, and that's
why in our proposal we make clear that before we grant any
certification to an IPCTS provider that provider has to ensure
that any ASR technology they use meets the mandatory minimum
standards for service, that those with disabilities who rely on
that service would require.
So yes, that is built in to make sure that the service is
top notch.
Mr. Bilirakis. That's so very important and, again, if it's
not right and it's just not going to work--it's not suitable--
and we'd have to have somebody with hearing loss actually test
it to make sure that it's actually performing well.
So I appreciate you doing that, and if you could follow up
with us to make sure that happens I would appreciate it.
Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Ranking Member Latta also for having this hearing today. A lot
of great issues that we are discussing here--very significant
issues.
I continue to have significant concerns about the accuracy
of broadband maps and I think many of my colleagues share that
concern as well.
Chairman Pai, I know we've talked about this in the past.
You have spent some time up in northwest Iowa. I remember
talking to you about dropped calls and all the rest from--
between Sioux City, my hometown, and I think it was
Worthington, Minnesota--up that way.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, you spent some time in my
district. I am glad you mentioned Baxter first. That's the
smaller of the two towns, Baxter and Newton. Thank you. We
talked about the homework gap, any number of things, when you
were there.
And everybody here knows the business case for deployment
is really hard to make in a lot of these areas and that's a big
part of why we have these problems in the first place.
It's one of the many reasons I am proud to, again, be an
original cosponsor of Chairman Pallone's LIFT America Act
because this works toward that goal, making sure that we get
broadband out, we get sufficient cell service for all these
folks as well.
And we have to make sure that we know where there's good
service and where there isn't in the first instance, why--
Congressman Costello is no longer with us--and I worked on our
bill to make sure that we have good maps.
And in the interest of getting more accurate maps, what do
you think of a challenge or validation process to help improve
the accuracy of broadband maps? I know there are several
private companies like Ookla and Microsoft that have compelling
about who isn't served out there and I think there are
nonprofits working on this as well.
But even further, I think there's an opportunity for
individual citizens to challenge these maps that misrepresent
the service they receive.
And I want to start first with you, Commissioner
Rosenworcel. I would like to start with you. What do you think
about third party challenger verification process when it comes
to mapping?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. I agree with
you. Our maps are a mess and we are not going to fix them
sitting here alone by ourselves in Washington.
We have to go out and get the lived experience of the
American people who know where they get service and where they
don't get service, and we have to find a way that that kind of
crowd sourcing and challenge can come into our process, because
the best map is not going to be built by the people at this
table. It's going to be built by the American public.
Mr. Loebsack. And Commissioner Starks, thank you for
joining the Commission. Did you want to respond to that as
well?
Mr. Starks. Yes, I agree, and making sure that we have
accurate data--validated data--is going to be critically
important. I know there are parties out there that are very
interested.
Obviously, it was a public interest group that, looking
through the FCC's data, is the one that bird dogged the fact
that there was a huge issue with barrier free in their
submission.
I think also all the tools are going to be helpful here. I
think the newly Open Government Data Act is also something that
requires the FCC to make sure that data is published in a
machine readable format is going to be an important way also to
make sure that folks are able to validate and test this data.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. I would like to move on now.
Chairman Pai and other Commissioners here, I have a
question about E-rate. In particular, there's been recent
reporting about an NPRM before the FCC.
Likely it will be published this week perhaps, which
proposes the Universal Service Fund cap, and this has me rather
concerned, as you might imagine, because we are talking about a
cap on the whole Universal Service Fund. Under that we have a
lot of different programs that compete for the moneys,
obviously, potentially.
In particular, one of my concerns is the contention that E-
rate and rural healthcare--RHC programs--be combined under a
single cap.
Commissioner Pai, do you think a cap will help consumers
meet their broadband needs and shrink the digital divide and
what would this proposal--would this proposal close the
broadband homework gap facing rural students or not?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, your question presupposes a
conclusion. We are now in the process of thinking about the
notice of proposed rulemaking that would tee up a lot of
different ideas.
Mr. Loebsack. All the more reason why I ask it now, so that
you get the input from us.
Mr. Pai. Yes, and we are not moving forward with a report
and order at this stage. What is on the table is a notice of
proposed rulemaking that tees up the question that if all of
the four subsidiary programs under USF themselves have a cap or
a budget should the overall program have a cap that it
institutes fiscal responsibility and the like.
And so that's one of the things we'd be happy to work with
you on, going forward.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Commissioner Rosenworcel?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with you, Congressman. I think
this is a problem. I don't think it's a good idea to have kids
in rural classrooms fighting with telemedicine providers to get
dollars for broadband. That's like the Universal Service Hunger
Games. I don't think we need it.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
I am running out of time. I did want to talk about ACAM, an
Alternative Connect America cost model, and in particular, talk
about the eligibility of home-based businesses between this
original order and the subsequent guidance.
We have a lot of companies in Iowa. We need, you know,
clarification about this. I've got a petition here from a
couple of companies in Iowa having to do with small businesses
who are at home, how we count them in all of this as well, how
we account for them, and I would like to submit that petition
for the record if I could, Mr. Chair, and I yield.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petition has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190515/109479/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190515-SD004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
I would like to thank all of you for being here and your
service, and I am sure it's always a blast. So thank you for
doing it.
I would also like to thank the FCC for its work to get
multiple high bands of spectrum to auction, which helps our
global rates to 5G.
I understand that NOAA recently expressed some anxiety
about the FCC's auction of the 24 gigahertz band--a band that's
critical to building out 5G services.
These concerns revolve around possible interference with
weather sensors that operate in a nearby spectrum band. But,
apparently NOAA only raised these issues right before the 24
gigahertz auction started.
So my top priority when I come to work every day is U.S.
national security and the safety of the constituents I
represent and I tend to view policy through that lens, first
and foremost.
So, Chairman Pai, with that in mind, will you take a moment
to make the FCC's case on this matter and can you assuage these
concerns?
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to, Congressman, and appreciate
your concern.
Back in 2017, the FCC teed up the 24 gigahertz band, in
particular, the appropriate protection limits in terms of the
power emissions and the like for devices that would be using
these bands for purposes of 5G.
And what we said to all Federal agencies was if you have
technical studies that can be validated that suggest that a
protection limit that is different from the one that the FCC
has applied for two decades is appropriate, let us know, and
we'd be happy to take that into account.
We never got a validated study over the subsequent 2 years.
Shortly before the 24 gigahertz auction commenced and after the
official position of the United States Government was formed
for the purposes of an international conference that would be
considering the appropriate protection limits for the 24
gigahertz band, among others, we heard this concern.
We still have not received a validated study. We have not
gotten access to the data underlying that study. But
nonetheless we have been working cooperatively with all Federal
partners to see if there's a way to accommodate or at least to
understand what their concerns are.
In the middle of the 24 gigahertz auction, however, that is
not the time to produce invalidated studies and do the other
sorts of public relations campaigns that I don't think advance
the ball in terms of leadership on 5G or reinforce the
importance of these passive weather sensors or other important
Federal functions that are in bands that are nearby.
Mr. Kinzinger. Do you think that the Commission needs to
tighten the limits for out of bound interference or is that
more what you're trying to figure out?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, to be frank, this is an engineering
problem. This is not a policy or political problem. That is
always the lens that I have used to scrutinize this.
And so one of the things we have established for our
satisfaction at least and for the purposes of the official U.S.
Government position is that a protection limit of -20 dB is the
appropriate one.
If we get technical studies suggesting that a different dB
level is appropriate for a protection limit, we'd be happy to
hear that.
But what we don't want to see is the--sort of the
hyperbolic commentary that is not based on technical studies
but is more of a political shot at the agency--at the entire
U.S. Government at this point, which is designed not to advance
the ball in terms of 5G or protecting those weather sensors,
but is simply trying to score points up here on the Hill.
Mr. Kinzinger. And, of course, I assume you will commit to
work with other agencies and Congress to assess any reported
cases----
Mr. Pai. We have consistently had an open door, and I can
tell you I've consistently instructed my staff from the
international bureau, wireless bureau, every bureau and office
at the agency if you get a request for information or a request
for coordination, have an open door. Talk to them. And our
teams have always been willing to do that.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
And last week you guys voted unanimously to prohibit China
Mobile from doing business in the U.S. on national security
grounds.
You're also in the midst of proceedings to consider a
prohibition on USF resources being used to purchase equipment
from companies that pose similar threats.
Just yesterday, the White House indicated the President is
preparing to sign the executive order to ban telecom equipment
from certain providers. We are talking Huawei, ZTE, and others.
I applaud the Commission's proposal to protect our telecom
networks and, by extension, the privacy and security of the
American people and the Government.
Some organizations have filed comments opposing these
proposed actions on supply chain security and network integrity
while others believe they don't go far enough.
I, personally, find myself in that latter camp. In the
digital age our communications networks simultaneously serve as
the hammer of Thor but also our Achilles' heel.
Networks allow our military services to coordinate
operations from opposite ends of the Earth. But if a foreign
adversary were able to disrupt or degrade our networks, we'd
face severe consequences and if they were able to actually
direct our networks that would be catastrophic.
That being said, if there's a way to secure ourselves while
bolstering commerce and protecting smaller companies who have
made substantial investment in rural networks. I think it's a
preferable option.
Would you just briefly explain in 20 seconds why the FCC is
only considering applying these to the USF fund and why the
rule would only be prospective?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, the short answer is that we have
jurisdiction over the Universal Service Funding that we
distribute and so we can condition that funding on making sure
that it is not used on equipment or services that have been
determined by the intelligence community, the national security
community and others to present a national security threat to
the United States.
We don't have, necessarily, jurisdiction over all of other
activities in the communications space. That said, if Congress
augments our authority, I can tell you that we would be happy
to administer that authority.
This is a major issue for American national security. When
it comes to this issue, we cannot take a risk and simply hope
for the best. When you're talking about a 5G network, for
example, that is managed using software from abroad, that--
those small cells are near a military installation, the last
thing we want is for somebody that presents a national security
threat to be able to gain access to that or otherwise exploit
it.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I thank you all for your leadership on
that issue, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
the Commissioners for being here today to speak with us.
I represent the Dallas/Fort Worth area and many of you
probably have read that we are one of the fastest growing areas
in the entire country. I think we've got over a million
people--new residents in the Dallas/Fort Worth area according
to early preliminary census numbers since 2010 and that's
really great.
But in spite of that, I have one of the lowest income
districts in the entire country, based on per capita household
income, and out of the constituents that I represent over 800
are veterans and over 5,000 senior citizens that are taking
advantage of the--of some of the programs that you guys offer.
And I wanted to ask you specifically--and as a matter of
fact, the district that I represent has--is the seventh-highest
congressional district in Texas with Lifeline subscribers.
And I wanted to specifically ask you is--because it's come
to my attention that the FCC has introduced an item on
circulation that would put in place overall caps on four
programs that serve many low-income and elderly Texans.
And, Commissioner O'Rielly, I specifically wanted to ask
you, you discussed the need for fiscal responsibility using the
taxpayers--using funds that taxpayers contribute to the
Universal Service Fund fees and the need to prevent fraud and
waste and abuse in the Universal Services Fund program.
Do you think the lack of transparency the FCC has exhibited
in providing the number of enrolled subscribers to these
programs is helpful in determining whether an overall cap
should be implemented with the purpose of deterring waste,
fraud, and abuse?
Mr. O'Rielly. So I appreciate your question. Congressman
Loebsack before you talked about what the overall cap would do.
This belief--and I've been called a corporate shill and now,
you know, Hunger Games in terms of this effort.
I brought a map with me. I am happy to submit it for the
record--or not map, a graph to highlight what the cap and where
the delta is between the two--the two lines in terms of where
the spending is today, where it's expected to go, and where the
proposed cap is. It's a $2 billion delta.
So the idea that there's going to be any cuts to the four
programs, which, by the way, all have caps today, the Lifeline
cap is a soft cap but it does require action by the Commission.
And I am--people said, ``Oh, this is a back door way to do
a Lifeline cap.'' I will do a front door approach on a Lifeline
cap because I think we need to have responsibility.
To your question do I think that there is adequate
information regarding the data in Lifeline, I think more can be
available. I think there are some questions regarding the
verifier program and its application.
I have been meeting with a number of providers who have
been worried about the re-enrollments rate and the adoption
rates in different States that we've adopted that, and I've
been preparing to talk to USAC about that because there's
discrepancy between where we think the numbers are going and
where the providers are going in terms of that behavior.
Mr. Veasey. What is the FCC doing to ensure that people who
are eligible for these programs understand what benefits are
available to them and what is being done to give providers
incentives to continue to participate in the programs?
Mr. O'Rielly. I think the Chairman is better in terms of
answering some of those parts of the equation.
Mr. Pai. I appreciate that, Commissioner, and I appreciate
your question, Congressman.
We are doing a number of things. Most notably, in the
context of the national verifier we are working very hard to
link up with other databases to enable them to be eligible.
For example, currently there are three States that I
believe by early June are going to be up and running. I think
Texas might be one of them but let me double check and get back
to you on that.
But the FCC's national verifier database would essentially
link up with the SNAP and there is another database that we
connect with.
Additionally, I personally requested to Seema Verma, who is
the head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to
work with us on the IT integration that is necessary to make
sure that our databases mesh.
And assuming we can solve those IT problems I would hope
that later this year we'll be able to make sure that that is
fully integrated, which would be another way of ensuring that
we ping those low-income consumers on a variety of different
axis. So whether it's healthcare, I would like to make sure
they get those benefits.
Mr. Veasey. Real quick, Commissioner Rosenworcel, would you
please follow up on that?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Congressman.
Your concerns are totally valid. We have before us a
proposal to cut Lifeline by 70 percent. That would cut off the
veterans in your district, the elderly people who rely on it
and some of the least connected people in this country.
I think it's cruel. I think we need to end this proceeding
right now.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scalise for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
time, and I want to thank the Commissioners for your service,
for coming here and, you know, just having this conversation
with us as the marketplace keeps expanding.
It's exciting as we talk about 5G, as we talk about also
confronting some of the challenges within the industry and the
growth in the industry. We want to make sure that the industry
can keep growing as it is and America leading the world in
technology and really you all are at the forefront of it.
The policy is real important to make sure that we are not
having policy that gets in the way. I want to talk about a
couple of things first on something that we had worked on
together for years and that is the consolidated reporting--to
actually have all of the different various reports that the FCC
had to do that were ridiculous, outdated.
You all had to do a report--required by law to do a report
on competition within the telegraph industry. I know a lot of
people out there in the telegraph industry probably eagerly
anticipated that report. But Samuel Morse would probably agree
that that time has come and passed.
And, finally, we were able to get rid of that report among
a number of others, and then with some of them you had to do
annual reports that really didn't make sense and they were all
done in siloes.
And now that we do have this first report that came out--
the consolidated report--it put a lot of work on you all's
plate to come up with the first report that came out in
December.
And I want to first ask how did that process work, is it
working the way we anticipated in terms of how the law gave you
that ability to stop having to do things that didn't make sense
and to come up with something that can actually help people,
guide people, about where the industry should go.
If you, Chairman Pai, would fill us in.
Mr. Pai. I appreciate your question, Congressman, and the
leadership this entire committee showed in passing that
legislation sorely needed. It was something that I believed in
strongly.
When I was a Commissioner I used to complain about the
sixteenth, seventeenth iteration of the ORBIT Act report, which
reported to Congress yes, the satellite was indeed privatized
in 2001, and nothing has changed since then.
I can now tell you that I know as the Chairman, having
stewarded the first such report under the Consolidated
Reporting Act, it is a tremendous benefit to be able to free up
those staff resources that otherwise would be spent compiling
these reports that nobody would read or that were otherwise
outdated.
On things that really deliver value for the public
interest, it's been a huge help. And so we'd be happy to work
with you if there are additional consolidations in the works,
so to speak, and I can tell you though that it's--from an
administrative perspective alone it has been worth its weight
in gold.
Mr. Scalise. Well, I appreciate that. It's good to hear. I
do want to know because we've talked a lot about this too and
that is that many of the laws that govern the video marketplace
today are governed by the 1992 Cable Act.
Now, back in 1992 I am sure it was a good bill. You had
cable companies. You had, literally, monopolies and monopolies.
Cable companies would negotiate with, at the time, the three
broadcast networks and that was most of what you had.
And then as you had some of the different cable companies
starting to develop and emerge, in time we came up with
satellite and broadband, fiber, and so many other things.
Now you have over the top. People are cutting their cord
because they can do so many things whether it's Sling or Roku
or you have got streaming services, and all of that is kind of
the wild, wild West because the 1992 law is outdated.
And so as we talk about how to get a more updated version
of this, and I know I've worked on some things. You have worked
on some things. Some other members of the committee have been
working on ways to update these laws.
If you can give us any of your input, both Chairmen Pai and
O'Rielly. I know we've talked about these, too--about things
that we need to do or should be thinking about to update what
maybe was modern at the time in 1992 but now is very outdated
and not up to date with all of the changes that have happened
in the video market place.
Mr. Pai. Congressman, that issue you have targeted, which
is the transformation of the marketplace, matched by stasis in
our rules, is one of the most fundamental challenges we have
with respect to our media regulations.
I would defer to you, of course. You have done a lot of
great bipartisan work on this issue in terms of the particular
legislative vehicle.
What I will say is something that I proposed 6 years ago as
a Commissioner. Congress cannot always act, certainly, not
quickly, with respect to some of these issues.
But what would be extremely helpful is if we had something
similar to what we have on the telecom side. Under Section 10
of the Telecom Act of 1996, for example, Congress extended to
the FCC forbearance authority if the Commission determines that
it's no longer in the interest of the competition or the public
interest to retain a particular regulation or statutory
mandate.
We have the power to refrain from enforcing it. To have
similar authority for non-telecom services would enable the FCC
to work with much greater dispatch, it would allow us to align
our rules with the realities of the current marketplace, and
would now allow you to see the benefits of the innovation and
investment that could take place if we didn't have rules on the
books that were holding it back.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks. I know I am running out of time but I
appreciate all of you being here, and as we continue to work to
make sure ultimately it's the consumers that we want to see get
the best benefit because competition benefits the consumer and
we want to make sure that the laws that we pass and that we
have on the books are up to date and recognize where we are
today so the consumers can continue to benefit from that
competition and lower prices and more options for them.
So with that, I appreciate the work you do and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me start by
thanking you and Chairman Pallone for holding this important
hearing.
Despite funding and bipartisan support, rural broadband
deployment in this country has lagged behind where it should be
for far too long.
In the past few years, we have spent billions of dollars on
efforts to expand broadband internet services in rural America,
and yet, while some progress has been made, we are still in
need of greater expansion.
We all know the detrimental effects lack of internet access
can have on communities including creating disincentives for
businesses to locate in such areas.
I know this firsthand. Before coming to Congress I was a
small business owner and when attempting to expand my business
we had to make decisions in terms of not just which populations
we wanted to serve but also which communities had sufficient
connectivity.
In one instance, we were forced to abandon a promising
location because of inadequate broadband access. This
experience reinforced why it is so important that we do better
and an important first step for us to expand broadband is to
understand where it exists or, in other words, ensure that we
have accurate data in mapping.
Chairman Pai, first of all, thank you for appearing before
the subcommittee today. Is it safe to assume that you believe
it is important to have accurate, more granular data in maps
regarding where broadband currently exists? Yes or no.
Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEachin. I also gather from your August 2017 press
release on the FCC's 2017 FMPRM regarding the improvements to
Form 477 you believe it does not currently reflect the best
possible way to collect this data, especially the form's
language that allows ISPs to claim coverage of an entire census
block if one household or establishment is connected within
said block. Is that correct? Yes or no.
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Mr. McEachin. Excuse me. Are there current steps in place
to verify ISPs' self-reported 477 data is accurate? Briefly,
what are those steps?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, we are currently in the process of
revamping that Form 477 process, working with stakeholders from
different sectors of the industry to figure out how to improve
it.
And the problem you identified about the census block being
deemed covered if a single household in the block is getting
service but nowhere else is, that's one of the things we are
trying to get at is how do we get more granular information.
So we are evaluating different proposals for how to move
forward on it. But we share that goal. We want to make sure
working with stakeholders including some of the rural broadband
advocates you described that we get a better sense of where
broadband is and, more importantly, where it is not.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
In March of this year, BarrierFree made claims on its 477
data asserting it went from serving zero census blocks as of
June 30th, 2017, to serving nearly 1.5 million blocks
containing nearly 20 percent of the U.S. population in just 6
months.
This level of deployment would have made BarrierFree the
fourth largest U.S. provider in population coverage. One of the
States allegedly--they allegedly had complete coverage was
Virginia.
In a press release earlier this month, you stated that--you
stated you have since corrected the data in that report, which
I do appreciate. But I am curious as to how BarrierFree's 477
Form was not realized through the verification process before
your office put out a press release.
Are there other providers whose data is also inaccurate
within the report? If not, how confident are you that that is
the case and what steps have you taken to verify said data?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
Immediately after learning about that issue I directed staff to
look into it and we made the appropriate corrections and we've
also asked them to scrub all of the data to make sure that
everything in the report is accurate.
And so we issued to the fellow Commissioners the revamped
report where those numbers would still show the digital divide
closing, albeit not as much as was originally projected.
Mr. McEachin. Mr. Starks, while I know that you have only
been there a hundred days, would you share your perspective
with us?
Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you so much for the question. This
gets to sound data practices--that there is not what I think I
heard the Chairman just say, is that after the fact now he's
asked for a scrub of the data.
The fact that there was not an outlier detection for a new
entrant--in my mind a new entrant probably should have been
scrubbed even more on the front end because they haven't
previously submitted 477 information.
The fact that a red flag didn't pop up when somebody goes
from zero to nearly 62 million households is something that I
think the data process needs to be corrected.
And, obviously, when we are talking about 477s we need to
make sure that we have a better understanding of not at the
census block level but at the address level I think is going to
be important.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the Commission for being with us this morning.
Chairman Pai, thank you especially for making yourself
available last week to sit down and chat. During our session we
talked about how we are just now learning about the educational
broadband services capability and the 2 gigahertz band and how
that might be a tactical solution to roll out some broadband
access to rural parts of the country, my district being one of
those, and you know they're very, very hard to serve.
I understand there are a number of rural operators that
would love to partner with educational groups to deploy
broadband quickly and in some cases have already done so in
some of the most remote areas of the country.
I even heard about a Native American Tribe in Arizona
getting a special license waiver and deploying a network in one
day for under $20,000.
Now, I think if we can use EBS technology to deploy
broadband to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, we can just as
easily get it out to rural parts of my district.
So how does a qualified entity from my district apply for
an EBS license?
Mr. Pai. So, Congressman, that proceeding is pending right
now. We have made a notice of proposed rulemaking a while ago
to figure out how best to use that 2.5 gigahertz resource for
the benefit of consumers in rural areas, and that is one of the
concerns that was expressed in the record was the fact that
historically it has not been used to the maximum extent it
could be.
And so that is one of the things we are exploring is how to
work with various stakeholders including----
Mr. Johnson. I am just curious. Do you have any idea when
that's going to be finalized?
Mr. Pai. I don't have any announcements to make today. But
what I can tell you is that we do recognize the interest in
this particular band and look forward to working with Congress
and other stakeholders to make sure it's wisely utilized.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, good. Well, I look forward to
hearing more about that because it is--from the little bit that
I know it seems like it might have big promise in rural parts
of the country.
You know, one of the--the solution we most frequently hear
about in terms of broadband expansion is some sort of
Government subsidization or assistance to bring broadband to
underserved areas.
That is great. But it feels like this is only part of a
solution that will have many different components. For
instance, the private sector already invests billions in
private capital each year in broadband.
Are there Federal regulations on the books that you believe
disincentivize private investment in broadband deployment of
wireless and wireline networks in rural areas?
Mr. Pai. I do believe there are a great many Federal rules
and regulations, Congressman, that stand in the way.
Mr. Johnson. Well, could you--could you supply us with a
comprehensive list so that we can go to work on those? Because
as I mentioned to you last week, we need to start showing some
real progress on rural broadband expansion.
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to--oh sorry.
Mr. Johnson. And also as I mentioned in our meeting last
week I have heard many concerns from my constituents and other
members and even some of the Commissioners about the FCC's
current approach to mapping.
Chairman Pai, what is being done to improve the mapping
process?
Mr. Pai. In addition to some of the work we have been
doing, as I mentioned in response to a previous question, we
have an ongoing proceeding on the From 477 process to make sure
that we get more granular detail on where broadband is.
It is not enough to say that a census block is covered if
only a household within that block is covered. So we are
working with various stakeholders to figure out how to make
that data more granular.
On the mobile side, when I first came to office we started
a new data collection for wireless broadband because we did not
think that the data that we were getting was sufficient.
And so in the context of the Mobility Fund Phase II, we
started to bespoke a data collection effort. Unfortunately, we
have not started an enforcement investigation to a provider or
providers who we believe may have submitted inaccurate data.
But what I can tell you is we are looking to make sure that
we have a more accurate sense of mobile broadband coverage as
well.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I can tell you, you know, I, for one,
and I am sure Members on both sides of the aisle would agree, I
stand ready to help and if there's anything that we can do, get
us that list of regulations that we need to tackle to begin
breaking down the barriers so that we can show some real
results in broadband expansion to rural America.
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honor of
representing central Florida, a very diverse area from tourism
and technology in the north and suburbs to rural areas in the
south, and I think about how whether it is cell phones, the
internet, you name it, in technology how it is so integral to
our lives
One of the areas that we have is the busiest space port in
the Nation and in the world at Cape Canaveral and we are
concerned about finishing up rulemaking for the area of the
spectrum that is utilized for American rockets.
More specifically, the FCC regulates spectrum used almost
every day by American rockets launched to space including our
missions to the Space Station.
But we haven't finished with the rulemaking that started in
2013, and even as the number of launches have dramatically
increased.
Chairman Pai, you were supportive of that rulemaking when
it first came out. Will you commit that the FCC will finish
that rulemaking so that as we get into a busier rocket season
over the next couple of years that we'll be ready to go?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, I appreciate the question. I have
been to a launch in the last year. So I have seen how
impressive it is and how important it is.
We certainly want America to lead the way in space. Now,
the frequencies that are used to support commercial space
launches are allocated exclusively to the Federal Government.
And so, traditionally, we've had to go through the special
temporary authority route to do that. Now, the proceeding that
you're talking about deals with frequency allocations as
opposed to the licensing processes for launches.
So one of the things we will have to explore is how to
proceed to accommodate the concern which I share--American
leadership in space--but also on the basis of a record that has
been fully fleshed out.
So I would be happy to work with you on that and keep you
updated.
Mr. Soto. Well, please submit any proposed legislation and
ideas that we could help to make sure that we can get this done
because we are launching rockets with greater frequency and
we'll have human space flight again probably this year at the
Cape. So we want to be ready for that. Thank you.
My next question is regarding Hurricane Maria. I am of
Puerto Rican descent and we have many of us. The largest
diaspora in the Nation is in Florida.
You know, we saw the largest death toll in the modern
history with nearly 3,000 people dying and some of that was
because the electricity couldn't get back up. But some of it
was by virtue of communication.
I know, Commissioner Rosenworcel, you had talked a little
bit about it with Chairman Pallone's question. But what could
we--what have we learned and can do better with regard to
responding to hurricanes, particularly those in islands?
We have States that are islands. We have parts of States
that are island. We have territories that are islands. What
could we do better?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. I spent time
in Puerto Rico after the hurricane. I also spent time there as
a child, as I had family that lived there, and it was
devastating beyond description what I saw.
And it is now a year--more than a year later and they're
still rebuilding. There are two things right now that the FCC
should do.
First, we have got to stop the threat to their Lifeline
program. Half a million individuals in Puerto Rico rely on that
program to stay connected. They are trying to put their lives
back together. We have got to stop threatening to take their
service away.
Second, the Chairman started a proceeding to identify over
the long term how Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands can
rebuild their networks as a result of Hurricane Maria. We need
to bring that to a conclusion.
And then finally, in the aftermath of all of these storms I
think we have to stop acting like voluntary procedures next
time are going to work better.
We need to put some requirements in our rules and learn
from these disasters to make sure these problems do not happen
again.
Mr. Soto. Thank you for that. One of the issues we are
looking at is whether to activate FM chips in cell phones
during disasters. It is something I encourage you all to look
at and if we do need some legal authority to empower you for
that it's something I am interested in working with you on.
Overall survey question for all of you, very quickly. We
had the FTC in last week. So who--which institution is best
positioned to enforce potentially new net neutrality rules, the
FCC or FTC?
It would be great to go down the line, starting with you,
Chairman. Which institution is better positioned to enforce
those rules?
Mr. Pai. Depending on which rules you were talking about, I
would say the Federal Trade Commission.
Mr. Soto. Mr. O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. I don't support the rules. But I would say--
--
Mr. Soto. That is not the question.
Mr. O'Rielly. Sure.
Mr. Soto. Which institution is better?
Mr. O'Rielly. I think the FTC has the appropriate authority
in this space.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Carr?
Mr. Carr. Thank you. We are now in--we are now in a
situation where we don't have to make that choice. Right now,
the FCC can work----
Mr. Soto. OK. But which--that is not the question. Is FCC
or FTC better situated to enforce those rules?
Mr. Carr. Right now we have the best of all worlds. We have
the FCC that can work with the Federal Trade Commission to----
Mr. Soto. OK. Nonresponsive.
Ms. Rosenworcel?
Ms. Rosenworcel. The answer is the FCC. The Congress made
us----
Mr. Soto. Mr. Starks? My time is limited. Sorry, everyone.
Mr. Starks. There is no doubt it's the FTC.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for being here, and Mr. Pai--Chairman, we appreciate your
work and willingness to take the hits at times.
Chairman Pai, like you, one of my top priorities is
expanding broadband access to rural America and I know
Commissioner Carr understands that, having been in my district,
heard my repeated whining about broadband needs, and
Commissioner O'Rielly as well. Thank you for listening to my
whining also.
But it's an important thing and yesterday I led a letter
with my colleagues from the delegation to you outlining the
need to reform the Commission's broadband availability maps.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this letter into
the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
As you know, the Commission's proceeding to modernize its
data collection has been open for almost a year. I also want to
thank our Republican Leader Walden for his focus on this issue,
going back a number of years.
My question is when examining potential fixes to this
process, have you coordinated with other Federal agencies that
track broadband availability or other Federal support for the
deployment of broadband facilities to ensure your data
collection is standardized to the greatest extent possible?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. The answer
is yes. For example, we have worked with the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, as well as non-
industry stakeholders to figure out the appropriate way
forward.
Mr. Walberg. This certainly seems like a building block to
better interagency coordination and----
Mr. Pai. I would agree.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. Lacking wasting of resources.
Chairman Pai, yesterday the Commission announced it
authorized the release of another $111 million in CAF II
funding to expand broadband to unserved areas, while none of it
went to Michigan, including where I live and where I am
unserved myself.
I am hopeful subsequent authorizations recognize the
unserved communities in my district and throughout the State.
The Commission recently announced that it is contemplating a
$20 billion rural digital opportunities fund to offer high cost
universal service support.
How do you plan to coordinate with Federal agencies like
the Rural Utility Service at the Department of Agriculture to
ensure those funds aren't used to support projects that are
competing against other federally subsidized projects?
Mr. Pai. A great question, Congressman.
First, though, I want to make sure that I make clear that
the initial disbursement of funds that you referenced yesterday
there are other winners for the Connect America Fund who are in
Michigan. It wasn't just in this tranche, however. So we will
keep you posted.
We certainly want your constituents and you to get the
benefits of broadband.
Mr. Walberg. Well, we look forward to that.
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
With respect to your question, there are a few different
things that we would like to see in the rural digital
opportunities and I would like to see, depending, of course, on
the Commission's assent.
One is to use that basic mechanism of the reverse auction
to encourage all kinds of companies to compete. For example,
electric utilities, cable companies, and others might have a
deeper footprint in your district than a traditional recipient
of those funds. We want to encourage all of them to compete.
Additionally, we have service thresholds that we believe
will encourage the highest quality service. It's not enough to
say, as the previous Connect America Fund did, well, 10.1
megahertz per second service that is good enough. 25.3, we
think, should be the standard and our hope is we will be able
to encourage that.
Additionally, accountability--we want to make sure those
funds are used for the purpose that they were intended for. And
so there will be accountability mechanisms to make sure that if
somebody says we are going to serve that district in Michigan
they do in fact serve it within the time frame and at the
service threshold they promise us they will.
Mr. Walberg. Good. We don't just want talking points and--
--
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. We feel we deserve that service
as well. So thank you.
Commissioner O'Rielly, is there anything you would like to
add?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I would just add that as nice as--and I
agree with my colleague's point--other agencies will have the
coordination, will have the conversation. But absent
congressional statutory language, they have a tendency to go
their own route, as we have seen in conversations with outside
parties, what's happening at the Department of Agriculture, and
we've seen that in the past as it relates to the Department of
Commerce.
So absent Congress saying that this is what we expect, it
is not just coordination but actually duplication that no
overbuilding happen. Then the areas that we are going to spend
time on are not going to be the unserved areas such as in your
particular case.
Mr. Walberg. One final point, and I know I am running out
of time. Workforce--what is the Commission doing to ramp up the
workforce?
Mr. Pai. Great question, and Commissioner Carr has done a
lot of work on the infrastructure side. I will say, just very
briefly since time is short, we set up a working group as part
of our broadband deployment advisory committee to look at the
jobs training and other necessary steps to build that workforce
of the future.
These are high-quality good-paying jobs. But they won't be
filled if we don't make an effort to encourage that pipeline of
workers. So be happy to work with you on that and this is
something that I think would have application around the
country. This infrastructure is needed everywhere.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Commissioners, for appearing before us today to discuss your
role in overseeing today's rapidly evolving telecommunications
landscape.
Since joining the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have
made addressing rural broadband my number-one priority.
According to Congressional Research Services, only 39 percent
of Arizonans in rural areas have access to broadband at 25.3
speeds.
Even the FCC's latest Tribal broadband reports states that
36 percent of Tribal households lack any access to broadband at
25.3 speeds.
I believe, based on what I have heard so far, that that
number is probably much lower. This is simply unacceptable in
America today. Access to reliable broadband means access to
cutting-edge capabilities of modern technology, including
telemedicine, online education, and global connectivity.
Closing the digital divide is not only important for rural
America but also for Indian country. For instance, I represent
the Havasupai Tribe at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, making
them the most remote Tribe in the lower 48 States.
This Tribe was previously unserved by any commercial
solution, yet was recently able to leverage an educational
broadband service spectrum license to provide a broadband
network to their community in just one day.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for submission of a Seattle Times
article for the record.
I urge the FCC----
Mr. Doyle. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I urge the FCC to pursue license spectrum strategies to
target the truly underserved areas.
Chairman Pai, per Section 508 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, what
steps will your Commission take to issue a robust proceeding to
address Tribal connectivity following the FCC's recent report
on broadband deployment in Indian Country?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and I have
personally been to a Navajo Nation on and around and so I've
seen the connectivity challenges on Tribal lands in your
district.
We have taken a number of steps--for example, Tribal OpEx
support, increasing the amount of support that Tribal carriers
get for operational expenses, not just the CapEx to build a
network.
Additionally, we have been exploring a Tribal broadband
factor to give Tribal carriers an extra bump if they are
serving Tribal lands.
In addition to that, one of the things we proposed in the
context of the educational broadband spectrum--EBS--was to
create a window for Tribal entities or entities serving Tribal
lands to participate to get access to that spectrum.
And additionally, I want to make sure I point out that the
announcement I made earlier about the Connect America Fund
auction recipients, folks in your district got funding from
that just this week. And so we are going to see--or they will
get the funding by the end of the month. The announcement was
made they will be getting funding this week.
So we hope that as the dollars start to flow that broadband
connectivity will start to increase as well.
Mr. O'Halleran. I hope so too, and I will be asking you for
a list of time lines and how this is going to be accomplished
in a way that indicates--identifies clearly the critical needs
in these areas.
The GAO has clearly stated that using Form 477 may vastly
overstate true broadband availability since it is based on a
broad census block model.
Commissioner Rose--I have problems just like Chairman----
Ms. Rosenworcel. It is all right.
Mr. O'Halleran. Rosencel--I am not even close.
[Laughter.]
Mr. O'Halleran. Would you say the findings in the latest
Tribal broadband report could depict inaccurate coverage levels
throughout Indian Country?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. Listen----
Mr. O'Halleran. We just met the other day.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Rosenworcel. I know. I know.
Native Americans shouldn't be the last Americans to see the
digital age and all the information around us suggests that is
true. The GAO has criticized the very data that the FCC just
used in its late report that we just filed pursuant to the RAY
BAUM'S Act.
We have 18 more months to complete a proceeding to fix this
situation and I encourage this committee to keep pressure on us
because we have so much work to do.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, I guarantee we will, Commissioner.
Chairman Pai, could you elaborate on where the Commission
stands in its open proceeding to update broadband availability
mapping using Form 477 and will the FCC remain committed to
finding a granular approach that balances timeliness, cost, and
personal privacy.
I, personally, as a business person can't understand how
you make decisions at all with this current mapping process. So
please.
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question. The answer to your
second question is yes, we do understand the balance that you
just described and are seeking to find that balance in our
proceeding.
With respect to the first question, we are working with
stakeholders and I am going to be briefed by our staff soon on
where things stand and how to move forward. A number of
different stakeholder groups have advanced different proposals
in terms of shape files or other mapping initiatives.
We want to evaluate all those in addition to thinking about
crowd sourcing and other third party data that we could use to
make sure that we get a better understanding of where broadband
is, including in the first district.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gianforte for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Chairman Pai and Commissioners, thank you for being
here today.
Montanans have told me that one of the worst things they
face day to day are illegal robocalls. They are getting called
with bogus insurance offers, threats of legal action and
promises of government grants.
Robocall scams put Montanans at risk of being robbed or
having their identity stolen. I have told the story before
about a young Montanan who received a robocall from her younger
brother's number except her younger brother had died of a
heroin overdose a couple of months before.
These kinds of robocalls are malicious and deceptive.
Chairman Pai, could you just outline what you are doing to
prevent robocalls?
Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
I am sorry to hear that distressing situation that that
woman had to face. We have been taking aggressive action.
We have empowered, for example, companies to block calls
from obviously spoofed numbers. We have set up a reassigned
numbers database so that legitimate callers don't have to worry
about bombarding consumers who didn't want those calls.
We have also taken aggressive enforcement action against
some of the robocallers including the largest fines ever
imposed in the FCC's history.
I have personally demanded that the phone industry adopt
call authentication by the end of the this year. Also, the FCC
will take regulatory intervention.
And just today, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I
am proposing--and I hope my colleagues will agree--to allow
robocall blocking by default so that consumers don't have to
affirmatively opt in to those services.
Phone carriers will block them by default so, in many
cases, a consumer wouldn't even know that a robocall had been
placed because it would be blocked at the outset.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you for those actions. If there's
things that--actions we need to take if you could inform us. I
think we have bipartisan support for action in this area.
Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
Mr. Gianforte. Many Members have raised their concerns with
the accuracy of our broadband maps. The lack of clarity in
Montana leads to maps showing coverage areas where there is no
coverage.
This restricts USF dollars from getting to communities that
need it the most. Chairman Pai, you answered Mr. Johnson
earlier so I appreciate your response to this question.
I had a question for Commissioner O'Rielly, if I could. Do
you think a challenge or a validation process could help us
improve the accuracy of the broadband maps?
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely, and we do have a challenge
process and that's somewhat how we found some of the problems
with our current maps. So I pushed for that in the past and the
Chairman has been accommodating, and so I think both are
important components to that.
Mr. Gianforte. It is critically important we get accurate
maps so we know where the USF dollars have to flow.
Chairman Pai, 5G is going to come to rural America if and
only if lower bands of frequencies are put to good use, and my
understanding is that the mid-band spectrum is particularly
important.
These bands of frequencies provide the right mix of
capacity and coverage that will enable network operators to
deploy in rural America. I am interested in learning more about
your efforts around the reallocation of C-band.
As you consider the best way to provide mid-band spectrum
in a timely manner, how will you ensure that this frequency is
built out in rural America?
Mr. Pai. A great question, Congressman, and the 3.7 to 4.2
band in particular sits at one of the sweet spots in terms of
spectrum. It is low enough to get good coverage and high enough
to offer good capacity.
One of the things that we have been working through as some
of the complicated issues--legal, technical, economic, and
others--in terms of how much spectrum to reallocate from that
band, whether it's 200 or more megahertz, and also what the
mechanism is for getting that spectrum freed up.
One of the things that we've been working through along
with Members of Congress is the right way forward. Our goal
here is pretty simple--to allocate as much of the spectrum as
possible as quickly as possible and as fairly as possible for
the benefit of the consumers.
You know better than most Montana is a pretty rural State.
I have seen it in the Absaroka Wilderness, in the Beartooths
and elsewhere. There are some pretty remote parts of that
State.
But we want to make sure that wireless coverage extends to
as many areas as possible. The C-band could be a good use of
that.
Mr. Gianforte. And are there build out requirements or
guarantees that the FCC could put in place if the bandwidth
transfers in a private sale? Do you have oversight there?
Mr. Pai. We do. We would have oversight if we went to the
private sale mechanism. I would have to look at it carefully at
what the legal ramifications are in terms of imposing build out
requirements. I can't recall off the top of my head if
there's----
Mr. Gianforte. Keep us informed. One last question, if I
could, Chairman Pai.
Mr. Pai. Sure.
Mr. Gianforte. The U.S. Small Business Administration
submitted a letter to the FCC recently indicating concerns with
your UNE forbearance and its impact on small business.
What is the Commission doing to address those concerns?
Mr. Pai. I have personally met several times with then-
Administrator McMahon including about these issues. We received
the letter. We incorporated it into our proceeding and that is
one of the things we are working through as we go forward is
how to accommodate the concern that she expressed in that
letter.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Montana is a small business State so I
appreciate your attention there.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the Commission for appearing here today.
Last month, Congressman Guthrie and I, along with Senators
Wicker and Schatz, introduced the Spectrum Now Act. Current law
limits how much of the existing spectrum relocation fund
resources can be used by the agencies to perform the research
and related activities necessary to potentially reallocate or
share their spectrum.
Specifically, the framework in the Spectrum Now Act could
provide a pathway for NTIA and DOD to make an additional 100
megahertz of spectrum available in a 3.4 gigahertz band.
Commissioner O'Rielly and Rosenworcel, what potential does
a 3.4 gigahertz band have in our effort to allocate additional
mid-band spectrum for wireless use?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I will go first.
To your point, if you can combine the 100 megahertz at 3.45
to 3.55, if we are able to convert it to commercial uses, you
can combine it with the CBRS band at 3.55 up and then 3.7 to
3.4. You are talking about building 100 megahertz blocks, which
most industry participants will say is the minimum necessary to
be able to offer real 5G in mid-band.
So having big blocks and as much as you can possibly make
available. Here's the sweet spot. We believe--I believe in
multiple conversations that DOD was ready to convert and then
changed its mind.
Ms. Matsui. I see.
Mr. O'Rielly. I think we could be aggressive----
Ms. Matsui. Do you agree?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with my colleague. We need more
mid-band spectrum. We need it fast. If want 5G service to get
everywhere this is the band that we have been looking at and we
understand DOD is also looking at. We've got to keep putting on
some pressure to make it happen.
Ms. Matsui. OK. As you are all likely aware, the effort to
ensure our radio spectrum resources are used efficiently and
effectively has been a long and ongoing focus of the 5.9
gigahertz band.
While this band is particularly well situated for next
generation services, it has not seen widespread deployment. To
that end, I am interested in a path forward that adequately
balances the interests of all stakeholders and provides that
regulatory certainty necessary to facilitate the deployment of
services in this band.
One such proposal internationally suggests a sharing
solution allocating a portion of the 5.9 band for intelligent
transportation solutions including potentially cellular-based
standards and a portion necessary for Next Generation Wi-Fi.
Chairman Pai, Commissioner O'Rielly, and Commissioner
Rosenworcel, mindful of the competing interests and the need
for more licensed and unlicensed spectrum to facilitate the 5G
transition, how can the Commission best move forward with a
rulemaking to address these demands?
Mr. Pai. Grateful for your longstanding leadership on this
particular band, Congresswoman.
I said yesterday publicly my belief that we need to have a
full-fledged conversation about the future of the 5.9 gigahertz
band. Key up all of the options including the status quo DSRC
but also looking at some of the Next Generation technology of
CV to X and particularly unlicensed to figure out what the
right way forward is.
But it is time to have that conversation because over the
past two decades, as you know better than anybody we have not
seen optimal use of this public resource.
Ms. Matsui. Exactly.
Commissioner O'Rielly? Yes.
Mr. O'Rielly. I would say that a portion of this, in my
opinion, a portion of the 5.9 band will need to be and should
be made available for unlicensed services. It can be shared
amongst participants and still accommodate the different CAR
safety functionality.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with my colleagues. We need more
Wi-Fi. The sooner the better, and the place to look is the 5.9
gigahertz band and 6 gigahertz band.
Ms. Matsui. That is--I am going to follow up with the 6
gigahertz.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Oh, I knew it.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Last year, my Spectrum Caucus cochair,
Congressman Guthrie, and I sent a letter to the Commission in
support of additional spectrum allocations.
Inadequate supply of spectrum in the low, middle, and high
bands will be necessary, as you know, to deployment of Next
Generation spectrum-based services.
These networks will also require sufficient spectrum
allocated to both licensed and unlicensed use. Congressman
Guthrie and I also penned a joint op-ed with both Commissioners
O'Rielly and Rosenworcel on the importance of moving forward
with NPRM focus on additional uses on the 6 gigahertz.
Now, Commissioner O'Rielly and Commissioner Rosenworcel,
can you discuss the need to expand wireless services in the 6
gigahertz band while, of course, ensuring the various important
incumbent users are protected?
Do you want to start or you want to----
Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. We have got 9 billion devices
connected to Wi-Fi and the airwaves we use for it today are
crowded. We need more unlicensed spectrum and the place to look
is the 5.9 gigahertz band and 6 gigahertz band.
And plus, this committee told us in the appropriations
legislation last year we have to find 100 megahertz of spectrum
below 8 gigahertz by 2022. This is the place to go and make it
happen.
Ms. Matsui. Do you agree, Commissioner O'Rielly?
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely I agree with my colleague on this.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Great. Well, I will yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have observed that the Commissioners have
all gone to charm school. No matter how stupid our question,
it's always a great question and you really appreciate it. So
we----
[Laugher.]
Mr. Welch [continuing]. We appreciate that. So I am going
to ask some very intelligent questions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Welch. And you don't have to thank me for doing it. I
will waive the compliment, OK.
Chairman Pai, I want to talk to you a little bit. You know,
this is a real situation about rural broadband and I know you
and the President had a roll out, and that--about the $20.4
billion rural digital opportunity fund and it proposes to spend
$20 billion to connect 4 million homes and small businesses
over the next 10 years.
That opportunity fund appears to me to essentially be a
rebranding of the current Universal Service Fund's Connect
America fund, which has awarded $9 billion for rural deployment
in the past 5 years. That is what it looks like to me.
So, first, you and the President are saying this program
has the goal of getting broadband to 4 million homes by 2030.
But we know that 25 million Americans currently lack access to
broadband.
So it's not that big a deal, number one, and what are we
going to do about those other 21 million Americans?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, thank you for that greatest ever
question at a congressional hearing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pai. And I say that objectively. So this is more than
just a rebranding. I can tell you that what we are looking at
is a fundamental rethink of the Connect America fund.
Mr. Welch. If it's not rebranding--I am sorry to
interrupt--but is there new money?
Mr. Pai. No, it's a rethink about how that money is
allocated and distributed.
Mr. Welch. So the answer is no?
Mr. Pai. No. It's a fundamental rethink of the program.
Mr. Welch. Right. But there is no new money.
Mr. Pai. We don't have the authority to--we can't spend
money that----
Mr. Welch. But my point is this was--this was presented to
the public as a big deal, all right. Rethinking, I am always
for that and if we can do better with what we have I am all for
that.
But it's not new money. We had a program that was intended
to get these--this out to help Connect America, right?
Mr. Pai. No, Congressman. If we restructure it as I
envision it, it will be a fundamentally different program.
Using the reverse auction, having the speed tiers that get 25.3
service if not gigabit service in rural America, making sure
there is accountability----
Mr. Welch. All right. So that--I am for figuring out the
best way to do it. But you, I think, have answered my question
that it is not new money. It is a newly designed program using
old money.
Mr. Pai. It would be a rethinking of the--yes, the Connect
American fund term, which would end in 2020 with a 1-year
extension under current law.
Mr. Welch. And if it's successful we will still have 21
million Americans without broadband?
Mr. Pai. Well, the figure would go--I can't recall the
exact figure. But, again, we are trying to allocate that
funding to close the digital divide as much as we can.
Mr. Welch. Well, it is not enough. OK. It really isn't,
and, you know, the mapping issue too that we have been talking
about those are just--are you prepared to say that those are
bogus?
Mr. Pai. We recognize the shortcomings in the maps. That is
why we are----
Mr. Welch. No. I mean, they are not shortcomings. They are
fiction. They really are. I mean, we had a person from the
Vermont Public Utility Commission drive around and do the
mapping in real time to get real signals and compare it to the
supposed service that the carriers were bragging about. No
connection. It was like fiction, and that has got to be, like,
completely unacceptable to every single one of us here. We just
want to get the information that Mr. Latta and I are concerned
about for rural America.
So I am hopeful that you don't give credence to what we now
know are bogus maps.
Mr. Pai. I hear your concern, Congressman, 100 percent.
Mr. Welch. Well, I hope you do more than that.
Ms. Rosenworcel, by the way, I was in the Delta--my wife
and I went to the Mississippi side of the Delta, the cotton,
and it is an amazing place with really good people in a very
poor location, and I really appreciated your advocacy for them
getting broadband.
What are the three things we should be doing right now to
accelerate the build out of broadband? And thank you for your
homework gap work.
Ms. Rosenworcel. OK. First, we have got to get our maps
accurate. We are never going to be able to manage a problem
that we do not measure.
Second, we have to recognize this is not just a challenge
of deployment. It also involves adoption. We have got to figure
out how kids who don't have internet service to do their
homework can get the service they need.
We are going to need programs to help make sure that there
are wireless hot spots available for loan in every school
library. We have got to solve this homework gap. It affects
urban America and rural America alike.
And third and finally, we have got to auction mid-band
spectrum faster. Those are the airwaves that will reach rural
America. Right now, all of our 5G efforts are concentrated on
high-band spectrum. We will never see 5G in rural America if we
stick to that program.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
I yield back, but I want to thank all the Commissioners. I
wish I had more time and welcome to our new Commissioner, Mr.
Starks. Thank you.
Mr. Starks. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Chairman Pai, I know you will agree that having
laws and rules in place is really important but so is enforcing
those laws and rules. And so I just wanted to ask you a couple
of questions about the FCC enforcement.
We have been talking a lot today about all kinds of issues.
But one of them that is--weighs most strongly on us is the
robocalls. As you hear and as we found bipartisan unity in our
recent hearing, the FCC has fined robocallers $208 million but
collected only $6,790 as of March 28th of this year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pai. That is my understanding, Congresswoman.
Ms. DeGette. And it has been over a year--I think some of
my other colleagues pointed out it has been over a year since
the reports first surfaced detailing the widespread disclosure
of America's real-time location data by wireless carriers.
But the FCC hasn't yet voted on any item to stop the
sharing of location data by wireless carriers. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Pai. That law enforcement proceeding is still pending,
yes.
Ms. DeGette. Yes. But the FCC has not taken any--has not
voted on any item to do that, right?
Mr. Pai. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And 18 months after a $13 million proposed
fine against Sinclair for not disclosing when it had been paid
to air content, the FCC still hasn't voted on a forfeiture
order. Is that correct?
Mr. Pai. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, Commissioner Starks, welcome, and you
have been a prosecutor at both DOJ and an assistant chief in
the FCC's enforcement bureau. Are you concerned about this
pattern and how it's impacting the FCC's enforcement authority?
Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you so much for the question,
Congresswoman.
Ms. DeGette. And why is that?
Mr. Starks. Well, the enforcement bureau is the largest
bureau at the FCC and so I think it is incumbent upon them to
deploy their resources and prioritize cases that are of mass
public safety.
The geolocation tracking, privacy tracking, is a mass
public safety issue. That case has to be prioritized. It has to
be brought to resolution more quickly.
When you are talking about other issues of robocalling and
Sinclair, those go to the core mission of the FCC and the
enforcement bureau has to make sure that we are bringing those
cases significantly.
Ms. DeGette. And what can--what can--I know you're brand
new but sometimes it does take a new set of eyes, especially
someone with an enforcement background. What can the Commission
do specifically to improve its track record on enforcement?
Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you for the follow-up question.
I think the first thing is a speed of disposal on cases is
going to be important. I know it's part of some of the process
reforms that the enforcement bureau has otherwise taken.
It is really important to make sure that we are getting
through the pipeline of cases for the enforcement bureau so
that evidence in cases don't get stale.
The other thing that I would really raise is it's
critically important for there to be a consistent application
of policies that you don't have an asymmetry of enforcement
where large actors and small actors get different treatment,
big corporations and individuals get different treatment.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Commissioner Pai, what is your view on those suggestions?
Mr. Pai. Appreciate the question, Congresswoman. I mean,
certainly, we do prioritize those cases. I have instructed our
enforcement bureau to make that particular location accuracy--
location data investigation a priority.
Ms. DeGette. Well, do you think these are good suggestions
that Commissioner Starks is making and would you consider
those?
Mr. Pai. Oh, absolutely. Would be happy to, and I have met
personally with Commissioner Starks on these issues and I
think--yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Good. Good. Thank you.
I would hope to see more robust enforcement because that
really is what is important.
In 2017, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance released
research into low-income and minority neighborhoods in
Cleveland and talked about it had been digitally red-lined,
bypassed by the fiber deployments of the incumbent telecom
provider that reached the wealthy suburbs and business
districts of Cleveland.
The same was found in Detroit, and anecdotally, I hear
similar claims about my--the core of my congressional
district--Denver, Colorado.
So I wanted to ask you, Commissioner Rosenworcel, what
tools and authority does the FCC need to prevent digital red-
lining?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you. We have got a problem. It is
not just in rural areas that don't have service. We have
pockets in urban that don't, too. I think right now the FCC
should include in its regular broadband report a collection of
data regarding those areas because we are never going to be
able to fix this problem if we first don't understand where it
exists. I think it is something that the FCC has to actively
search to try to understand.
Ms. DeGette. Does the FCC have the power to do that?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I believe in our Section 706 process,
which involves a regular broadband deployment this should be a
feature of it.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lujan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the Commissioners for making themselves
available today and for their work. Welcome to the Commission
as well, Mr. Starks. It is good to see you here with us today.
There has been a lot of conversation today about mapping. I
think my colleague here with me on the dais referred to it as
fiction.
I think I want to join him in that chorus and from this
perspective, and I would be interested in hearing perspectives
as well from the Commissioners on this.
What can be done to make sure that we have updated accurate
maps? We are talking right now about an infrastructure package
which will include, I hope, broadband investments in
underserved communities. We all know where phone calls drop,
especially those of us that spend time on the roads in larger
districts across America.
I often shared with Chairman Wheeler and, Chairman Pai, I
think I have shared this with you as well--it makes no sense to
me that I can get on an airplane in a big city in America, get
to 30,000 feet, connect to the internet and have faster speeds
than the communities that I am flying over just below us.
How can we fix this? This is a life safety issue. I shared
this story with President Trump and with his team at the
infrastructure meeting of Ashlynne Mike, an 11-year-old Navajo
girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in 2016.
The Amber Alert systems weren't working. No broadband
connectivity. Many missing and murdered indigenous women, some
who we know had smart phones. Even if they had a chance to make
a phone call or send a text message or when they went missing
law enforcement could not find them because there is no
connectivity.
We need these maps to be accurate for many reasons.
Chairman Pai, what are your thoughts on making sure that we are
able to get something in place and a full support by the FCC to
get this done so that way the infrastructure package that we
have also reflects the needs? That way the American people
don't just get to see a bar on their phone and say, oh, well, I
am supposed to have coverage but I can't make a call--I can't
make an emergency call--I can't use it.
Chairman Pai?
Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think, first and foremost, on the fix side we need to
resolve the 477 proceeding to get a better understanding--more
granular understanding--where broadband coverage is and we are
in the process of working with stakeholders to do that.
On the mobile side, we need to make sure that we get
accurate data on mobile coverage for GLTE in particular to
understand where the gaps are.
But I couldn't agree with you more in terms of an
infrastructure plan. In my first major speech as a Chairman, I
said Congress has many important things on its plate. Nothing
is more important to millions of Americans, especially in rural
and Tribal lands, then getting that Next Generation broadband
infrastructure.
I have seen the promise of it in places like the Jemez and
Zia Pueblos. We need to make sure that everybody in rural
America----
Mr. Lujan. Chairman Pai, are you willing to hold those
phone companies accountable that give me a map that says I have
connectivity when I know that I don't and can we set up a
system within the FCC so that we can report that to you?
We can have--I can geolocate where I am and where I don't
have a call. I can't get connectivity but I can stand there and
take a picture or do something. Can we work on something like
that together?
Mr. Pai. I would be happy to work with you on that,
Congressman.
Mr. Lujan. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I note, you know,
Senator Manchin has an idea, you know, with maybe using postal
carriers who know every rural road in America.
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. We need every creative idea we can
right now. The FCC should be using its field offices to go test
where service is and is not. We have a mobile app for speed
test that has been downloaded 200,000 times all across this
country.
We could use data from that to help inform our maps. I
mean, people want to help. We got to figure out how to take
their lived experience and incorporate it into our maps and our
rules.
Mr. Lujan. And, Mr. Chairman, this may be an area for us to
work on in a bipartisan basis, get this thing updated, clear
out those frustrations. That way we can get some answers and
make sure this works.
So I would be happy to work with the Commissioners,
Chairman Pai, Commissioner Rosenworcel, and we will reach out
to the other Commissioners, see how we can work together on
this issue as well.
Homework gap--Commissioner Rosenworcel, I appreciate the
work you have been doing as well. Where I come from, like many
rural districts, 47,000 square miles, 8 1A\1/2\ hours to drive
across it.
Students get on buses for over an hour sometimes in one
direction. You were out in New Mexico. We had a chance to go
visit some students with one of the test projects with getting
internet on those buses. Can you talk about the importance of
accurate on mapping but making sure that we have a canopy
across America where people can stay connected and what that
means to students?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. Seven in 10 teachers assign homework
that requires internet access. But one in three households
doesn't have it, and where those numbers overlap is a homework
gap and it is the cruelest part of our digital divide.
It hits rural America really hard. What are we going to do
for those students? Putting Wi-Fi on buses could be a game
changer. Those students spend over an hour to get to school
most days and an hour to return.
You and I went on a bus together. It was quiet. Every one
of them was downloading homework and doing their school work.
It will change their education and change their lives. We
should figure out how we can use the E-rate program to make
that available everywhere.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Chairman. As I yield back, just also
making sure that we work with Tribal schools to ensure that
they are not left out with the complexities associated with the
E-rate program. It should work for every school, every student,
every teacher in America.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Commissioners, again for your work.
Mr. Doyle. Gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Eshoo for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing
today. Welcome to the entire Commission and the warmest of
welcomes, Commissioner Sparks. I wish you every success. Use
your power. Know thy power. Use thy power.
I think that there is an advantage to being just about the
last one, because I have listened to just about everyone on
both sides, and there is a reoccurring theme on both sides in
terms of the questions, even though my colleague, Mr. Welch,
seems to think that stupid questions were asked. But I think
they were great questions.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a good
feeling today. I just--I wish I was going to leave the hearing
room with a much better feeling. The same issue of maps keeps
coming up.
Ten years ago, Google advanced Google Maps. It doesn't go
blank when you look it up. It doesn't say, we can't find it--we
don't know where it is. We are working on it. We've got some
task force on it.
You really have to put the pedal to the metal. If this is a
top priority, you can get it done. You can contract with
someone that knows how to do this, produce it so that we have
it so we know what the hell we are doing, in plain English.
This has gone on for too long. On robocalls, you know what?
With all due respect, a summit doesn't cut it. You come to a
town hall with me or any of my colleagues and you say to the
people in that town hall meeting, we are having a summit, they
will lunge at you because it's not an answer.
You should put together a division at this powerful agency
and say put the pedal to the metal so that we resolve this. It
keeps climbing. Forty-eight billion calls. I mean, it is hard
to get our minds around that. And these are scams. People are
being ripped off.
They are not only being harassed, but there is criminal
behavior in this. You should form a division and say to the
American people within X number of months this is what we are
going to accomplish and grade us on it--I am willing to be
graded.
On Lifeline, I don't know how anyone with a conscience--
Ronald Reagan established that program. There is a nexus
between people that are very poor that were it not for the food
stamps they get they wouldn't be eating, and the FCC is not
going to allow them that Lifeline to their wireless handset? To
get a job, to call for healthcare, to make a call to 9 091 091?
This has to be part of your conscience in terms of what you are
doing and I am saying that collectively.
In January, Motherboard reported that carriers were selling
customers' geolocation data to bounty hunters. Just that term
scares me--a bounty hunter, bail bondsmen and stalkers. As a
female, that is pretty menacing to me.
This is--it is egregious. Carriers promised to stop the
practice but they made the same promises a year ago. You have
the power to do something about this.
Now, there are two Commissioners who you haven't even
shared the information about the investigation with. Now, this
is taking so long that you are running the clock on this darn
thing.
I mean, pretty soon you are going to be up against the wall
where the statute of limitations expires on it. Are you going
to try to do something about that? You said today, I can't talk
about it--I can't talk about it.
You know what? Don't talk about it. Do an investigation,
and do something about it. That is the point here.
So do you promise today--can you tell us today that you are
going to share information with two full-fledged members of the
Commission? This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. It is a
serious issue where people have--are frightened by what has
happened and I don't what you are doing with it. You can't tell
us. You are saying you can't tell us. But will you tell them?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes or no. Yes or no.
Mr. Pai. This is not a yes or no question, Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. They are Commissioners--
full Commissioners. They are not half. They are not quarter.
They are not one-third. Just because they are Democrats, you
shouldn't withhold the information from them. So will you or
will you not?
Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, not only have I not withheld
information, I affirmatively asked Commissioner Starks to lead
this investigation months ago because I recognized the
importance of this issue and respected his enforcement
background.
Ms. Eshoo. They have requested information about the--you
know what? You are a great talker. You are a great talker.
But I am just going to consider that you have said--that
you have said no and I don't think that that is appropriate. So
I am sorry that I don't find the scorecard to be a great one
today.
There are other things that are going on. I appreciate
Commissioner O'Rielly's work on--that we do something about the
diversion of fees and the States that are on the dishonorable
list and I will continue with the legislation on that.
But I really think you have to up your game so that next
time you come here you have a checklist of what you have
accomplished, not what you keep talking about.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Starks. Mr. Chairman?
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Starks. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Griffith. I thank--I thank the chairman very much.
Mr. Starks, you want to make a comment?
Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. I yield my time.
Mr. Starks. I appreciate it. The Chairman did reference
that he asked me to--he did in fact ask me to take on the
geolocation investigation. It was right after I was sworn in,
and so I did appreciate his gesture on reaching out to me on
that.
I asked for a briefing from the enforcement bureau. The
case had already been open for about 8 months. What I heard at
that briefing did not give me confidence that that case was
moving along quickly enough, and so I did inform the Chairman
that I was not going to take on that matter.
And so the matter still stands that on the geolocation
tracking it is of critical safety that that case be brought to
resolution immediately. People are out there and you can track
their phone immediately, and I cannot emphasize enough how
important that is.
Mr. Griffith. And if I might ask, Mr. Starks, and I am just
trying to get information, but that enforcement proceeding--the
FCC may collect data, but doesn't the FCC have to rely on the
Department of Justice to go after the bad actors?
Mr. Starks. No, we have--sir, we have Section 222 authority
to go after----
Mr. Griffith. So you can go after the bad actors?
Mr. Starks [continuing]. To go after geolocation--yes, I
believe you can go after----
Mr. Griffith. On geolocation?
Mr. Starks [continuing]. The carriers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Griffith. OK. Chairman Pai, is there any information
that Mr. Starks would like to have that he is not able to get?
If he wanted it he could have it? Is that what I heard you
saying?
Mr. Pai. I am not aware. I would be happy to talk with him
about that. But what I will say in response to your question, I
think you were going after the robocall enforcement and that
there is a gap under current law.
To the extent that the FCC imposes a fine through a
forfeiture order and the robocaller refuses to pay----
Mr. Griffith. On the robocalls.
Mr. Pai. --only the Department of Justice has independent
litigating authority to actually collect that fine and we have
sent these matters--referred them to the Department of Justice
for collection. But we don't have the ability to litigate
affirmatively to collect those fines.
Mr. Griffith. OK. All right. And the reason I wanted to
clear this up is that, like my colleague on the other side of
the aisle, I don't see anybody being left in the dark who is
authorized to have the information who should have that
information.
And so on the geolocation issue--and I am not a regular
member of this committee so forgive me for stumbling through
some of the terms. I waived on because this is important to my
district. All of these issues are.
Everybody can get the information who seeks it out and what
can we do to--because people are concerned about that--what can
we do if the information wasn't there that he wanted or he
didn't feel like he was going in the right direction? What can
we do to speed that along?
Mr. Pai. Again, I can't comment on----
Mr. Griffith. I understand. Was there some----
Mr. Pai [continuing]. Enforcement as such. But I can say
our enforcement bureau staff regularly briefs Commissioners on
a variety of issues, including this one.
Mr. Griffith. Just let them know that both sides of the
aisle are concerned about that issue and if there's something
we need to be doing on the congressional side to make this
available or make resources available so that you can move
faster, we would I am sure be happy to do that.
All right. Along those same kinds of lines, let me say that
the mapping issues are huge in my area. I like the suggestion
earlier of having the postal service contracted because they
have got people going every nook and cranny of the country.
But, I mean, I represent the southwestern portion of the
great Commonwealth of Virginia and I have Virginia Tech in my
district, and I have people all around Virginia Tech within a
few miles of Virginia Tech who don't have service.
One lady that comes to mind is a friend of mine. Has a
house in between Virginia Tech and Interstate 81. Doesn't have
service. And I doubt that is on anybody's maps that they--that
there are these big holes.
But because it's a--although they are not as big as my
friend from Montana's mountains, we have lots of mountains and
they block signals and all sorts of things.
So my folks don't care whether it's mid-band or white
space. They just want to make sure we are getting service
because we do have that homework gap that one of the other
Commissioners referenced, and it's all over the place in my
district, and we are doing everything we can.
The Universal Service Fee helps in some areas. But we would
like to see that expanded.
Now, that being said, I have always been interested in the
experiments that were being done on the white spaces, and while
not as technologically advanced and able to talk about it as
some of my colleagues, can you explain to the folks back home
what that is and where we stand on that experiment and how soon
can we expect that to get out?
Because if I understand it even halfway correctly, every
part of my district has got some white space.
Mr. Pai. A great question, Congressman, and thank you for
it.
I have seen the promise of it in places like South Boston,
where I saw one of the white spaces experiments and----
Mr. Griffith. Which is about an hour east of me.
Mr. Pai. It's a little more urban than you----
Mr. Griffith. You'd be surprised how big Virginia is.
Mr. Pai. Exactly. So in a nutshell, white spaces involves
the prospect of using what used to be spectrum used by TV
broadcasters to deliver wireless broadband, and there have been
a lot of tricky technical policy issues that we have been
working through.
Recently, the FCC adopted an order resolving some of the
outstanding petitions for reconsideration on how the database
would work, et cetera. We are now looking to a petition that is
going to be submitted, we understand, from Microsoft--if it
hasn't been submitted already--to figure out a way to resolve
some of the remaining issues, get through those technical
hurdles.
And I want to commend both Microsoft and the National
Association of Broadcasters for working together on some of
those to reach a consensus. And to the extent there is a
consensus that allows us to move forward, we would like to be
able to do so.
I can't give you a specific time line because these are
complicated technical issues. But what I will say is we
understand the promise of this technology and we were looking
forward to working with you and others in your district to
bring it to reality.
Mr. Griffith. I can tell you that folks are frustrated. It
does make a difference on our educational opportunities and in
my district in particular, which is depopulating, we need to be
able to keep some of our young people at home and some of our
young minds at home.
And if they can't start a business in their home town
because they don't have adequate service, then they're moving
out of the district completely. And when we are trying to
revitalize the coal fields section of my district economically,
this is an absolute imperative.
So I appreciate it, and just do whatever you can to speed
it up. And if we need to do something, please let us know
because both sides of the aisle are willing to help on this.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now yields 5 minutes to Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. I agree that Congress needs to speed it up.
Maybe we ought to increase our band--the broadband here.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding this important
hearing, and there are so many issues to cover. Hopefully, we
can cover a few in my--in the limited time that they give us.
I first want to visit the media ownership rules. I have
been vocal about ownership rules since I was first elected to
Congress because I care about diverse voices in the media.
I care about local stories and news being accessible to all
Americans. The way consumers watch video may be changing but
for most folks over the air is still how they receive local
news, local weather, emergency alerts, and local entertainment.
Like, for example, in Los Angeles our L.A. Dodgers is
limited to only a certain number of households.
Chairman Pai, for over a year you have had an open
proceeding on raising the media ownership cap, which is
currently at 39 percent. That means one company can reach up to
39 percent of households.
The cap of 39 percent, Chairman Pai, is set by statute. Is
that correct?
Mr. Pai. I do not necessarily agree with that position,
Congressman.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you for your answer.
I believe it is set by statute, which means that only
Congress has the authority to change how many households a
single broadcaster can reach.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you agree?
Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with you, Congressman. The best
reading of the 2004 Appropriations Act is that it is up to
Congress to make that change and I would add that the Wall
Street Journal's editorial board seems to agree.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
Commissioner Pai, you propose further changes to the media
ownership rules in the Quadrennial Review NPRM. This is after
you have already slashed media ownership rules to all the
biggest media conglomerates to just get bigger.
So yes or no. Have you done an analysis of what effect
those rule changes along with the media ownership changes you
already made will have on diversity of content that is
broadcast in America?
Mr. Pai. Congressman, that analysis is ongoing as part of
our Quadrennial Media Ownership Review.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Well, hopefully, we will see that soon.
Yes or no, have you done an analysis on whether those
changes have had or will have any effect on whether communities
are receiving localized content?
Mr. Pai. Sorry, Congressman. Which changes are you
referring to?
Mr. Cardenas. I am referring to changes where a larger
conglomerate actually has control of local stations and whether
or not that local news type or information type is actually
being broadcast from locally or is it being pushed down from
the bigger corporation, in some cases thousands of miles away?
Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, with respect to the current
media ownership proceeding, we have not proposed any course of
action. We teed up all the different options pursuant to
Congress' instruction for the FCC to review those rules.
With respect to the incubator program, however, what I will
say is we have encouraged some of the more established
broadcasters to give opportunities to minority women and other
disadvantaged populations to get a foothold in the business and
that symbiosis might be one way of correcting the concern that
you have identified.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, I look forward to getting the hard data
on how this is affecting minority businesses, smaller business,
et cetera, in the ecosystem of media.
I would like to turn to ATSC 3.0, or Next Generation TV,
which is a standard upgrade that promises over-the-air viewers
higher quality video, audio, as well as more localized news,
weather updates, and, more importantly, emergency alerts.
I understand that the FCC imposed only one technical
requirement in this new standard, which is that Next Gen TV
must use the bootstrap signal.
The bootstrap signal's patent is owned by, quote, ``ONE
Media''--O-N-E Media--which is a subsidiary of Sinclair, a
company which the FCC has said lacked candor, essentially, that
has misled the FCC in its filings. That is Sinclair I am
talking about.
When the FCC has approved technologies like this in the
past, they customarily require the use of reasonable and
nondiscriminatory licensing for patent holders, taking out any
incentive to abuse the licensing process--abuse that could lead
to increased costs for consumers.
Chairman Pai, the reasonable and nondiscriminatory
licensing requirements were not applied in this case. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pai. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Cardenas. OK.
Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think the FCC should have
applied RAND licensing requirements here and how do you think
this might affect consumers?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. When the Government chooses a new
standard, it gives special rights to patent holders, and as a
condition of those special rights it is typically required
reasonable and nondiscriminatory pricing.
As you said, that is just what the FCC did with the ATSC
1.0 standard. We should be doing it with the 3.0 standard too,
otherwise consumers are going to pay more.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. And those consumers are American
consumers we are talking about, right?
Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely. It is every American household
with a television set or any device connected to it.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now requests unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record: a letter from the National
Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, a letter from
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a letter from the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, a statement from
Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association and the Utilities Technology Council.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. I want to thank all the witnesses for your
participation in today's hearing. I want to remind Members
that, pursuant to committee rules, they have 10 business days
to submit additional questions for the record to be answered by
the witnesses who have appeared.
I ask that each witness respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All five witnesses' answers to submitted questions have been
retained in committee files and also are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank all the witnesses for your participation in
today's hearing. Thank you again for your presence today, and
at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Chairman Doyle, thank you for holding this critical hearing
to ensure the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
meeting its responsibilities consistent with the public
interest and the laws Congress has written.
Unfortunately, the FCC under the leadership of Chairman
Ajit Pai continues to serve the interest of companies at the
cost of consumers and local communities, ignore facts and data,
limit public transparency, and resist Congressional oversight.
Under this FCC, the number of robocalls has skyrocketed with no
end in sight, wireless carriers have been caught selling
customers' geolocation data on two occasions, and the National
Verifier program is denying low-income Americans access to
Lifeline. This is an outrage.
Last fall, the FCC preempted municipalities from having a
say in deployment of small cell sites, the infrastructure
needed for 5G. America needs to win the race to 5G, but this
must be done equitably. Local officials need to have a say in
infrastructure. This is why I introduced H.R. 530, the
Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local
Communities Act of 2019, overturns FCC regulations limiting the
ability of local governments to regulate the deployment of 5G
infrastructure. Over 145 municipalities and 135 public power
utilities endorsed this bill. This legislation wouldn't be
needed if the FCC hadn't steamrolled local government.
I worry that even though the FCC has taken steps to ensure
spectrum is available for 5G, this is being done in such an
inequitable way that the FCC's moves will actually put us
further behind in the race to 5G. For example, nearly 100
municipalities, public power utilities, and associations are
suing the FCC over its small cell site regulations. Further,
Mozilla and Santa Clara County are suing the FCC over its
repeal of net neutrality protections.
I've introduced H.R. 2355, the Regulatory Oversight Barring
Obnoxious (ROBO) Calls and Texts Act, which creates a Robocall
Division at the FCC to combat the scourge of robocalls.
Robocalls are the number one source of consumer complaint at
the FCC, and the agency should organize its work to respond to
consumer complaints. Chairman Pai has the authority to do this
on his own but has failed to act.
I've written to the FCC with Rep. Yvette Clarke about major
issues with the rollout of the National Verifier. As the FCC
pushes National Verifier ahead in more States, it is denying
Americans access to the Lifeline Program when they should be
considered eligible.
I've introduced legislation and written letters to rectify
some of the issues at the FCC. What is lacking at the FCC is
strong leadership committed to solve these problems. The
American people don't care if a Federal agency announces a
summit or hosts meetings. They want and deserve a Government
that puts an end to the scourge of robocalls, ensures that
wireless carriers aren't selling their geolocation data, and
gives low-income Americans access to Government programs
they're eligible for.
I'm hopeful that this hearing will provide us with answers
about all of the ways this captured agency is putting corporate
interests ahead of the public interest.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]