June 2015

I am honored than an association of women entrepreneurs invited me to take part in this year's banquet, because before I became a utility regulator, I ran a small weekly newspaper in Charleston (SC). Like many of you, I know what it is to be underestimated, under-appreciated and misunderstood. When I was appointed Acting Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, many concluded that I would be a mere bench warmer, accepting the title and the perks, but hanging out until the permanent appointee assumed the post. But like many of you, being underestimated, under-appreciated and misunderstood just causes me to shift into this highly motivated, hyper-driven state -- where I do as much as i can for as long as I am able. We ended up being widely praised during those months when we managed the agency, because what was key among my initiatives, were our efforts to ensure that the government, our agency, will go the extra mile to make a difference, in the lives of men, women and children who are currently on the wrong side of the digital divide. My goal is to bride what is a widening affordability gap, because I know that leveraging the power of 21st century information, communications and technology will spur innovation and opportunities in all communities.

But if there is one thought that was emphasized repeatedly today...is that women entrepreneurs are making a difference in a world that still does not fully understand the value of our products or our presence. But what is most important, is that we do...Your future customers, your future business partners, the inventors of the next great business idea -- include women on both sides of the digital divide. I urge you, as you think about the policy issues that impact your business, to pay attention to what happens at agencies like the FCC. We are involved in issues that have a real impact.

In the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014, Congress issued a clear mandate to provide administrative relief for small cable operators. Today, while I approve steps to reduce burdens on smaller providers, I cannot support the broader relief proposed because it is not in line with Congress’s intent, it may harm consumers with increased prices and it unnecessarily burdens local franchising authorities. Currently, cable providers must overcome a presumption that local franchise areas lack effective competition. However, rather than tailoring the relief to reduce the burden on smaller providers as Congress directed us to do, the Report and Order completely flips the presumption for all cable providers and the justification for this shift is STELA. Based on the plain reading of the statute, however, such broad relief goes beyond what is necessary to effectuate Congress’ intent. Moreover, the record raises significant questions as to the possibility of unintended consequences based on the solution proposed here (i.e. that a universal presumption of effective competition could lead to an increase in cable rates). I cannot support relief to larger providers particularly when doing so could harm consumers and unnecessarily increases the burdens on our local franchising authorities.

A bedrock principle of good government is that regulations should reflect the marketplace to which they apply. Accordingly, throughout my tenure at the Commission, I’ve emphasized the importance of updating our rules to reflect the modern video marketplace. This Report and Order does precisely that. More than twenty years ago, the FCC adopted a presumption that cable operators were not subject to effective competition. This meant that local franchising authorities could regulate the rates charged by an incumbent cable operator for basic-tier service unless the operator overcame the presumption by demonstrating that it was in fact subject to effective competition. This approach made sense in 1993. Over the past two decades, however, the industry has changed dramatically. New entrants have made major competitive splashes into the MVPD market. Given this profound transformation, we can’t keep living in the past. I therefore support our decision to adopt a presumption that there is effective competition among competing providers. This presumption far more accurately reflects the current state of the video marketplace than did its predecessor. I hope in the months to come we will continue to modernize our media rules. Whether we are regulating MVPDs, broadcasters, or other media entities like newspapers, our rules should reflect the competitive and technological conditions of today, not those of twenty or forty years ago.

The Women's Media Center (WMC) released its yearly report on the status of women in US media 2015. The report is based on new and original research that finds the media landscape is still dominated by male voices and male perspectives. “Inequality defines our media," said Julie Burton, President of the Women’s Media Center. “Our research shows that women, who are more than half of the population, write only a third of the stories. Media tells us our roles in society – it tells us who we are and what we can be. This new report tells us who matters and what is important to media – and it is not women.” WMC’s “Divided 2015: The Media Gender Gap” found that:

• Overall, men generated 62.1 percent of news; women generated 37.3 percent.
• In evening broadcast news, men were on camera 68 percent of the time. These include appearances by anchors as well as correspondents. Women were on-camera 32 percent of the time.
• In print, men wrote 62 percent of all stories in 10 of the most widely circulated newspapers. Women wrote just 37 percent.
• On the Internet, men wrote 58 percent of content at four online news sites. Women wrote 42 percent of the content.
• On the wires, men wrote 62 percent of the content. Women wrote 38 percent.