FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

For all our progress on accessibility issues, there’s more to be done. We’ll have an opportunity to build on this progress at our August meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will consider a draft report and order to convert the pilot National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP) into a permanent program. Known as “iCanConnect,” this program provides equipment needed to make telecommunications, advanced communications and the Internet accessible to Americans who have significant vision and hearing loss. The new NDBEDP would be able to spend up to $10 million annually to distribute equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. The program would also provide training and other technical support, including individual assessments of each consumer’s specific accessibility needs, to help low-income people who are deaf-blind better utilize the communications equipment they need to fully participate in society.

I also circulated a proposed report and order that would further strengthen our hearing aid compatibility rules and increase the number of wireless handset models that must be hearing aid compatible. The item builds off new rules and a further proposal that the FCC adopted unanimously last November. The new order would enshrine a consensus plan developed collaboratively by the wireless industry and groups representing people with hearing loss that puts us on the path to achieve hearing aid compatibility for 100 percent of new handsets within eight years. This evolution will greatly expand options for people with hearing loss, simplify the task of finding handsets that work with hearing aids and ensure that people with hearing loss have full access to innovative handsets. At the same time, the implementation time line would ensure that manufacturers and service providers will include HAC features from the earliest stages of the design process.

In addition to these accessibility items, the FCC’s August meeting will also feature an item that will both ensure that the rates for inmate calling services (ICS) are just, reasonable, and fair for local and long-distance calls, and that the nation’s jails and prisons are compensated for reasonable costs associated with the provision of inmate calling services. The proposed item takes a careful look at the costs that facilities incur as a result of ICS and covers these ICS-related costs through modest increases in the inmate calling rate caps previously set by the FCC. As always, special thanks are due to Commissioner Clyburn for her leadership on this issue.

Today I announce that we will not proceed at this time to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations for retransmission consent. Now let me be clear; this does not mean the Federal Communications Commission will turn a blind eye to disputes. Nor does it mean that Congress couldn’t expand the scope of the Commission’s authority in this space. What this decision does mean is that “totality of circumstances” is pretty broad and ought not to be constrained. There is nothing in the record that suggests that our current totality of the circumstances test, which is intentionally broad, is inadequate to address the negotiating practices of broadcast stations or multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) in the marketplace today.

What we need is not more rules, but for both sides in retransmission consent negotiations to take seriously their responsibility to consumers, who expect to watch their preferred broadcast programming without interruption and to receive the subscription TV service for which they pay. The Commission can investigate a potential good faith violation on its own and take enforcement action when a party fails to fulfill its statutory obligations.

On May 25, seven Reps wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and the four other Commissioners to strongly urge the FCC to consider a "consistent Federal Trade Commission-type approach to protect consumer privacy that balances consumers' privacy expectations and avoids negative impacts on consumers."

On June 30, Chairman Wheeler responded by discussing the recent broadband privacy notice of proposed rulemaking. He wrote, "The Commission's NPRM proposes a path forward for broadband Internet access service towards final rules that will provide clear guidance to both internet service providers and their customers. The FTC's core privacy principles - transparency, choice, and security - are at the heart of the NPRM. And, with valuable input from concerned stakeholders like yourself, we will be able to provide consumers with protections that will consistently safeguard consumer data and bolster consumer confidence in their use of modem telecommunications networks."

Chris Henderson is an outstanding choice to lead USAC. His selection reflects the extensive and thorough search process conducted by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) Board.

Chris’s background and qualifications will be invaluable as we work together to implement the FCC’s modernization and reform of the Universal Service Fund programs.

Four national wireless providers is good for American consumers. Sprint now has an opportunity to focus their efforts on robust competition.

The Pueblo of Acoma is located in Cibola County (NM), where nearly half of residents (45%) don’t even have access to 3 Mbps broadband, which is less than what’s recommended to stream HD video without problems. Barely 10 % have access to 10 Mbps broadband. We must do better.

In communities like Acoma with low broadband access rates, the local library is often a digital lifeline for area residents. The Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program has supported basic Internet access for the Acoma Learning Center. But it could be doing more.

That’s why E-Rate modernization is so important. The Commission will consider a proposal to update and improve the program, making E-Rate dollars go farther, and streamlining the program to make it faster, simpler, and more efficient.

The proposal would also close the gap for Wi-Fi support that currently exists in the program -- a change that would enable an additional 6 million children, disproportionately in rural areas, to access Wi-Fi and the 21st Century educational tools it enables during the 2015 funding year.

One of the key benefits of the E-rate order under consideration is that it will significantly expand access to Wi-Fi funding available for rural areas like Cibola County. Historically urban areas have received nearly 60% of internal connections support despite serving under 30% of all students, while rural applicants are crowded out. With improved rules, over the next 5 years Wi-Fi funding for rural schools would be increased by 75 %. Urban schools will also do better, seeing an increase in support of 60%.

Our E-Rate modernization proposal also commits to enhance the Commission’s Tribal consultation, training, and outreach to better inform and empower Tribal schools to effectively access E-rate funding. Through this effort we seek to gain a better understanding of the current state of connectivity among Tribal schools and libraries to enable the Commission to take steps that will reduce the digital divide and promote high-speed broadband connectivity to Tribal lands.

The Federal Communications Commission made history by adopting rules for the first-ever Incentive Auction. Robust participation by broadcasters will be critical to the success of the auction.

The auction is a risk-free, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for broadcasters, but the decision of whether or not to participate is completely voluntary and confidential. We recognize that spectrum auctions are new for most broadcasters, and that we owe them additional information before the Incentive Auction.

As anyone who’s made a major sale or purchase knows, having more information leads to better decisions. First, we’re providing an updated estimated timeline of Commission actions leading up to and after the auction.

Importantly, this timeline details steps broadcasters will need to take to participate in the auction.

Second, this summer, we will distribute informational material to help inform broadcaster decision-making. This material will provide an estimate of the amount of money broadcasters could receive for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of their spectrum rights in the auction. It will also contain additional information about why broadcasters should consider participating in the reverse auction, and the options that the auction will present to them.

Third, we will conduct webinars to explain the rules for the Incentive Auction. Fourth, as we near the Incentive Auction, Commission experts will hold additional webinars and travel across the country to demonstrate to interested broadcasters how to participate, including providing hands-on bidding demonstrations.

• As currently structured, E-Rate in past years has only been able to support Wi-Fi in 5% of schools and 1% of libraries. In 2013, no money was available for Wi-Fi. I am circulating an E-Rate Modernization Order for consideration at our July meeting that will close this Wi-Fi gap and provide more support for high-capacity wireless broadband for every school and library in America. By acting now, we can deliver digital learning benefits to 10 million students in the next funding year, compared to 4 million students under the status quo.
• While we need to upgrade the connectivity of our schools and libraries, too many parts of rural America lack broadband connectivity altogether. This is in stark contrast to urban and suburban America, where many consumers have access to broadband at speeds in the hundreds of megabits per second. The simple fact of the matter is that the free market has failed to provide basic broadband connectivity to more than 15 million Americans. While we have already take steps to close the gap, there’s more work to be done. The proposed Order will fund a limited number of trials of alternative approaches to solving this problem using the Connect America Fund (CAF).
• A third area where the Commission is poised to act to enhance access for the underserved is with closed captioning. Americans living with intellectual and physical disabilities stand to benefit the most from broadband-enabled technologies, but disproportionately find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. I have proposed to my colleagues that we require captioning for video clips that end up on the Internet. Those who hear with their eyes should not be disadvantaged in their ability to access video information on the Internet.

For some time now we have been talking about protecting Internet consumers. At the heart of this is whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide connectivity in the final mile to the home can advantage or disadvantage content providers, and therefore advantage or disadvantage consumers.

What we call the Open Internet rule on which we are currently seeking comment is one component of this. If adopted, the new rule would prohibit bad acts such as blocking content or degrading access to content.

This kind of activity within an ISP’s network has traditionally been the focus of net neutrality. But there is another area of Internet access, and that is the exchange of traffic between ISPs and other networks and services.

The recent disputes between Netflix and ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon have highlighted this issue. We don’t know the answers and we are not suggesting that any company is at fault. But what is going on and what can the FCC do on behalf of consumers? Consumers pay their ISP and they pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix or Amazon. Then when they don’t get good service they wonder what is going on. Consumers must get what they pay for. As the consumer’s representative we need to know what is going on.

I have therefore directed the Commission staff to obtain the information we need to understand precisely what is happening in order to understand whether consumers are being harmed.

We believe there is a new regulatory paradigm where the Commission relies on industry and the market first while preserving other options if that approach is unsuccessful.

For all the ways the Internet has already transformed our lives, today’s network revolution is constantly creating enormous new opportunities to grow our economy, to enhance US competitiveness, and to improve the lives of the American people. Yet, these changes also raise new security challenges -- challenges that must be addressed if we hope to seize the opportunities.

So what, exactly, is the FCC’s role in this shared endeavor? The challenge of the FCC is to deliver on the national security and public safety effects mandate as the networks that enable those effects evolve from analog to digital. Foremost, the FCC must build upon past Federal and private sector work in cybersecurity. This new paradigm must be based on private sector innovation, and the alignment of private interests in profit and return on investment with public interests like public safety and national security. We will be guided by a top notch team, led by the Chief of our Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Admiral Dave Simpson.

Our work on cybersecurity in the communications sector will be guided by a set of principles:

• First and foremost is a commitment to preserving the qualities that have made the Internet an unprecedented platform for innovation and free expression. That means we cannot sacrifice the freedom and openness of the Internet in the name of enhanced security.
• Second is our commitment to privacy, which is essential to consumer confidence in the Internet. We believe that when done right, cybersecurity enables digital privacy -- personal control of one’s own data and networks.
• Third is a commitment to cross-sector coordination. Particularly among regulatory agencies, we must coordinate our activities and our engagement with our sector stakeholders.
• Fourth, we continue support the multi-stakeholder approach to global Internet governance that has successfully guided its evolution, and we will oppose any efforts by international groups to impose Internet regulations that could restrict the free flow of information in the name of security.