FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

Acting on the Federal Communications Commission’s commitments, I took my first trip to Indian Country as FCC Chairman, visiting the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

I had several meetings with Oglala Lakota leaders to discuss topics ranging from economic development to healthcare, but the greatest emphasis of my visit was education, specifically how the FCC’s E-Rate program can help expand digital learning opportunities, including for our nation’s rural and Tribal populations. I heard from teachers, students, and administrators at Loneman School and Little Wound School about how E-Rate has helped provide basic Internet access to their school, but also how E-Rate can, and needs to do even more.

In particular, these schools need more bandwidth to enable opportunities like remote tutoring and taking advanced math and science courses online, and they need Wi-Fi connectivity that can support mobile devices like tablets and digital textbooks. They also need an E-Rate program that’s more user-friendly.

In the past, Loneman, like too many schools, missed out on E-Rate support because of confusion with the program’s rules. All of our students, whether they are attending a Tribal school in South Dakota or a public school in South Carolina deserve to have full access to modern digital learning tools. That’s why modernizing E-Rate to simplify the program, improve its efficiency, and deliver faster, Wi-Fi connectivity to schools and libraries is one of the Commission’s highest priorities.

I want to focus on three opportunities: the opportunities to provide over-the-top services built around news and information; the opportunities inherent in the Incentive Auction; and the opportunities created as we contemplate a transition to new TV sets using OFDM [orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing].

I believe that broadcasting is positioned to be not only the reluctant object of competition, but the instigator as well. We are at an inflection point where broadcast licensees can move from being the disrupted, to being the disruptor. When I look at broadcasting I see the traditional public trust where you received spectrum and in return provided important public benefits. But I also hope we can see local broadcast licensees as a growing source of competition in the digital market.

Your content represents far more than the potential for retransmission fees. It can be the basis for a fixed and mobile-delivered cable-like service. The open Internet represents the same kind of expansive opportunity for local licensees. Essential to the open Internet are the concepts that a network provider -- and here we are increasingly talking about your cable friends -- cannot block lawful content or unfairly target content and other edge providers. The open Internet rules should be seen as an Open Sesame for the expansion beyond your local license; to move from the “television” business to the “information” business. But your window of opportunity won’t stay open forever. The cable and Internet companies are all are embracing something new that looks startlingly like your model. Again, that’s why the open Internet initiative is important.

Of course, there is the pesky little matter of how you pay for this kind of pivot. Here, again, the ongoing policy activities of the FCC can be helpful. Which brings me to the second big opportunity I wanted to highlight -- the Incentive Auction. An under-considered and under-appreciated aspect of the Incentive Auction is the idea of spectrum sharing. Spectrum sharing will allow you to maintain your existing business while taking home an auction check.

The third opportunity I want to talk about is using a new television standard as the entry point to the broadband economy for broadcasting. As NAB correctly says, broadcast licensees are “licensed to serve.” This means that when it comes to broadcast licensees our job is to fulfill the instructions of the Congress to promote competition, diversity, and localism.

That is the root of our recent decision on JSAs [joint sales agreements] and SSAs [shared service agreements]. Simply put, where sidecar agreements serve the public interest by advancing the goals established by Congress, they are appropriate. When entanglements between separately owned stations serve as end runs around our local television rules, however, it is appropriate to push the stop button.

Point One: E-Rate modernization is a BIG deal. Everyone agrees education technology can better prepare young Americans to succeed in the global, digital economy. That’s why we need to get America’s biggest education technology program right. That’s why President Barack Obama has set a goal of leveraging E-Rate to connect 99 percent of all students to high-speed broadband within 5 years.

Point Two: Technology has changed; the needs of schools have changed; the E-Rate program must reflect this change. The nature of educational connectivity has changed dramatically over the life of E-Rate. How E-Rate funds are distributed, however, has not. We are in the midst of a rulemaking to address and correct that reality.

Point Three: While the details of E-Rate modernization remain in flux, the goals are clear. For E-Rate modernization to be successful, the updated program must be focused on delivering faster-speeds to schools and libraries and Wi-Fi throughout; funded and future-proofed; fiscally responsible and fact-based; and friendly to use.

Within the FCC I will soon be announcing a special strike force for the entire Universal Service Fund (of which E-Rate is a part) to make certain there is adherence to the rules and the People’s money is wisely spent. And, in order to get that new $2 billion to work for high-speed broadband, the Universal Service Administrative Corporation (USAC) is instituting a process to accelerate the speed in which all applications are processed. Beyond management, we must address how to increase the efficiency with which the funds are spent. This is a key component of the recent public notice and a priority as we head towards a late spring decision by the Commission.

I believe that once we have addressed efficiency issues -- coupled with the ongoing experience to determine costs -- we will be in a position to identify just how much is required to achieve our goals. Should the evidence substantiate a need to increase the permanent funding levels for the E-Rate program, we will do what is appropriate.