FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

The current model of Internet governance has been a tremendous success. Under American stewardship, the Internet has become an unprecedented platform for free expression, innovation, and democratization. That's why two years ago, when the Department of Commerce first announced its intent to relinquish its role in overseeing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, I argued that the burden of proof was on those favoring this momentous change. When it comes to Internet governance, I do not believe the transition should take place on October 1. Getting it right is far more important than getting it done right now, and additional time to consider the merits of the transition would benefit all stakeholders.

I want to take a few minutes to lay out my ideas on how we can close the digital divide—how governments at all levels can make it easier for providers to deploy broadband across the country. I call it a Digital Empowerment Agenda.

I believe everyone should have online opportunity. I know there’s virtually no limit to what Americans who are disconnected today could achieve tomorrow if they were participants in, rather than spectators of, the digital economy. Today, high-speed Internet access, or broadband, is critical to economic opportunity, job creation, and civic engagement. But there are too many parts of this country where broadband is unavailable or unaffordable. We need to close this digital divide.

1) Gigabit Opportunity Zones: For starters, we have to focus on bringing high-speed broadband to economically deprived areas. And to do that, we must recognize that deploying broadband isn’t easy. I am calling on Congress to create Gigabit Opportunity Zones. The concept is simple. Provide financial incentives for Internet service providers to deploy gigabit broadband services in low-income neighborhoods. Incentivize local governments to make it easy for Internet service providers (ISPs) to deploy these networks. And offer tax incentives for startups of all kinds in order to take advantage of these networks and create jobs in these areas.

2) Mobile Broadband for Rural America: Rural Americans deserve the same digital access as those living in more urban areas. That’s why I’m proposing a three-step plan to improve high-speed, mobile broadband throughout rural America.

3) Remove Regulatory Barriers to Broadband Deployment: There are some problems with broadband deployment throughout our nation. In particular, government at all levels too often makes the task harder than it has to be.

4) Promote Entrepreneurship and Innovation: The Internet is a means to an end—the end being the countless online applications and opportunities that are transforming our lives. We all know about the innovation that happens on that broadband platform—after all, most of you are busy creating it! From ecommerce to connected health, consumers rely on Internet-based services in countless ways. How do we make sure that our policies promote Internet-based entrepreneurship?

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Ajit Pai sent a letter to Chris Henderson, CEO of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), requesting information on Lifeline subscribers on tribal lands, including: any maps of qualifying tribal lands USAC may use to verify eligibility for the enhanced subsidy; certifications from subscribers that they reside on tribal lands; wireless resellers; and inclusion of a subscriber's eligibility in the National Lifeline Accountability database. Commissioner Pai also asked for information on investigations, audits, or reviews that USAC has conducted from October 2014 to the present that examined whether a wireless carrier sought enhanced subsidies only for eligible subscribers living on tribal lands, specific information about USAC’s checks to detect fraud and information regarding subscribers and provision of Lifeline on Oklahoma tribal lands.

Thank you very much for your letters regarding the waste, fraud, and abuse that has riddled the Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program since wireless resellers began participating in this program in earnest in 2009. My inquiry concerns the ability of unscrupulous wireless resellers to avoid the safeguards of the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD) altogether.

A wireless reseller may seek federal funds for subscribers who aren't subject to federal safeguards at all. Theses "subscribers" might be actual customers whose Lifeline eligibility has not been verified through the NLAD. Or they might be phantom customers who do not even exist. In either case, the reseller can get away with receiving federal funds unless they're caught after the fact. If American taxpayers are to have faith in the Universal Service Fund, they must know that the Lifeline program only supports actual, eligible subscribers, not phantoms. To that end, I request that you provide my office with the following information.

Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai sent letters to commissioners at Public Utility Commissions of Oregon, Texas, and California as well as the Vermont Public Service Department. The states each run their own Lifeline accountability databases. Commissioner Pai said he is seeking their aid in “combating the waste, fraud, and abuse that has riddled the Universal Service Fund’s Lifeline program since wireless resellers began participating in this program.” He asks several questions about how the states run their databases. He asks for a reply by August 2, 2016.

We all know that the AM band is facing some big challenges. That’s why back in 2012 I proposed that the Federal Communications Commission launch an AM Radio Revitalization Initiative.

One year later, the FCC took the first step by announcing a comprehensive review of our AM radio regulations.

One thing is clear: While there are many issues at the FCC that are controversial, AM radio isn’t one of them. So the time for action is now. By Halloween, my goal is for the FCC to adopt AM revitalization reforms that do two things.

First, we should adopt the proposals the FCC outlined in 2013, with appropriate tweaks.

Second, we need to ask the public to comment on a new batch of specific proposals for improving our AM radio rules. We need to discuss whether there is still a demand for skywave, whether the FCC should pave the way for the use of synchronous transmission systems on the AM dial, and finally, whether we have reached the point where AM stations should be allowed to go all-digital on a voluntary basis.

In late 2013, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would consider eliminating its sports blackout rule.

League blackout policies can prohibit local television broadcast stations from airing games. And if the local stations can’t broadcast it, the FCC’s blackout rule prohibits cable and satellite companies (within a local blackout zone) from carrying it.

This hurts fans who can’t go to the game. After carefully reviewing all of the arguments, I don’t believe the government should intervene in the marketplace and help sports leagues enforce their blackout policies.

Our job is to serve the public interest, not the private interests of team owners. So I’m asking the FCC to hold an up-or-down vote on ending the sports blackout rule.

The single largest driver of the increase in the Universal Service Fund (USF) -- and hence, consumers’ phone bills -- has been the Lifeline program. Unfortunately, however, Lifeline has been laced with fraud.

So here are four simple steps that we should take to further reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program.

First, the time has come to put the Lifeline program on a budget. Second, we must reduce the financial incentives for people to commit Lifeline fraud. One option would be to prohibit wireless carriers participating in Lifeline from giving away free phone service to Lifeline recipients. A second option would be to empower the states to play a stronger role in helping to police the program. A third option would be to review the size of the current Lifeline subsidy -- $9.25 per month -- and ask whether it’s too high, given that it often pays for the entire cost of a monthly phone bill.

Third, the FCC should fill the gaps in its rules that still encourage fraudulent behavior.

And fourth, the FCC must step up its enforcement efforts.

The Federal Communications Commission’s crackdown on joint sales agreements claims three more victims: two television stations in the Birmingham, Alabama market (WCFT and WJSU) and one television station in Charleston, South Carolina (WCIV).

How does this outcome serve the cause of diversity? And how does this outcome serve the cause of competition?

In Charleston, South Carolina, for example, WCIV would have been owned and operated by Howard Stirk Holdings, an African-American owned broadcast company. But apparently the FCC believes that it is better for that station to go out of business than for Howard Stirk Holdings to own the station and participate in a joint sales agreement with Sinclair. I strongly disagree.