FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly

Let me suggest that the future of your companies is in your hands and in the hands of the brilliant people that work with and for you. The new Commission would like – and expects – the private sector to spend more time bringing products and services to market, serving its customers, and less time sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting word from on high, in this case the Commission. That is not to say that the Commission will abandon its responsibilities or obligations. To the contrary, one of our duties is not to interfere in the private, commercial marketplace unless absolutely necessary. We’ll still be there to act when appropriate, but we will not actively seek to interfere in your businesses as the all knowing.

There are many types of costs that an agency can put on regulatees, but lacking solid information on most burdens due to the absence of cost-benefit analyses in prior items, I want to at least highlight one category of costs that the agency is required to track: paperwork burdens.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires the Federal Communications Commission to seek Office of Management and Budget approval before asking entities to fill out forms, maintain records, or disclose information to others. The intent was to require agencies to carefully consider the need for additional information before collecting it, thereby minimizing burdens. Once approved, the cost estimates are posted online and searchable by agency. Even I was a bit surprised to see the extent of the FCC’s information collection efforts, which seem disproportionately costly. According to OMB, as of the end of February, the FCC has 423 active collections demanding 457,355,706 responses each year requiring a total of 73,200,049 hours to complete at a total cost of $798,204,803. In short hand, that's 73 million hours and $800 million annually just to fill out FCC paperwork, and there is a decent chance that these figures are lowballed. That is well above the cost figures of several other major agencies. While I strongly believe in data driven decision making and the need to ensure accountability, I have to question how much of the existing information collection is truly justified.

As I indicated in my dissenting statement when the previous Commission adopted these rules, I believe they are fatally flawed from the standpoints of both statutory authority and public policy. I support the Chairman's proposal to allow the Commission and Congress time to take another look at these ill-considered rules before they have a chance to throw broadband providers' data security practices into unsettled territory.

Additionally, I support the Chairman's decision to give Commissioners a chance to weigh in here in a process similar to that I proposed in a recent blog post. Agree or disagree with the underlying proposal, everyone should commend the Chairman's move away from the delegated authority abuses we have seen in the past, toward more input from Commissioners. I certainly will commit to record my vote on this item by March 2 in exchange for the new opportunity to make my voice heard at the Commission level, and hope that this opportunity will be made available to Commissioners as a matter of course going forward.

I have made the case previously that the Commission delegates way too many substantive decisions to Bureau staff, usurping the role and obligations of duly appointed and confirmed Commissioners. Consider that in 2016 I only voted on 167 items, but almost nine times as many were decided on delegated authority. The heart of my revised delegated authority proposal is an attempt to achieve balance between the need to allow Commissioners to have greater say in the workings of the Commission and preventing process abuses and unnecessary delays.

Here are its main components:
Advanced Warning: Consistent with my previous recommendation, except for the most routine matters, Commissioners should be provided no less than 48 hours to review an item that is to be decided by Bureau staff under delegated authority.
Request by Two or More Commissioners: On any given matter, it is possible that any one Commissioner could be troubled by the substance or process of an item.
Time Constraint: A concern was raised that having two Commissioners as the proper threshold may not necessarily provide a sufficient barrier to excessive or needless delays.
Automatic Approval if Delayed: Under my proposal, in those instances (if ever) when a requesting office does not vote by the deadline, the item would be – at the Chairman’s prerogative – either released as approved by the full Commission (assuming the other offices voted to approve) or sent back to the Bureau for immediate issuance on delegated authority.

I write to commend [the House Communications Subcommittee] for the recent hearing to consider the reauthorization of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)...the Subcommittee should be applauded for exploring ways to expediate the repurposing of spectrum now solely or primarily allocated for federal government functions to commercial use. As the Subcommittee continues its review, I respectfully suggest that it look closely at the proposal to enact Agency Spectrum Fees as a means to improve government spectrum efficiency. Imposing a cost for spectrum holdings -- even if conservative or undervalued -- to federal agency annual budgets will serve as an appropriate and necessary stick to force agencies to retain bandwidth assignment only if absolutely necessary to further their particular missions.

We strongly object to the Media Bureau’s decision to resolve the petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision in 2016 to impose unnecessary reporting requirements on noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations. The Commission’s ruling no longer enjoys the support of the majority of Commissioners—nor is there a majority that supports today’s Media Bureau decision—so it was wrong for the Bureau to bypass Commissioners and reaffirm these reporting requirements unilaterally. And making matters worse, the Bureau gave no notice to Commissioners of its decision, leaving our offices to find out about its order from the press. This basic lack of comity is unacceptable in any situation, but is especially unfortunate during a transition between Administrations.

Dec 15, the small business exemption from the Title II Net Neutrality Order’s expanded reporting requirements expired. We worked hard to reach a consensus with our Democratic colleagues that would have prevented the exemption from lapsing. Unfortunately, those efforts did not bear fruit and now thousands of our nation’s smallest and most competitive Internet service providers are worried that they will be subject to unnecessary, onerous, and ill-defined reporting obligations. This was a lost opportunity for the Commission to do the right thing. It also ignores the strong bipartisan support from the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Obama Administration’s own Small Business Administration.

We note the exceptional leadership of Sens Daines (R-MT) and Manchin (D-WV), and House Commerce Chairman Walden (R-OR) on this matter. We appreciate the willingness of two of our colleagues to negotiate in good faith on a compromise. We remain committed to protecting small businesses and their customers from the higher costs and disproportionate impact that would accompany the implementation of these requirements, and we remain hopeful that a consensus exemption can still be achieved at the Commission in the months ahead in addition to reviewing the application of the overall burdens themselves.

I’m excited and honored to play a part in the new Federal Communications Commission, and to the extent it is helpful, I am humbly going to outline some very broad areas where the next Commission could potentially focus some of its efforts.
1. Undo Harmful Policies: Foremost in many minds is the need simply to undo the more harmful policies adopted by the current Commission.
2. Clear Regulatory Underbrush: Another priority worth attention is clearing away the existing regulatory underbrush that is choking businesses and diveverting resources away from new and improved products, better service, and lower prices for consumers.
3. Develop and Execute a Strong Pro-Growth, Pro-Innovation Agenda: The new Commission should have ample opportunity to showcase its creativity and foresight by developing and executing a strong pro-growth, pro-innovation agenda firmly grounded in free market principles
4. Process Reform and Organization: Last but not least, I hope the next Commission will take this opportunity to make substantial progress toward improving the efficiency of the Commission and increasing fairness and transparency in its processes.

Broadband deployment challenges need to be examined holistically. As the Federal Communications Commission, states, and localities consider particular actions to address existing challenges, everyone needs to assess both the individual and additive impact of their actions on the competitive environment. In any event, government entering the marketplace as a participant should not be part of any solution. Here are four areas in which I think we could best spend our time in the coming months:

One, enact fixes to our internal process and reorganize the Commission structure.
Two, remove regulatory underbrush (i.e., those rules and regulations that have outlived their usefulness and cause burdens, in terms of costs, compliance time and lost opportunities, on regulated entities);
Three, undo inappropriate and partisan decisions made by the prior Commission.
And four, pursue a pro-growth, pro-innovation agenda that allows providers to spend more time serving consumers and less time worrying about being trapped by the Commission’s latest harebrained regulatory scheme.

In light of the multiple directives we have received from Congress to avoid directing attention and resources to complex or controversial matters, the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is inappropriately pressing forward and escalating its investigation of certain providers’ zero-rated video services. It would be difficult to come up with a better example of a complex, controversial policy at the current Commission than this attempt to intimidate providers in order to shut down popular offerings to consumers. It just reaffirms my objection to this entire investigation process and the use of delegated authority in general. Any potential action the Bureau may be considering can be reviewed and potentially reversed within weeks. To the extent the message to stop work on such items has not filtered down to staff, the Chairman should direct the Bureau to halt this wild goose chase at once.