Speech

I’m sure that those that love to regulate will try to make the weak case that the status of the wireless industry occurred because of — and not despite — the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations, particularly our Net Neutrality burdens. Beyond being desperate to validate their myopic decision, this argument completely ignores the counterfactual, or what would have occurred absent such burdens. The reality is that had the Commission rejected the liberal mantra of Net Neutrality, the entire wireless picture could have been even better.

What is unsettling is that many of the changes we are currently making at the Federal Communications Commission have a one-sided benefit, and the impact on consumers, competition, and the public interest are mere afterthoughts. The FCC is a regulatory agency, with a charge that requires us to protect the public interest. This means we should strike and maintain the proper balance, when it comes to consumer and industry interests. Yet, when it comes to the future of our media landscape, the FCC majority is embarking on a path, toward a regulatory-free zone....

In just about every other context and every other Universal Service program, we have acted with haste, to remove existing barriers to entry. But when it comes to the Lifeline program, that provides millions the chance to maintain a dial tone or should be providing millions more the opportunity to afford broadband at home, we erect insurmountable barriers to entry for Lifeline providers wishing to do business.

When I spoke to you in March, I noted that the Commission was about to vote on an order to improve VRS interoperability, quality, and efficiency. I am happy to say that this order has since been released, and we have made several other important strides since then. And at our upcoming Commission meeting on October 24, we will vote on an order to apply hearing aid compatibility requirements to wireline phones using Voice over Internet Protocol. The order also would require volume control on cell phones – something the community has requested for over a decade. This would help ensure that people using hearing aids—as well as those without such aids – are better able to select cell phones that meet their communication needs. In particular, this is sure to benefit our growing population of seniors.

In order to expand direct communications for deaf callers, we also are continuing our efforts to educate government agencies on the federal, state and local levels about Direct Video Calling. Finally, people who are blind or visually impaired are gaining better access to television, program guides, and menus because of the Commission’s accessible user interface rules, which went into effect just this past December.

I think it’s time for a National Broadband Map that offers an honest picture of wired and wireless broadband across the country. Too often the Federal Communications Commission cobbles together data for each individual rulemaking and report without a comprehensive and updated snapshot of where service is and is not. We can build this map in Washington, but it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. I’m a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If you’ve not been able to get service, or live in an area that lacks it, help us make a map and write me at broadbandfail@fcc.gov. I’ve set this account up to take in your ideas. I will share every one of them with the agency Chairman—and put on pressure to do something about it.

For decades, the FCC has led the world with its auction models for the distribution of spectrum licenses. We’ve made a lot of progress powering the mobile devices that so many of us rely on every day. But take a drive along some rural roads and you will know there is room for improvement. It’s one reason why the AIRWAVES Act from Sen Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) is so important. It helps identify more licensed and unlicensed spectrum that can be brought to market to improve wireless broadband. On top of that, it sets up a fund whereby auction revenues will help support wireless broadband infrastructure in rural America. It’s the kind of creative effort that would in time lead to more coverage on a broadband map and also help bridge the Homework Gap.

I’ve been asked to talk about where we are with spectrum policy in the United States, and what lies ahead. Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Pai has two overarching goals at the top of the Commission’s wireless agenda. First, we want to unleash spectrum to meet growing consumer demand and enable new waves of wireless innovations that will grow our economy and improve the standard of living for the American people. The second key goal of our wireless agenda is harnessing the power of spectrum to help bridge the digital divide.

One foundational principle is flexible use for wireless spectrum. Instead of mandating that a particular spectrum band be used with a specific type of wireless technology, the government should leave that choice to the private sector, which has a much better sense of consumer demand. The Commission has a role to play in crafting light-touch regulatory frameworks, with clear and technology-neutral rules. Basically, we want to put spectrum into the marketplace and then let the market and innovators go to work. Flexible use for spectrum is a proven practice. For decades, it has enabled wireless networks in the U.S. to evolve with technology and to do so much more quickly than if operators had to obtain government sign-off each step of the way. Another principle is our commitment to continue to identify possibilities to put airwaves to more efficient use. Chairman Pai believes we need an all-of-the-above approach to this spectrum endeavor, looking at low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum.

Next generation systems will capitalize on both new and existing licensed and unlicensed networks, utilizing low-, mid- and high-band spectrum, including millimeter wave frequencies. Today, I will discuss how the Commission plans to make these raw materials available.

I am concerned the Federal Communications Commission is gearing up to approve a transaction that will hand a single broadcast company the unprecedented ability to reach more than 70 percent of American households. It hasn’t happened yet. But there are disconcerting signs.

Before I returned to the Commission, the agency inexplicably resurrected an outdated and scientifically inaccurate system for tallying station ownership, known as the UHF discount. It also reversed an effort to investigate joint sales agreements. Both steps helped speed the way for this transaction—which would combine two broadcasting giants: Tribune and Sinclair The bottom line is we are not going to remedy what ails our media with a rush of new consolidation. We are not going to fix our inability to ferret fact from fiction by doubling down on a single company owning ever more of our public airwaves.

I will begin by suggesting that in order to properly determine and comment on the larger issue of how the world’s telecommunication regulators are adapting to the changing environment and technological explosion, it is critical to first recognize the differing levels of legal authority that respective governments bestow upon each regulatory agency. In other words, regulators can only regulate when they are authorized to do so.

In the United States, which has seen monumental technological advancements as the result of convergence and digitalization, we constantly struggle with these lines of authority. To act outside our bounds – however meritorious it may seem – can be harmful. It increases uncertainty and can paralyze entire industry segments for months or years with legal challenges and/or legislative responses, thereby depriving consumers of valuable services and opportunities in the meantime. This isn’t just my opinion, as there are numerous examples of Commission actions to highlight this.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, I have a special interest in the progress that was made in communications and technology policy during the Reagan Administration. It was an executive order signed by President Reagan that first made the Pentagon’s Global Positioning (GPS) system available for civilian use. FCC Chairmen who served during the Reagan Administration were incredible leaders and visionaries. Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick each did a fantastic job leading the agency. They moved aggressively to eliminate unnecessary rules and implement President Reagan’s deregulatory philosophy. They set a high bar for those who came after them—and I strive for that bar every day.

The Reagan FCC eliminated the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This misnamed government dictate suppressed the discussion of controversial issues on our nation’s airwaves and was an affront to the First Amendment. The Reagan FCC also built the political foundation for auctioning licenses to spectrum—a free-market innovation blasted back then and widely accepted today. The Reagan FCC introduced “price cap” regulation, reducing government’s role in micromanaging profits and increasing consumer welfare. And the Reagan FCC set the stage for much of the innovation that we see today. In 1985, for example, it had the foresight to set aside what were generally thought to be “junk” airwaves for anybody to use—what we call “unlicensed” spectrum. And entrepreneurs put it to work. Thanks to the FCC’s vision, we now use unlicensed services every day, every time we access Wi-Fi or use Bluetooth or check a baby monitor. Consider this 1985 quote from Mark Fowler, President Reagan’s first FCC Chairman—a quote that applies today: “We want to eliminate, as much as we can, government regulation of the telecommunications marketplace so as to permit present players to provide new and innovative services to consumers and likewise permit new players to come in and compete.” That’s basically our approach today.

A point often lost when we talk about the digital divide is what happens when we actually bridge the divide. Too often, we declare mission accomplished when we’ve connected a home that has been forever without, but I challenge you to take a more nuanced view. We should only claim victory when a consumer is meaningfully using their connectivity to take advantage of the economic, educational, and health care opportunities it affords....

One of our primary goals at the Federal Communications Commission is to be good stewards of ratepayer dollars. That means moving away from the past practice of using our high-cost program to fund multiple networks in the same geographic area. We should not support a company that is serving an area where another provider is providing quality service without a subsidy. That is fundamentally inconsistent with protecting consumers and it does not enable the market to work as intended.