Federal Communications Commission

I applaud the US House of Representatives for passing the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2013, HR 3675, and I commend the leaders of the Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology -- Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo -- for their bipartisan efforts to advance this legislation. I hope that this common-sense bill, as well as the Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act of 2013, HR 2844, which the House of Representatives passed 415 to 0 back in September, will soon be enacted into law. Together, these bills recognize the need to modernize the FCC to reflect our dynamic, converged communications marketplace. And they would eliminate outdated mandates on the agency, streamline its operations, and make it more accountable to the public.

The United States is at a point where broadband and video have joined to form a virtuous cycle. The big question we face is how to fully transition from the analog world to a digital one based on the Internet Protocol, or IP.

The FCC recently decided to move forward with local experiments in which companies can move customers from old networks to IP networks. We are going to see what happens when aging infrastructure is turned off. These tests will give us valuable data. And we will then use that data to make a successful national transition to all-IP networks.

Once that happens, companies will be able to focus their investments exclusively on high-speed networks. Consumers’ appetite for Internet video is placing new demands on broadband providers to expand the highways that carry that traffic. Providers are doing just that. Cable operators are spending billions of dollars upgrading their technology using a new technical standard that transmits data much more quickly. Telephone companies are deploying more fiber. Wireless providers are expanding 4G LTE networks. And a new entrant, Google, is activating gigabit fiber in cities across the country.

One might ask: How has this all happened? Well, it wasn’t government fiat. It was private enterprise, taking risks to innovate and build, and competing for consumers in the free market, that brought about the digital revolution. It was our private sector that spent over one trillion dollars over the past fifteen years to upgrade cable systems, launch satellites, lay fiber, build towers, and deploy our broadband infrastructure. Rather than owning companies or directing capital spending, the United States Government has sought to create a regulatory framework that gives companies the right incentives to make these investments.

First, we have removed regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. Second, we have created a free market for spectrum. And third, we have embraced free trade and foreign direct investment as a way to promote capital formation. Each has played an important role in fostering the innovation we see in America today. And I believe each serves as a valuable lesson for regulators going forward.

I commend [Federal Communications Commission] Chairman Tom Wheeler for issuing a Public Notice that includes a proposal to ensure non-English-speaking persons have access to important information in an emergency.

This proposal asks broadcasters, as well as state and local governments, to work on a plan to address the needs of such persons if a non-English station is knocked off the air during an emergency. During our field hearings to study service outages during Super Storm Sandy, we learned how important broadcaster cooperation was to keeping TV and radio stations operational so communities could receive information.

This Public Notice asks several questions about the details necessary to implement this proposal. Responses to these questions will help the Commission craft specific rules, if necessary, to promote this goal.

[March 11]

The joint sales agreement proposal being put forward appears flawed and not in the public interest.

My meetings and the record indicate that the JSA portion could significantly impair the ability of broadcasters with diverse voices to offer local programming, such as news, to meet consumer needs. Moreover, the proposal would establish a very subjective ‘Mother-May-I’ approach to obtain or retain a JSA, which is a recipe for market uncertainty and reduced offerings. Most importantly, this effort fails to meet the Commission’s obligations under current law. […]

Even before receiving the specifics of the proposal, I strenuously disagree with the intended direction, and hope it is dramatically changed before it is presented to the Commission for a vote later this month.

[March 10]

The Federal Communications Commission has launched an interactive webpage with best practices to assist text message providers and 911 call centers with deploying text-to-911.

The webpage contains materials prepared by Vermont, Texas, and other state 911 call centers (known as public safety answering points or PSAPs) that have already successfully integrated text-to-911, with expertise and insight that can ease the deployment process for others.

For example, the State of Vermont has developed a list of “lessons learned” from its highly successful text-to-911 implementation as well as a series of informational videos for potential text-to-911 users. The webpage is a tool enabling text providers and PSAPs to contribute and refer to comments, best practices, and informational materials. It additionally contains documents from public safety organizations, with Frequently Asked Questions, a checklist of issues that 911 call centers should consider, and technological options available to support text-to-911.

[March 10]

At the SXSWedu Conference & Festival, Federal Communications Commission member Jessica Rosenworcel set out her perspectives on modernizing the E-Rate program.

“At the FCC we recently started a reform effort to modernize our E-Rate system -- what I like to call E-Rate 2.0. Just like with the evolution of any operating system, we need to take the good that we have put in place, build on it, and upgrade it for the future.”

The Three S’s of E-Rate reform: Speed, Simplify, and Spending Smart.

• Speed. In the near term, we want to have 100 Megabits per 1000 students to all of our schools. By the end of the decade, we want to have 1 Gigabit per 1000 students to all of our schools.
• Simplify. We need to reduce the bureaucracy associated with E-Rate.
• Spending Smart. “Spending smart means better accounting practices that the FCC has already identified will free up for more E-Rate broadband support over the next two years. But spending smart goes beyond that. Because on a long-term basis we need to make sure that all E-Rate support is focused on high-speed broadband.”

[March 7]

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that David Turetsky will step down from the FCC after approximately two years.

Turetsky previously served as Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) before becoming Deputy Chief of the International Bureau and leading the Commission’s informal internal task force on FCC response to international disasters and working on “Team Telecom” issues. He plans to leave the Commission by the end of April.

Turetsky joined the FCC from private law firm practice, where he was a partner and co-chair of the antitrust practice group for several years in a large international law firm. His work included litigation, transactions and investigations, in a wide range of industries, including technology, media and telecommunications, as well as financial services, energy, electricity, sports, pharmaceuticals, consumer products and other areas.

[March 7]

The demand for our airwaves is growing at a blistering pace. Indeed, the need for more licensed spectrum -- the airwaves that can be controlled by a single wireless operator -- has been widely recognized.

In fact, this led Congress to direct the FCC to hold a series of auctions for licensed airwaves that will take place over in 2014 and 2015. But what is less well known is that demand for unlicensed spectrum -- airwaves open to all under some basic technical rules -- is also growing. So the spectrum that powers Wi-Fi and a slew of our daily activities and devices is also getting more congested.

So why does this matter? First, the unlicensed economy represents economic growth. Residential Wi-Fi has been estimated to contribute between $16-37 billion to our economy annually. More recent economic studies that add up the broader impact of unlicensed spectrum on the economy estimate its annual value at more than $140 billion. By any estimate, the value of unlicensed spectrum is big. Second, the unlicensed economy represents innovation. Keeping airwaves open and available for unlicensed experimentation could yield a new world of gee-whiz devices and wireless services. Third, the unlicensed economy represents Internet connectivity. Wi-Fi is an essential onramp to the Internet.

While this unlicensed spectrum continues to serve Wi-Fi well, it is getting mighty crowded. So I think the FCC should do something about it. Let’s start by leaving behind the tired notion that we face a choice between licensed and unlicensed airwaves. Because good spectrum policy requires both. Moreover, I think this kind of division is a simplistic relic from the past. And to help meet this demand for unlicensed services, we have a terrific near-term opportunity in the 5 GHz band.

[March 7]

Now is the time to get moving with the Federal Communication Commission’s E-Rate reform. And yet, I fear that the Public Notice issued by the Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau bodes poorly for real reform.

Reform should mean eliminating the priority system that arbitrarily favors some technologies over others. Yet the Public Notice doubles down on it. Reform should mean abolishing the discount matrix that encourages wasteful spending by well-funded districts and consistently underfunds small, rural schools and libraries. Yet the Public Notice builds on it. And although the Public Notice mentions streamlining the administrative process, the proposals to do so (such as making “simple changes” to the existing forms or changing “invoicing deadlines”) are overwhelmed by proposals that would saddle our nation’s teachers and librarians with more paperwork. Moreover, even if the right questions were posed, this is the wrong way to pose them.

If the Commission needs to focus comment on an issue, we should advance a concrete proposal -- which in the words of the FCC’s own process reform report “ensure[s] adequate notice of the potential final rule” and “focus[es] both drafters and commenters on the precise proposal under consideration.” And if the Commission wants to explore a new proposal, we should issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

[March 7]

I have raised a number of concerns about the Federal Communications Commission’s new rural broadband experiments.

First, I worry how the new experiments will fit together with the high-cost universal service reforms that the FCC already adopted in 2011 and, despite my best efforts, I have not received an adequate explanation to date. Second, as configured, these experiments could divert needed funds away from expanding broadband access for all Americans in favor of funding very high-capacity projects for a select few anchor institutions. Third, I am very concerned about the ability of these experiments to succeed with one-time funding. And now, I believe that these experiments could duplicate the Congressionally-mandated gigabit pilot program.

Instead of going down this path, the FCC should rethink the need for these experiments. If the FCC does decide to press forward with its own rural broadband experiments, I will be looking to ensure that we abide by the following principles when deciding upon any final rules or approving any experiments:

• No Duplication. First, the FCC’s experiments must accomplish something very different from the US Department of Agriculture’s pilot program. Second, the FCC must not fund experiments in areas that are served or will be served by USDA’s pilot program or existing providers. Such duplication makes no sense and goes against our obligation to spend every consumer dollar as efficiently and effectively as possible.
• Rationalize Spending. In its Notice, the FCC contemplated spending between $50 - $100 million (or more) on its new experiments.
• Ensure Qualified Participants. The Farm Bill requires that those participating in the USDA pilot program demonstrate that they are capable of providing service. The FCC should do no less. We must not dedicate limited funding to wishes and whims, but only to verifiable, concrete plans from companies that can actually build and operate a sustainable broadband network after the one-time FCC support ends -- because it will end.
• Don’t Zap Focus. The high-cost programs account for $4.5 billion annually and require considerable attention. Staff workshops, webinars, presentations, guidance and oversight will be needed to achieve success on any new experiments. But these take significant time and staff hours.

[March 7]