Federal Communications Commission
Working Together on the Post-Incentive-Auction Broadcaster Transition
[Commentary] Making history is exciting, but it’s not easy. In the first-ever incentive auction, participating broadcasters will voluntarily relinquish spectrum rights in exchange for a share of the proceeds, and the recovered spectrum will be sold for wireless broadband use.
The remaining broadcast spectrum will be “repacked,” which means that some broadcasters who remain on the air will be given new channel assignments. That last step may sound anticlimactic, but getting it right will take the concerted efforts of everyone involved. Together we’ll need to craft policies and procedures to transition the broadcasters with as little disruption to the industry and consumers as possible.
That’s why we released for public comment a report that the FCC commissioned from a spectrum consulting firm, Widelity, to help us understand the process and costs associated with the post-auction transition.
[Lake is Chief of the FCC’s Media Bureau]
FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel at Consortium For School Networking
About a year ago I came to your community and said I have an idea. I said we need to reboot and reinvigorate E-Rate. Here’s something I’ve learned.
It’s good to have friends in Washington -- but it’s better to have an army. And you and thousands of others who are deeply invested in our schools, our students, and the future of education have marched together and put E-Rate reform right at the top of the agenda in Washington.
We have a proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission designed to look at this program from top to bottom. We have reform ideas before us from stakeholders of every stripe. And we have an Administration geared up and in sync with its ConnectED initiative.
But connection to schools is no longer enough. We need speed. We need broadband -- not just to the school door, but to the classroom. Beyond speed, we need simplicity.
The bureaucracy of the E-Rate program has become too much for too many of our schools to bear. So we need to make it easier for beneficiaries to participate in this program. Finally, we need to spend E-Rate dollars smart. We need to phase out old services and make room for more high-speed broadband. We need to restore what inflation has taken away from this program. Then we need spend what it takes to connect all our students -- no matter where they go to school.
FCC Announces Results of Urban Rate Survey for Voice Services
The Federal Communication Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau announces the results of the urban rate survey for fixed voice services, which will be used to determine the 2014 rate floor for incumbent eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) and the reasonable comparability benchmark for voice services.
The FCC also seeks comment on a petition to extend the deadline for compliance with the 2014 rate floor. Based on the survey results, the Bureau has calculated that the average local end-user rates plus state regulated fees of the surveyed incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in urban areas is $20.46. Based on the survey responses, the Bureau also calculated the reasonable comparability benchmark for voice services to be $46.96.
Extending The Phase-In Of Phone Subsidy Reforms
The Federal Communications Commission’s unanimous, bipartisan reforms of universal service in November 2011 included changes to make the system fairer for all consumers.
Among these changes was the phase-out of excessive subsidies for basic phone service, which allowed some phone companies to charge their customers as little as $5 a month at a time when the average suburban or urban customer was paying $16. The reforms have been gradually eliminating these excessive subsidies to level the playing field for all consumers and contain the cost of the program, which is funded by universal service fees ultimately paid by consumers.
As we approach the third step of this phase-in, we are seeking comment on providing additional time to allow all interested parties to adjust. We look forward to public comment on this question as we work to make universal service fair for all consumers and businesses.
Commissioner Ajit Pai said: “Today the FCC announces a new ‘rate floor’ of $20.46 a month. What does that mean? Over a million customers in rural areas will face a rate hike of up to 46 percent in the next few months. This is bad news in tough times. Why should the FCC saddle rural Americans with rate increases when doing so may not save the Universal Service Fund a dime and may in fact divert scarce funds away from broadband deployment? And why should the FCC override state-set rates to raise costs for consumers?”
Right now, the economy is good for many people here in Washington, DC. But a recovery hasn’t
yet reached much of rural America. Let’s not add to the challenges our fellow citizens face by increasing
their phone bills. Instead, let’s freeze the rate floor indefinitely and reexamine this misguided policy.
Federal Communications Commission Seeks Comment On Widelity Report And Catalog Of Potential Expenses And Estimated Costs
The Spectrum Act establishes a $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund to be used for reimbursement of eligible relocation costs. In the Broadcast Television Incentive Auction notice of public rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on the types of costs broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) are likely to incur and how to determine whether such costs are “reasonable” for purposes of reimbursement under the statute.
Comments in response to the NPRM suggested that the Commission establish cost estimates for categories of reimbursable expenses. The Commission engaged Widelity to aid the Commission in understanding the process and costs associated with the post-incentive auction transition. Widelity has produced a report, “Response to the Federal Communications Commission for the Broadcaster Transition Study Solicitation” along with a “Catalog of Potential Expenses and Estimated Costs” (Appendix B to the Report).
The Widelity Report recognizes that the post-auction repacking process will be complex and that the complexity will vary from station to station. Nevertheless, the Report concludes that, despite the significant challenges that the industry will face, “[w]ith cooperation as well as patience, creative problem solving, and guidance from the FCC and industry groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters, Association of Public Television Stations, and state broadcast associations, the transition can be achieved with the desired outcomes.”
We seek additional input from interested parties on the report and particularly on the Catalog of Potential Expenses and Estimated Costs. We now seek additional comment from industry participants on these suggested prices, as well as any comments on the report and any further comments on the categories of costs included. A final Catalog of Eligible Expenses and Estimated Costs will be released prior to the auction, and we believe the Catalog will provide useful guidance to broadcasters and MVPDs as they navigate the post-auction transition.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Releases Results Of Broadcast Ownership Diversity Research
On March 31, the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on a proposal to restrict television broadcasters’ use of joint sales agreements (JSAs).
But the FCC currently doesn’t have the basic facts about JSAs. For example, the Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai (Office) asked how many JSAs there are in the United States among television stations and how many television stations owned by women and minorities participate in JSAs. Today, we still don’t have the answers to either of these fundamental questions. To partially fill this gap, the Office investigated whether there is a link between joint sales agreements and ownership diversity. Using publicly available sources, we estimate that:
- 43% of female-owned full-power commercial television stations currently are parties to JSAs.
- 75% of African-American-owned full-power commercial television stations currently are parties to JSAs.
“These findings raise serious questions,” Commissioner Pai said. “Why is the FCC targeting pro-competitive sharing arrangements that appear to disproportionately benefit female and African- American broadcasters? If the Commission forces broadcasters to terminate JSAs, how will that affect diversity? Why is the FCC rushing to a vote rather than taking the time to gather basic facts and study the effect of its proposal on ownership diversity? The Commission should not accelerate the troubling trend of declining minority ownership.”
FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting April 23, 2014
The April Open Meeting of the Federal Communications Commission has been rescheduled from Thursday, April 24, 2014 to Wednesday, April 23, 2014.
FCC Commissioner Clyburn at the Free State Foundation Sixth Annual Telecom Policy Conference
No one really disputes that the Communications Act no longer accurately reflects current realities. But the statute’s core values remain as relevant today as they were decades ago: 1) competition, 2) consumer protection, 3) universal service, and 4) public safety.
The Technology Transitions Order the FCC adopted in January is a prime example of an agency looking for solutions to provide robust broadband in unserved or underserved areas. I hope you join in my excitement about these experiments because these trials could unleash opportunities for solutions from rural areas for rural areas. To date, nearly 1000 proposals from mostly local, community-based entities have been filed at the FCC showing a significant demand for robust broadband. They include innovative ideas and proposals from electric coops leveraging their existing network to provide fiber-to-the-home; to community- based initiatives wishing to construct broadband sometimes in partnership with other entities; to cable providers, research and development networks, wireless Internet service providers, wireless providers -- and we even got proposals involving TV whitespaces.
While I understand the instinct for many is to push for a deregulatory framework, there are potential dangers and consequences, in a regulatory free zone.
FCC Chairman Wheeler at National Congress of American Indians
I want to emphasize the importance of establishing a reinvigorated Tribal consultation process to address three primary goals:
- Goal number one: broadband infrastructure expansion. Getting high-speed broadband connections to every home, every business, every school and library, every healthcare provider, and every 911 center, in all corners of the country, is a top priority for the Commission. Nowhere could meeting this objective be more impactful than on Tribal lands.
- Goal number two is to free up more spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, on Tribal lands. Increasingly, when we talk about broadband connectivity, we’re talking about wireless. We will be bringing more spectrum capacity to market, including on Tribal lands.
- Goal number three is to ensure that the diversity of broadcast voices in Indian Country better reflects the diversity of human voices in Indian Country. The groundbreaking Tribal Priority in the Commission’s radio broadcast licensing rules make a critically important, affordable, long-adopted technology a wide open opportunity for Tribal Nations.
I am happy to announce that the Commission will release a Public Notice seeking nominees from your governments to seat a reinvigorated second Task Force in the summer. The Task Force has important work, including acting as a sounding board for FCC proposals and developing additional recommendations for broadband deployment and adoption. We hope and expect that many members will recommit, but we also need more regional representation from across Indian Country, and the inclusion of more subject matter experts from new areas of Tribal government institutions. When I look at for the kind of results that are possible, a number of goals are top of mind.
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, Celebrating Women of Character, Courage and Commitment
There comes a time in every woman’s life, when she is faced with a series of choices and challenges.
Though the years and the passage of key legislation have made our nation a better place to live, it often seems like we have even more choices to make and additional challenges to overcome. For those of you who run households, your decisions may actually be more complicated by the convenience of technology.
If you have children, you face an entire galaxy of decisions. When do you give your child a mobile phone? Do you allow them to join Facebook? And if you find yourself giving in to their constant demands, for the latest technology and gadgets, do you monitor their uses and practices? Do you snoop on their Twitter account, like one of my friends? Or do you trust them to be “responsible” on their own? These are tough choices, indeed.