[Senate Hearing 113-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-665
NOMINATION OF THOMAS E. WHEELER
TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-255 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
WILLIAM COWAN, Massachusetts RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 18, 2013.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 19
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 21
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 23
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 26
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 27
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 28
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 33
Statement of Senator Coats....................................... 36
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 37
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 41
Witnesses
Thomas E. Wheeler, Nominee to be Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission (FCC)............................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Biographical information..................................... 8
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Thomas E. Wheeler by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 47
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 49
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 52
Hon. Claire McCaskill........................................ 53
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 55
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 56
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 57
Hon. William Cowan........................................... 58
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 59
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 64
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 65
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 68
Hon. Kelly Ayotte............................................ 70
Hon. Dean Heller............................................. 72
Hon. Dan Coats............................................... 73
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 75
Hon. Jeff Chiesa............................................. 75
NOMINATION OF THOMAS E. WHEELER
TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
Mr. Wheeler, if confirmed, you will lead an agency that has
the most challenging and complicated issues pending since the
Telecommunications Act of 1934. I don't say this lightly. The
decisions the Federal Communications--FCC makes under your
leadership, should you be confirmed--and then I'll stop saying
that--the future of the Nation's telephone network, public
safety, the wireless industry, broadcasting, the Internet, and
consumer protection are at stake for years to come.
Of all the pending issues before the Commission, the
current proceeding, and one future rulemaking, are of utmost
importance to me, personally. The incentive auction proceeding
will now create the revenues to fund a nationwide interoperable
public safety network. I feel strongly about this, and I have
ever since September 11, 2001; and before that, really, when we
went into Kuwait and none of the branches of the service could
talk to each other. It's a mammoth undertaking, and I
understand that.
The E-Rate program has connected millions of schoolchildren
to the Internet, exposing them to the transformational power of
information in extraordinary ways, not all of which are very
helpful, from distracted driving to the moral character of our
future generations.
As I called for several months, and the President, more
importantly, said in his recent remarks in North Carolina, the
FCC can help make sure that our schools and libraries can meet
the data and connectivity needs necessary for today and for the
future. Updating the E-Rate program to meet the needs of the
21st century is necessary for our children and our national
competitiveness.
Seeing the combination of these two initiatives as my
highest priority, obviously I hope it will be yours as well,
too. Too much is at stake in these proceedings not to get them
right.
If the sheer magnitude and complexity of these issues were
not enough, you face an agency that has become increasingly
polarized and politicized. Some even question its relevance in
a digital age, but I think the agency is more relevant and
important than ever.
At its core, the FCC is a regulatory agency; the 1934
Communications Act so said. I believe that too many have
forgotten that the agency's fundamental responsibility is the
regulation of communications networks. These regulations serve
important policy goals. You cannot have universal service
without regulation. You cannot ensure competition without
regulation. You cannot have consumer protection without
regulation.
Let me be clear. Even as communications networks evolve and
technology advances, the FCC's mission does not. The rules and
regulations that we have in place now may not be the rules that
we need for the future. But, that certainly does not mean that
we should not have any, as so many in the industry seem to
advocate, and some of our colleagues do also.
I think we can all agree that the rules the agency need to
adapt, should conditions change, evolve, so that every
American, no matter where, has access to broadband. That's so
easily said, and so easily avoided by all forms of those
undertaking it. Promises made, promises not kept. That's the
pattern that I have found, and I'm sure--no, I can't speak for
Senator Thune, but any rural state finds that there's a deficit
of attention.
The rules the agency needs to adopt should guarantee that
every child in America can harness the power of the Internet,
and to do it safely. The rules the agency needs to adopt should
empower consumers with the information they need to make
informed choices. The rules the agency needs to adopt should
continue to create the conditions for job creation, innovation,
and investment.
The FCC, under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, made
progress on achieving these goals, but an awful lot of work
remains to be done. New challenges will emerge. As I advised
Chairman Genachowski, the FCC Chairman must be more than the
arbiter of industry interests. And they're very, very effective
in making their cases, exclusively for them, not necessarily
looking at the broader good.
Bottom line--characteristic truism, long history--you must
use the vast statutory authority to advocate for the public
interest--1934 Communications Act--all--and the consumer, also
the parent and the student, all those without an army of
advocates to lobby on their behalf. We are consumed about--
here, about people that come to visit us representing wireless
this and wireless that, and what about white spaces, and what
about, you know, megahertz band, whatever. And that's fine,
because they're a big part of the puzzle. But, what is the
goal? The goal is to provide access for, and protection to, the
people who use this and those who are not using it who should
be using it, in my judgment.
You will bring to the job a long history and distinguished
career in the communications industry. As a pioneer in the
cable and wireless industries, you have been instrumental in
the growth of both of these critical sectors. As an
entrepreneur, you have built businesses and created jobs. Most
importantly, you understand the power of technology, how it has
already transformed our lives and how it will continue to do so
each day.
In closing, your career is one of innovation, leadership,
and public service. I believe that, as chair of the FCC, you
can use your experience and skills to harness the vast, vast
power of the FCC--not shy away from it, but harness it. Use it.
Use it to spur universal deployment of advanced technologies,
foster growth and innovation, and protect consumers.
Thank you.
The distinguished Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller.
Mr. Wheeler, I want to thank you for your interest to serve
as the next Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
and to bring your considerable experience to the agency.
We're in the midst of a technological revolution that holds
great promise to improve the lives of all Americans.
Advancements seem to be moving faster than ever before, and
they're finding their ways into the hands of consumers more
quickly and in larger numbers every day.
Today, grandparents who live thousands of miles away can
see their grandkids grow up, due to the Internet and video
applications. Small business owners in places like South Dakota
use smart devices to run their companies and have access to
technology that, previously, only the world's largest
corporations could use. And doctors are able to diagnose and
help folks in rural America without patients traveling hundreds
of miles to see a specialist.
When we met, last week, we talked a little bit about South
Dakota. And I, again, want to extend an open invitation to you
to visit. There's no substitute for seeing, firsthand, the
challenges of rural communications delivery and the value that
new technology holds for Americans living in rural states. You
can also replace the old sign from Wall Drug that you happened
to come by a few years ago.
As my colleagues may be aware, you've written, and I quote,
that ``The Communications Act and its enforcer, the FCC, are
analog legacies in a digital world,'' end quote. And then you
went on to say, and I quote again, ``Regulation designed around
20th century technology and monopoly market structure isn't a
perfect tool for dealing with distributed digital networks and
multiple service providers,'' end quote.
I think that frames our big picture discussion perfectly.
And coming from someone now aspiring to lead that same legacy
agency using that same outdated law, it begs several questions:
The first question is, Will you work with Congress and seek
to amend the law, where it may be inadequate and outdated? The
two previous FCC chairmen both chose to intervene in the
broadband market, based on questionable legal theories rather
than any clear statutory authority or congressional intent. The
first attempt was struck down in court, and the second may yet
meet the same fate. If the Commission loses again, I hope you
will take a deep breath and come to Congress for legal clarity
or revision instead of wasting even more public resources on
regulatory adventuring. I certainly hope that you would also
refrain from applying the monopoly era Title II common-carriage
regime to our modern broadband economy.
Second, will you conduct agency business transparently?
You've been criticized for suggesting that the FCC use merger
conditions to create de facto regulation for an entire
industry, or, at a minimum, underscoring its ability to do so.
I hope that you understand the anxiety among lawmakers when a
potential agency chairman, who is tasked with executing the
law, discusses using a backdoor to imposing a new regulatory
regime and skirting the regulatory authority issue. Congress
never intended for the FCC's transaction review authority to be
used as a backdoor policymaking tool that lacks both
transparency and judicial review. We already have too many
Federal agencies carrying out their own agendas and
overstepping their congressional mandates. We don't need the
FCC to be another one.
Third, will you be a visionary? As an industry leader and
having served on the FCC's Technological Advisory Council,
you've seen, firsthand, the power and potential of the
Internet. There's no debate whether our current
telecommunications laws, whether they were written in 1996,
1992, or 1934, anticipated a converged world in which American
consumers can choose from multiple wireline and wireless
communication substitutes. None of them did. In fact, all of
our laws deserve to be reviewed and brought into the digital
all-IP era, reflecting not just today's reality, but also
allowing for tomorrow's advances.
Your term at the FCC has the potential to be pivotal one
for the communications history, and I invite you to share your
ideas regarding statutory and agency modernization.
Chairman Rockefeller, I know many members of the Committee
have already had an opportunity to meet privately with Mr.
Wheeler, and I know others would like to do so. I also suspect
there will not be enough time today to address all the
questions our members may have. So, the record will provide
another opportunity for them to explore issues important to
them and their constituents.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your desire to process Mr.
Wheeler's nomination in a timely manner in order to get the
Commission back to its full membership as soon as possible,
especially given the many critical proceedings before the
agency. So, I await the President's additional nomination to
fill the seat previously held by Commissioner McDowell, and I'm
ready to work with you and our colleagues to move forward both
nominations in due course.
Thank you. And I look forward to hearing Mr. Wheeler's
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Please proceed.
The little red button.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. WHEELER, NOMINEE TO BE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
Mr. Wheeler. First, we start with a technological
challenge: turn the mic on.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, thank you
very much for the privilege of being before you today. It's an
honor to be nominated by the President and to be considered by
this committee for the position of Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission.
As you have both referenced, it has been a privilege to
meet with many members of this committee over the last few
weeks. And, if confirmed, I look forward to continuing those
dialogues, because together, if confirmed, we are working in
``one of the most'' exciting, if not ``the most'' exciting,
technological moment in our Nation's history.
I am blessed to be joined by my family here today, and
please allow me to introduce them----
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Wheeler.--to you.
Carol Wheeler is my best friend and the biggest-hearted,
wisest person I've ever met in my life. And this is a--if
confirmed, this will be a public service that both of us
perform.
The Chairman. This is a very family-friendly observation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wheeler. Nicole McNamara and Melvin McNamara are the
parents of Hunter and Schuyler, who appeared on the scene 3
weeks ago and made us proud grandparents, joining their 2-year-
old, little Melvin McNamara. And, Senator Thune, Melvin, as you
might gather from his name, is from Ireland, and the other set
of grandparents communicate with their grandkids, exactly as
you just said, via Skype and the Internet.
And Max Wheeler, sitting on the end, is somebody I am
incredibly proud of. Last month was a big month because Melvin
and Nicole had twins, and it was also a big month because Max
graduated from the LIFE program at George Mason University.
So, this is a team effort, Senator, and I appreciate the
opportunity to introduce the team to you.
I am excited by the opportunity for public service. For
almost 40 years, my professional life has revolved around
communications technology and its various iterations during
that period. In the process, I have seen the role that policy
can play, either as a boon to growth or a break on innovation.
In 1976, I stepped onto this career path, first as
Executive Vice President and then CEO of the National Cable
Television Association. I fought against the FCC's rules
limiting cable's ability to compete as a new video service. I
worked for the ability of competitors to bring services into
the home. And, at NCTA, helped lead the industry to support
what is today the underpinning of the FCC's jurisdiction over
cable, the 1984 Cable Act.
Caught up in the excitement of the dawning Digital Age, I
became the CEO of NABU, the Home Computer Network, the first
delivery of high-speed data over cable television lines.
Unfortunately, it's hard to be the Home Computer Network when
there are few home computers. And the market forecast did not
come to pass, and that company went by the wayside. But, I was
able to continue in the new digital world, including bringing
to market the first digital video system and the first
satellite delivery of digital video.
And then, in 1992, the cellular industry recruited me to
run CTIA. It was an exciting time as we built markets around
the new concept of competitive local telecommunication service.
During my tenure, that competition was expanded by the auctions
of 1994. Wireless was increasingly used in place of wireline.
And wireless data turned the phone into a pocket computer. All
of these developments brought with them new policy challenges.
What I learned from my business experience will make me a
better Chairman, should the Senate confirm my nomination. Those
lessons can be summed up in two concepts:
The first is that competition is a power unto itself that
must be encouraged. Competitive markets produce better outcomes
than regulated or uncompetitive markets. I've seen, firsthand,
the results of competition. DBS competition spurred cable's
expansion into digital services. Competitive local exchange
carriers and cable television provision of Internet access
spurred telephone companies to expand their digital offerings.
And the introduction of PCS licensees spurred cellular carriers
to go digital. I am an unabashed supporter of competition. I
believe the role of the FCC has evolved from acting in lieu of
competition to dictate the market to promoting and protecting
competition, with appropriate oversight, to see that it
flourishes.
The second lesson is that, while competition is a basic
American value, by itself it is not always sufficient to
protect other basic American values. In the telecommunications
world, this committee has identified, and the Congress has
identified, issues that include improving access to broadband
networks. Universal service is a key tenet of the
Telecommunication Act. We did it for electricity. We did it for
phone service. We can do it for broadband.
This committee has, long and regularly, recognized another
value, and that is the use of technology to enhance public
safety and public services. It makes no sense that first
responders carry their own smartphones because the gear they
have been issued cannot do what technology otherwise makes
possible. Likewise, it doesn't make sense that 80 percent of E-
Rate schools report the available bandwidth is below their
instructional needs.
Assisting those who are disabled or disadvantaged is
another American value. This committee's work on the 21st
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act is a classic
example of making sure our values and our technology are in
sync.
And, of course, protecting consumers is the heart of the
congressional instructions in the Telecommunications Act, and
manifests itself in the half-a-billion--I'm sorry--half-a-
million consumer inquiries and complaints that the Commission
handles annually.
It is the fact that our society depends so much on our
networks that makes the work of the FCC so very important. The
Commission is ably led by a well-informed and dedicated group
of commissioners supported by an excellent professional staff.
Chair Clyburn, Commissioner Rosenworcel, and Commissioner Pai
are public service exemplars. Should the Senate determine to
confirm my nomination, my life experience has prepared me to
participate with these dedicated professionals to carry out the
intent of Congress in this important area.
I'm humbled to be before you today. Should you so decide, I
look forward to the opportunity of working with this committee
and with each of you to advance the networks and services that
are defining our tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Wheeler follow:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas E. Wheeler
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune. It is an
honor to be nominated by the President and to be considered by this
committee for the position of Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). It has been a privilege to meet with many of you over
the last few weeks. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
Committee on one of the most dynamic policy environments in our
nation's history.
I am excited by the potential for public service. For almost 40
years my professional life has revolved around new communications
technology. In the process I have seen the important role that policy
can play--as either a boon to growth or a brake on innovation.
In 1976 I stepped on to this career path, first as executive vice
president, and then CEO of the National Cable Television Association. I
fought against the FCC's rules limiting cable's ability to compete with
new video services.
I worked for the ability of competitors to bring services to into
the home. And at NCTA, I helped lead the industry to support what is
today the underpinning of the FCC's jurisdiction over cable, the 1984
Cable Act.
Caught up in the excitement of the dawning digital age, I became
CEO of NABU: The Home Computer Network--the first delivery of high-
speed data over cable lines. Unfortunately, it is hard to be The Home
Computer Network when there are few home computers. After this
experience I continued to pursue the new digital world, including
bringing to market the first digital video system, and the first
satellite delivery of digital video.
Then, in 1992 the cellular industry recruited me to run CTIA. It
was an exciting time as we built markets around the new concept of
competitive local telecommunications service. During my tenure that
competition was expanded by the auctions of 1994, wireless was
increasingly used in place of wireline, and wireless data turned the
phone into a pocket computer. All of these developments brought with
them new policy challenges.
What I have learned from my business experience will make me a
better chairman, should the Senate confirm my nomination. Those lessons
can be summed up in two concepts.
The first is that competition is a power unto itself that must be
encouraged. Competitive markets produce better outcomes than regulated
or uncompetitive markets.
I have seen first-hand the results of competition:
DBS competition spurred cable's expansion into digital
services.
Competitive Local Exchange carrier (CLECs) and cable
provision of Internet access spurred the telephone companies to
expand their digital offerings,
The introduction of PCS licensees spurred cellular carriers
to go digital.
I am an unabashed supporter of competition. I believe the role of
the FCC has evolved from acting in the absence of competition to
dictate the market, to promoting and protecting competition with
appropriate oversight to see that it flourishes.
Competition is a basic American Value, yet by itself is not always
sufficient to protect other basic American Values. In the
telecommunications world the Values Congress has identified include
improving access to broadband networks. Universal service is a key
tenet of the Telecommunications Act; we did this for electricity and
basic telephone service, we can do it for broadband.
This Committee has long and regularly recognized another Value: the
use of technology to enhance public safety and public services. It
makes no sense that first responders carry their own smartphones
because the gear they've been issued cannot do what technology
otherwise makes possible. Likewise, it doesn't make sense that 80% of
e-Rate schools report the available bandwidth is below their
instructional needs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.leadcommission.org/challenge/how-do-we-ensure-every-
student-and-educator-has
-high-speed-connectivity-school-and-home
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assisting those who are disabled or disadvantaged is another
American Value. This Committee's work on the 21st Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CCVA) is a classic example
of making sure our values and our technology stay in synch.
And, of course, protecting consumers is the heart of the
Congressional instructions in the Telecommunications Act and manifests
itself in the half a million consumer inquiries and complaints the
Commission handles annually.
It is the fact that our society depends so much on our networks
that makes the work of the FCC so very important. The Commission is
ably led by a well-informed and dedicated group of commissioners
supported by an excellent professional staff. Chair Clyburn,
Commissioner Rosenworcel and Commissioner Pai are public service
exemplars. Should the Senate determine to confirm my nomination, my
life experience has prepared me to participate with these dedicated
professionals to carry out the intent of the Congress in this important
area.
I am humbled to be before you today. Should you so decide, I look
forward to the opportunity of working with this committee and each of
you to advance the networks and services that are defining our future.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Thomas Edgar
Wheeler.
2. Position to which nominated: Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: May 9, 2013.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 1401 I St., NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.
5. Date and Place of Birth: April 5, 1946; Redlands, CA.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Carol M. Wheeler, Housewife and volunteer, President, Shiloh
Foundation; children: Nicole McNamara, 35; Max Wheeler, 25.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended:
The Ohio State University, BSc Business Administration, 1968
(9/64-6/68)
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
The Ohio State University Association, Assistant Director, 6/
68-6/69 (est).
Grocery Manufacturers of America: Manager, State Public
Affairs; Director, Public Affairs; Vice President, Public
Affairs 6/69-6/76 (est).
National Cable Television Association: Executive Vice
President; President/CEO 6/76-9/84 (est).
NABU: The Home Computer Network: President/CEO 9/84-6/85 (est).
NuMedia Corporation: President/CEO 6/85-8/87 (est).
NuCable Resources Corporation: President/CEO 8/87-8/90 (est).
Washington Communications Consultants (later changed to Media
Enterprises Corporation): Sole proprietor 1/81-4/92 (est).
Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association: President/
CEO 6/92-11/04.
Shiloh Group, LLC: Sole proprietor 11/04 to present.
Core Capital Partners: Managing Director 1/05 to present.
9. Attach a copy of your resume.
See Attachment A.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
Board of Trustees, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, 1/95-9/06.
John Glenn School of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University,
Advisory Board Member, 1/04 to present.
2008 Obama-Biden Transition Team, Working Group Head for
Science, Technology, Space and the Arts, 8/09-11/09.
FCC Technological Advisory Council, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
State Department Advisory Committee on International
Communications and Information Policy, Chairman, 1/11 to
present.
President's Intelligence Advisory Board 4/11 to present.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Trustee, 1/95-
9/06.
SmartBrief, Inc., Co-founder and Chairman, 3/00 to present
Foundation for the National Archives, Chairman and Board
Member, 1/02 to present.
EarthLink Corp., Board of Directors, 7/03 to present.
Impatica, Inc., Board Member, 2/04-11/08.
Shiloh Group, LLC, Owner, 11/04 to present.
Shiloh Foundation, Vice President, 11/04 to present.
Core Capital Partners, Partner, 1/05 to present.
VSArts, Chairman and Board Member, 9/06-4/10.
GSMA, Ltd., Board of Directors, 10/06 to present.
Roundbox, Inc., Board Member, 1/06 to present.
UpdateLogic, Board Member, 2/06-1/12.
Twisted Pair Solutions, Board Member, 9/06 to present.
LimeLife, Inc., Board Member, 3/07-6/10.
Samsung Corp., Advisory Board Member, 3/07-3/10.
Jacked, Inc., Board Member, 4/07-5/10.
Capitol Acquisition Corp., Advisor, 10/07-10/09.
MoBo Systems, Board Member, 4/08 to present.
Gettysburg National Battlefield Foundation, Board Member, 6/09
6/10.
Transaction Network Services, Board of Directors, 12/09-2/13.
United Nations Foundation mHealth Alliance, Chairman and Board
Member,
5/10 to present.
FCC Technological Advisory Council, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
NTT DoCoMo, U.S. Advisory Board, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
State Department Advisory Committee on International
Communications & Information, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
President's Intelligence Advisory Board Member, 4/11 to
present.
GSMA Mobile for Development Foundation, Board of Directors, 1/
13 to present.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Trustee, 1/95-
9/06.
SmartBrief, Inc., Co-founder and Chairman, 3/00 to present.
Foundation for the National Archives, Chairman and Board
Member, 1/02 to present.
EarthLink Corp., Board of Directors, 7/03 to present.
Impatica, Inc., Board Member, 2/04-11/08.
Shiloh Group, LLC, Owner, 11/04 to present.
Shiloh Foundation, Vice President, 11/04 to present.
Core Capital Partners, Partner, 1/05 to present.
VSArts, Chairman and Board Member, 9/06-4/10.
GSMA, Ltd., Board of Directors 10/06 to present.
Roundbox, Inc., Board Member, 1/06 to present.
UpdateLogic, Board Member, 2/06-1/12.
Twisted Pair Solutions, Board Member, 9/06 to present.
LimeLife, Inc., Board Member, 3/07-6/10.
Samsung Corp., Advisory Board Member, 3/07-3/10.
Jacked, Inc., Board Member, 4/07-5/10.
Capitol Acquisition Corp., Advisor, 10/07-10/09.
MoBo Systems, Board Member 4/08 to present.
Gettysburg National Battlefield Foundation, Board Member, 6/09-
6/10.
Transaction Network Services, Board of Directors, 12/09-2/13.
United Nations Foundation mHealth Alliance, Chairman and Board
Member,
5/10 to present.
FCC Technological Advisory Council, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
NTT DoCoMo, U.S. Advisory Board, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
State Department Advisory Committee on International
Communications & Information, Chairman, 1/11 to present.
President's Intelligence Advisory Board Member, 4/11 to
present.
GSMA Mobile for Development Foundation, Board of Directors, 1/
13 to present.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt: No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
See Attachment B.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Alumni Medal for National and International Achievement, The
Ohio State University, 2009.
Wireless Industry Hall of Fame, 2003.
Cable Television Hall of Fame, 2009.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
I have done my best to identify books, articles, columns,
publications or relevant speeches, including a thorough review of
personal files and searches of publically available electronic
databases. Despite my searches, there may be other materials I have
been unable to identify, find, or remember. I have located the
following:
Books
Leadership Lessons from the Civil War: Winning Strategies for
Today's Managers, Doubleday, 2000.
Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: The Untold Story of How Abraham Lincoln
Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War, Harper Collins, 2006.
Contributions to Books
Abraham Lincoln: Great American Historians on Our Sixteenth
President, ed. Brian Lamb, Susan Swain, Public Affairs, 2008
(chapter).
A Bulldog Grip on New Technology, in Discovering the Civil War,
National Archives, 2010.
Magazine Articles
Commanding by T-Mail, Civil War Times, March/April 2007.
Lincoln's Fleeting Hope for an Early End to the War, co-author
with Trevor Plante, America's Civil War, January, 2008.
America's First Telecommunications President, American
Heritage's Invention & Technology, Winter 2011, Volume 25,
Number 4.
Newspaper Op-Eds
A 24-Hour News Format Has Debased TV News, Newsday, March 17,
1993.
How to Respond When Death Flies on Silent Wings, USA Today,
October 22, 2001.
Terror Watch, 1944, The Washington Post, January 1, 2002.
In Terror, As in the Civil War, Persistence Wins the Fight, USA
Today, May 23, 2002.
You Can Look It Up America: Documents Matter in a Democracy,
Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2003.
The Telegraph as a Window into the Mind of the l6th President,
The Washington Post, February 12, 2007.
The First Wired President, The New York Times, May 24, 2012.
Blog
www.mobilemusings.net
Speeches
Cable Hall of Fame Acceptance Speech http://
www.cablecenter.org/past-honorees/item/wheeler-tom.html
January 2000 Tech Law Journal Speech: http://
www.techlawjournal.com/telecom/20000127tw.htm
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
Based on my search of the Congressional database maintained by the
Government Printing Office (GPO) as well as the Congressional Record
database maintained by Westlaw, I have found the following records of
testifying before Congress. The GPO database provides information on
hearings held in the House and Senate from since the 105th Congress
(1997-98) forward. The Westlaw database returned no additional results.
I am certain, however, that I testified at other hearings in the late
1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s that are not in either database. Such
testimony would have been principally before the Commerce Committees of
the House and Senate, on matters related to cable television policy in
my capacity as the President of the National Cable Television
Association and wireless policy in my capacity as President and CEO of
CTIA. I do not have independent records of those events to verify
dates.
February 3, 1999: House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection-The Wireless Privacy
Enhancement Act of 1999 and the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Enhancement Act of 1999. I testified in my capacity as
President/CEO of CTIA http://www
.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-l06hhrg55150/pdf/CHRG-l06hhrg55150.pdf
March 7, 2000: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation--The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. I testified
in my capacity as President/CEO of CTIA http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
CHRG-106shrg78320/pdf/CHRG-106shrg78320.pdf
April 6, 2000: House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection--Wireless
Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act. I testified in my capacity
as President/CEO of CTIA http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg:/CHRG-
106hhrg64022/pdf/CHRG-106hhrg64022.pdf
October 16, 2001: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications--Wireless E-911
Compliance. I testified in my capacity as President/CEO of CTIA. http:/
/www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-l07shrg
89680/pdf/CHRG-107shrg89680.pdf
July 24, 2001: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and the Internet--U.S. Deployment of Third
Generation Wireless Services: When Will it Happen and Where Will it
Happen. I testified in my capacity as President/CEO of CTIA http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg
74845/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg74845.pdf
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
I have spent the almost four decades of my professional life
involved in new communications technology, including the policy matters
related thereto. I led the cable and wireless industry associations at
definitive points in their histories when they were upstarts reshaping
telecommunications. As an entrepreneur, I have started and built
companies in the technology and telecommunications space. As a venture
capitalist, I have funded and helped grow new technology-based
companies.
If confirmed, I believe I can bring to the position an appreciation
of the role of public policy in innovation and investment and a breadth
of experience with evolving technologies, evolving marketplaces, and
the role of evolving policy to further promote America's leadership in
developing the networks and technologies that drive the information
economy.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
If confirmed as Chairman of the FCC, by Congressional directive, I
will be CEO of an agency with a staff that includes engineers,
technologists, attorneys, economists and others who are charged with
helping inform decisions that impact the communications marketplace. My
career has been one of managing organizations in that space. At the
root of such management is the flow of accurate, honest, and meaningful
information. I have long been a believer in the old expression, ``If
you can measure it, you can manage it.'' I intend to use my experience
to build a collegial decision-making environment with my colleagues
where our decisions are based on data and input from all stakeholders
including representatives of the consumer public, industry
representatives, innovators, and others.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
A. Public Safety Spectrum Act:
The successful implementation of the Public Safety Spectrum
Act, including implementation of the first-in-the-world
incentive auction, will be a top priority. To continue our
Nation's leadership in the mobile economy, we must address the
widely acknowledged spectrum shortage. As technological
advances have increased consumer demand, it is critical that we
repurpose spectrum to address that demand and we must fund the
nationwide broadband public safety network. This particular
auction, in which broadcasters voluntarily contribute some or
all of their spectrum for wireless carriers to bid on, is
fraught with complexities and challenges in both the operation
of the auction as well as the rules that will govern the
auction process itself. The Commission has a team of some of
the brightest minds in auction design working on this endeavor,
and if confirmed, I will work to bring this critical auction to
a successful completion.
B. Technology Transitions:
The evolution from an analog switched circuit to an all-
Internet Protocol (IP) network creates a situation where
digital technologies must operate under rules developed for
analog networks. There is a need to look at the rules that have
been established over the years for the analog environment and
determine their applicability and/or their adjustment to the IP
environment. In reviewing these policies, the agency should
focus on reforms that empower and protect consumers, promote
competition, and ensure network resiliency and reliability.
Such change is difficult, especially because economic and
cultural patterns have been built up around the old technology.
If confirmed, I would seek to evolve with the minimal
disruption while encouraging the innovation and investment that
stimulate economic growth.
C. Advancing Civil Society Through Communications and Media:
The opportunities presented for advancing civil society through
evolving network technologies are astounding. Basic bottom line
activities begin with connectivity (including broadband
access), public safety (including national security), and the
ability of the institutions of the commonwealth, such as
education and health care, to be able to participate in the new
capabilities. The encouragement of innovation and investment
across the entire economy, in rural and urban areas, as well as
the availability of essential capabilities for citizens, is
derivative of the capabilities of new networks. This is why
continuing the implementation of the Connect America Fund is
critical, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with my
colleagues, if confirmed, to ensure that the promise of
broadband is delivered to all Americans. The ongoing challenge
of the FCC will be to encourage growth and development while at
the same time assuring the delivery of the basic underpinning
capabilities of the network that are essential to the people
and key institutions.
In addition, a robust and diverse media landscape is critical
to the functioning of our society. Congress directed the FCC to
promote diversity. I intend, if confirmed, to take seriously
the Commission's responsibility in enabling a vibrant media
landscape.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
If confirmed, I will sever my relationship with Core Capital
Partners. I will exercise the portability feature in the John Hancock-
administered 401(k) Plan (currently valued at $160,000) and transfer it
elsewhere.
If confirmed, I will cease the operations of Shiloh Group, LLC. I
will continue to participate in the Shiloh Group Defined Benefit Plan,
but will make no contributions or withdrawals during the period in
which I hold office.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain: No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the FCC's designated agency ethics
official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential
conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of
an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the FCC's designated
agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I
am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing; or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the FCC's designated agency ethics
official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential
conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of
an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the FCC's designated
agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I
am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy.
I was President of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet
Association from 1992 to 2004. My lobbying registration ended in 2003.
I was a consultant to Cingular on their acquisition of AT&T
Wireless in 2005. I did not lobby.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the FCC's designated agency ethics
official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential
conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of
an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the FCC's designated
agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I
am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain: No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain.
The question appears to be directed towards administrative
procedures that are disciplinary where I have been a ``party.'' The
answer to that question is NO. However, I have been a ``participant''
(as differentiated from a ``party'' in the Administrative Procedure
Act) in ``an administrative agency proceeding'' on behalf of the
members of CTIA and NCTA.
Insofar as civil litigation, as head of the cellular industry
association, I was involved in the commissioning of research (much of
it in conjunction with the FDA) that some alleged was a ``cover up'' to
the allegation that cellphones caused brain cancer. These allegations
were published in Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age by
George Carlo and Martin Schram (Basic Books, 2002). The FDA website
states, ``The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones
with any health problems.'' (http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmi
ttingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/Cel1Phones/
ucm1162
82.htm) The FDA has also published a Consumer Update ``No Evidence
Linking Cell Phone Use to Risk of Brain Tumors,'' (http://www.fda.gov/
ForConsumers/Consu
merUpdates/ucm212273.htm) The emission levels from wireless devices are
regulated to established safety standards by the FCC (http://fcc.gov/
oet/rsafetv/rf-faqs.html). I was named, in my official capacity as
President and CEO of CTIA as a defendant in some of these suits, as was
CTIA itself. In all cases the court removed both CTIA and me from the
suits. None of the cellphone cancer suits has ever been successful.
I was a party to my divorce, which was finalized in April 1981.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination.
None to my knowledge.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
Resume of Tom Wheeler
Managing Director, Core Capital Partners
For almost four decades Torn Wheeler has worked at the forefront of
telecommunications policy and business development, experiencing the
revolution in telecommunications as both a policy expert and
businessman. As an entrepreneur he started or helped start multiple
companies offering new cable, wireless and video communications
services. He is the co founder of SmartBrief, the first targeted,
filtered electronic news service which today serves over six million
readers daily. As a policy expert he has been intimately engaged in the
development of the government's telecommunications policy at both the
legislative and regulatory level.
On the 20th anniversary of the cable television industry (1995)
Wheeler was selected one of the 20 most influential individuals in the
industry's history. He has been elected to the Cable Hall of Fame. On
the 25th anniversary of the cellular telecommunications industry (2008)
he was named one of the top 10 innovators in the wireless industry and
is a member of the Wireless Hall of Fame. Following the election of
2008 he led the Obama-Biden Transition on science, technology, space
and the arts.
From 1976 to 1984, Mr. Wheeler was associated with the National
Cable Television Association (NCTA), where he was president from 1979
to 1984. After several years as CEO of new technology start-ups,
including the first company to offer high sped delivery of data to home
computers and the first digital video delivery service, Mr. Wheeler was
asked to take over the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet
Association (CTIA). He served as CEO of CTIA from 1992-2004.
Mr. Wheeler wrote Take Command: Leadership Lessons of the Civil War
(Doubleday, 2000) and Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: The Untold Story of How
Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War (HarperCollins,
2006). His commentaries on current events have been published in the
Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and other
leading publications.
President Obama appointed Mr. Wheeler to the President's
Intelligence Advisory Board. Presidents Clinton and Bush each appointed
him a Trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
where he served for 12 years. He chairs the Technological Advisory
Council of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Wheeler is the
former Chairman of the Foundation for the National Archives, and a
former member of the board of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). He
is on the advisory board of the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at
the Ohio State University. Mr. Wheeler sits on the boards of Core
portfolio companies Roundbox, Twisted Pair Solutions, and GoMoBo. He is
also on the board of EarthLink (NASDQ: ELNK).
Mr. Wheeler is a graduate of The Ohio State University and the
recipient of its Alumni Medal for national and international career
achievement. He resides in Washington, D.C.
______
Attachment B--Political Contributions
In preparing this information, I relied on information found on the
Federal Election Commission's website and personal checking account
records.
2003
New Leadership for America PAC--$2,000; Leadership '02--$1,000;
CTIA PAC--$4,576; John Kerry for President--$2,000; DLA Piper PAC--
$1,000; The Markey Committee--$1,000; Susan Leal for Mayor--$500; Wyden
for Senate--$4,000; Shannon for Delegate--$500
2004
America Coming Together--$2,000; Lots of People for Daschle--
$3,000; New Leadership for America PAC--$2,000; Dedicated Americans for
the Senate and House PAC--$2,000; Friends of Jon Jennings--$750; CTIA
PAC--$1,664; Sam Brooks for City Council--$500; The Markey Committee--
$2,000; DashPac--$2,000; Kerry-Edwards--$10,000; ACT--$2,000; Friends
of Mark Warner--$1,000
2005
EarthLink PAC--$2,000; Friends of Hillary--$4,200; Sidebottom for
School Board--$250; Forward Together--$5,000; Friends of O'Malley--
$2,000
2006
EarthLink PAC--$2,000; Sam Brooks for City Council--$500; Obama for
President--$1,000; 2010 INC--$1,000; The Markey Committee--$1,000;
Fenty for Mayor--$500; Friends of O'Malley--$250; Ritter for Governor--
$500
2007
EarthLink PAC--$5,000; Markey for Congress--$1,000; EarthLink PAC--
$5,000; Obama for America--$4,600; Kerry for Senate--$1,000; Udall for
Colorado--$1,000; Obama for America--$6,900
2008
Reuven Carlyle for State Rep--$500; Friends of Jay Rockefeller--
$1,000; Obama Victory Fund--$28,500; Patrick Murphy for Congress--
$2,300; Clinton for President--$2,300; Friends of Mark Warner--$4,600
2009
Brian Moran for Governor--$1,500; Leahy for Senate--$1,000; Women's
Campaign Fund--$500; Russ Carnahan for Congress--$1,000; DCCC--$1,000;
Hodes for Senate--$2,400; Bennett for Senate--$500
2010
Krystal Ball for Congress--$500; Hodes for Senate--$1,000; DNC--
$30,400; Meek for Florida--$500; Jeff Barnett--$500; Sowers for
Congress--$1,000; Patrick Murphy for Congress--$2,400; Reid for
Senate--$1,000
2011
Cardin for Senate--$1,000; Obama Victory Fund 2012--$30,800; Moran
for Congress--$2,000; OVF--$2,000; Tester for Senate--$1,500; Kaine for
Senate--$2,000; Patrick Murphy for Congress--$2,500; Swing State
Victory Fund--$9,200
2012
Diane Smith for Congress--$1,000; DNC--$30,800; Patrick Murphy for
AG--$1,000; Kaine for Senate--$2,000; Chris Lewis for School Board--
$250; Lon Johnson for State Rep--$500; Jim Moran for Congress--$2,500
2013
Colin Harris for Delegate--$250
Offices held with state or national political party or election
committee:
I was on the Kerry for President (2004) and Obama for President
(2008 and 2012) National Finance Committees. In 2012, I was co-chair of
the Obama campaign's Mid Atlantic Finance Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wheeler.
Senator Thune is, in most respects, a superior person to
me----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--and, for that reason and because he has to
do an amendment on the floor, where we're about to go to have
to vote, I want to call on him to ask the first question, while
warning our colleagues that this is an amazingly important
meeting and hearing, and that it's very easy to go down and
vote and then slip into the many things that one has to do. So,
I'm eagerly looking around the room, wondering how many eyes
I'm going to be staring into after our votes.
So, we come back right after the votes, and continue. And I
ask your forbearance on that.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
your kindness in letting me go, although I don't think my
presence on the floor will affect, in a positive way, the
outcome of the vote on my amendment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Mr. Wheeler, on your blog, Mobile Musings,
you indicated, in 2011, that the FCC should have, or, at a
minimum, that it could have, imposed conditions on the AT&T/T-
Mobile merger that could have later been expanded to the entire
wireless industry. Your posts could be read to say that the FCC
should seek to do via merger conditions what it cannot do via
its antiquated regulatory authority, and that is to, ``backdoor
to imposing a new regulatory regime on wireless,'' is how you
characterized it. And I mentioned that in my opening statement.
This concerns me, because I believe that the FCC's
transaction review authority should be used only to address
competitive or public interest issues that are specific to the
individual transaction.
Rather than using strong-arm merger conditions to impose de
facto regulations, shouldn't the FCC instead use its public and
transparency rulemaking authority to implement industrywide
regulatory policy?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator Thune. I appreciate you
raising that issue, and I understand your concern.
What you've cited was hypothetical speculation. What a
regulator must deal with are the realities of a specific case
and the law and precedent that deals with merger review. There
is scarcely anything more important that comes before the
Commission than merger review. And that review must be
conducted precisely, based upon the facts in that specific
instance, based upon the mandate that the Congress has
established in the Act, and based upon precedent. And if I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed as Chairman, those will be the
guidelines that I will use in merger reviews.
Senator Thune. OK. Let me--and I want to quote from your
blog post again. This is why my staff doesn't allow me to blog,
and limits my Twitter.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. But, you assert that merger conditions--and
I want to quote again--``established with the largest carrier
could have been lifted into subsequent consent decrees for
other carriers, and even into the terms for subsequent spectrum
auctions,'' end quote, under the logic that--and I quote
again--``If AT&T can live with them, so can anyone else,'' end
quote.
But, the question I have--to me, that would appear to be
sort of exactly backward. Isn't it large players, like AT&T,
that can more easily handle merger conditions? Whereas, small
and medium-sized operations without huge teams of regulatory
lawyers will be handicapped by regulations intended for a much
larger company?
Mr. Wheeler. I think this is one of the reasons that the
kind of observation I made that you talk about specifics of
that merger agreement that is being reviewed is important,
because these are issues that have to be dealt with, with
caution and with care, and have broad impact, as you just
suggested, sir. And the specific review of the specific issues
in the case, guided by the statute and by precedent, is the
role that the agency should play.
Senator Thune. I represent a rural state, as do a number of
my colleagues here, on both sides, and I'm firmly committed, as
you know from our earlier conversation, to expanding
telecommunications opportunities for people in my state. I'm
wondering, if confirmed as Chairman, how you will approach the
challenges that rural America faces with respect to
telecommunications issues.
Mr. Wheeler. So, Senator, it seems to me that we have made
the jump from voice to broadband. Chairman Genachowski and the
Commission, with the help of this committee, have made that
jump. There is expansion of broadband going on, but there are
three goals that I think are particularly important. One is the
extension of broadband, as we--I just referenced. Second is the
expansion of broadband as technology allows faster and faster
speeds. And the third is the exploitation of broadband. And any
one without the other is an incomplete solution.
And so, in rural America as in urban America, it's
expansion--I'm sorry--it's extension, expansion, and
exploitation that are going to be the key to our broadband
digital future.
Senator Thune. Let me, if I might, just touch on the
spectrum issue a little bit, here. It's been over 5 years since
the FCC held an auction to put new spectrum for mobile
broadband into the marketplace. The question is, Do you think
that's an acceptable track record? And what do you do--intend
to do to improve upon it?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. The--there are a couple of
auctions teed up, not the least of which is the incentive
auction, which will be the first time in the history of the
world--I guess that's a little grandiose statement, but it will
be the first time that an auction like this has been tried.
This committee and the Congress have directed the FCC to do
that in an expedited manner. Chairman Genachowski has set a
schedule for that. And, if I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed, it is my intention to move expeditiously to make
spectrum available by auction, in multiple bands.
Senator Thune. Do you agree that the goal of the incentive
auction ought to be to maximize net revenues in order to cover
the costs of FirstNet, Next Generation 9-1-1, and to reduce the
deficit?
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, they--the incentive auction, as I
said, is something that's never been tried before. And I liken
it to a Rubik's Cube, that, over on this side of the cube,
you've got to provide an incentive for broadcasters to want to
auction their spectrum; on this side of the cube, you have got
to provide a product that is structured in such a way that
incentivizes the wireless carriers, or whoever the bidders may
be, to want to bid for that spectrum; and then, in the middle
of this, on an almost realtime basis, you have to have a band
plan that is constantly changing to reflect the variables that
are going on here. That's why this has never been tried before.
This is a monumental undertaking. And all of the pieces, to
create value for the broadcasters and value for the wireless
industry and to pay for FirstNet and to provide something for
the American taxpayer, all have to go into this incredibly
complex Rubik's Cube.
Senator Thune. I'll take that as a yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, my time's expired, and you've
been more than generous in letting me go first. So, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
I'll just ask two quick questions, and then I really think
we'd better skedaddle and come back. Is that all right with
you, Senator Blunt? I have your permission to go ahead with a
question?
Senator Blunt. Yes, you go right ahead.
The Chairman. Thank you.
As I mentioned in my remarks, the E-Rate program is just
seminal, in my life and with me, in terms of public policy, the
idea being to bring affordable access to telecommunications and
Internet to schools and libraries throughout the entire
country. The President wants to make it to 99 percent. I'm all
for that. He reaffirmed the sentiment when he called on the FCC
to take the steps necessary to make sure that all American
students, from Next Generation digital technologies, can
benefit from them. It was a bold statement, and a good one.
Earlier this year, I received public comments from all the
current sitting commissioners to work with me to update and
strengthen the E-Rate program. That's not a frivolous thing. I
mean, I don't make them stand and take an oath. But, it's just
one by one--yes, no, yes, no. And they were all yeses. That
does not always guarantee the result, because of internal
problems that arise, but, to me, it involves a commitment.
So, I ask if, if confirmed, which I'm certain you will be,
would you also commit to working with me--I know this is a
basic question, but I need to ask it--to protect E-Rate's
accomplishments, as well as to secure additional support and
update the program to meet the standards and future needs of
our schools and libraries?
Mr. Wheeler. I'm taking your hint, sir. The answer is yes.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Wheeler. I mean the hint of one-word answers.
The Chairman. Can you just give me one sentence of why you
said yes?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. I've been a supporter of the E-Rate
since it first happened, in 1996, and I think it's for very
basic reasons. I--as I mentioned in my testimony, when 80
percent of the E-Rate schools say they're not getting the
proper bandwidth for their instructional needs, something needs
to be done about that. This is a program that started in 1996.
A lot of things have changed since 1996. It is not good enough
for us to have 1996 textbooks in the classroom. I don't think
it's good enough for--have 1996 connectivity in the classroom.
The Chairman. Good. One more.
When Congress authorized voluntary incentive auctions last
year, it was part of a larger goal of providing funding for the
FirstNet.
Let me just interject this. When we passed E-Rate, Olympia
Snowe being one of the coauthors, I wrote each of the
telecommunications companies at that time--there being more,
then--and asked them to write a letter to me, promising they
would not challenge this public policy in court. I got letters
from every one of the CEOs, promising not to challenge in
court, after which they all challenged it in court.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And they all lost in court. But, that--that's
a part of my--what I bring to all of this. Promises made,
promises kept. It's important.
So, the auction, as Senator Thune said, is incredibly
complicated, and getting it right is really hard. For me, the
successes of these auctions will be judged by their ultimate
ability to provide sufficient funding to fund the critical
activities of FirstNet.
So, question. I know you have watched this policy debate
closely, so you'll appreciate my question. If confirmed, do you
understand the need for incentive auction rules to provide
sufficient funding for FirstNet?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Can you please commit to act expeditiously to
commence these auctions, complicated though they are, and to
avoid unnecessary delay?
Mr. Wheeler. I think it's absolutely crucial that the
incentive auction move on an expedited schedule, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. The hearing stands in recess.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, can I go
ahead and ask my two or three questions and then----
The Chairman. Of course.
Senator Blunt.--I'll get out of everybody's way? Is that
okay----
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Blunt.--if I'm next? I'm going to ask a couple of
questions. And then I may have more for the record, Mr.
Wheeler.
But, actually, the first thing I want to ask is more of a
statement than a question. We're getting ready, tomorrow, for a
hearing in this same committee, different subcommittee, on
railroads. And one of the things that came up, when we--getting
ready for that hearing--on positive train control, which,
currently, the law says should be implemented by 2015. The
Commission will have to commit--will have to complete the
permitting process, including environmental impact studies and
historical impact studies, for 22,000 new wireless poles and
towers. I'm told that the historic impact studies may even have
more resonance here, because of tribal lands and other things,
than the other studies. It's also my understanding that, now,
the normal number of permits is somewhere between--for towers
and--somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000. If the Commission goes
through the regular permitting process for these poles, most of
which would be located on current right-of-way, it would take
10 years to complete.
So, I just want to be sure that's on your agenda as you're
thinking about that. This is a case where one set of procedures
would make it impossible to comply with the other law. And I
don't know if you've had a reason to discuss this with anyone
yet, or not, but, if you had, and want to comment, that's fine.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. I have not, and it is now
on the list.
Senator Blunt. OK. 22,000 permits, unless there's some
expedited permitting process that goes on so that positive
train control could happen.
On retransmission, Mr. Wheeler, everyone knows that
retransmission consent is a controversial topic. This
committee, over the years, has spent countless hours debating
that. Chairman Genachowski and his predecessors have always
taken the view that the FCC's current authority to alter
retransmission consent rules in any way is very limited, and
that changes to the policy would have to come from Congress. Is
that a position you share?
Mr. Wheeler. I look forward to looking into that issue,
Senator, and trying to get my arms around it, particularly in
light of some recent court decisions and a pending 2nd Circuit
action that has been brought on a related kind of issue. I'm
not trying to dodge your question, but I think that this is
something that is a situation that is in flux at this moment,
that I need to get my arms around.
Senator Blunt. Do you think there's a possibility, in that
court decision, that the Commission has more authority than
they have previously thought they had on this topic?
Mr. Wheeler. I would hate to second-guess a court in
advance, sir.
Senator Blunt. OK. So, you're waiting for that court
decision to----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Blunt.--see where you need to come down on that.
And the third question I want to ask--and I would have some
in--just--I'll submit questions later--but, in merger
situations, there's a 180-day--you know, the so-called ``shot
clock''----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Senator Blunt.--rule. Do you plan to continue the
Commission's trend of attaching conditions to the merger which
don't directly deal with competitive issues? Got a couple of
examples, if you want to hear them, but----
Mr. Wheeler. I understand your----
Senator Blunt. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler.--your question, sir. And it is not dissimilar
to the kinds of things that Senator Thune and I exchanged ideas
on.
I believe that the merger review process is a specific
process that deals with that specific case, the facts in that
situation, and is guided by the law and precedent, and that--
you know, that ought to be the defining four corners of any
consideration.
Senator Blunt. And competition is the merger-review----
Mr. Wheeler. I think----
Senator Blunt.--element----
Mr. Wheeler.--public interest and convenience and necessity
is the broad term, but it includes competition, it includes
consumer protection, it includes the viability of markets, et
cetera.
Senator Blunt. Thank you. I'll have some more questions
later.
And, Senator Nelson, thank you for----
Senator Nelson [presiding]. The Committee----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nelson.--will stand in recess, subject to----
Senator Blunt.--thank you for----
Senator Nelson.--the call of the Chair.
Senator Blunt.--holding the gavel so I could ask those
questions.
[Recess.]
Senator Nelson. OK, we'll resume. The Chairman is on his
way.
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for your patience today,
as you had to wait an extra hour for us, but----
Mr. Wheeler. Not a problem, thank you, Senator.
Senator Fischer.--we had some votes to take.
I also want to thank you for coming in and visiting with
me, and I appreciate that you took the time to have a
conversation. And I look forward, now, to continuing that.
As you know, when we met the other day in my office, I
explained to you that I do have an interest in looking at
alternative funding and looking at a different mechanism for
the Universal Service Fund. Do you think that that would be one
of your priorities, if you would be confirmed? And what options
do you see for that alternative funding?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. And I also, as we
discussed, recognize your expertise on the matter, having
served as Chairman of the Committee in the Nebraska
legislature.
I was fortunate enough to be able to serve on the first
board of USAC, the Universal Service Administrative
Corporation, and I've seen a lot happen to universal service
since then, as it evolved. Chairman Genachowski had some
significant iterations. But, it seems to me that of pressing
importance is to continue the evolution of universal service
and to look at that evolution holistically, if you will, that
we have tended to look at universal service, like the old story
about the different fellows feeling the elephant; one thinks
it's a snake and one thinks it's a tree, and this sort of
thing. And I think we need to look at the whole elephant and
ask ourselves what has happened since the onset of the program,
in terms of technology, in terms of marketplace, in terms of
business models, that suggest that we ought to be looking at
new approaches.
Senator Fischer. Specifically for funding, though, what
options are out there? What would be a source of revenue?
Mr. Wheeler. I think it's--but, I think it's a whole--the
``guzintas and guzoutas,'' you know, can't quite be separated,
here. And--but, clearly, one of the challenges that is facing
universal service, going forward, is the IP transition. And if
you have fees assessed on telecommunication services, and fewer
and fewer things are telecommunication services, that's an
issue that has to be addressed. But, it's an issue that has to
be addressed holistically, with both sides of the equation.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
The Chairman felt that we could have this incentive auction
done by 2014. Do you think that that's a realistic goal, moving
forward?
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I will make every effort to meet that
schedule. One of the big frustrations in my current situation
is that I know what's on the public record, but I have no idea
what other things are going on in other decisions and other
structural and other facts that have--that are being used by
the Commission. And I look forward to getting those pieces of
information and then making that decision. But, I think that
this is something--as I said to the Chairman and I reiterate
again, I think this is something that needs to move, on an
expedited basis.
Senator Fischer. That's good to hear, thank you.
As you know, some groups are pushing the FCC to use its
rulemaking authority to enforce the provisions in the failed
DISCLOSE Act, which would require the disclosure of donors or
private groups that purchase television time for campaign
purposes. Are you concerned that inserting the FCC into this
politically charged debate, where Congress has expressly
decided not to act, would undermine the bipartisan support for
the FCC?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, one of the things that I have learned
about that--you know, I said it in my statement, I've spent 40
years in telecom. I can assure you that this issue is not one
that I have ever seen come on my radar before, and I know that
it is a strongly held position throughout this committee, with
differing positions. And so, what I know I'm going to do is,
I'm going to learn more about it. I'm going to delve into the
issue. But, I am not unaware of the tensions that this issue
creates.
Senator Fischer. Do you think it would be a proper role for
the FCC to bypass Congress, where Congress decided not to act?
Do you think it is within your charge that you would then act
as an agency in a rulemaking process, where Congress decided
not to act?
Mr. Wheeler. I think it is the job of the agency to act
within the structures that the Congress has created. And, as I
understand this issue and this debate, there is debate on
whether or not that authority exists and resides in the
Commission today. And that's what I want to learn more about.
Senator Fischer. What do you see as the biggest challenge
before you, if you would be confirmed?
Mr. Wheeler. Only one?
Senator Fischer. Yes. The biggest. Number one.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, clearly, you talked about the auction,
and there is a--there are so many components of the effect of
the auction that you have to say that that auction is a top
priority.
But, on a more megascale, I've spent a lot of time dealing
with the FCC in my life, and it is important that the agency
make decisions, and make decisions in a timely fashion. There's
nothing worse for investment, innovation, job creation, all the
things that flow from investment, than businesses not knowing
what the rules are. And so, I would hope that, in an
overarching scope of things, that we would be able, with my
colleagues--because I am very aware that this is a commission,
not a sole proprietorship, and--but, with my colleagues, that
we will be able to identify issues and move with dispatch.
Senator Fischer. Well, thank you. It has been a pleasure to
meet you, to visit with you. I wish you well. And I hope you'll
come to Nebraska. As I mentioned during our previous
conversation, we are, I believe, leaders, when it comes to
telecommunications and broadband, and yet we're a very, very
sparsely populated state in many areas, the populations focused
in the eastern part of the state. So, I hope you'll come and
see the diversity of our state and how we've addressed the
needs of the people.
Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. I look forward to that, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Begich.
Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Appreciate it.
Again, thank you very much for spending the time with me a
few days ago. And I appreciate your willingness to do public
service, and also to your supporters and families for their
willingness to allow you to do it, because I know what that's
like and the pressure that will add to your family. So, thank
you very much.
Let me, if I can, pick up on two ends. First, I want to
talk a little bit--I want to follow up what Senator Fischer
said about, kind of, rural states. And she definitely is from a
rural state. Ours is considered more extreme rural, to say the
least. And the high cost to do business up there, maybe the
middle mile or the last mile, is very expensive. We--to be very
frank with you, we have found not a lot of understanding, in
total, by the FCC in this area. Actually, there have been
documents and reports indicating that it's actually cheaper to
build in Alaska than the Lower 48, which is absolutely false
and incorrect.
And I guess I want to get your sense of your understanding,
on the record here, of how we can work with the FCC, or how you
see the FCC working with these very extreme areas that have
high cost to develop and get a predictable stream. Because what
happens now--as you know, in the private sector, you can't make
these kind of investments with one-year, you know, horizons.
You've got to have multiple years. And we find it very
difficult, especially with our small co-ops, as an example,
working rural Alaska, or our large companies laying lots of new
fiber, or utilization of satellite, because that's all that can
work in some of our areas. Can you give me a little sense of
your feeling and your thoughts in regards to--able to make sure
there's equal access for very extreme rural areas, and
understanding that the cost is going to be higher than anywhere
in the country, more than likely?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. I do understand that that
decision was made about costs, and I, too, scratch my head, and
I am going to learn more about that, because it does seem, if
not illogical, at least counterintuitive.
Senator Begich. We would say it's out of whack.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. OK? There's a--more direct. But, I hear
you. Go ahead.
Mr. Wheeler. And I also think that Alaska holds great
promise for new technologies. And, you know, as you know, I'm
proud of the fact that I, many years ago, turned on the
northernmost cell site in North America, at Point Barrow.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. And I'm--and I watched--and it was an amazing
experience--I watched how that could change a community--the
excitement that it brought to a community, the polar bear
patrol, which I never knew anything about, that was enabled
because of----
Senator Begich. This new technology.
Mr. Wheeler.--this new technology.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Wheeler. And the promise that that new technology, new
communications technology, enables is wide in many areas, but,
particularly in states like Alaska, it seems to have great
opportunity.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Let me also--FCC has eliminated the budget for consultation
with tribal nations, which--Alaska has half the tribes of the
Nation, 230-some tribes, but, across the country obviously, a
sizable amount. There is a--in Alaska, a sizable amount, 44
million acres, of Alaskan-native-owned land; then, of course,
with the Lower 48, lots of tribal land.
What will you do to--I don't want to--I want to ask you a
budget question, but I know the answer, so I don't want to
waste my time on that. I'd rather just say, Are you willing to
help step this effort back into what should be a part of the
process, and that is tribal consultation with regards to
wireless? Because if you look at the areas that are the least
connected, predominantly it's tribal lands, throughout the
country and Alaska. And yet, then the FCC wipes out the funding
to actually consult to how to improve that. So, give me your
thoughts, there. That's a very easy setup question. It's a
really easy answer.
Mr. Wheeler. It's hard--no, it's--well, but it's the--
truthful, sir. It is hard to serve people if you can't consult
with them. Period.
Senator Begich. I'll take that. We'll work with you. If
you----
Mr. Wheeler. I look forward to that.
Senator Begich. Today, my colleague from Alaska,
Congressman Young, had a--chaired an oversight hearing, in the
House Natural Resources Committee, on the FCC and the Universal
Service Fund. And you should watch it. He's very animated,
because no one from the FCC decided to show up to the hearing,
which, from our perspective, an Alaska perspective, we had
people fly 5,000 miles to come to the hearing, when the D.C.
folks are just down the street and couldn't find it in their
time, in their somewhat busy schedule--and I get that--but, for
Alaskans to fly that far--is amazing to me. As Chairman of the
Commission, will you do everything possible, under every
circumstance--I've experienced this, too, to be very frank with
you, where they don't show up, because they don't want to have
the discussion. Well, too bad. They've got to have the
discussion, may they be uncomfortable. I have a lot of
discussions every day that are uncomfortable, but we have to do
that. Would you, as--if you're selected as Chair, will you
ensure, wherever possible, that members of the FCC will show up
at these hearings? I mean, I--I'll tell you, the--you have to
watch the--not a happy camper, over there, so I can only
imagine. Luckily, he's not doing the confirmation hearings.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. But, will you do everything you can--I
mean, it's critical--to have the people at the table?
Mr. Wheeler. It is--it's the same as the consultation
issue. It's all about dialogue. And the answer to your question
is yes.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me--I have just a few
seconds left--let me just say, another area--obviously, we'd
love to invite you to Alaska so you can--and you've been there,
I know that, but now, assuming your new role, I'd be very
interested in seeing you participate in coming up to Alaska and
kind of seeing what we're trying to do with the new technology
since your time there. And if you would at least consider that,
we'd work with you on----
Mr. Wheeler. I would look forward to that.
Senator Begich. Last--and I know you saw it--there were
some--the last--one of the last questions, over on the other
side, was about the FCC's role in regards to DISCLOSE Act. You
know, it's interesting, the FEC, another, you know, one--a few
letters off, but the FEC--requires us to put our voice on the
ads. So, it would seem logical, if corporations want to do
these ads, they should put their voice, because they're
supposed to be people, so I'm sure--I mean, they must have a
voice somewhere. Isn't that a question? It's a rhetorical
question. And I'm just putting that out there, because I think
your point was good, that there are very strong feelings on
both sides, here. If we're required to put the voice on, then a
corporate--``corporation,'' that's now defined as a person by
the Supreme Court, I hope that I'd see their voice--that they'd
find their voice and put it on an ad. But, I'll leave it at
that.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to just point out that I know that there is some
interest on this political advertising. And the fact is that
there is a petition in front of the FCC that is ongoing, and
it's not going to be appropriate for you to respond. There's a
live petition for rulemaking, filed by Media Access Project,
filed a year ago, asking the Commission to examine the
Commission's authority under the Communications Act, to require
more disclosure in political advertising. You were asked that
by Senator Fischer, and, in essence, you deferred. And, I
think, given the fact that there is an ongoing rulemaking, that
is an appropriate thing to do.
And, furthermore, I just want to mention that, when we
talked earlier, we talked about the need of the Federal and the
commercial users of the spectrum. I was pleased to see, just
this past week, the Administration announced an initiative that
seeks to promote a sharing in order to get more efficient use
of the scarce spectrum resource. And so, I'm assuming, if
you're confirmed, that this is something that you would go
about contributing to this spectrum initiative through
engineering--your engineering expertise and your authority as a
Commissioner under the Communications Act.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. If anything, what I have learned is
that technology is constantly evolving, and the challenge is
how policy keeps up with what technology makes possible. And I
think that is a classic example, right there, sir.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
And now we'll have Senator Cruz, to be followed by Senator
Blumenthal.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler, welcome.
Mr. Wheeler. Senator.
The Chairman. Wait a second. Excuse me for a second,
Senator. Did I bypass you, Senator Ayotte?
Senator Ayotte. You did.
The Chairman. Who did I bypass? Just tell me.
Senator Ayotte. Are you going by the gaveling rule?
Senator Cruz. I will happily defer to my friend from New
Hampshire.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, while we've got all these
deferrals going on, I just wanted to mention one thing. I
understand it's your birthday today. Is that right?
The Chairman. No.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. We won't ask our witness to sing you ``Happy
Birthday.''
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Senator Thune. But, we certainly do want to recognize your
experience.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir, very much.
Senator Cruz. Given the position for which he's nominated,
perhaps you could text him ``Happy Birthday.''
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Ayotte.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for taking on this
important role.
When you and I met privately, I talked to you about my
concerns with the Universal Service Fund and, frankly, how
little return on the investment that my constituents get in New
Hampshire. We're a country of 50 different states, so I know
that there are always going to be some inequities. But,
frankly, New Hampshire gets 37 cents on the dollar of what we
contribute to the Universal Service Fund. And there are only
four other states that get a lower return on their investment.
And, frankly, they don't have some of the rural areas that we
have, nor do they have many unserved areas, when you look at
the census blocks to determine that.
So, I would like to ask you, as you are in the position of
the nomination to this important role--do you believe that the
FCC has the ability, under the law today, to work with net
donor states, like mine, to address what we feel is a very
inequitable program? And also, can you share with me your
thoughts on what needs to be done to fix this inequity and to
make sure that we are further considering developments in
technology as we look at the Universal Service Fund and how
it's allocated? I'm happy to have you come visit some of the
rural areas of New Hampshire, but, despite the fact that we're
only getting 37 cents return on every dollar that a person in
New Hampshire contributes, there are many rural areas of my
state that don't have broadband access.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. I am, unfortunately, not
familiar with the specifics of New Hampshire. However, it is
essential that universal service be looked at as a totality and
the distribution, as well as the contribution formulas, looked
at in light of the realities of today.
As you and I had discussed, I was on the first USAC board.
I lived through a lot of the early difficulties. And the great
thing is that the world has moved on since some of those
struggles, in terms of what's happening in the market and
what's happening with technology. We need to make sure that the
rules have, as well.
Senator Ayotte. And can I ask for your commitment to work
with people, like me, whose states don't get the return on
their investment? It's hard for me to look people in New
Hampshire in the eye and say that this makes any sense for my
state and to address the problem of the inequities that are
within the current Universal Service Fund.
Mr. Wheeler. I look forward to working with you on that,
Senator.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you very much.
I also wanted to ask you about the broadband deployment
issue in the rural areas of my state--and I know that Ranking
Member Thune touched on this issue. But, currently, the
Commerce Spectrum and Management Advisory Committee is working
on clearing Federal spectrum for commercial broadband use, but
its work has been slowgoing. And I wanted to ask you: this
morning, the former head of NTIA under President Clinton
criticized this administration for moving too slowly when it
comes to freeing government spectrum--one of the issues you and
I have talked about--on some very valuable bands, particularly
on the issue of the 1755-to-1780 band. And the FCC has less
than 3 years to auction and license the 2155-to-2180 band. And
the reality is, as you know, those bands are best paired
together, so we're behind.
So, what do you think, in your new role that we expect and
hope you'll be confirmed for as the Chairman, that you would be
able to do to move this forward, to really light a fire under
this issue that there's a scarcity of spectrum and to see more
private sector growth by having more spectrum available? And
also, making sure that DOD has what it needs to protect our
national security. So, if you can help me with that, I'd
appreciate it.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. And that's a huge
question. Let me see if I can parse it out.
First of all, I was there when the last Federal Government
spectrum was reallocated to the private sector. I was
representing the wireless industry in that situation. I
understand the challenges involved. I understand the good
faith, on both sides. And I understand how incentives have to
be created and concerns have to be addressed.
It's not my first rodeo. I look forward to participating in
this issue and working with NTIA, who is responsible for the
allocation. The FCC is then responsible for the assignment.
But, sometimes a reallocation requires a reassignment, so there
has to be a pairing of the exercise.
And I also just want to comment, and all of your colleagues
here, that--thinking back to 15 years ago and talking about
spectrum with the Members of Congress--the understanding in the
group of both sides of the spectrum debate that exists today in
the Congress is far different than it was. And I think that's
terrific, because you're the key to keeping both NTIA, the
administration, and the FCC moving on this.
On your specific question, insofar as 2155-to-2180 and
1755-to-1780, yes, they need to be paired. And, as you know,
the upper band of that, the Congress has said, ``You are going
to have this done by February 2015.'' The lower part is
actually part of a 95-meg reach from 1755 on up to 1810--no,
it's not, I'm sorry--up to 1850. Get my math right. But, I
think that parsing that to deal with the first part of that,
1755-to-1780, and then trying to pair it, is an important thing
that has to happen, and we shouldn't have to wait for
everything to be cleared before we move on that.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. I appreciate your being here.
And I want to thank your family for supporting your
service.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And now, Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to sing you ``Happy Birthday,'' but Senator
Thune stole my thunder, so there we go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. I want to welcome our nominee. We
enjoyed the meeting that we had. And I know we covered a lot of
things, but one of the things that I think you know is a
concern to me is that consumers should be able to keep the cell
phone that they purchase, and use the cell phone that they
purchase, even if they move somewhere or their service area
changes. And that's why Senator Lee and Senator Blumenthal and
I introduced the Wireless Consumer Choice Act, which directs
the FCC to take action to ensure that consumers can unlock and
keep their phones when they switch carriers. Senator Leahy also
is working on a bill that I'm a cosponsor of that takes on the
specific decision of the Library of Congress.
And so, I wondered if you could comment on whether you
agree that unlocking is an impediment for consumers choosing to
switch carriers, and therefore, a barrier to competition. And,
should you become the Chairman of the FCC, will you commit to
working with consumers, carriers, and the Library of Congress
to address unlocking? Two questions.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. Who knew the Librarian of
Congress had this far of a reach?
But, I am a strong supporter of intellectual property
rights. At the same point in time, I believe, when I as a
consumer, or you as a consumer, or anybody else, have fulfilled
our commitment, that--and we've paid off our contract--that we
ought to have the right to use that device and to move it
across carriers, or whatever, as we see fit. And, yes, I look
forward to working on this issue and to resolving this issue to
give consumers flexibility.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Another topic. Some of my colleagues had talk about the
spectrum issue. And with the increased discussion about
relocating government spectrum users in order to increase
spectrum available, for good intention, Commissioner
Rosenworcel has suggested providing financial incentives to
government agencies to participate in relocation. This is just
one idea. The President, last week, also called for agencies to
look--take a look at their spectrum holdings and identify
spectrum for commercialization.
What do you see as the future for government and commercial
spectrum management and cooperation?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, as I mentioned earlier, I was involved
in this very issue, the first time it ever happened, and it
only worked if we created incentives--in that case, it was the
Defense Department--if we created appropriate incentives for
the Defense Department to be able to free up spectrum and still
do its job. And those incentives ended up coming down to, How
can you provide the wherewithal so that, if they're leaving
this piece of spectrum to go to this piece of spectrum, that
they can do it over here, with the best technology, with
digital technology, rather than analog technology? That comes
down to a cash issue. That came down to an appropriation issue.
And the Congress, in that situation, created the incentive by
creating the Spectrum Trust Fund and saying that the money
raised from the sale of DOD spectrum would, in fact, go to DOD
to help upgrade.
So, I--Commissioner Rosenworcel made a terrific observation
when she said that we ought to be thinking more about carrots
and less about sticks.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
Mr. Wheeler. And I agree with her.
Senator Klobuchar. Another question related to the Spectrum
Act. When Congress passed it, authorizing the world's first-
ever incentive auction, the Act specifically mentioned that the
FCC should coordinate with Canada and Mexico, prior to the
auction, to protect broadcasters from interference in any
repacking. It's important to lay the groundwork and have
clarity with our international neighbors. That was the focus.
Being a state that is on the Canadian border, will you
commit to work with the--we've been talking a lot about
borders, the last few days on the floor, but not really the
Canadian border--but, I wondered if you could commit to working
with the Canadian government, as well as spectrum users such as
broadcasters on both sides of the border, to make sure that the
auctions are a success?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator. And I was involved in the
digital transition, which involved rebanding, in much the same
way--had to live through those kinds of issues. And I know that
it is possible to do. And yes, we will do that.
Senator Klobuchar. And I thank you for that work on that
digital transition. That was when I--my--about my third year in
office, and I remember how concerned we were that that was not
going to go well. And the delay, I think, was helpful, and we
got it done without a lot of problems.
Everyone knows that retransmission consent--now we're going
to have 10 questions on that; I'm kidding--is a hugely
controversial topic. We've spent countless hours in this
committee debating it and the authority of the FCC. Could you
discuss your views on retransmission policies?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. It's interesting. You know, when I was in
the cable industry, retransmission was an entirely different
concept, because today broadcasters are using retransmission
consent as a way of developing a new revenue stream, where they
can get revenue from subscribers through the intermediary of
the cable operator. I believe in that kind of evolutionary
market.
What does bother me, though, Senator, and I think the
Commission needs to be attuned to, is when consumers are held
hostage over corporate disputes. And if I am fortunate enough
to be confirmed, that'll be something that I'll be looking at.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you.
One last question. Senator Ayotte touched on, in some
length, the rural broadband issue. And I know you and I talked
about that. It's incredibly important in our state. I think
that kids grow up in rural Minnesota, should be able to live
there and work there, and that means they're going to have to
have high-speed Internet.
One of the things I think has been helpful--Secretary
Vilsack has a good sense of that, and I hope you'll commit to
working with him, going forward--to make sure investments are
made to build out our broadband networks.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. And will you continue to review the
FCC's USF reforms and measure the impacts on broadband
investment?
Mr. Wheeler. I think that USF reform is a priority of the
Commission in the totality of the process. So, the answer to
that is yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. You ended
precisely on time.
Now, I want to say, to my colleagues, that I'm a little
embarrassed, here. Senator Heller is next.
And, first, I should say to you, Mr. Wheeler, I've never
been to a hearing where we had sort of a--basically, an hour's
worth of votes, and everybody came back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. The problem is, in which order did they come
back.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. That's not your problem, that's my problem.
And if you call on a Senator behind another Senator or ahead of
another Senator, they only remember it for 2 years.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. But, not on your birthday. You get an
exception.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller. We'll give you a break.
The Chairman. Senator Heller.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I promise I won't
be precisely on time, but thank you very much.
And, Tom, thank you. I appreciate the meeting that we had
in my office. I want to, again, congratulate you on the
nomination, and I want to----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Senator Heller.--welcome your family here, also. Good to
see you. Their smiling faces behind you, it does help.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. Yes, sir.
Senator Heller. A question that I have--and I guess what
I'm looking for is a better understanding of the ``Wheeler
FCC.'' I can't think of an industry today that has more
potential for growth than any other industry in America today:
technology. I think we're going to create more jobs in this
sector, probably, than any other industry in this country in
the next 5 to 10 years, if we do our jobs right, here on our
side and your side.
So, the question that I have that comes to mind, Are you
familiar with some of the reforms that came out of the House
during the last cycle, for the FCC?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Heller. Congressman Walden was the author of that
particular----
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Senator Heller.--FCC bill, and I'd like to highlight just a
couple of pieces on there, and see how you feel about them,
because I think it's important, and I think it'll come back,
something that you'll have to be discussing in the future. And
I only say that because I've authored the Senate side----
Mr. Wheeler. I know you have.
Senator Heller.--of this particular piece of legislation.
One of the things that he was trying to achieve, I believe,
in his legislation, was to get the industry and the Commission
to work better together, that, at times--and you may know this,
having your background and experience--that, at times, the FCC
would not go to the industry and ask them if a new regulation
actually made sense. And I think that's where Walden was trying
to get to, amongst other things, was to make sure that the FCC
and the industry have an opportunity to talk.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, that----
Senator Heller. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. I mean, first of all, I'm still reeling----
Senator Heller. Do you agree--do you agree that was--has
been an issue in the past?
Mr. Wheeler. I think--I must say, in all candor, sir, I
don't believe that, when my job was advocating before the
Commission, that there was a challenge getting my ideas heard.
I do believe that it is essential that the Commission have an
open process for the collection of ideas and inputs.
And I also just want to respond to one thing you said, a
moment ago, which still has me a little startled, when you used
the term the ``Wheeler Commission,'' which is the first time
I've really ever heard that, particularly from somebody like
you. It's an honor to have that kind of moniker, but I would
also want to emphasize that it is a ``commission,'' and that I
don't believe that I'm the Czar. I look forward--I know that it
is a strong Chairman role. I understand the responsibilities of
the Chairman, but I also think that this is a--an institution
that needs to work collegially and together on resolving the
challenges.
Senator Heller. One of the issues that Walden had in his
legislation, which I agree with him on, that the previous
Chairman disagreed with, and that was whether or not to do an
analysis every time a new regulation was proposed: Did it
create jobs or did it kill jobs? What's your feelings on that
topic?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I know that one of the things that you
have proposed is to address the question of whether there are
too many diverse reports coming out of the FCC and there is too
much time being spent on too many reports.
Senator Heller. I agree.
Mr. Wheeler. I think you raise an incredibly valuable
point, when you asked that question, and I think that, inside
the construct of whatever the mandate of reports that the
Congress decides they want the Commission to have, that kind of
an issue falls.
Senator Heller. OK. And I appreciate your response to that,
because, obviously, we share that.
Merger conditions, also something that has been brought up
several times with both Senator Thune and with Senator Blunt
regarding their questions on merger reviews. Now, you've
indicated, three times, that merger reviews should be based on
facts. And you and I would agree with that. But, again, your
blog post, dated September 2, 2011, said, ``My theory was that
conditions ultimately imposed on AT&T by the Government should
not only establish rules on AT&T, but would expand from larger
carriers to all others.''
Now, I see two different theories, here.
Mr. Wheeler. But only one set of laws. There--that in a--in
a hypothetical musing, it is possible to do those. If I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I am guided by statute,
precedent, and the facts in the case before me. Period.
Senator Heller. OK. Let me ask you one more question. And
this is one of the complaints that I've received in the past.
Can you assure us that you'll have no votes between midnight
and 6 o'clock in the morning----
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller.--on the Commission?
Mr. Wheeler. I--Carol is sitting here. She will tell you
that it's rare that I'm awake past 10 o'clock at night. And I
don't know the reference you're making, but it certainly would
not be my goal to be holding votes at that time of night.
Senator Heller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heller.
Now Senator Cruz.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler, de ja vu all over again.
Mr. Wheeler. Sir.
Senator Cruz. Thank you for being here. I enjoyed the time
you and I had to visit in my office.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz. I want to cover a number of issues. I want to
start with spectrum.
It is my view that the Federal Government should own or
control as little spectrum as possible, consistent with
national security and law enforcement needs. Do you agree with
that principle?
Mr. Wheeler. The--I--let me--if I could tweak it a bit. The
Federal Government should be efficiently using spectrum to a
point where it uses the minimal amount of spectrum necessary to
do its job.
Senator Cruz. What do you see--I mean, as you know, there
has been a long history of reluctance by those Federal agencies
that have control over portions of spectrum--there has been a
long history of reluctance to relinquish that control--what do
you see as the most effective tools Congress can implement to
shift more and more of that spectrum into private hands, where
it can generate jobs and economic growth?
Mr. Wheeler. That's a--excellent question. Thank you, sir.
And I think there are many.
One, as I indicated before, the bright light that you are
focusing on spectrum now is so different than the days when I
was negotiating with the Federal Government over spectrum. And
that can only help.
Second, I think that--I would hope that part of that bright
light would be an encouragement to think about how new
technology has changed the use of spectrum. Doing things the
way we've always done them isn't the answer for tomorrow. And
most spectrum has been allocated with analog concepts in mind.
And living in a digital world, we can think differently.
And third is the issue of creating the necessary incentives
for the Federal Government users to become efficient and to
want to put spectrum to other uses.
And I think all of those reside here. I think--if I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed, sir, I will be forthright in
calling for these kinds of changes, but I think that you all,
frankly, are the ones who actually are in control of that.
Senator Cruz. Well, I look forward to, hopefully, working
with you to accomplish that.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cruz. Let me shift to a different topic, which is--
as you know, in recent months, two of the President's Cabinet
nominees have sat where you are sitting, and I asked both of
them if they would commit--my top priority is economic growth.
And critical to economic growth is regulatory reform, reducing
the burdens of Federal regulation on small businesses, on job
creation. So, I asked each of those two nominees if they would
commit, within the first 100 days, to identifying at least
three existing Federal regulations that should be modified or
repealed because they're impeding job creation. One of them
agreed to do so, and a second one actually upped the ante and
said that he thought three was insufficient; he agreed to find
ten, instead. So, I want to ask you the same question.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I don't want to get into the game, here,
although I'll see his ten and raise him ten. But, I will----
Senator Cruz. I would welcome 20.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wheeler.--I will take a slightly different tack on
that. As I have been preparing for this hearing, I've been
asking myself that question. I wrote a book on Lincoln's use of
the telegraph. I'm kind of fascinated with the first electronic
communications network that we ever had. I discovered that the
telegraph rules are still in place at the FCC. I'd like to take
a look at whether that makes any sense.
But--and that is my philosophy, sir, of looking at all of
the rules with that kind of an eye.
Senator Cruz. Well, I appreciate that very much, and I hope
we can work together; in particular, look--I think getting rid
of the telegraph rules makes a lot of sense--but, I think, in
particular, obviously, targeting those rules that are really
impacting productivity and job creation. It is, I know, a
priority of ours, and----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz.--and I hope we can work together on that.
I want to briefly touch on the question of unlocking
phones. And you mentioned contract law, and that's obviously a
matter between private parties. In your opinion, should Federal
law prohibit or criminalize consumers unlocking their phones?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I think that a consumer has the--if the
consumer fulfills their side of the bargain, they ought to have
the right to unlock their phone.
Senator Cruz. Would you support a permanent exception to
the DMCA for cell phones and other wireless devices?
Mr. Wheeler. I think that we--that--first, I think it's an
extension, now, that has caused all kinds of problems that we
need to deal with. I don't, right now, sir, know whether it is
a permanent exemption, whether it is a rewrite of the Copyright
Act, or what the appropriate solution is. But, I do believe
that there needs to be a solution and consumers should have the
right to unlock their phones after they've lived up to their
side of the deal.
Senator Cruz. Well, terrific. I look forward to working
with you on that.
The final issue I want to address is one that's come up
already, the DISCLOSE Act. As you know, there are few, if any,
issues that inspire more passionate partisan divisions in this
body. This body has repeatedly failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act,
because a substantial number of members of this body believe it
is unconstitutional and bad policy. In your judgment, does the
FCC have the authority to implement the DISCLOSE Act or to
otherwise regulate political speech?
Mr. Wheeler. As I have said before, that's an issue that I
look forward to learning more about. There is a pending
proceeding on that exact question, and I need to look at that
proceeding and to become informed. But, I do not miss the
expression, on both sides of this dais, as to the strong
feelings, and I know that this is a--this is an issue of
tension.
Senator Cruz. Well, Mr. Wheeler, as you know, every
Republican on this committee, along with Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, sent a letter to your predecessor on this issue.
Mr. Wheeler. Uh-huh.
Senator Cruz. And you and I visited in my office. You said
you need to study the issue more. I would ask you to submit, in
writing, an answer to this question.
[Mr. Wheeler's reply can be found in the Appendix on page
75.]
Senator Cruz. And I would note, as you and I visited
privately, this is the one issue that, in my opinion, has the
potential to derail your nomination. And I don't want to see
that happen. I think the Commission has a very important role.
But, should the Commission leave that role and get into the
business of regulating political speech--we've seen, with the
IRS, what can happen when Members of Congress urge the
Executive Branch to begin playing politics.
And so, I look forward to reading your written response, in
terms of whether you believe the Commission has the authority
to implement the DISCLOSE Act or to regulate political speech.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coats, bad news. Senator Blumenthal walked back in,
preempts you by one.
So, Senator Blumenthal, followed by Senator Coats, followed
by Senator Scott, followed by the eminent Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN COATS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I----
Senator Blumenthal. If----
Senator Coats.--I appreciate that.
Senator Blumenthal. If the distinguished Senator from
Indiana has a time constraint, I'm happy to yield to him.
Senator Coats. I do have a radio show at 5 o'clock, but--
which means I will take less than my 7 minutes.
Senator Blumenthal. I would--with your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I'll yield to my colleague and friend from Indiana.
Senator Coats. I appreciate that, and I owe you one.
Tom, you said this is not your first rodeo. And it's not my
first rodeo, either. You bring a lot of experience to the
table, here, a lot of knowledge about the relevant issues.
You've had a good career in this.
I was out of the Senate for 12 years; and during that time,
part of that time, I did advocate on behalf of some clients.
And then, when I came back here, I think those clients thought,
``Oh, boy, we've got somebody there that--he already knows our
issues, and we know where he's going to come down.'' I was able
to inform every one of them that I'm starting with a clean
sheet. People are going to have to come--you're going to have
to come and make your case to me as if it's a brand-new issue.
My representation of you doesn't have a bearing, in terms of
how I'm going to decide, going forward.
My constituents came to me and, basically, said, ``You
know, you voted for our position, or against our position, and
we're wondering if you're still with us or you're still against
us.'' I said the same thing: clean sheet.
So, I'm hoping that--I think that's the way to approach it.
I'm hoping that's the way you'll approach your job, that you
will not base future decisions on the fact that you took a
different position in your private life, or that you came to a
conclusion that may not match up with the current situation, as
it exists today, the current facts, and that you will have that
open door, clean sheet, when clients come forward, regardless
of what your past positions might have been.
So, I'm--you don't have to affirm that, but I'm just
suggesting that it worked very well for me, and I hope it works
well for you.
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, thank you for bringing that up,
number one, and second, for your advice and counsel on it.
I was an advocate for specific points of view. I hope I was
a pretty good advocate.
Senator Coats. You were.
Mr. Wheeler. I remember our times working together, sir.
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, my client will be
the American public. And I hope that I can be as effective an
advocate for them as humanly possible.
Senator Coats. Good. I thank you for that statement. And
I'll let it go at that.
And I thank my colleague for allowing me the time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coats.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and----
The Chairman. Good question.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for your
willingness to serve----
Mr. Wheeler. Senator.
Senator Blumenthal.--the American public as your client----
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal.--which I believe is supremely important
as an approach to this job. And let me just say, from my part,
with all due respect to my colleague from Texas, I don't have
an issue that would derail your confirmation, and I hope you
will adopt the approach of considering, carefully and
cautiously and deliberately, all of these issues, once you
reach the position, if you are confirmed, that will best serve
the American public, and that you will be willing to listen to
what's presented to you. And I think that listening is very,
very important in this job.
So, in that spirit, let me just ask you, first, about
limits on spectrum consolidation, which is very important to
the public, and the FCC is currently revisiting its antiquated
and inadequate spectrum screen--updating the screen is
important, not just for this upcoming auction, but, also, it's
integral to ensure that the wireless market remains competitive
for years to come. As you know, the Department of Justice
recently wrote the FCC to weigh in on how the Commission can
structure its spectrum policy to best encourage competition and
promote consumer welfare, and it encourages the FCC to create a
spectrum policy that ensures smaller carriers have access in
order to promote more competitive discipline, more competition,
more choices. And I'd like you to agree, with me and the
Department of Justice advice, that the FCC should create a
spectrum policy that specifically seeks to encourage
competition in the wireless marketplace.
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, the Act on the--dealing with the
incentive auction was very explicit. It said that you could not
preclude a company from participating, and it also said that
the Commission had authority to establish the rules for various
band plans.
The--I remember the first spectrum auction, when I was one
of the guilty parties of saying, ``You have to do it this way
or the sky will fall.'' And I know that that always happens in
this kind of a situation.
But, I believe that there is a responsibility that the
Congress has given the Commission to have an effective auction
and to preserve and protect competition, which includes smaller
players, which are so often the innovation engine.
Senator Blumenthal. So, that would mean that they should
have access to the spectrum.
Mr. Wheeler. I think that that's one of--that is a key
issue that the Commission has to consider when it looks at this
band-plan authority that the Congress has given----
Senator Blumenthal. And a key goal.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Do you think that the FCC
ought to account for differences in quality between different
spectrum, particularly low- and high-frequency spectrum?
Mr. Wheeler. I am very aware of the different propagation
techniques. I would be disingenuous if I told you I had an
answer to that question, sir. I am----
Senator Blumenthal. But, there are differences----
Mr. Wheeler. There are difference in propagation
characteristics that--one piece of spectrum is not the same as
another. I have not reached a policy decision on how you
balance that out.
Senator Blumenthal. But, it certainly is a relevant
consideration.
Mr. Wheeler. It certainly is, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me switch to another consumer
issue, which my colleagues are--have not raised; and that is
blackout policy, which you and I talked a little bit about, or
we alluded to it when we spoke. And, as you know, few issues
concerning the FCC drive sports-fan consumers as--I was going
to say ``drive them as crazy,'' but ``upset them,'' to use a
more temperate way of putting it--as the current blackout
policies and practices.
So, my question to you is, What can the FCC do to decrease
the frequency of blackouts and make sure that consumers,
essentially, aren't stuck with blank screens when they want to
watch sports contests that they should be seeing, they have a
right to see?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, as you know, there is a proceeding
before the Commission, right now, to eliminate the so-called
``sports blackout rule,'' which derives from the days when
decisions were made on the basis of what broadcasters in a
market had contracted to. The market has moved since that time,
point one. Point two, the market has a plethora of new players
since that time, the latest example of which is Verizon
Wireless paying a billion dollars--with a ``B''--a billion
dollars to the NFL to be able to stream NFL games onto mobile
devices, without the blackout rule ever being considered. So,
clearly, this is an issue that is ripe for Commission decision.
Because there is a proceeding at the Commission, I don't think
it's appropriate for me to opine, at this point in time, but
there is an evolutionary process, here.
Senator Blumenthal. But, you would agree that the
Commission should move forward with the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking concerning the blackout?
Mr. Wheeler. There is a process in place to deal with this
evolution, sir.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, finally, just
generally, if you consider the array of consumer protection
issues now before the FCC, have you settled, in your mind, on
several, or a single one, or more than a few, that really
should be priorities for the FCC?
Mr. Wheeler. That is a legitimate question, and one that I
can't say that I have gone A, B, C, D. However, I have thought
about, What are the kind of priorities I want to--if I'm
fortunate enough to be confirmed--that I want to consider? And
it seems to me there are three:
The first is consumer protection. As I said in my
statement, the Telecommunications Act makes it abundantly clear
that the first task of the FCC is consumer protection.
The second issue is competition. And, as I said in my
statement, I am an unabashed believer in competition, and
competition sometime also needs some help to make sure that
it's there.
And the third issue that I would have as a priority is
predictability, decisiveness, dispatch, ability to know what
the rules are, because, frankly, whether a rule is right or
wrong, knowing what it is, is more of an economic incentive
than existing in the, ``Oh, my goodness, what are the rules
right now?''
And so, it's those three things that I would be guided in
as I go through and parse through what are the kinds of issues
that ought to be addressed.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for your answers to my
questions and your willingness to serve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. And thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Scott.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler, good chatting with you recently.
Mr. Wheeler. Senator.
Senator Scott. Looks like the broadcast incentive auction
will consume a lot of your time during your term----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Senator Scott.--without much of a question.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Senator Scott. Part of that process--not only does it
support innovation, creativity, not only is it going to be a
part of the future engine of our country, economically--there
seems to be some concerns, back at home in South Carolina, as
it relates to the repacking process. And so, two questions. One
would be, Could you discuss with me how you would anticipate
allocating the repacking funds provided by the legislation? I
think it's about $1.75 billion or so. And how would you
anticipate handling the low-power TV stations in the repacking
process?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator.
And I cannot give you a specific example--a specific
response to that. And I hope you can sense my frustration as to
why I can't, because I really have not been able to look beyond
the public record on this issue.
However, I mentioned to Senator Thune, earlier on, that
this hearing--or, this proceeding, in the auction, is like a
Rubik's Cube, where you've got to provide--on this side of the
cube, you've got to provide incentive sufficient for
broadcasters to want to put--to bring their spectrum to market.
And then, you've got to organize it in a way that makes it
valuable, so that whoever is bidding wants to bid on it. And
the glue that is in the middle--the grease and the glue, if you
will, that's in the middle--is how you do the band plan and how
you decide how this works. And so, it is--I agree with you,
sir, it is crucial.
I also know, from my experience on the digital television
transition, the incredible importance, and the responsibility
that exists to somebody who is--who perhaps may be a
regulator--on how service areas and band plans are allocated or
decided as you work through this band plan. And one of the big
challenges that existed in digital television transition was,
``How do you make sure that you have similar coverage areas?''
and all of these kinds of things.
I believe it is possible to find the right solution. It is
not easy. I wish I could give you the specific answer. I don't
know what it is. But, I do have the experience to say that I
know it's possible to reach that.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
One of the things the current Commission is wrestling with
is whether or not to weaken its broadcast decency standards.
And this is going to be an ongoing debate, it seems. The public
is engaged pretty intensely in the debate, as well, with over
100,000 responses from the public. I know that the last time
the decency enforcement standard was considered, back in 2004,
it took about 8 years for them to come to a decision by the
Supreme Court.
My question to you is, as Chairman, where would you take
the broadcast decency policy?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. That's a very relevant
question. As you heard me say, early on, when I was introducing
my family, I've got three brand-new grandkids. I'm old enough
to, when I see some things, to kind of grit my teeth and say,
``Does this--is this what I want my grandkids to be seeing?''--
whether it be violence or obscenity or indecency, or whatever.
At the same point in time, as you point out, the courts have
been pretty specific and restrictive.
I do believe, however, that it is possible to call upon our
better angels, with some leadership. I remember Newton Minow
talking about television as ``the vast wasteland.'' He did that
without regulatory authority. It caught the public's attention.
Maybe it's possible to do the same kind of thing today and say,
``Can't we do better?''
Senator Scott. I like your optimism, at least. I'm not sure
I share it, but I like it.
Let me ask you a question about IP transition, since it's
obviously coming.
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Senator Scott. And I think, in 2011, you chaired, or you
were part of, the advisory committee.
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Senator Scott. And certainly, the industry has gone a long
way towards making the necessary capital investments to help us
shape the future. How do you envision the transition taking
shape? And do you believe a sunset of the legacy copper network
is still possible by 2018?
Mr. Wheeler. So, I was the Chairman of the----
Senator Scott. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler.--of the Committee that started the ball
rolling.
Senator Scott. Exactly. God bless your soul.
Mr. Wheeler. And I think that there are--there are a couple
of things. One is, it's going to happen, with or without us.
The question is, how do we mitigate the impact of it? Because--
--
Senator Scott. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler.--we've all lived through other transitions. We
lived through the broadcast-to-cable transition, we lived
through the wireline-to-wireless transition. And there were
bumps along the road in all of it. I think that what the
Commission can do--and if I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed, I hope that we will be able to lay out--is some kind
of stratagem that says that we have to progress through this
with some kind of planned structure rather than it growing like
topsy and just happening here and happening there, and one
person tries this and--because that's what causes the
dislocations, that's what causes the harm to consumers, that's
what causes the disincentive to invest. And so, I'm hopeful
that we will be able to address the broad spectrum of issues
associated with the IP transition in a collective and logical
way.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stayed around
just to wish you a ``Happy Birthday.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. And to ask Mr. Wheeler some questions.
And I'm very glad that he brought up Newton Minow. I
remember that story about Newton Minow, I think, taking
President Kennedy around, or maybe it was Senator Kennedy at
the time, and he said, ``Why are we launching satellites
instead of people, you know, into space?'' And Minow said,
``Because ideas last longer than people do.'' And I think
that's a very important question, when it comes to media and
media consolidation. I want lots of ideas. I don't want ideas
packaged up and shoved down local throats of individual
broadcasters, saying, ``This is the news, and that's the way
it's going to be.''
So, one question I have for you is this issue of media
consolidation and your role on the FCC. You know about previous
chairmen and their attempts to advocate for rule. Then-Senators
Obama and Biden joined us in disapproval resolutions. Last
week, Gannett newspaper announced it was going to purchase
Belo's 23 television stations. And so, that includes KING in
Seattle, KREM in Spokane, and KRW in Portland. And the--while
the purchase is subject to the approval of the--of both the FCC
and DOJ, I think Gannett is trying to, basically, use these
ownership rules--use the whole shared service agreement as a
way to get around those rules.
So, I'm very, very concerned about that whole issue. And
so, do you believe in that making it easier for owners of daily
newspapers to own television stations and radio stations, the
same market rule is what's wrong with the newspaper industry?
Is that the way we need to be going?
Mr. Wheeler. Senator, I understand the seriousness of this
issue, and I have long been an advocate of diversity of voices.
On the specific issue that you just raised, I also note
that the Chairman has asked the GAO to opine on this issue. And
I think that's appropriate, called for, and I look forward to
their opining, their opinion.
But, I think you said the key thing, that, when the
Commission looks at these issues, competition, localism, and
diversity are the issues that should be the touchstones, not
business plans.
Senator Cantwell. And so, do you believe that some
broadcasters could abuse those shared services or joint sales
agreements to get around those ownership rules?
Mr. Wheeler. I am not informed enough to be explicit on
that, and I--but I am going to be, and I look forward to
pursuing that issue with you.
Senator Cantwell. And so, you basically believe that this
is an issue that the Commission needs to give more attention
to, to assure Members of Congress. Otherwise, we'll have
another disapproval resolution that there are going--there's--
there is going to be adherence to, not a continued move on
consolidation. And I guess I was asking--my first question is,
Do you--a lot of people try to put forth the notion that
newspaper industries, in and of itself, are having problems,
and this is why you should allow the consolidation of media to
save the day. And so, I--trying to get your thoughts on that.
Mr. Wheeler. I'm a businessperson, and it has been my
experience that the way to grow businesses, when they are
challenged by new technologies, is to embrace those new
technologies, and that that's the way of working yourself out
of this kind of a situation. That's the best way of working
yourself out of this kind of situation.
Senator Cantwell. So, you don't run to the explanation of,
``Well, let's just allow for, you know, all sort of integration
to solve this problem''----
Mr. Wheeler. I----
Senator Cantwell.--and thereby throw out these very
legitimate concerns about over-consolidation in the market.
Mr. Wheeler. I am specifically trying not to be specific--
--
Senator Cantwell. I----
Mr. Wheeler.--on that, Senator, because I want to become
more informed. I do understand the seriousness of this, and I
understand the priority of--competition, localism, and
diversity trumps everything.
Senator Cantwell. OK. OK. On the Progeny Petition, are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. There was a lot of discussion about
whether interference was actually going to happen, or not. Will
you pursue an aggressive approach to make sure that you're
monitoring complaints and things of--so that we actually see
what's happening and----
Mr. Wheeler. The answer is yes, because if one of the
solutions to the spectrum crunch is to use more--use spectrum
more efficiently, that inherently means sharing, whether it's
geographic sharing, time sharing, or literally sharing-sharing.
And that means you have to be monitoring interference to make
sure that this efficiency is, in fact, happening.
Senator Cantwell. OK. So--appreciate that. And then, on
this unlicensed spectrum--we heard a lot about the spectrum
crunch today--but, do you believe there's a crunch in
unlicensed spectrum?
Mr. Wheeler. You know, I think--I am a supporter of
unlicensed spectrum. I find it noteworthy that unlicensed has
been the rescuer of licensed in so many ways, that a third to
three-quarters of the wireless data, the mobile data out of a
smartphone, ends up going through unlicensed spectrum rather
than licensed spectrum, that unlicensed is the home to
innovation, and therefore, that we need to have unlicensed
spectrum.
Senator Cantwell. So, you support broadcast white spaces
for unlicensed----
Mr. Wheeler. And, at the--yes--and, at the same point in
time, I recognize that the job of the Commission is to balance
out the demands between, ``OK, here's licensed, that you can
sell, that will fund FirstNet and other kinds of activities;
and here's unlicensed, that you can't sell.'' And how do you
reach the balance on those? But, I do not take lightly the
significance of unlicensed spectrum.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
I see my time is expired, even at 7 minutes. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. You don't have to stop.
Senator Cantwell. That's OK, thank you.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, very much.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us
a second round. And it will be a brief second round, on my
part, but I want to cover some issues relating to broadband
that I think have not been touched on.
You know that half of all broadband subscribers in the
United States are subject to some kind of cap--bandwidth cap or
usage-based billing policy, caps that----
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Senator Blumenthal.--a lot of people regard as anticonsumer
and, in the end, inhibiting more Internet use, which is key to
a lot of people communicating with each other and learning
about the world, and also more expensive because of the effect
on competition. And, as you know, Congress recognized the need
for more information about what the situation is, locally, what
the state of competition is, how these caps impact competition.
And it recognized that--when it passed the Broadband Data
Improvement Act, in 2008, the FCC recognized this fact in the
broad--National Broadband Plan, and the Department of Justice
recognized it when it submitted comments to the FCC on how best
to promote more competition in the broadband marketplace.
So, I guess my question is, Do you agree with the
recommendations of the National Broadband Plan and the DOJ,
that the FCC should be collecting more broadband pricing
information to facilitate an understanding of what's happening
there, how these caps, how the potential lack of competition,
other factors, are impacting consumer use and competition?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Senator. I'm a data-centric guy. I
come from a management background, and the thing that they used
to beat into you in business school, ``If you can measure it,
you can manage it''--I believe that, sir. I believe that you
need to have the kind of data that you're talking about.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. That answers my questions--
--
Mr. Wheeler. OK.
Senator Blumenthal.--and thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I was just finishing a note to Senator
Cantwell, here.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I do have more questions.
Senator Blumenthal. And----
Senator Cantwell.--if we're allowed a second round.
The Chairman. Yes, you can go ahead, and I'll finish my
note to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. OK, thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. And ``Happy Birthday,'' Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
All right.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Wheeler, one of the issues that we
have in the Northwest is this issue of rural call completion.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. And we still have a number of
constituents who feel that too many of their calls just don't
connect, dropped. Do you believe this is a concern? Do you
believe it remains an issue that needs to be addressed,
something that the FCC can do on enforcement action?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And, as you know, the situation is that
some carriers--long-distance providers--have been
subcontracting out and not doing the appropriate kind of
oversight on the quality of service delivered by those
subcontractors. They should be held responsible for that. This
is an enforcement action. I know that the FCC has taken one
enforcement action already on this. And if I am confirmed, I
look forward to investigating the need for there to be others.
But, to be clear, you cannot have a network if you do not
interconnect like this.
Senator Cantwell. Great, thank you. Thank you for that
specificity.
Another issue of concern is the FCC Office on Native
Affairs and Policy, which was established in 2010 because of
the interest in more broadband and adoption of technology
throughout Indian country. If you're confirmed, will you
support this office and its activities? And what role do you
envision for further encouraging broadband in this area?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, Senator, I will. I have met with the
office already. I understand some of the challenges that they
are facing, not the least of which is some of the impact of
sequester and their ability to travel and be with Native groups
to work with and address the issues. And the answer is yes, I
am sensitive to, and will be aware of, that situation.
Senator Cantwell. And will support the continuation of the
policy?
Mr. Wheeler. I--that is a very clear answer to that--yes, I
think that the activities of that office are an essential
component of the FCC.
Senator Cantwell. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Mr. Wheeler, it--then, actually, the note that I was--have
written to Maria, which I will give her anyway, simply raised
the--stated the point that what you've heard this afternoon--
there has been some theology, some ideology, but, for the most
part, there has been really succinct questions about policy
questions coming from the experience of a lot of the folks on
this committee who have been here for a very long time and have
learned a great deal and who are very, very smart. People want
on this committee. There's a long waiting list. And there's a
reason for that: because we have a broad jurisdiction, and it's
a very powerful jurisdiction. Yours is a very large part of it.
But, it's--it is--things don't happen like this. I can't see
what time it is, but my so-called ``birthday'' is going to be
spent with my wife having the Board of Directors of the WETA
over for dinner.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wheeler. I hope they sing well.
The Chairman. Yes. I was hoping to catch the second Braves
game, but that's another matter.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But, it's an impressive lot, this committee.
And the staff is central to that. And it's something I very
much appreciate. It's wonderful being Chairman of this
committee. It's an absolutely wonderful job.
I think you've acquitted yourself extremely well, and under
a lot of pressure, and with intensity and with firmness and
with--you know, giving your total concentration to whatever
question was asked. I'm not going to bring up ``cramming,''
which I would, otherwise.
But, I want to thank you. It's clear that this time of
technical transition, that your--that the FCC's role is
important. I want you to be a strong chairman. We need a strong
chairman. You're going to have strong commissioners. They're,
for the most part, there. But, we need a strong chairman. We
need to feel the energy of that strong chairman. Delay, beyond
what is necessary, is something we don't have to--shouldn't
have to put up with.
We do a lot of oversight, and it's good that we do, because
we're interested in the subject. We don't do it just for the
sake of doing it, but we're interested in the subject--broad
subject.
I think you're going to be confirmed, and I think you're up
to the job.
For those staff members still remaining, the record for
this hearing will remain open for one week.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned, with thanks to
you and your family and all who attended.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Thomas E. Wheeler
Universal Service Mobility Fund
Question 1. Prior to the FCC's adoption of recent reforms to the
universal service high-cost fund, I held a hearing in which I pressed
the FCC to make sure that those reforms help bring wireless service to
rural areas that do not have it now. We also discussed how mountainous
terrain and other topographical features can pose additional challenges
and costs to wireless deployment in those areas.
The Commission has now completed its Mobility Fund Phase One
auction to provide support for wireless build-out in rural America. It
is my understanding that some prospective bidders faced significant
challenges in winning support under the Mobility Fund's Phase One
rules.
I know that the FCC is still considering reforms to the method by
which it distributes wireless support in the future. If confirmed, will
you commit to a thorough review of this method to be sure that its
works effectively for all rural areas, including those areas, like West
Virginia, that face topographical challenges?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to maximizing opportunities for all
Americans to have access to robust wireless voice and broadband
service, regardless of location.
Cramming
Question 2. On June 12, I introduced legislation with Senators
Klobuchar and Blumenthal aimed at preventing bogus companies from
cramming charges onto consumers' phone bills. Consumers have already
lost billions of dollars because of wireline cramming. They cannot
afford to lose any more.
Likewise, that means protecting consumers from wireless cramming.
As we continue to move to a more wireless world, we cannot let crammers
run from one kind of bill to another. That is why last week I also
wrote letters to the four national wireless providers asking about
their policies for protecting consumers against cramming.
As I have expressed in the past, it is important for both Congress
and the FCC to be proactive on this issue.
If confirmed, would you commit to working with me to protect
consumers from cramming?
Answer. Yes. I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Question 2a. If so, what should the agency do to make sure cramming
doesn't move to other services, such as wireless?
Answer. I know significant steps have been taken in the last few
years to address this in the wireline context. If confirmed, I look
forward to learning from the FCC staff what the record shows on this
issue as it relates to wireless, and also to IP-based services. I look
forward to seeing what you learn from your inquiry to wireless
providers and I can assure you I am committed to taking action if there
is a need.
Online Video/Cable Rates
Question 3. Last year, I held a hearing that explored the future of
the video marketplace, including the emergence of online video. We
heard that online video has the potential to be truly transformative,
and to lead to greater choice, better programming, and lower prices for
consumers. This potential is particularly important given that
consumers face rate increases for pay television that exceed the rate
of inflation--every year. And consumers are forced to pay for so many
channels, when they watch only a few.
That is why I am concerned by recent reports indicating that pay
television providers are seeking to foreclose opportunities for
consumers. It is troubling that some cable operators are entering into
agreements that seek to encourage media companies to withhold their
programming from online video services.
To the extent legislation is needed to prevent this possible
anticompetitive behavior, I am willing to lead that effort. But I also
believe the FCC has some existing authority to combat these practices.
If confirmed, would you commit to fostering the development of
these innovative services and to make sure that they continue to
benefit consumers?
Answer. You raise an important issue. I will make certain the
Commission's policies foster opportunities for competition, consumer
protection, innovation, and investment.
Interoperability
Question 4. Two years ago, I weighed in with the FCC asking it to
address the interoperability issues in the 700 MHz band. This is a
complex matter, which ultimately comes down to what is technically
possible. Nonetheless, I hope that the agency can bring that rulemaking
to a close soon.
In the near future, the FCC will be auctioning spectrum in the 600
MHz band that is voluntarily relinquished by television broadcasters. A
number of parties, including potential bidders, have asked the FCC not
to allow the same interoperability mess in the 700 MHz band to be
repeated in the 600 MHz band.
If confirmed, would you commit to looking closely at this issue and
making sure that the FCC fully considers the lessons learned in the 700
MHz band when adopting rules for 600 MHz licensees?
Answer. Yes.
Payphones
Question 5. Payphones are a vanishing feature of the American
communications landscape. Fifteen years ago, we had more than 2 million
payphones across the country, but now we have less than a quarter as
many. Despite this decline, they remain a primary link to the
communications network for American households without any form of
household phone. They are a vital part of keeping Americans connected
and can be a lifeline in times of emergency.
As part of former FCC Chairman Genachowski's nomination hearing, he
committed to addressing this issue. He subsequently worked toward
resolving several payphone compensation petitions, but there is still
more work to be done.
If confirmed, will you commit to reviewing existing payphone
policies at the FCC in order to ensure that the Congressional mandate
to compensate each and every completed call is met?
Answer. Yes.
Question 5a. Will you commit to work to ensure that disputes over
payphone compensation are resolved in an expeditious manner?
Answer. Yes.
IP Transition
Question 6. Today, our communications network infrastructure is in
a period of transition. As head of the FCC's Technological Advisory
Committee, you have publicly discussed the need to transition the
public switched telephone network to an all-IP network. The FCC has a
technology transition task force in place currently reviewing what such
a transition may mean for the Nation's communications network.
Such an upgrade in network technology raises a host of important
questions. We need to fully understand such a transition's impact on
public safety and network resiliency, on competition and
interconnection, and on consumer protection. It also is critically
important that any such transition of our communications network
infrastructure not forget rural consumers or ultimately leave them with
fewer choices and higher rates.
If confirmed, will you commit to making sure that the FCC fully and
thoughtfully addresses the regulatory implications of this ongoing
transition--and that our rural and remote consumers are not left
behind?
Answer. Yes. As technologies transition, the FCC must remain
committed to certain core values, including the promotion of
competition, consumer protection, universal service, and public safety.
While the Commission must analyze legacy rules and regulations and
adapt to reflect changes in the communications landscape, new
communications networks and services do not change the Commission's
statutory obligations. It is very important to maintain a competitive
marketplace with sufficient consumer protections and access to
emergency services during the transition in all areas, including the
most remote parts of the country. Rural and remote areas, as you know
from the experience in striving to achieve universal service reform in
a broadband era, present unique challenges that must be considered when
developing policies in a changing communications landscape.
Violent Content
Question 7. As you know, I have long been concerned about the harm
caused to kids by violent programming. That is why I have introduced
legislation to have the National Academy of Sciences study the impact
of violent programming on children's well-being.
I also have long believed that parents must have effective tools to
protect their children from questionable content, no matter how it is
accessed. I know the FCC previously studied this issue in 2007 and
2009, discovering significant flaws in TV ratings systems and parental
controls.
Technology has changed dramatically since the FCC's original
studies. Today's mobile devices and online video platforms offer
children access to untold amounts of content and create additional
challenges to parental oversight.
If confirmed, would you commit to updating the FCC's 2007 and 2009
reports on media violence and parental control tools, particularly
examining the impact of changes in technology on parents' ability to
protect their children from questionable content?
Answer. I assure you that, if confirmed, I will look very closely
at this issue. It is vital that the FCC and Congress understand the
potential impact of changes in technology on parents' ability to
protect their children from questionable content.
Media Ownership
Question 8. I have long stressed the importance of maintaining a
diversity of voices in our Nation's media. To further this goal, the
FCC places limits on the number of broadcast outlets that a single
company can own or control.
The FCC is currently in the process of reviewing these limits.
During this process, parties have raised concerns that television
broadcasters are increasingly using business arrangements--including
so-called joint sales and shared services agreements--to coordinate
their activities and skirt the FCC's ownership limits.
Last month, I asked the Government Accountability Office to take a
closer look at how these coordination agreements are being used by the
broadcast industry.
If confirmed, would you commit to also taking a hard look at how
these coordination agreements are being used, and if needed, take
action to make sure their use is consistent with the FCC's stated goals
of promoting competition, localism, and diversity?
Answer. Yes. As I mentioned to Senator Cantwell at the hearing, I
am committed to ensuring diversity of voices as well and look forward
to looking into this particular issue more fully if I am confirmed.
Cybersecurity
Question 9. Cybersecurity is one of the most critical national
security challenges facing our Nation. Both the government and the
private sector are under almost constant attack. These attacks cost us
billions of dollars every year.
The majority of our telecommunications network is owned by private
companies. But it is in our national interest to defend our country
against our adversaries who use this network to steal our business and
government secrets.
If confirmed, how would you promote public-private sector
cooperation to improve our ability to stop cyber attacks?
Answer. Cybersecurity is a real and pressing threat. I know the
Commission has had success with its Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) in encouraging
network operators to take certain steps to protect their networks and
consumers from attacks. I would continue to pursue those efforts. In
addition, I intend to coordinate with Federal partners that are engaged
in implementing the President's Executive Order and the Presidential
Policy Directive on Cybersecurity. I also look forward to working with
you and this Committee to assist in your efforts to develop legislation
in this area.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Universal Service Fund Contributions
Question 1. Mr. Wheeler, as you know, there is an ongoing debate
regarding whether the contribution base for the Universal Service Fund
should be expanded. USAC recently issued a decision that would
effectively reclassify certain applications riding over the top of the
broadband network and require them to contribute to USF. In light of
this decision, I am concerned that USAC may soon begin assessing many
types of over-the-top applications.
As Chairman, would you work with Congress on USF contribution
reform to ensure that the Commission acts cautiously and deliberately
on this issue?
Answer. Ensuring a stable funding mechanism for universal service
is critical. I think it is important to make efforts to ensure a level-
playing field for similar services with regard to contributions
obligations, but I am also mindful of the fact that we need to think
carefully before including new innovative technologies among those that
contribute to USF. The Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in
2012 looking to modernize the USF contributions system--both in terms
of who should contribute and how. As Chairman I will carefully review
this issue before moving forward.
Media Ownership
Question 2. As you know, Congress requires the FCC to review its
media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they uphold
the core ideals of competition, localism, and diversity of media. These
principles are fundamental to our democracy. Increased consolidation of
our Nation's broadcast radio and television stations can lead to less
local news coverage and fewer voices participating in the media.
I am particularly concerned that women and ethnic and racial
minorities are underrepresented in ownership of broadcast radio and
television stations. A study conducted by the FCC last year found that
women own just 7 percent of broadcast radio and television stations,
and ethnic and racial minorities own only 5 percent of television
stations and 8 percent of radio stations.
Although the FCC announced that it would delay its vote on the new
cross-ownership rules as it awaits the results of a new study regarding
the effects of cross-ownership rules on minority ownership and
newsgathering, it is not clear that this single, narrow study will
address my concerns.
What steps would you take as Chairman to ensure the Commission
completes a timely review of its media ownership rules? How would you
ensure that the media ownership rulemaking is based on a comprehensive
and unbiased examination of the effect the rules have on ownership
diversity?
Answer. As I mentioned to Senator Cantwell, I intend to be guided
in this area by the three longstanding policy goals of the Commission--
promotion of localism, competition, and diversity. I will ensure that
any review of those rules during my tenure is conducted in an open,
transparent way with clear opportunities for public input. Any
decisions I and my fellow commissioners would make will be based on
such record.
Data Caps and the Open Internet
Question 3. Some Internet service providers that have traditionally
offered unlimited plans are now implementing pricing schemes that limit
the amount of data a customer can use, or charge customers for using
data beyond a predetermined amount. Today, more than half of broadband
Internet subscribers in the United States are subject to some form of
bandwidth cap or usage-based pricing.
Data caps and usage-based pricing have the potential to
significantly impact how networks are designed and used. Furthermore,
when bandwidth caps are paired with exemptions for certain content
providers, the barrier to entry for new services increases, leading to
fewer new products and competitors entering the market. Such exemptions
to bandwidth caps may also violate the FCC's Open Internet Order, which
established that fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably
discriminate against lawful network traffic.
As Chairman, would you examine the effect that bandwidth caps have
on online video providers and consumer choice? Is there an approach the
FCC could adopt in order to minimize the negative effects of usage-
based pricing? What other actions would you consider as Chairman to
promote the open Internet?
Answer. I am a supporter of an open Internet. I understand the
potential effects of data caps, both on network operations and on over-
the-top providers. I intend to keep a watchful eye on the evolution of
data pricing and any impact it may have on competition and innovation,
including the effect on consumers and content providers.
IP Transition and Rural Call Completion
Question 4. Increasingly, our Nation's telephone companies are
transitioning from traditional copper networks to wireless and
Internet-based services. Last year, AT&T asked the FCC for permission
to transition to an all IP-based fiber network on a trial basis in
certain areas. In addition, Verizon recently filed a request with the
FCC to discontinue traditional copper telephone service and offer
wireless connectivity instead to certain communities affected by
Hurricane Sandy.
At the same time, the Commission has acknowledged that rural
consumers are experiencing significant problems receiving long distance
or wireless calls on their landline telephones. These problems appear
to be attributable to the increased use of IP-based least-cost routing
providers.
What can the Commission do to ensure that such interconnection and
reliability problems do not become more prevent as our Nation's
telephone networks transition to wireless and IP-based services? Should
the reliability, interconnection, and universal service principles that
currently apply to traditional phone service also be applied to IP-
based voice services?
Answer. The reliability, interconnection, and universal service
principles that currently apply to traditional phone should be applied
to IP-based voice services. I would add consumer protection and public
safety to those principles as well. While technologies transition, the
core values that guide the Commission under the Communications Act do
not. That does not mean that the same rules and regulations should
apply to IP-based voice services, but certain core capabilities, like
interconnection and access to 9-1-1 service, must be maintained
regardless of the technological platform. The call completion issues
many rural carriers are experiencing today should be, and will be dealt
with by enforcement of the relevant rules when they are being violated.
E-Rate Funding
Question 5. The E-Rate program, which has furthered the goal of
bringing broadband Internet access to schools and libraries all over
the country, is underfunded. Last year alone, the program had to turn
away more than $2 billion in applications from schools and libraries
nationwide, including many institutions in California. Experts project
that demand for E-Rate support will continue to grow as wireless
devices are increasingly introduced in the classroom.
Moreover, the President recently announced the ConnectED
initiative, which sets the goal of connecting 99 percent of public
schools in the United States with next-generation broadband Internet
access--at speeds no less than 100 Mbps and with a target of 1 Gbps.
The President's proposal tasks the FCC with modernizing and leveraging
the E-Rate program to achieve this goal.
What would you do as Chairman to ensure that the E-Rate program
continues to expand and bring affordable, high-speed broadband to
schools and libraries? How would you propose funding and implementing
the President's ConnectED proposal?
Answer. As I mentioned to Chairman Rockefeller, updating the E-Rate
program to ensure that our teachers and students have robust broadband
access is essential. According to participants in the current program,
80 percent say they have inadequate bandwidth to meet their
instructional needs. I look forward to working with my fellow
commissioners on addressing ways to meet this challenge.
Public Safety Networks
Question 6. Some experts have expressed concern that the incentive
auctions may fail to provide the funding necessary for FirstNet to
build a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. As
you know, this funding is essential to addressing the serious gap in
our Nation's public safety communications identified in the 9/11
Commission Report.
What steps would you take to ensure that the incentive auctions
generate sufficient funding so that FirstNet can fulfill its mandate
and guarantee our Nation has a reliable public safety network?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to move expeditiously to bring the
incentive auctions to completion. Implementing incentive auctions
requires the balancing of several important objectives, including the
need to raise substantial revenues while simultaneously meeting the
other policy objectives laid out by Congress.
Low Power Stations and Translators
Question 7. Unleashing spectrum for wireless broadband is critical
to our economy. However, the incentive auctions exclude many low-power
television stations and translator licensees from participating. It is
not clear what will happen to translator and low-power broadcast
television stations at the conclusion of the repacking process which
will follow the reverse auction. Over four hundred of these stations
exist in California and serve a large and diverse portion of the state.
How should the rules for the upcoming incentive auctions address the
operation of translator and low-power television stations?
Answer. Low power television services have always enjoyed only
secondary interference protection, and must make way for full power and
Class A TV stations assigned to new channels. That said, the
Commission's 2012 Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asked
for comment on assuring that important programming continues to reach
viewers and offered possible solutions, such as promoting use of
available digital capacity on full power and Class A stations, MVPD
systems, and/or the Internet to distribute their programming.
Positive Train Control
Question 8. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires the
installation of Positive Train Control (PTC)--a collision avoidance
technology that relies on radio transmission--on many passenger,
commuter, and freight rail lines by 2015. Ensuring the successful
deployment of this life-saving technology is a high priority for me.
Unfortunately, some rail operators have experienced delays in the FCC's
review of their spectrum applications, and many passenger rail
operators are struggling to access sufficient spectrum at an affordable
cost.
In your role as Chairman, how would you work with rail operators to
overcome these challenges so that PTC can be implemented nationwide?
As you may know, the FCC recently proposed new requirements for
tower and antenna applications relating to PTC deployment.
Would you work to provide rail operators with guidance on the new
procedures quickly, so that they may proceed with their applications as
expeditiously as possible?
Answer. I understand that PTC systems are important to promoting
safety on commuter rail systems across the Nation and I look forward to
better understanding the intricacies of these issues if I am confirmed
and can get the benefit of learning more from the staff. I can assure
you that on this and other matters I will act expeditiously to get to
resolution.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. I appreciate that you included the 21st Century
Communications and Video Accessibility Act in your testimony. This law,
which passed both the Senate and House with bipartisan, unanimous
support, is intended to ensure that services offered through the
Internet and mobile technology are accessible to deaf, blind, and
vision and hearing impaired individuals. While the FCC has implemented
many components of the law, there are concerns that some programming
still is not fully accessible, including programming such as news and
other video clips. How will you work to ensure that this law is fully
implemented and all Americans are able to access all forms of
communication? Can you make a commitment to ensure that not only do
providers meet the letter of this law, but also the spirit by ensuring
that closed captions and video descriptions are of sufficient quality?
Answer. Much credit is due to the former Chairman, the
commissioners, and the FCC staff whose efforts to date have resulted in
the successful implementation of this important legislation. It is my
understanding that no congressionally-required implementation dates
have been missed. I can assure you that ensuring access to all forms of
communications for individuals with disabilities, including quality
closed captions and video descriptions, is very important to me and
continued implementation of the CVAA will be a top priority.
Question 2. I am hopeful that the incentive auctions will be
designed to ensure that broadcasters have the sufficient incentives to
part with any spectrum they feel they can, and that their concerns are
properly addressed. My understanding is that public broadcasters are
already multicasting multiple channels to provide excellent educational
programming. Considering your experience as a member of the board of
PBS, can you discuss how you believe public television fits into the
incentive auctions?
Answer. Public broadcasters have embraced multicasting on their
spectrum and diversified the educational programming they offer, which
is a great service to consumers. The construct of the incentive
auctions law allows broadcasters, both public and commercial, to
voluntarily decide whether to participate and how much spectrum to
contribute should they decide that participation is in their interest.
For some public broadcasters, the incentive auction will offer access
to new capital to further enhance their programming. For others, it may
not be an opportunity they choose to pursue. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with these broadcasters to ensure they have the
information they need to decide whether participation makes sense for
their stations.
Question 2a. Have you considered how public educational television
will continue to be successful after the incentive auctions?
Answer. For those public broadcasters that choose to participate
and remain on the air, the incentive auctions offer an opportunity for
an infusion of capital that can enhance their operations and
programming.
Question 3. By recent estimates, Arkansas has the highest
percentage of cell-only households at 35 percent. Nation-wide, more
than one-in-four homes is cell-only. I have heard from a number of law
enforcement officials in my state about their difficulty locating
individuals who call 9-1-1 from mobile phones. It is vital that these
Americans realize the full benefits of our Nation's 9-1-1 system.
As the Federal Government makes the transition to Next Generation
9-1-1 services, how would you, as FCC chairman, ensure these mobile as
well as VoIP users are not left behind?
Answer. It is well documented that consumers are increasingly
dropping their landline telephones in favor of wireless and VoIP
alternatives. Communications providers are logically investing in these
technologies and gradually allowing elements of their legacy networks
to sunset. For example, one major national carrier recently announced
that it is targeting 2020 as the year in which its entire network will
be transitioned to an all-IP platform. Included in that announcement is
a plan to move a quarter of the company's rural customers to wireless
service with potentially no wireline alternative, presumably including
rural Arkansans. They are, of course, not alone. Thus it is more
important than ever that we provide the leadership necessary to ensure
9-1-1 call takers are able to accurately locate callers using mobile
and VoIP services. Not only do we have to make sure that mobile and
VoIP users are not left behind, we also have to ensure that the 9-1-1
system itself takes advantage of the IP revolution by facilitating the
transition to a nationwide next generation 9-1-1 system capable of
receiving and sharing all forms of voice, data and video. The
Commission has several open proceedings looking at these issues and I
commit to accelerating these efforts if given the opportunity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Claire McCaskill to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Although the FCC's reforms to the Universal Service
Fund's (USF) Lifeline program through its February 2012 order were much
needed, and attempted to address duplicative Lifeline support,
ineligibility, deceptive marketing and other concerns raised in my
December 2011 letter to the FCC on this topic, the reforms appear to
have had little effect in limiting the rapid growth of the program.
Even with the reform order in place the Lifeline program grew by 26
percent ($445 million) last year from 2011.
If confirmed, what additional action will you pursue to
address waste, fraud and abuse in the Lifeline program?
We are quick in Washington to create new programs but what
we don't do often enough is reevaluate those programs to make
sure they're still needed. The FCC created the Lifeline program
nearly 30 years ago to make sure local phone service was still
affordable for low-income Americans following the breakup of
AT&T. Because technology has changed and competition has grown,
basic telecommunications services are as affordable as ever. If
confirmed, will you order a comprehensive review of the
continued need for the Lifeline program?
President Obama recently announced a new initiative called
``ConnectED,'' which aims to bring broadband access to 99
percent of American students by wiring schools and libraries
through the Universal Service Fund's E-Rate program over the
next five years. I wrote to Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and the
other Commissioners urging that they eliminate Lifeline and
redirect the savings to fund the President's new initiative.
Eliminating Lifeline would provide about $10 billion for this
effort over five years. What are your thoughts on this
approach, and is it something you would commit to looking at if
confirmed?
Answer. Ensuring that all Americans, including low income
Americans, have access to telecommunications and information services
is statutorily mandated by Section 254(b) of the Communications Act.
The Commission has implemented this directive though its Lifeline
program, which for many years has enabled our poorest citizens to have
access to emergency services and other essential services. The program
has served an important function. At the same time, the introduction of
wireless service into the program has resulted in an unacceptable level
of waste, fraud and abuse. The Commission has taken important steps to
address the problem, but there is still much work to be done, including
the establishment of critical databases to prevent duplicate service
and ensure program eligibility. Going after waste, fraud and abuse,
including getting these new databases in place, will be a top priority
for me. While I am fully supportive of the goal of the Lifeline
program, I am certainly willing to examine the effectiveness of the
program in its current form and to make significant changes if
warranted. At this time, I do not think it is appropriate to completely
eliminate the program, but it may be possible to use some of the
savings that the Commission has already enabled through Lifeline reform
to help pay for the ConnectED initiative.
Question 2. The FCC uses a 180-day ``shot clock'' as a guideline
for the approval of mergers and other transactions. However, that time
frame has not been met on the Sprint-SoftBank application, which as of
June 25 has been pending at the Commission for 207 days. Is the ``shot
clock'' guideline effective, should it be continued, and what would you
do as chairman to ensure transactions receive timely consideration?
Answer. As you point out, the Commission has a self-imposed 180-day
shot clock for reviewing applications to assign or transfer control of
licenses or authorizations to determine whether the transfer serves the
public interest. I understand that better than 95 percent of all
license transfer applications since 2009 have been acted on within the
180-day period. I believe it is an effective guideline that provides
parties to transactions an understanding of the Commission's timing for
review. I commit to you that I will make every effort to complete
transfer reviews as quickly as circumstances permit.
Question 3. Last year Congress passed a Rubio-McCaskill resolution,
S.Con.Res. 50, advocating for the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance. Members of the U.S. delegation to the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in Dubai have indicated that
Congress sending a clear message on the issue was helpful in their
negotiations and that our efforts on this issue should continue,
especially since those nations that want greater regulation of Internet
infrastructure and content will certainly continue in their efforts.
What more can Congress be doing to help promote the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance? Although the FCC's focus
is domestic in nature, American consumers and companies have an
interest in a free and open Internet around the world, which is
facilitated by the multistakeholder model. What can and will you do, if
confirmed, to champion this cause?
Answer. I agree that the bipartisan Sense of the Congress passed
last year sent a clear message of support for the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance. The FCC is the U.S. Government agency
with primary responsibility for implementing the 1988 International
Telecommunications Regulations and as such it plays a key role in
domestic and international work on these issues. If confirmed, I will
continue the bipartisan Commission effort to promote the
multistakeholder model.
Question 4. The FCC has identified diversity as one of its core
goals of media policy. But the number of independent channels is
shrinking, and those remaining are confronting an array of hurdles in
having their voices heard. Independent channels complain that they are
being discriminated against in numerous ways, from conditions of their
carriage that completely prohibit distribution on new platforms
competitive to MVPDs, to most favored nations clauses that reduce their
ability to get a fair rate comparable to non-independent services, to
their placement on less penetrated tiers that reach fewer households
and restrict their ability to compete for viewers. Furthermore, the
wholesale ``bundling'' of channels by large, multi-network programmers
causes MVPD's to purchase unwanted channels, using up resources and
channel capacity that could otherwise go to independent channels.
If confirmed, what do you envision the FCC doing to ensure
independent programmers have a fair and equal opportunity to compete?
What are your thoughts on the ability of a la carte pricing to address
this problem?
Answer. As I explained to Senator Cantwell at the hearing, I have
long been an advocate for diversity of voices in media. I know over the
past few years the Commission has worked to provide greater access for
independent programmers to cable systems. Recently, however, the D.C.
Circuit decided a case against the FCC concerning one such independent
programmer that may have implications for future FCC action. If
confirmed, I will discuss this case with the agency's experts to better
understand the ramifications of that decision.
Question 5. Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman
Genachowski and I have both written to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) encouraging the agency to revise its rules to
allow for the expanded use of electronic devices during flight. The FAA
has established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to look at
possible changes to the rules, and the FCC has a representative on that
committee, which will make recommendations to the FAA Administrator
this summer. What are your views on the FAA's current electronic device
rules?
Answer. You can put me in the camp with those that would like to
see expanded use of personal electronic devices on flights. I
understand that the FCC is providing the necessary technical support to
the FAA which has the ultimate responsibility in this matter. I can
assure you that I will make certain that coordination continues and
hopefully it will bring about changes that allow for expanded access.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Federal Spectrum
Question 1. On June 14, 2013, the President released a plan,
``Expanding America's Leadership in Wireless Innovation,'' to create an
intra-agency spectrum policy team to better assess Federal spectrum
demand and usage. I am encouraged by the proposal, which also studies
possible Federal incentives for Federal agencies, receiver performance
standards, and other key issues I support. What are your views on the
Presidential memo? What can the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
do to support the President's goal of clearing and sharing more bands
of spectrum, especially below 3 GHZ?
Answer. I support the President's decision to create this spectrum
policy team because it is imperative that we find more spectrum to meet
the ever-growing demand for wireless broadband. In the late 1990s I
worked with the government to find a win-win solution on a block of
government spectrum and I look forward to doing so again as the
Chairman of the FCC. As we look at these opportunities, I agree that
clearing, as well as sharing, are tools we must utilize.
USF Reform
Question 2. As you know, the Commission adopted a Universal Service
Fund (USF) reform order in October 2011 to transform the USF from a
mechanism to support voice telephone service to one that supports the
deployment, adoption, and utilization of both fixed and mobile
broadband (known as the Connect America Fund). During transition
points, sometimes priorities change. I think the FCC has largely been
on the right track, but that even more could be done to help rural
America obtain universal broadband access. If you are confirmed as
chairman of the FCC, will you commit to moving forward on broadband
reform? If you see additional opportunities to reform USF to bring more
broadband service to rural America, will you pursue such opportunities?
Answer. I am committed to moving forward with the broadband reforms
unanimously adopted by the Commission. It is critical that this more
than eight-decade-old commitment we made to Americans is fulfilled in
the broadband era. I look forward to continuing the work of
modernization with my fellow commissioners through the implementation
of the next stages of the Connect America Fund and the Mobility Fund to
ensure all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband
services.
Incentive Auctions
Question 3. Congress gave the FCC one chance to get incentive
auctions right. It is important that as much spectrum is cleared as
possible, while also maximizing auction revenues. Robust wireless
networks require a range of spectrum frequencies, both for in-building
coverage and because some spectrum bands require more towers--which are
expensive to build--to build a nationwide network. I don't think that
anyone should be barred from participating in the incentive auction.
However, I am concerned that smaller companies may have trouble
acquiring spectrum depending on how the rules are set up.
Do you believe that spectrum below 1 GHz should be treated
differently than non-beachfront spectrum? What about spectrum below 3
GHz? Do you believe that there is a breakpoint? Do you think that this
matters in terms of giving different types of companies access to
beachfront spectrum?
Do you have ideas that can maximize auction participation without
creating high concentrations of spectrum holdings by a single company,
regardless of its size? Do you support structuring the incentive
auctions by focusing on cellular market areas?
Answer. The laws of physics are hard to repeal, but sometimes they
can be harnessed. Lower frequency spectrum is, as you say,
``beachfront'' for broad propagation, while higher frequencies can be
helpful in other more focused applications such as in-buildings or
campuses. Because I have not been permitted to see anything beyond
public information, I have avoided drawing a conclusion as to the
specific issues you have raised until I am better informed. I have a
clear understanding as to the intent of Congress not to exclude any
potential participant from the auction, while at the same time
implementing a plan that promotes competition and innovation. The
questions you ask are all important questions and ones that are
actively being reviewed by the Commission. I look forward to engaging
with my fellow commissioners and FCC staff on these issues.
IP to IP Network Transition
Question 4. In May 2013, the FCC issued a public notice proposing
and soliciting comments on IP transition trials. Some in the industry
have expressed concerns about the trials, while others believe the
Commission to proceed as soon as possible in terms of setting up a
framework for carriers. How can the FCC best ensure that the commitment
to providing telecommunications service to all Americans is maintained
during and after the transition? How important is it to maintain a
competitive marketplace during and after the transition?
Answer. Internet Protocol (IP) is a technological step, not a
change in the responsibility of networks. The FCC must remain committed
to certain core values established by statute, including the promotion
of competition, consumer protection, universal service, and public
safety. While the Commission must analyze legacy rules and regulations
and adapt to reflect changes in the communications landscape, new
communications networks and services do not change the Commission's
mission. It is very important to maintain a competitive marketplace
during and after the transition.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Mr. Wheeler, I know that you must appreciate that
because of Alaska's immeasurable size and geographic challenges, lowest
population density in the US, and limited infrastructure, that
Universal Service Fund (USF) reforms designed for the lower 48 may well
not work effectively in our state.
As of July 1, 2013, USF reform will result in a reduction of $18
million in annual support for wireless deployment in Alaska. This
dramatic reduction, and even more so the uncertainty of what's to come,
has deferred planned wireless deployment in rural Alaska, thus
increasing the already large communications gap with the lower 48. The
FCC should do no more harm and freeze overall state support at current
funding levels.
Will you commit to work with me to explore alternative approaches
to high cost reform that will provide sufficient and predictable
support for Alaskans who simply seek equal access to the communications
tools available to the lower 48?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. How can the Commission best ensure that rates for
essential voice and broadband services in the highest cost rural areas
remain affordable to consumers?
Answer. The Commission can meet the statutory requirement that
rates in rural areas be reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas
by continuing to maintain a universal service system that subsidizes
legitimate costs in high cost areas where service would not otherwise
be offered absent support. I am committed to moving forward with the
broadband reforms unanimously adopted by the Commission, but I also
recognize that some alternative approaches may be necessary to ensure
voice and broadband services remain affordable for Alaskan consumers.
Question 3. Mr. Wheeler, I see in your background several years of
service as a member of the board of PBS. For my constituents, public
television stations like Alaska Public Media and KUAC are essential
sources for innovative and educational programming and services that
would be otherwise unavailable, particularly for people living in rural
communities.
Do you recognize that as the only source of educational, non-
commercial programming available for free to all Americans, public
television is still an essential national priority in today's media
universe?
Answer. Yes.
Question 4. As FCC Chairman, what steps would you take to ensure
that the spectrum incentive auction and subsequent repacking rules
enable public television to continue to be successful in the future?
Answer. I can assure you that should I be confirmed the decisions I
recommend to my fellow commissioners will be consistent with the
directives of Congress contained in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012.
Question 5. What are you views on data caps or data tiers on wired
and wireless broadband and their impact on the growth of online video?
Answer. I understand the potential effects of data caps on network
operations, video and other service providers, and consumers. I intend
to keep a watchful eye on the evolution of data pricing and any impact
it may have on competition, innovation and consumer well-being.
Question 6. What should the FCC do if the DC Circuit Court
overturns the net neutrality rules?
Answer. This is a matter pending before the courts and I cannot
speculate on it or future decisions by the FCC.
Question 7. Tribes have provided numerous comments in the FCC
docket stating that their lack of access to spectrum licenses precludes
them from being able to participate in these auctions, and,
additionally, carriers holding spectrum over tribal lands have failed
to provide broadband services on tribal lands. As Chairman of the FCC
what will you do to increase access to spectrum licenses for tribes to
utilize in the Mobility and Tribal Mobility Fund auctions?
Answer. I will take seriously Congress' directive in section 309(j)
of the Communications Act to ensure auctioning of spectrum licenses
disseminates licenses to a wide variety of applicants. In 2011, the
Commission initiated a Spectrum Over Tribal Lands proceeding in which
these concerns were raised. I look forward to consulting with the FCC
staff on what that record shows and to take any steps necessary to
ensure sufficient access to spectrum for Tribes.
Question 8. Mr. Wheeler, as you know the Commission is working on
regulations governing the auction of television spectrum. Any TV
channels located above channel 32 will be move to lower channels below
channel 32 so the higher level channel spectrum can be auctioned off to
raise money for a new public safety network. Whether television
stations decide to give up their spectrum is up to them, but whether
they have to move is not voluntary.
It has been guaranteed that full power TV stations will be provided
a new channel assignment below 32. Unfortunately, translator stations
that boost the signal of full power stations in urban areas out to
rural and remote areas are not guaranteed a new channel assignment. In
Alaska and many other western states, most of our communities only get
television through translators which boost the signals from urban
stations. There are only full power stations in a handful of Alaska's
largest communities, but hundreds of translators. If translators are
not guaranteed a new spectrum slot, many towns in Alaska would not have
access to free, over the air television at all. And to compound the
problem, most communities don't have access to cable either. For
example there are over 320 translators in Alaska.
Are you willing to work with me and other Senators who have large
number of translators to address this problem, so Americans who depend
on translators for their free TV are not cut off unnecessarily by FCC
rules?
Answer. I am. As you are aware, translators and low power
television services have only secondary interference protection, and
must make way for full power and Class A TV stations assigned to new
channels. That said, I look forward to working with you to ensure over
the air TV remains available in Alaska. The Commission's 2012 Incentive
Auction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asked for comment on this issue
and I look forward to looking into this issue further if confirmed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Hawaii has unique communications challenges that are
due to the geographic isolation, difficult terrain, wide range of
disasters, and limited commercial infrastructure. Will you commit that
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will continue to recognize
and help address Hawaii's unique communications needs?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. Increasing broadband availability is an important goal
of this Congress, the Administration, as well as the FCC. As part of
this national effort, the FCC implemented reforms to the Universal
Service Fund, which replaced the older fund with a new broadband-
centric fund known as the Connect America Fund (CAF) and a companion
for wireless support. The FCC is evaluating a cost model for CAF Phase
II support for price cap carriers that will be used to determine the
level of support CAF will provide. The cost model is not yet adopted.
a. What is your view regarding the need for sufficient Universal
Service support for broadband in insular areas of the country served by
price cap carriers?
b. Will you prioritize finalizing the cost model that includes
consideration for the higher costs of providing broadband service in
insular areas of the country?
c. Will you consider any interim solutions that could be adopted
until such a cost model is finalized?
Answer. Section 254(b) of the Communications Act requires that
consumers in all regions of the Nation, including those in insular
areas, should have access to telecommunications and information
services. I am committed to meeting this statutory directive through
policies that affect all providers and will prioritize finalizing the
cost model that will be used to award Connect America Fund Phase II
support to price cap carriers. I will consider interim solutions while
the model is being finalized, starting with the implementation of a
second round of Connect America Fund Phase I funding.
Question 3. There is a significant divide between the
communications available on Native and Tribal lands and those available
in the rest of the country. According to the FCC, communities on Native
and Tribal lands have historically had less access to
telecommunications services than any other parts of the population. In
2010, the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) was
established to promote the deployment and adoption of communications
services and technology throughout Tribal lands and Native communities.
However, ONAP lacks a dedicated budget, which could impact ONAP's
ability to engage with Tribal Nations and Native communities on
important communications matters. Given the importance of access to
broadband, what steps will you take to ensure that Tribal programs will
reflect the need that exists in Tribal Nations and Native communities?
Answer. As I mentioned at the hearing, I am committed to the
mission of ONAP and will ensure that its work continues as a critical
part of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. I understand the
challenges faced in bringing communications services to Native and
Tribal lands and I am committed to working to bring about greater
access on these lands.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. William Cowan to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. The upcoming incentive auction promises to free up some
key spectrum to address the explosion of demand for mobile broadband
services. The outcome of this auction will help to shape this industry
for a generation to come. In order to ensure a competitive wireless
market, I understand that the FCC is considering whether or not to
adopt limits on the amount of mobile spectrum a single entity can hold
or on the amount of spectrum they can bid for in this auction.
What is your take on the current competitive environment within the
wireless industry? Do you have any thoughts about the debate unfolding
at the FCC and within the industry on how the coming incentive auctions
could impact the competitive environment of this industry?
Answer. As I said in my testimony, the wireless industry introduced
competition into local, facilities-based telecommunications. I am
committed to the maintenance of a competitive wireless market before
and after the incentive auction.
Question 2. For over a year, the FCC has blocked a Boston ordinance
regarding the placement of satellites on homes and buildings, as well
as rules regarding their removal when no longer in use. Boston has been
blocked from enforcing its ordinance pending FCC consideration of
whether or not it adheres to the Over-the-Air Reception Devices (OTARD)
rule. I also understand that Philadelphia has now been waiting for an
FCC ruling on a similar ordinance for more than 19 months. I'm not
going to ask you about the ins and outs of this particular case, but I
do believe this is an instance where the FCC has simply acted too
slowly to decide an issue that the City of Boston and other
stakeholders would like resolved. The Intergovernmental Advisory
Committee agrees with me and has expressed concerns about the lengthy
delay by the FCC in ruling on this open question. Should you be
confirmed, will you commit to resolving outstanding issues that have
seen unjustified delays, such as this one, in an expedient manner?
Answer. Yes. As a businessman, I understand just how important it
is that parties receive timely responses to their requests. I will work
to act expeditiously on the matters you have identified.
Question 3. The FCC has long supported job growth, lower consumer
prices and innovation within the telecommunications market place by
actively and consistently supporting policies favoring competition.
These policies have implemented Congress' directive in The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage competition and eliminate
exclusive franchises enjoyed by the inheritors of AT&T's and other
state-sanctioned local monopoly franchises and to eliminate the ability
of those incumbent local exchange carriers (``ILECs'') to use their
control of bottleneck facilities to impede free market competition. Do
you think the FCC should consider taking any steps to ensure that
competitors will have access to the ILECs' bottleneck last mile
connections, notwithstanding the evolution of underlying technologies?
Answer. I am committed to promoting competition and as you point
out the 1996 Act provides the FCC with certain tools to do that. If
bottlenecks exist, they must be dealt with using these tools and others
found in the Communications Act. One important matter currently being
implemented is an important data collection in the Commission's special
access proceeding, which I look forward to expeditiously implementing.
Question 4. The transition from copper last mile connections to
fiber and fixed wireless last mile connections could disproportionately
affect small businesses and retail or branch locations of large
businesses, whose competitive carriers rely more heavily on the ILECs
copper/TDM networks than competitive carriers serving residential
customers or businesses with large telecommunications needs at a given
location. Businesses need highly reliable and low cost products to
serve their needs. Businesses with numerous sites and limited need for
large bandwidth products at each particular site have for the most part
not shifted away from copper and TDM products and certainly have not
replaced their landline service with mobile phones. What steps would
you favor to ensure that business locations with relatively modest
requirements will have a competitive choice among telecommunications
suppliers when those suppliers are dependent on the ILECs' last mile
connections to provide service?
Answer. What is most important for business customers is that they
are able to purchase the services that meet their needs in a cost-
effective manner. The best way to make sure this happens is to ensure a
competitive market with as many options as possible. And this means
that competitive providers must have access to ILEC last mile
connections in whatever form those connections are offered. Whether
legacy rules concerning last-mile connections need to be applied to IP-
based networks or whether a deregulatory approach is appropriate is an
open issue before the Commission that I look forward to addressing.
Question 5. In light of the FCC's own research that reflects cable
rates continue to outpace inflation, do you believe that cable
consumers are protected by our current laws? If you do not, can you
share, whether now or after your confirmation, how the Commission and
or Congress might work to address this challenge?
Answer. I, too, hear complaints about cable prices. Dealing with
this issue encompasses a broad set of practices at both the wholesale
and retail levels. It is appropriate that both the Congress and the
Commission continue to represent the consumer's interests in these
matters.
Question 6. The FCC now has enough information about indoor
location technologies to establish a reasonable, measurable level of
location accuracy for emergency calls made indoors, as it already has
done for call originating outdoors. Doing so would enable first
responders to locate emergency calls from wireless phones from all
locations rapidly and efficiently. Do you support the FCC taking a
leadership role in enabling first responders to reach wireless 911
callers more quickly and efficiently?
Answer. Yes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. During your testimony at the hearing, you stated that
your blog posts about merger conditions were just ``hypothetical
musing[s].'' Please answer yes or no--do you reject the type of non-
transparent, ``backdoor'' policymaking via merger conditions discussed
in your blog posts dated April 1, 2011 and September 2, 2011? If no,
under what circumstances would you seek, if confirmed, to use merger
conditions as a means to ``backdoor'' regulation of an entire industry?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to following
statutory directives in reviewing mergers, which require that the
transaction must be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Commission's merger review process is an open, transparent process
in which the public is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
merger. In the past, under Democratic and Republican chairs, the
Commission has relied on the factual record developed in such
transactions and imposed conditions so that a transaction that may
otherwise not be in the public interest can be cured of that defect and
allowed to move forward.
Question 2. During your testimony, you said to me that a
transaction review must be ``based upon the facts in that specific
instance, based upon the mandate that the Congress has established in
the Act, and based upon precedent.'' If confirmed, can you assure the
Committee that you will first look to Congressional mandates
established in statute as your primary source of guidance and
constraint, both with regards to transaction reviews and in general,
before resorting to a reliance on Commission precedent?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. The communications landscape has changed dramatically
since Congress last significantly updated the Communications Act in
1996. Your experience gives you a unique perspective on the impact of
these changes. If you could advise Congress on how to update the Act to
better reflect technological and competitive changes since 1996, what
would you suggest? In particular, are there any provisions of law that
you believe to be inadequate or outdated?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee
as it explores these issues. As I have mentioned, the technological
transition that is occurring in the communications space should be the
impetus for a review of the Commission's rules to determine which ones
should be retained, modified or eliminated to ensure that the
Commission's core mission of promoting competition, protecting
consumers, providing universal service, and promoting public safety is
continued. As a practical matter, policymakers should tackle this
debate with a proper sense of humility, recognizing that technology
will continuously evolve in a direction that we cannot possibly predict
today. Thus, as we consider any potential reforms to the Act, a goal
should be to provide an appropriate framework and tools for policy
makers that best takes this reality into consideration.
Question 4. The previous FCC Chairman inexplicably left the Title
II reclassification docket open, despite telling a Congressional
committee in 2012 that he was unaware of any FCC employees working on
the order and that he would consider closing it. Congress has never
intended for the Internet to be treated like wireline telephone
service. In 2010, a bipartisan majority of over 300 Members of Congress
expressed concern about the FCC's plan to reclassify the Internet as a
Title II telecommunications service. Please answer yes or no--if
confirmed, will you close the Title II reclassification docket? If no,
please explain why you believe the Internet should be regulated like
the public switched telephone network.
Answer. I am not in a position now to predict an outcome. If
confirmed, I will meet with the General Counsel and others at the
Commission to understand what, if any, internal activity is being
devoted to this docket, and why.
Question 5. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that,
``[t]here is nothing worse for investment, innovation, job creation . .
. than businesses not knowing what the rules are.'' Do you believe the
fact that the Title II reclassification docket remains open and
actionable provides more or less certainty for communications
providers?
Answer. As a venture capitalist that has funded Internet-based
business opportunities, I can tell you from my personal experience, the
status of this docket has been irrelevant to my decision making on
those ventures.
Question 6. Please answer yes or no--if you are confirmed and if
the FCC's Open Internet order is struck down in the courts, will you
come to Congress for more direction before attempting another iteration
of network neutrality rules?
Answer. Yes.
Question 7. Should you be confirmed, will you commit to visit South
Dakota or a similarly situated rural state within the first year of
your tenure as Chairman to see firsthand some of the communications
challenges facing rural communities?
Answer. Yes.
Question 8. During your testimony at the hearing, you mentioned
your service on the first board of the Universal Services
Administrative Company (USAC). Please fully describe your experience on
the first board of USAC, and include your views on USAC's role in
administering the USF, as well as how USAC can be improved or reformed.
Answer. As a member of the Board of USAC in the late 90s, I was
able to help establish that company as it was going through
implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act's new, explicit
mechanism to fund universal service. While I am no longer privy to the
inner workings of USAC, I know based on its public reports that it has
maintained very low administrative expenses. If confirmed, I am certain
I will have more information to help inform any reforms that may be
needed, but I commit to you that I will look into these issues.
Question 9. USF reforms have had a significant impact on rural
states like South Dakota. Should you be confirmed, how do you intend to
provide greater regulatory certainty in the USF program for rural
broadband providers, particularly rate of return carriers? Please be
specific.
Answer. A goal of the Commission's unanimously adopted high cost
universal service program reforms was to ensure that the Fund could
deliver broadband in a fiscally responsible way to the more than 18
million Americans who lack access to this service. I know this program
is critical to assisting rate of return companies, as well as price cap
carriers, in bringing service to rural America. While I do not have any
specific reforms in mind right now, I can commit to moving forward with
the reforms that the Commission recently directed the Wireline Bureau
to implement in the Sixth Order on Reconsideration of the USF Reform
Order. The actions taken by the Commission in that order and other
recent Wireline Bureau efforts, largely made at the request and with
the support of rural carrier associations, were intended to provide
greater certainty for rural carriers. I will ensure the Commission's
direction to the Bureau is expeditiously implemented while also
reviewing the record for other possible actions as appropriate.
Question 10. The statutory principles for universal service include
affordability, particularly for those consumers in rural areas. Given
the ongoing implementation of comprehensive USF distribution reform,
how can the Commission best ensure that rates for advanced
telecommunications and information services in the highest cost rural
areas remain affordable for consumers?
Answer. The Commission can meet the statutory requirement that
rates in rural areas be reasonably comparable to rates in urban areas
by continuing to maintain a universal service system that subsidizes
legitimate costs in high cost areas where service would not otherwise
be offered absent support. I am committed to moving forward with the
broadband reforms unanimously adopted by the Commission, but am also
open to modifications to the reforms if justified by sound data.
Question 11. During your testimony at the hearing, you indicated
that USF should be addressed in its ``totality,'' looking at both the
contribution and disbursement sides of the program. Do you intend to
address contribution reform in a substantive way prior to, or in
concert with, any possible expansion of the USF program? What steps, if
any, will you take to reform the contribution side of USF, if
confirmed? Have you ever taken a public position on reforming the
contribution side of USF? If so, please provide any writings on the
subject or other citations.
Answer. Ensuring a stable funding mechanism for universal service
is critical. I think it is important to make efforts to ensure a level
playing field for similar services with regard to contributions
obligations and to eliminate opportunities for regulatory arbitrage
resulting from a lack of clarity as to the applicability of
contributions obligations for new services. The Commission initiated a
rulemaking proceeding in 2012 looking to modernize the USF
contributions system--both in terms of who should contribute and how. I
look forward to working with my fellow commissioners to find a path
forward.
Question 12. The President has recently rolled out a plan to expand
the E-rate program, known as the ConnectED initiative, to connect 99
percent of America's students to high-speed broadband within five
years. The USF contribution factor has doubled over the last decade,
and the overall size of USF has ballooned to nearly $9 billion
annually. The current E-Rate program is already heavily oversubscribed,
with USAC receiving applications in 2012 requesting over $5 billion in
support from the $2.2 billion program. Given your expertise as a member
of the first USAC board, what is your assessment of how much the
President's ConnectED initiative will increase the size of the current
Schools and Libraries program? Do you believe it is feasible to meet
the President's goal of 99 percent within five years while keeping the
overall size of the USF program at its current level? If so, what other
part or parts of USF would you cut to accomplish that goal?
Answer. Real per student funding under the E-Rate program is down
by one-third since its enactment (adjusted for inflation). This was a
program that I helped implement when I was on the Board of USAC and it
has been a success in its current formulation, providing basic Internet
access to virtually every school in the country. I know the Commission
has circulated an item on modernizing the program and I expect that the
item seeks comment on this very issue. That will help determine whether
and how much the fund might need to increase. I look forward to
reviewing that record and working with my fellow Commissioners on this
important issue if I am confirmed.
Question 13. In 2009, Senators Grassley, Harkin, and I wrote to
then-Acting FCC Chairman Copps about a pending petition for
reconsideration of its decision involving access charges some rural
telephone companies charge to larger carriers for completing certain
long distance calls. Our letter did not take a position on the merits
of the dispute, but encouraged the FCC to make a decision in the near
future in order to provide certainty to the telecommunications
industry. Will you commit to taking action on this still pending
petition in the near future, if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this petition.
Question 14. Rural Americans are facing significant call completion
problems. One study indicates that, during one period between 2011 and
2012, the incompletion rate was 13 times higher in rural areas than in
non-rural areas. Calls that fail to be completed result in rural
businesses losing customers and family members in rural areas being cut
off from each other. How familiar are you with the call completion
problems being experienced in many rural areas of the country, and
would you commit to using your authority as chairman to put an end to
such problems, should you be confirmed?
Answer. As I mentioned at the hearing, rural call completion
problems represent a serious problem both for public safety and
business reasons. Call completion is a bedrock principle of our
communications network. In the last couple of years the Commission has
taken steps to both clarify its rules in this area and for the first
time to make clear that the originating carrier is responsible for
ensuring calls are completed even when it hands it off to an
intermediary. The Commission has also taken enforcement action against
one company. I will ensure that the rules in this area are enforced.
Question 15. You have noted that the IP transition issue is one of
the top challenges facing the FCC. If confirmed, how will you approach
this important issue, and what impact do you think the IP transition
will have on rural areas like South Dakota?
Answer. As technologies transition, the FCC must remain committed
to certain core values, including the promotion of competition,
consumer protection, universal service, and public safety--regardless
of location. While the Commission must analyze legacy rules and
regulations and adapt to reflect changes in the communications
landscape, new communications networks and services do not change the
Commission's mission, including for rural areas. It is very important
to maintain sufficient consumer protections and access to emergency
services during the transition in all areas, including the most remote
parts of the country. Rural and remote areas present unique challenges
that must be considered when developing policies in a changing
communications landscape.
Question 16. I represent a rural state and am committed to
expanding telecommunications opportunities for people in rural
communities. At a 2001 House Energy & Commerce subcommittee hearing,
you stated: ``Wireless carriers, as a result of government policy, for
the most part, have a very difficult time going into rural areas and
providing the kind of high speed service. They've got to compete
against companies that are subsidized, et cetera. There is great
opportunity for wireless carriers to do in the United States what
they've done in South Africa and other countries around the world if we
can be allowed to get there.'' Are there government policies that are
presently holding wireless carriers back from offering service to rural
Americans? If so, what measures would you take as FCC Chairman to
eliminate these obstacles, if confirmed?
Answer. Fortunately, in the dozen years since I made that statement
wireless service has significantly expanded in rural America. Funding
remains an obstacle to investment for wireless carriers in rural
America. The Commission's Mobility Fund should help address some of
those needs, but I know more will need to be done and look forward to
exploring with the Committee ways to remove barriers and how to promote
opportunities to deliver wireless service to rural America.
Question 17. Please answer yes or no--all other things being equal,
does the presence of more qualified bidders in a spectrum auction lead
to higher proceeds than one with fewer qualified bidders?
Answer. Auction design is far too complicated for a simple ``yes''
or ``no'' answer to your question, and there are certainly varying
perspectives among the experts on this subject. The Commission staff
and auction design experts are looking into this issue. The statute
passed by Congress provided the Commission with two important
directives: (1) the Commission must ensure that all are eligible to
participate, but (2) the Commission may limit participation through
rules of general applicability. The Commission is currently conducting
a public proceeding to explore these issues and I will be guided by the
statutory requirements adopted by Congress.
Question 18. Please answer yes or no--during the spectrum auctions,
do you support allowing every qualified bidder (defined as an entity
that complies with all auction procedures and requirements and meets
the technical, financial, character, and citizenship qualification that
the FCC may require under sections 303(l)(1), 308(b), or 310 of the
Communications Act) to bid on any license up for auction? If no, please
explain under which circumstances you would exclude qualified bidders
from participating in the auction.
Answer. See previous answer.
Question 19. Given your deep experience with spectrum policy,
particularly as a wireless industry association leader, please share
your views on previous FCC auctions. Specifically, what policies do you
feel attract the most bidders, revenue, and service build out, and what
policies should be avoided in future auction planning?
Answer. A diverse offering of service area sizes and spectrum
blocks promotes successful auctions. Also, certainty of the rules
before the auction helps all that participate properly evaluate their
bidding opportunities based on their individual business models.
Finally, allowing sufficient time to arrange for capital to bid helps
promote participation.
Question 20. During the hearing, you said that the 1755-1780 MHz
band needs to be paired with the 2155-2180 MHz band and auctioned by
2015. I wholeheartedly agree. Chairman Genachowski directed FCC staff
to draft a rulemaking to do just that. If confirmed, will you follow in
your predecessor's footsteps and issue that proposed rulemaking?
Answer. Yes. The Commission recently circulated an item seeking
comment on this and other proposals. I will follow through on that
rulemaking and will work with NTIA and other Federal users of spectrum
to explore opportunities such as this one.
Question 21. In testimony before Congress in 2001 you described the
potential ``win-win'' situation of the Defense Department having access
to the spectrum it needs to have a 21st century military while making
sure there is adequate spectrum available for commercial use. As we
examine opening up the 1755-1780 band and other spectrum bands for
commercial use, how will you show leadership in working across the
government to ensure a ``win-win'' situation for this country?
Answer. This is a situation that will take all of us--Congress, the
Commission, NTIA, and Federal spectrum users--working together to
resolve. If confirmed, I intend to fully engage on this issue to find
those ``win-win'' opportunities.
Question 22. During our meeting in my office and in your previous
testimony before Congress you have discussed your role working with the
Department of Defense in getting government spectrum into the hands of
the private sector. You have noted that we must give the proper
incentives to DOD and other government agencies before these agencies
will relinquish access to this spectrum. In your opinion, what sort of
incentives should be offered? Also, should government agencies be
incentivized to act in the public interest?
Answer. In my previous work on getting spectrum converted to
commercial use, I found that providing a funding source to cover the
costs of relocation and equipment was an important component. In a
budgetary environment like the one we are in now, it is important that
government users of spectrum have an ability to cover the costs of
moving and to modernize the equipment they need in doing so. Budgetary
realities are a real issue for these agencies and Congressional
recognition of those needs may help incentivize these users. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with all stakeholders to figure
out a path forward because the spectrum shortage cannot be fully
addressed unless we find ways to clear and share more Federal spectrum.
Question 23. In 2001, you told this Committee that ``there needs to
be a spectrum policy in this country'' but that ``We don't have a
plan.'' It is now 2013--in your opinion, do we have a spectrum policy
in this country? If not, what would you do as Chairman of the FCC to
ensure that we have such a policy?
Answer. The National Broadband Plan established a clear spectrum
target to address growing demand. That plan and target have been
reinforced by two presidential memoranda as well as Congress' passage
of incentive auctions legislation. More can certainly be done and I
look forward to working with the Committee to explore other
opportunities.
Question 24. There are indications that some people within the FCC
may be interested in limiting payments to broadcasters during the
incentive auctions. Other stakeholders believe that the key to a
successful auction, and to raising the money for FirstNet, is to offer
sufficient financial incentives to attract lots of TV stations and
secure a lot of spectrum that can then be sold to the wireless
carriers. What is your view?
Answer. I am committed to holding an auction that encourages robust
broadcaster participation and frees up significant amounts of spectrum
for wireless providers to bid on. That is my goal.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Thomas E. Wheeler
USF/CAF
Question 1. An important question the FCC will need to consider is
how to administer the Connect America Fund moving forward. Looking
beyond CAF II, I believe the FCC should broaden the industry base
eligible for support. Anyone who is willing to invest in rural and high
cost areas should have an opportunity to compete for funds.
a. What are your views on the future of the Connect America Fund?
Do you believe that the FCC should move forward in a technologically-
neutral way to ensure that the dollars are getting into the hands of
providers regardless of platform?
Answer. I commend the Commission for the landmark USF reforms
adopted in 2011 and believe it is important that the Commission move
forward with all phases of the Connect America Fund to get broadband to
the millions of unserved Americans. It is my understanding that the
reforms create opportunities for all types of providers, consistent
with statutory eligibility requirements and minimum service
capabilities that must be met to ensure that consumers in rural areas
are provided reasonably comparable service at reasonably comparable
rates to consumers in urban areas.
b. If the goal of the USF is to bring broadband to the roughly 15
million unserved Americans, shouldn't we also support those
technologies, such as satellite and wireless, that can quickly reach
these markets with a quality broadband solution?
Answer. See answer to previous question.
c. Putting aside any concerns about USF, where do you stand on the
satellite broadband deployment capabilities?
Answer. Substantial developments have been made in satellite
technology. Recent launches of next generation satellites have provided
consumers with high-speed broadband capabilities that may not have been
previously available in many areas of the country. This is an important
development and it is important that the Commission support efforts to
ensure that satellite broadband service continues to expand.
Forbearance Expansion
Question 2. At an FCC oversight hearing earlier this year, I raised
the prospect of extending the FCC's forbearance authority to include
cable services and multichannel video programming distributors or MVPDs
as a way to provide relief from smaller, yet still burdensome
regulations in lieu of a full Cable Act rewrite. What is your view on
expanding forbearance authority not only for Title VI other
communications platforms as well?
Answer. While I have not thought about forbearance as a tool for
relief in this context, I will look into this proposal if confirmed. As
a general matter, I am committed to ensuring that the Commission's
rules achieve their objective in the least burdensome way possible.
Broadband Usage-based billing
Question 3. As data usage has skyrocketed, many broadband providers
started to offer tiers of broadband service. Such tiers allow for
consumer to purchase the tier of service that best matches their usage.
Do you support metered billing by ISPs for broadband usage?
Answer. I understand the reason data caps were imposed, as well as
their potential effect on both network operations and on content
providers. I intend to keep a watchful eye on the evolution of data
pricing and any impact it may have on competition and innovation,
including its impact on consumers and content providers.
LPFM
Question 4. Mr. Wheeler, even after the spectrum auctions, there
will be a substantial amount of spectrum still allocated to
broadcasters. I want to ensure that we are maximizing its use and
allowing for innovative and non-traditional uses. There are many
license holders, Channel 6 television being a good example, where the
license holders have found a new and innovative way to serve the
public's desire for a service, in that case radio, but the current
rules and bureaucracy are not moving as quickly as the market and
innovation. Will you work to ensure that the FCC allows for the best
use of spectrum, even if it entails a little work on the Commission's
part in modernizing its approach?
Answer. I am open to exploring opportunities to promote a vibrant
broadcast community and exploring alternative approaches to facilitate
it.
IP Transition
Question 5. We have heard a lot of talk recently about the Internet
Protocol, or ``IP'', transition, which would increase America's global
competitiveness, create jobs and spur our economy by enhancing
America's communications infrastructure. As part of this technology
transition, in the past decade, tens of millions of Americans have
canceled their plain old telephone service and have rapidly embraced
mobile and Internet-based voice services.
As consumers rapidly adopt these IP technologies and demand access
to advanced services, reaping the substantial benefits brought by next
generation networks, do you agree that upgrading America's
communications networks to IP-based technology should be a top priority
for the FCC?
Answer. I do agree that the IP transition offers substantial
benefits for consumers and businesses and facilitating the
modernization of carrier networks and services is an important
objective. At the same time, I recognize that technology transitions do
not alter the core statutory mission of the FCC which is to promote
competition, protect consumers, provide universal service, and promote
public safety. I am committed to ensuring the achievement of these core
goals regardless of technology platform.
Question 5a. The world is rapidly expanding its broadband networks,
services and offerings; consumers have witnessed the amazing benefits
of broadband that empower them in their daily lives and are quickly
migrating to all-IP, whether in mobile or in other next generation
broadband networks. This consumer-led transition to broadband networks
is inevitable, and is on the cusp of already displacing the antiquated
voice-centric networks of yesteryear.
What steps will you take as FCC Chair to ensure that ALL Americans
can reap the rewards of broadband networks and services and that all of
America quickly and efficiently transitions to broadband networks with
minimal consumer disruption?
Answer. Rural and remote areas, as you know from the experience in
striving to achieve universal service in the wireline context, present
unique challenges that must be considered when developing policies
related to the current transition. As stated above, as technologies
transition, universal service remains a core mission of the FCC and I
will take that obligation seriously.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Recently this committee had a hearing on the state of
the wireless marketplace. This panelists at that hearing disagreed
completely on how the upcoming broadcast spectrum auction should be
structured.
How do you personally believe that the spectrum auction should be
structured, and specifically, do you think that any bidders should be
excluded from bidding at all or on specific spectrum bands?
Answer. The auction should be structured in a way that brings as
many broadcasters voluntarily to the table as possible to free up a
substantial amount of airwaves for mobile carriers to bid on, while
meeting clear statutory policy objectives established by Congress.
While a very complex matter, I am certain that FCC staff is working
hard to structure a successful auction consistent with these objectives
and I will strongly support such efforts. Regarding bidder eligibility,
my goal will be to implement congressional requirements. The Commission
is currently conducting a public proceeding to explore these issues and
I will be guided by the statutory requirements adopted by Congress.
Question 2. When you were with CTIA, I think you generally
advocated that commercial wireless spectrum should be put to its
highest and best use. Will that be the standard by which spectrum is
allocated under your leadership at the FCC?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that
merger review proceedings and potential conditions placed upon a merger
should be evaluated case by case. However, you have written before that
some merger conditions, specifically those which might have been
required had the AT&T and T-Mobile USA merger had been completed two
years ago, should then be extrapolated onto the entire industry. How do
you reconcile those two viewpoints?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to following
statutory directives in reviewing mergers, which require that the
transaction must be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Commission's merger review process is an open, transparent process
in which the public is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
merger. In the past, under Democratic and Republican chairs, the
Commission has relied on the factual record developed in such
transactions and imposed conditions so that a transaction that may
otherwise not be in the public interest can be cured of that defect and
allowed to move forward.
Question 4. Two weeks ago, the Administration announced that it was
moving forward with a policy of allowing government spectrum to be
shared with commercial wireless providers. Do you think carriers will
be willing to spend potentially billions of dollars at auction to share
spectrum with government systems, or will such spectrum need to be
cleared in order for carriers to build out systems on it and for
consumers to see value from it?
Answer. To address the growing demand for mobile broadband
services, we need to pursue a strategy that employs multiple tools to
get spectrum into the hands of commercial providers. Those tools should
reflect the advances in technology in the wireless space that permit
greater use of sharing as well as traditional methods of clearing and
auctioning. The challenges associated with sharing will differ among
bands, but I do think that in some circumstances a properly structured
arrangement with clear service rules could make sharing an attractive
approach for wireless providers.
Question 5. Various Federal Government spectrum license holders
have stated that they can operate their systems in frequency bands much
higher than where they currently operate. Specifically, some Federal
license holders in the 1755 MHz band have stated that some of their
systems could operate in the 5 GHz band, where they already operate
other systems.
What do you believe the best course of action is to address this
issue? How do you anticipate working with the Department of Defense and
other Federal license holders, in the event that they identify usable
spectrum in higher bands and thus are able to vacate some of their
lower MHz spectrum holdings, which could then be auctioned for
commercial use?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to engaging all stakeholders
in the process. We should move quickly to explore all viable
alternatives presented that enable Federal agencies to meet their
missions while freeing up valuable spectrum for commercial use.
Question 6. As you know, the FCC is responsible for enforcing
Federal law that prohibits indecency on the public airwaves. However,
the FCC has not brought an enforcement action against any program in
more than four years. Can you explain your views regarding the FCC's
role in preserving decency on radio and television programs? Do you
believe that the FCC is doing an adequate job in this area?
Answer. The Supreme Court's recent decision has provided some
clarity as to the parameters of the Commission's authority in this
area. The Commission has also released a public notice seeking input on
its rules. I will be guided by Congressional intent and court precedent
as I work with my fellow commissioners on resolving this issue.
Question 7. In response to the FCC's request for public comments on
proposed changes to decency enforcement standards, nearly 100,000
comments were submitted, nearly all opposed to changes which, in their
mind, would weaken the standard. In various court proceedings over the
past decade, broadcasters have argued that the indecency rules are
outdated. Specifically, broadcasters have stated that the rules are too
vague, they conflict with their First Amendment rights and that parents
can control what their kids watch on television anyway.
How do you believe the FCC should move forward on this issue? Are
the current indecency laws outdated? Should broadcast networks be
treated the same as cable networks in terms of what is considered
indecent?
Answer. Again, I look forward to engaging with my fellow
commissioners on this issue, recognizing that the communications
marketplace has gone through substantial shifts since the days of the
original indecency rules.
Question 8. The FCC has not addressed media ownership rules and
regulations officially since 2007. The last quadrennial review, which
the Commission is legislatively required to complete, have been
challenged and stayed in different courts. The current review was
postponed until the Commission completed a minority media ownership
review, which has now been done. Much has changed in the media
landscape in the past decade, specifically in the past six years since
the Commission last attempted to update these rules. What do you plan
to do to push forward with the Commission's legislative mandate to
update outdated media ownership rules?
Answer. As I mentioned at the hearing, the current review is three-
quarters of the way through and the Commission is going to have to
start another review very shortly. If confirmed, I will look at the
proceeding and determine what the best course of action might be. I
will be guided in that review by the Commission's longstanding policy
goals to promote competition, diversity, and localism.
Question 9. Specific to the current ban on media cross-ownership of
newspaper by television broadcasters it has been well documented that
newspapers across the country have experienced unprecedented challenges
to their business model. As a result of a recession and Internet
competition more than half of the industry's advertising revenues have
disappeared. Specifically, newspaper advertising revenues have declined
from $49 billion in 2006 to roughly $22 billion in 2012.
Newspapers continue to live under the 1975 Federal Communications
Commission cross-ownership ban that prevents a broadcast owner from
investing in a newspaper in the same local market.
Do you believe that this nearly four-decade old regulation should
be recalibrated to reflect the changes in the media marketplace, with
cable and satellite television, the Internet, mobile apps and all the
other ways people get information today?
Answer. As the courts have made clear, any review and modification
of the Commission's media ownership rules must be based on sound data.
There have certainly been changes in the media marketplace as you have
identified, and the impact of such changes should be appropriately
considered by the Commission.
Question 10. With the proliferation of online music, satellite
radio providers and cable music stations, do you believe that local
market radio caps need to be re-evaluated?
Answer. See answer to previous question.
Question 11. What are your plans to expedite the Commission's
merger review proceedings? Specifically, do you believe that a 180 day
shot clock could be implemented as a statutory deadline by the
Commission to complete merger review proceedings?
Answer. I understand that better than 95 percent of all license
transfer applications since 2009 have been acted on within the 180-day
period. I believe it is an effective guideline that provides parties to
transactions an understanding of the Commission's timing for review. I
appreciate the importance of reviewing these transactions in a timely
manner, but given the widely varying circumstances of proposed
transfers, I do not believe that a statutory deadline would be ideal.
Question 12. Previously, the Commission has attached merger
conditions to merger proceedings which seemingly have little to do with
addressing a consumer harm, or a potential consumer harm, which will
originate as a result of the merger being completed. Do you believe
that the Commission should continue to attach merger conditions to
further a policy agenda outside of the scope of a proposed merger or
should the FCC look to only attach conditions when there is a specific
consumer harm that needs to be addressed?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to following
statutory directives in reviewing mergers, which requires that the
transaction must be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Commission's merger review process is an open, transparent process
in which the public is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
merger. In the past, under Democratic and Republican chairs, the
Commission has relied on the factual record developed in such
transactions and imposed conditions so that a transaction that may
otherwise not be in the public interest can be cured of that defect and
allowed to move forward.
Question 13. Do you think that as the Universal Service Fund
migrates to being a subsidy for broadband, as opposed to its original
purpose of providing universal telephone service, that it should only
be used to fund expansions of broadband in unserved areas?
Answer. I commend the Commission for the landmark USF reforms
adopted in 2011 and believe it is important that the Commission move
forward with all phases of the Connect America Fund to get broadband to
the millions of unserved Americans. In adopting the reforms, the
Commission established multiple goals for the program, among them
ensuring that consumers in every part of the country have access to
both voice and broadband services. I support these goals and the
requirement that recipients of USF support provide voice service and
the deployment of broadband-capable networks.
Question 14. Do you believe that all technologies, whether they are
copper networks, fibre networks, wireless networks or satellite
networks, should be eligible to compete for Universal Service Funds if
they are able to provide broadband to areas which currently do not have
them, and at the most economical rate?
Answer. It is my understanding that the reforms create
opportunities for all types of providers, consistent with statutory
eligibility requirements and minimum service capabilities that must be
met to ensure that consumers in rural areas are provided reasonably
comparable service at reasonably comparable rates to consumers in urban
areas.
Question 15. Most members of Congress are in favor of keeping the
current ban on unwanted phone calls to consumers home phones and cell
phones. The Do Not Call List has been a very successful tool provided
by Federal Trade Commission. But the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
rules were written at a time when home phones and fax machines were
considered cutting edge technology. We do not live in that world
anymore.
Can I get your commitment that you will take a hard look at the
current TCPA rules and apply some common sense and pragmatic updates to
these rules that still protect consumers from unwanted solicitations,
but don't preclude them from getting updates on goods or services where
the consumer has an established relationship with the entity who wants
to contact them, specifically on the status of their drug prescription,
airline flight updates or even from their student loan holder?
Answer. I agree that consumers should be afforded protection from
unwanted autodialed or prerecorded calls or ``robocalls'', while
ensuring they have access to information they wish to receive. To that
point, my understanding is that the Commission issued an order last
year enhancing the robocall rules while maintaining the existing
consent rules for non-telemarketing, informational calls, such as those
by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations, calls for
political purposes, and calls for other informational purposes,
including informational messages such as school closings, airline
flight updates, prescription refill reminders, or notifications
regarding possible bank fraud. If confirmed, I will look into the issue
to determine if more common sense updates to the rules are needed.
Question 16. As you may know, there those who believe the FCC can
sometimes lose sight of the actual intent of their legislative mandate
in their rule-making process. In fact, I am familiar with a company
from my home state which is currently fending off claims that it owes
millions of dollars in damages to a business which actually consented
to receiving faxed advertisements from the company, but didn't parrot
word-for-word the consent language called for in the FCC's regulations.
This kind of enforcement defies common sense, especially when it
involves sophisticated communications among consenting businesses
rather than unsuspecting consumers. Without asking you to wade into
existing litigation, can you give us some insight into your leadership
style and priorities when it comes to rule-making?
Answer. I will demand an open and transparent process that is
guided by the Administrative Procedure Act, Congressional directives
and Commission precedent in pursuing rulemakings.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Mr. Wheeler, I was pleased to see in your blog, Mobile
Musings, that you share my concern about moving away from the multi-
stakeholder model of Internet governance. As you may know, Congress
unanimously passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 50 last year. SCR 50
made it clear that Congress opposes international regulation of the
Internet and supports multi-stakeholder governance. And after an
encouraging bipartisan agreement, the House recently passed--by a
margin of 413-0--legislation making it the policy of the United States
to advocate for the multi-stakeholder model of governance.
If confirmed, will you use your position as FCC Chairman to
promote multi-stakeholder governance?
In light of the departure of Commissioner McDowell, who was
a leader on this issue last year, in what ways will you ensure
that the fight for Internet freedom continues at the FCC?
Do you agree that promoting multi-stakeholder governance has
been the steadfast policy of the U.S.?
Do you agree with Democrats and Republicans in the House
that this should continue to be the policy of the United
States?
Answer. I agree that the bipartisan Sense of the Congress passed
last year sent a clear message of support for the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance. The FCC is the U.S. Government agency
with primary responsibility for implementing the 1988 International
Telecommunications Regulations and as such it plays a key role in
domestic and international work on these issues. If confirmed, I will
continue the bipartisan Commission effort to promote the
multistakeholder model.
Question 2. In a March 20, 2013 letter to NTIA, Chairman
Genachowski indicated that the FCC wants to auction the 1755-1780
megahertz band paired with the 2155-2180 megahertz band. Are you
committed to continuing the work begun by your predecessor to keep this
auction on track? Does it make sense to auction the 2155-2180 band
without the 1755-1780 band?
Answer. Yes, I am committed to continuing to pursue all options to
bring more spectrum to meet the growing consumer demand. As I
understand it, the Commission has circulated an item seeking public
comment on this issue and I look forward to working with all
stakeholders to find a solution.
Question 3. Looking beyond the auctions that are currently
authorized, would it be helpful if Congress authorized multiple
spectrum auctions, staggered over a period time, so that there would be
a pipeline of spectrum entering the marketplace in a steady and
predictable manner? Please explain your answer.
Answer. Spectrum demand will continue to grow for the foreseeable
future. The Commission will need various tools to meet that need,
including: traditional clearing and auctioning of spectrum, sharing,
repurposing, and unlicensed. I look forward to working with Congress to
make each of these tools as effective as possible.
Question 4. Will you make it a priority as Chairman to identify
spectrum to be auctioned for commercial use?
Answer. Yes.
Question 5. Will you work with NTIA to identify and clear federally
held spectrum for commercial use? How will you do that as Chairman?
Answer. I will work with NTIA and other Federal users of spectrum
to identify opportunities for clearing and sharing spectrum to meet the
growing consumer demand for mobile broadband. I will wholeheartedly
engage the Commission's Federal partners to make progress on this
front.
Question 6. Do you think bidders view spectrum they would share
with government systems as valuable as spectrum cleared of such
systems?
Answer. To address the growing demand for mobile broadband
services, we need to pursue a strategy that employs multiple tools to
get spectrum into the hands of commercial providers. Those tools should
reflect the advances in technology in the wireless space that permits
greater use of sharing as well as traditional methods of clearing and
auctioning. In appropriate circumstances, I do think a properly
structured arrangement with clear service rules could make sharing an
attractive approach for wireless providers.
Question 7. What are the three most-important decisions you will
need to make to ensure that the broadcast incentive auction is a
success?
Answer. Three key decisions I will need to make, if they are not
yet resolved, to ensure a successful auction will be (1) developing a
sound band plan; and properly structuring the auction to (2)
incentivize robust broadcaster participation and (3) ensure a
successful repacking of broadcasters. These are just three of the many
issues on which the Commission is currently seeking public input and I
look forward to working with my fellow commissioners to bring about a
successful result.
Question 8. The Presidential Memorandum released last Friday called
for agencies to ``enhance the efficiencies of their use of spectrum and
make more capacity available to satisfy the skyrocketing demand of
consumer and business broadband users.'' Part of the solution to
enhancing Federal agencies' efficiencies in their use of spectrum will
be relocating systems out of the lower bands suitable for mobile
broadband and into the 4 GHz and 5 GHz bands wherever possible. Yet
some agencies have expressed interest in relocating to the Broadcast
Auxiliary Spectrum in the 2 Ghz band (2025-2110 MHz). Will you commit
to working with NTIA and the agencies to find comparable spectrum for
the agencies that relocate in the upper bands wherever technologically
feasible to increase efficiencies?
Answer. I am committed to working with all stakeholders to find
solutions that could include the relocations you mention or other
opportunities. We should move quickly to explore all viable
alternatives presented that enable Federal agencies to meet their
missions while freeing up valuable spectrum for commercial use. The
Commission has circulated an item that, as I understand it, explores
these issues.
Question 9. Under your leadership, the FCC's Technology Advisory
Council recommended setting a target date of 2018 for sun-setting the
public switched telephone network. Do you still support that proposal?
Answer. The TAC, as a group, did suggest a notional target date of
2018 for sun-setting the PSTN. While there is often value in setting
firm deadlines, it is also fair to say that this type of transition
does not as easily lend itself to a single cutover date like the DTV
transition. I am not able to pick a particular date at this point,
although I would note that at least one major national carrier has
suggested 2020 as the target date for its network to go all-IP. Most
important for the Commission, regardless of any particular date, will
be to ensure a smooth transition that is guided by the core values that
have always guided the Commission, namely, the promotion of
competition, consumer protection, universal service and public safety.
Question 10. In December 2010 the commission adopted the Open
Internet Order, currently the subject of litigation before the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals. In the event that the commission loses that
case, would you support the idea of reclassifying broadband as a
telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act?
Answer. I cannot speculate on what future action I would take
without the benefit of reviewing the court's decision.
Question 11. The Docket for Title II reclassification has remained
open at the Commission for over three years. This is a major proceeding
to regulate broadband services under common carrier regulations, which
would constitute a massive change to how the Internet would be
regulated, and it remains open for over three years. Please answer yes
or no to the following questions:
Is keeping a proceeding open for over three years without
action the best way to provide certainty in the marketplace?
Do you agree that this can create problems for stakeholders
and create uncertainty when considering future investments and
planning?
If confirmed, will you leave proceedings open for years with
no action?
Answer. As a venture capitalist that has funded Internet-based
business opportunities, I can tell you from my personal experience, the
status of this docket has been irrelevant to my decision making on
those ventures. With that being said, if confirmed, I will ask
Commission staff to ensure the continuing need for all open dockets.
Question 12. Telecommunications is a fast-paced, dynamic industry
operating in a hypercompetitive environment. As an ``unabashed
supporter of competition,'' what do you believe is the proper role of
the FCC in this dynamic environment?
Answer. I believe that whenever possible, the marketplace should
drive communications provider investment decisions and business
practices. The history of telecommunications, however, has made it
clear that such competition does not occur by accident. The Congress
has laid out the expectation as to how the FCC will encourage
competition while protecting consumers and the safety of the public and
furthering the goal of universal service.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kelly Ayotte to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Upcoming Spectrum Auctions
Question 1. When I look at the upcoming auctions, my 2 main
concerns are protecting the consumer and maximizing the amount of
revenue that will be raised.
Some argue that keeping larger carriers out of auctions will
increase revenues. On the other hand, if you look at the 2008 spectrum
auction, it brought in roughly $19 billion, which was over 25 percent
more than CBO estimated. Also, it had over 100 winning bidders with
1,400 licenses issued with different geographic areas. I've seen
conflicting studies arguing both sides of this, but it is universally
agreed that this is the most successful auction the FCC has ever had.
Can you share your thoughts on whether limiting participation will
result in more revenues and a more successful auction when our most
recent auction does not back up this assertion? Which route would
result in lower prices for the consumer?
Answer. The auction should be structured in a way that brings as
many broadcasters voluntarily to the table as possible to free up a
substantial amount of airwaves for mobile carriers to bid on, while
meeting clear statutory policy objectives established by Congress.
While a very complex matter, I am certain that FCC staff is working
hard to structure a successful auction consistent with these objectives
and I will strongly support such efforts. Regarding bidder eligibility,
my goal will be to implement congressional requirements. The Commission
is currently conducting a public proceeding to explore these issues and
I will be guided by the statutory requirements adopted by Congress.
Universal Service Fund
Question 2. As you and I discussed when we met privately, I have
been a consistent and vocal critic of the Universal Service Fund and
how little New Hampshire gets out of it. We are a country of 50
different states, so I understand there are bound to be some levels of
inequities. However, New Hampshire receives 37 cents for every dollar
it contributes to USF.
Few states have a worse return than New Hampshire, but none of
those states are nearly as rural as we are, nor do they have as many
unserved areas when you look at the census blocks.
When I addressed this with you in the Committee hearing, you said
we need to look at USF in its ``totality'' both the distribution and
contribution side. Can you expand further on how reforming USF in
totality will improve outcomes for rural areas of New Hampshire? Please
outline the types of USF contribution and distribution reforms that
will help New Hampshire.
Answer. Ensuring a stable funding mechanism for universal service
is critical. Modernizing the contributions side of USF could result in
a more equitable system for New Hampshire contributors. In addition,
there are important elements of the Commission's 2011 USF Reform order
that still must be implemented, including the second phases of the
Connect America Fund and the Mobility Fund, as well as the Remote Areas
Fund. These programs are specifically intended to provide targeted
support for fixed and mobile broadband in unserved locations, including
the many unserved locations in New Hampshire that you mention.
Implementing contributions reform and moving forward with the ongoing
USF forms that are underway should benefit New Hampshire.
USF Expansion (E-Rate, Lifeline, high-cost fund, etc)
Question 3. At the hearing last week, we heard calls today to
expand varying programs of Universal Service Fund. I applaud the goal
of trying to provide crucial communications services to every corner of
our great country. However, when New Hampshire is losing 63 cents on
every dollar it contributes to the nearly $9 billion fund, perhaps we
should look a little harder at making the fund more efficient and
better managed before expanding it. The distribution side of the fund
in New Hampshire is withering.
What do you believe the FCC needs to do in order to get rid of the
waste, fraud and abuse within the fund? Do we need to do this before
expanding existing programs? Does the FCC need to work within a tighter
budget?
Answer. The Commission deserves credit for the substantial reforms
to all of the USF programs over the last year, all of which were
focused on increasing program efficiencies, improving fiscal
responsibility, and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. At this point,
two of the four universal service programs are capped, another has a
firm budget in place and the fourth was recently reformed to include a
significant savings target which the Commission successfully met in
2012. I believe the Commission should always look at ways to further
eliminate waste, fraud and abuse before expanding existing programs.
Spectrum Sharing Policy
Question 4. There are challenging questions pending before the FCC
regarding spectrum for auctions. These decisions will provide consumers
with greater choice and more powerful mobile broadband offerings, but
also must protect national security interests that have rapidly growing
wireless broadband needs. With regard to spectrum sharing policy, how
do you approach the question of how commercial spectrum can be made
available to support Federal broadband requirements, particularly those
that are using off-the-shelf, standardized technology such as LTE to
meet growing needs?
Answer. There may be a real opportunity for some Federal spectrum
users to have their equipment more closely tied to the evolution of
commercial technology through spectrum sharing arrangements. It is an
opportunity that is worth exploring as it could help reduce procurement
costs while also allowing for a faster evolution of government
equipment.
Executive Memorandum on Wireless Innovation
Question 5. The recently signed Executive Memorandum on wireless
innovation contained provisions about Federal spectrum requirements,
including an objective to ``eliminate restrictions on commercial
carriers' ability to negotiate sharing arrangements with agencies'' and
an encouragement of the FCC to identify nonfederal spectrum that can be
made available to agencies on a shared or exclusive basis. Under your
leadership, how do you envision the Commission implementing these
provisions?
Answer. I am committed to working with all stakeholders to identify
nonfederal spectrum that can be made available to agencies on a shared
or exclusive basis. I will work with NTIA and other Federal users of
spectrum to identify opportunities for clearing and sharing spectrum to
meet the growing consumer demand for mobile broadband. We should move
quickly to explore all viable alternatives presented that enable
Federal agencies to meet their mission while freeing up valuable
spectrum for commercial use. I understand that the wireless industry
recently submitted a spectrum relocation roadmap making recommendations
on this subject and also that the Commission has circulated an item
that, as I understand it, explores these issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. Thank you for your testimony and responses to my
questions at your nomination hearing. I would like to follow up with a
few more questions regarding spectrum clearing, interference, backhaul
capabilities and requests by some telephone companies to transition to
all IP. I appreciate the opportunity to learn a little more about your
views on these issues. As you and I discussed, the spectrum auction is
very complex with multiple moving parts. Do you believe we can hold
this auction by 2014?
Answer. I am committed to meeting that timeline if at all possible.
However, I must add the caveat that at present I am precluded from
seeing information that could form the basis of a definitive decision.
Question 2. We need to work with government agencies to clear up
more spectrum, you have a wealth of experience in this area. Do you
believe we can move this issue forward to clear unused government
spectrum for commercial use? I believe many Senators could be helpful
to you in this endeavor; will you lean on us for support if
appropriate?
Answer. I appreciate the offer of assistance and can assure you I
will take you up on it. Increased clearing and sharing of Federal
spectrum will take all of us--Congress, the Commission, NTIA, and
Federal spectrum users--working together to solve. I will work with all
stakeholders to identify opportunities for clearing and sharing
spectrum to meet the growing consumer demand for mobile broadband. We
should move quickly to explore all viable alternatives presented that
enable Federal agencies to meet their mission while freeing up valuable
spectrum for commercial use. I intend to fully engage on this issue.
Question 3. When we move more spectrum to market, interference
issues will come up. If new wireless services are licensed in satellite
spectrum bands will there be interference? Is there any plan to address
this issue if there will be interference?
Answer. As spectrum uses become more tightly packed, interference
issues will increase as well. One of the most important ways the
Commission can provide leadership to address this concern is in the
area of improved receiver performance. I know the engineering staff at
the FCC through my work on the Technology Advisory Council and they are
working on ways to address this. I look forward to working through
these issues in a way that allows robust growth and opportunity to
continue.
Question 4. Mr. Wheeler, what are your thoughts on the importance
of wireless backhaul networks to the future of wireless communications?
What is the current state of wireless backhaul deployment in the wide-
area licensed bands (24 thru 39 GHz)? Does FCC policy currently
motivate quality builds?
Answer. Wireless backhaul is an important component to addressing
increased traffic. It is critical that licensees meet their build out
requirements so that valuable spectrum like the spectrum you mention is
put to use. I will be vigilant in ensuring spectrum is built out in a
timely manner.
Question 5. Do you believe the 1996 Telecommunications Act was
technology neutral?
Answer. The definition of ``telecommunications'' is certainly
technology neutral--``the transmission, between or among points
specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without
change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received.'' As to the specific provisions, some are clearly technology
neutral, while others are specific to a particular type of network.
Question 6. Do you believe the Commission should work to upgrade
America's communication networks to IP-based technology? Will this be a
priority?
Answer. The IP transition offers substantial benefits for consumers
and businesses and facilitating the modernization of carrier networks
and services will be a priority. At the same time, I recognize that
technology transitions do not alter the core mission of the FCC, which
is to promote competition, protect consumers, provide universal
service, and promote public safety. I am committed to ensuring the
achievement of these core goals regardless of technology platform.
Question 7. Some believe that applying Title II rules to IP systems
will create confusion, increase costs, and ignore the transformation to
next generation broadband networks. As Chairman, what is your view on
Title 2 regulations as it applies to IP delivery of voice?
Answer. Regardless of regulatory classification, the FCC must
remain committed to certain core statutory values, including the
promotion of competition, consumer protection, universal service, and
public safety. While the Commission must analyze legacy rules and
regulations and adapt to reflect changes in the communications
landscape, new communications networks and services do not change the
Commission's mission.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Coats to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. I was sorry we did not get a chance to meet prior to
the hearing, but I understand you were tied up on other business which
precluded you from coming by my office. On August 3, 2011 you posted on
your blog an entry titled ``Trout in the Milk.'' In that posting you
expressed your surprise that the debt ceiling negotiations at the time
did not include revenues derived from the sale of broadcast spectrum as
part of deficit reduction. You then wrote, specifically with regards to
the National Association of Broadcasters:
``As a former practitioner of the legislative art I look in awe
at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and their new
president former Republican Senator Gordon Smith. Their hands
must have a slight odor of fish--trout to be specific.
Suddenly, when a spectrum sale seemed a fait accompli as a
payment on the debt, it vanished. No one is talking about it,
but these things don't happen by accident.''
What did you mean by this statement?
Answer. I look forward to meeting with you in person. I believe at
the time that NAB was not supportive of what was being discussed
regarding the reallocation and auction of broadcast spectrum.
Question 2. Again I'd like to reference an entry on your blog,
specifically your September 2, 2011 posting relating to the AT&T
acquisition of T-Mobile when you implied that the government could have
used the proposed merger to assert more regulatory influence over the
wireless industry. You wrote:
``. . . the regulatory oversight of wireless carriers will
continue to atrophy as the digital nature of the wireless
business separates it from the legal nexus with traditional
analog telecom regulation.''
My view is, as with any agency, the FCC should be actively working
to eliminate any regulatory obstacles that are barriers to innovation
and to the development of new products for the consumer. The current
marketplace has created a vibrant and competitive communications and
technology sector, but the marketplace only works for established
players and new entrants if there is transparency and predictability in
the Commission's processes. The communications and technology sector
continues to innovate, and with their innovation comes job creation.
The FCC can stop job growth in this sector dead in its tracks with
onerous and unnecessary regulations, as well as unpredictability in its
processes.
I am concerned about your statement. Can you amplify on your views
on increased regulation?
Answer. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to following
statutory directives in reviewing mergers, which requires that the
transaction must be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The Commission's merger review process is an open, transparent process
in which the public is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
merger. In the past, under Democratic and Republican chairs, the
Commission has relied on the factual record developed in such
transactions and imposed conditions so that a transaction that may
otherwise not be in the public interest can be cured of that defect and
allowed to move forward.
Question 3. On April 29, 2013, my office addressed a letter to
then-Chairman Genachowski regarding Non Commercial Educational (NCE)
Public Interest Obligation (PIO) television stations and the FCC's
process for reviewing complaints concerning underwriting announcements
by these stations. The May 17th response from Michael Perko, Chief of
the Media Bureau's Office of Communication and Industry Information,
ignored my inquiry and included a reference to parity between PBS and
non-PBS television stations, an issue my letter did not address. Later
research reveals the FCC sent my office was sent an identical form
letter that also was sent to Rep. Andre Carson (IN-7) and Senator
Inhofe in May 2013, both of whom addressed the parity between PBS and
non-PBS stations.
a. As Chairman, will you and your staff read and appropriately
respond to inquiries and/or comments from Members of Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that congressional inquiries
are treated with due deference. This includes assuring that they are
responded to in an appropriate manner that addresses the issue raised.
b. Given the current economic environment, many of these NCE PIO
television stations remain concerned about the FCC's criteria for
underwriting announcements and its process for enforcing these rules.
Do you support offering greater opportunities for these stations to
engage with the FCC to ensure that they do not violate the rules for
underwriting announcements, and that the penalties for inadvertent
violations are not unduly severe?
Answer. I will need to learn more about this issue before I can
provide an opinion on this, but I take your point and I will ensure
that Commission staff works with stakeholders to try to resolve
concerns they have while recognizing the need to enforce the
Commission's rules.
Question 4. I would like to explore your views on the need to
eliminate regulatory obstacles that are barriers to innovation and to
the development of new products for the consumer. I think we both can
agree that the 21st century marketplace has created a vibrant and
competitive communications and technology sector, and I think we both
can also agree that in order to fairly and effectively compete in the
marketplace both established players and new entrants to this space
rely on transparency and predictability in the Commission's processes.
As a business leader who has dealt extensively with the FCC in the
past, are there specific regulations that you can point to as barriers
to innovation that you wish the FCC had rolled back or eliminated?
Answer. I know that my predecessor removed more than 300
regulations during his tenure. I will carry on that work and ensure
that the Commission's rules are not creating unnecessary obstacles to
innovation.
Question 5. The spectrum incentive auction is a first-of-its-kind
process. If executing the auction was not challenging enough, my
understanding is that the FCC also faces a number of technical issues
such as not yet knowing what chunks of spectrum TV broadcasters will
voluntarily surrender.
a. I understand a process is in place via the task force the
Commission has created to work through all these issues, but what
assurances can you give us that, under your leadership, the Commission
will meet its stated goal of 2014 for the auction given the
unprecedented nature of the process and technical challenges?
Answer. I am committed to meeting the stated goal of an auction in
2014 if at all possible given the nature of the challenges you have
noted.
b. As someone who, until now, has been an ``outsider looking in''
at the process, can you share your thoughts on how the process is
going?
Answer. I am, at this point, still an outside observer as I am
precluded from engaging in internal discussions with staff on policy
decisions, but based on the publicly available information and watching
the Commission's process, I applaud its level of engagement--conducting
workshops for broadcasters to promote participation and technical
workshops with engineers and other stakeholders to try to get as much
input as possible in implementing this auction. I know this is a robust
proceeding with lots of public input. I look forward to learning more
from the inside should the Senate confirm my nomination.
Question 6. I have heard concerns from my state regarding the
regulation of high volume auto-dialer initiated voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) ``broadcasted'' calls. My understanding is that these
calls can put 10,000 calls per minute onto Indiana's landline telephone
network, by using VoIP technology, in an attempt to get around
Indiana's Do Not Call List. The Commission has, pursuant to its
authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), worked
with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in establishing a national Do-
Not-Call Registry. The registry is nationwide in scope, applies to all
telemarketers (with the exception of certain non-profit organizations),
and covers both interstate and intrastate telemarketing calls. Is this
an issue you're aware of, and if so can you share your views on this
topic with me?
Answer. It is my understanding that, to date, the Commission has
not specifically addressed the application of its TCPA rules when VoIP
services are used to initiate calls or faxes. However, as Chairman, I
would look into this issue. Regardless of the technology used, the
privacy of consumers must not be violated by unlawful calls.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. In our meeting prior to your confirmation hearing, I
asked you if the FCC has the authority to implement the requirements of
the failed Congressional DISCLOSE Act through rulemaking-that time, and
again during your confirmation hearing, you declined to directly answer
the question, stating that you needed more time.
a. Now that you have had that time, and time again following the
hearing, I'd like a specific answer: does the FCC have the authority to
implement the kind of requirements laid out in the DISCLOSE Act?
b. When it comes to the issue of regulating political speech, which
institution do you believe has primary authority in this area--Congress
or the FCC?
c. To the extent that you believe the FCC has the legal authority
to regulate political speech, what statutory provision or provisions
would you point to as the basis for that authority?
d. To the extent that you believe the FCC has the legal authority
to regulate political speech, what principles would guide your
decisions on when limitations on political speech are justified?
e. With regard to any potential FCC regulation involving political
speech, how confident are you that the FCC's involvement in this area
could be accomplished while preventing the kinds of abuses that we've
discovered were prevalent at the IRS?
f. To the extent that you believe that both Congress and the FCC
have the ability to regulate political speech, how would the FCC, under
your leadership, proceed with reconciling any differences in approach
between the two bodies?
Answer. The Commission has the authority Congress grants it by
statute and the Commission, in interpreting that authority, must
respect the First Amendment. The Commission's authority is found in the
statutes Congress has enacted, principally the Communications Act, as
amended.
Congress has delegated to the Commission certain disclosure
responsibilities related to sponsorship identification (Sec. 317) and
political disclosure (Sec. 315). These are provisions that have been in
place since the Commission's inception in 1934 and were previously
implemented by its predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, since
1927. In determining the scope of those provisions, I will be guided by
the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, Congress' directives
under the Communications Act, and legal precedent.
As I mentioned at the hearing, I am mindful of the fact that the
scope of these disclosure provisions is an area of policymaking tension
within Congress and in the public at large. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with you and others on the Committee on all matters
of the Commission's responsibilities, in order best to achieve the
shared goals of promoting economic opportunity and investment in the
dynamic communications sector.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jeff Chiesa to
Thomas E. Wheeler
Question 1. You have served as an executive of two prominent trade
associations in DC. In this capacity, you were required to work with
companies that--at times--may have had varying opinions, and you were
required to come up with a single industry position and then to
advocate that position before Congress and the FCC. What lessons will
you draw upon from your time as an industry executive if confirmed as
FCC Chairman?
Answer. Coming to consensus on complex policy issues with a
multitude of stakeholders who are all very differently situated can be
a very difficult process. Whether as the head of a trade association or
a Federal agency, the most important thing an effective leader can do
is to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to be heard and to
carefully listen and understand the various perspectives. People and
organizations need to know that their opinions and arguments are valued
and thoughtfully considered. While some issues may never lend
themselves to a solution that everyone can fully support, it is
essential that no one be excluded from the process and that everyone is
given a fair opportunity to make their case. At the end of the day, the
Commission needs to make decisions that are consistent with the law and
meet clearly articulated policy objectives based on a full and complete
factual record. My experience has also taught me that making decisions
affecting multi-billion dollar industries requires a great sense of
humility and thick skin, qualities I have acquired over the years in
the communications space. As I noted during my hearing, the FCC is a
five-member commission and I intend to work closely with my fellow
commissioners to ensure all viewpoints have been considered in the
process.
Question 2. You are someone who has had long-running leadership
positions in industries that are regulated by the FCC, and you are also
an amateur historian who has looked at communications throughout the
last few centuries. This gives you a unique perspective to look at how
various technologies have disrupted the marketplace and how regulation
has impacted the ability of new technologies to make their way into the
hands of consumers and improve the lives of Americans. Does your
experience teach you that a light-touch regulatory approach is the best
way to ensure that new technology is not hamstrung by regulatory
overreach?
Answer. I believe that whenever possible, the marketplace should
drive communications provider investment decisions and business
practices. The Commission must not inject itself unless authorized by
Congress when necessary to pursue important public policy objectives
that would not likely be achieved absent Commission action. Current
technology transitions offer substantial benefits for consumers and
businesses. At the same time, as an amateur historian, I recognize that
technology transitions have always been times of trial and dislocation
for those who relied on the earlier technology. Technology, by itself,
does not alter the core statutory mission of the FCC which is to
promote competition, protect consumers, provide universal service, and
promote public safety. I am committed to ensuring the achievement of
these core goals regardless of technology platform.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.