100% agreed. Temp reliance of Net Neutrality and eventually create a constitutional amendment. My only concerns with this is twofold:
I just wish they would bust the trusts…that’s all that needs to happen in my humble opinion.
Good points and not sure what the answers would be. But… It would give us time to think about it.
Well, if anyone is interested in the captions from the FCC meeting today have a look. It’s not pretty but I’m not able to find a full transcript atm. Unfortunatly, this begins from after the “security recess” or whatever they called it.
[PLEASE STAND BY]
[PLEASE STAND BY]
[PLEASE STAND BY]
[PLEASE STAND BY]
CHAIRMAN PAI: SORRY FOR THE
INTERRUPTION.
WE WERE ACTING ON THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE FEDERAL
PROTECTIVE SERVICE AND CANNOT
RECONVENE.
WHERE WAS I?
CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE JUST THE
EFFECTS THAT ARE RULES HAVE HAD
ON THE INTERNET OF TODAY.
THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WILL AFFECT
THE INTERNET WE NEED TEN, 20
YEARS FROM NOW.
THE DIGITAL WORLD BEARS NO
RESEMBLANCE TO A WATER PIPE OR
ELECTRIC LINE OR SEWER.
THE USE OF THOSE PIPES WILL BE
ROUGHLY CONSTANT OVER TIME AND
FEW WOULD SAY THAT THE DRAMATIC
INNOVATION THOSE AREAS THAT OUR
NETWORKS THEMSELVES WILL HAVE TO
SCALE.
BUT THEY DON’T HAVE TO.
IF OUR RULE DETER A MASSIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT THAT
WE NEED, EVENTUALLY WE WILL PAY
THE PRICE AND TERMS OF LESS
INNOVATION.
CONSIDER THESE WORDS FROM BEN
THOMPSON A HIGHLY RESPECTED
TECHNOLOGY ANALYST FROM A POST
ON HIS BLOG SUPPORTING MY
PROPOSAL.
IT’S AN EXTENDED QUOTES, BUT
WITH YOUR INDULGENCE IT’S
IMPORTANT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE
GRAPPLED WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT
THE INTERNET IS DONE.
BY THAT I MEAN THAT TODAY’S
BANDWIDTH IS ALL WE WILL EVER
NEED WHICH MEANS WE CAN RISK
CHILLING INVESTMENT THROUGH
PROPHYLACTIC REGULATION AND THE
ELIMINATION OF PRICE SIGNALS
THAT MAY SPUR INFRASTRUCTURE
BUILDOUT.
IF WE ARE DONE THEN THE
POTENTIAL HARM OF A TITLE TWO
RECLASSIFICATION IS MUCH LOWER.
SURE ISPS WILL HAVE TO DO MORE
PAPERWORK, BUT HONESTLY JUST A
BUNCH OF MONOPOLISTS ANYWAY.
THAT’S TO GET LAWS IN PLACE TO
PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE.
BUT WHAT IF WE AREN’T DONE?
WHAT IF VIRTUAL REALITY WOULD DO
WILL A.K.A. DISPLACED BECOMES
MEANINGFUL.
WHAT IF THOSE IMAGINED REMOTE
MEDICINE APPLICATIONS ARE
ACTUALLY DEVELOPED?
WHAT IF THE INTERNET OF THINGS
MOVES BEYOND THIS MESS THE
EXPERIMENTATION PHASE AND INTO
REAL-TIME VALUE GENERATION?
NOT JUST IN THE HOME, BUT IN ALL
KINDS OF UNIMAGINED COMMERCIAL
APPLICATIONS.
I CERTAINLY HOPE WE WILL HAVE
THE BANDWIDTH TO SUPPORT ALL OF
THAT.
I DO TOO.
AND AS THOMPSON PUT IT IN
ANOTHER POST I QUOTE, "THE FACT
OF THE MATTER IS THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT HARM EXISTS IN THE
SORT OF SYSTEMATIC WAY THAT
JUSTIFIES HEAVILY REGULATED ISP
IS.
EVIDENCE DOES SUGGEST THAT
CURRENT REGULATORY STRUCTURES
HANDLE BAD ACTORS PERFECTLY
WELL.
THE ONLY FEAR – THE ONLY FUTURE
TO FEAR IS THE ONE WE NEVER
DISCOVER BECAUSE WE GAVE UP ON
THE APPROACH THAT ALREADY HAS
BROUGHT US SO FAR.
REMEMBER FOLKS, NETWORKS DON’T
HAVE TO BE BUILT.
RISKS DON’T HAVE TO BE TAKEN,
CAPITAL DOESN’T HAVE TO BE
RAISED.
THE COST OF TITLE TWO TODAY MAY
APPEAR AT LEAST TO SOME, BUT THE
CONSUMERS AND INNOVATORS OF
TOMORROW WILL PAY A SEVERE
PRICE.
WHAT IS THE FCC DOING TODAY?
QUITE SIMPLY WE ARE RESTORING
THE LIGHT TOUCH FRAMEWORK THAT
IS GOVERNED THE INTERNET FOR
MOST OF ITS EXISTENCE.
WE ARE MOVING FROM TITLE II TO
TITLE I.
WONK YEAR CANNOT BE.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT
MUNDANE REALITY TO BE
APOCALYPTIC RHETORIC WE’VE HEARD
FROM TITLE II SUPPORTERS.
AS THE DEBATE GOES ON THE CLAIMS
HAVE GOTTEN MORE AND MORE
OUTLANDISH.
SO LET’S BE CLEAR.
RETURNING TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
THAT GOVERNS THE INTERNET
PRESIDENT CLINTON’S
PRONOUNCEMENT IN 1996 UNTIL 2015
IS NOT GOING TO DESTROY THE
INTERNET.
IT’S NOT GOING TO END TO THE
INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT.
IT IS NOT GOING TO KILL
DEMOCRACY.
NOT GOING TO STIFLE FREE
EXPRESSION ONLINE.
STATING THESE PROPOSITIONS ALONE
DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THEIR
ABSURDITY OR ARE INTERNET
EXTREMES BEFORE 2015 AND OUR
INTERNET EXPERIENCE TOMORROW
ONCE THIS ORDER PASSES WILL
PROVE THEM SO.
SIMPLY PUT, BY RETURNING TO THE
LIGHT TOUCH TITLE I FRAMEWORK WE
ARE HELPING CONSUMERS AND
PROMOTING COMPETITION.
BROADBAND PROVIDERS WILL HAVE
STRONGER INCENTIVES TO BUILD
NETWORKS ESPECIALLY IN UNSERVED
AREAS AND TO UPGRADE NETWORKS TO
GIGABIT SPEEDS AND 5G.
WHICH MEANS THERE WILL BE MORE
COMPETITION AMONG BROADBAND
PROVIDERS.
IT ALSO MEANS MORE WAYS STARTUPS
AND TECH GIANTS ALIKE CAN
DELIVER APPLICATIONS AND CONTENT
TO MORE USERS.
IN SHORT IT’S A FOUR-YEAR MORE
OPEN INTERNET.
WE ALSO PROMOTE MUCH MORE ROBUST
TRANSPARENCY AMONG ISPS THEN
THREE YEARS AGO.
WE REQUIRE THEM TO DISCLOSE A
VARIETY OF BUSINESS PRACTICES
AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO
SUBJECTS THEM TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTION.
THIS TRANSPARENCY WORLD WILL
ENSURE CONSUMERS KNOW WHAT THEY
ARE BUYING AND STARTUPS GET THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED AS THEY
DEVELOP NEW PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES.
MOREOVER WE EMPOWER THE FCC TO
ENSURE CONSUMER AND COMPETITION
IS PROTECTED.
TWO YEARS AGO THE ORDERS
STRIPPED THE FTC OF JURISDICTION
OVER BROADBAND PROVIDERS.
TODAY WE ARE PUTTING THE
NATION’S PREMIER CONSUMER
PROTECTION BACK ON THE BEACH.
THE FCC WILL ONCE AGAIN, HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION
AGAINST INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS THAT ENGAGE IN ANY
COMPETITIVE UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE
ACTS.
AS FTC CHAIRMAN RECENTLY SAID,
"THE FTC’S ABILITY TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND PROMOTE
COMPETITION IN BROADBAND IS NOT
SOMETHING NEW AND FAR-FETCHED.
WE HAVE A LONG-ESTABLISHED ROLE
IN PRESERVING THE VALUES THAT
CONSUMERS CARE ABOUT ONLINE."
AS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST FTC
CHAIRMAN PUT IT JUST YESTERDAY,
"THE PLAN TO RESTORE FTC
JURISDICTION IS GOOD FOR
CONSUMERS.
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING,
CONSUMERS WILL REMAIN PROTECTED
AND THE INTERNET WILL CONTINUE
TO THRIVE.
"
LET’S BE CLEAR FOLLOWING TODAY’S
VOTE AMERICANS WILL STILL BE
ABLE TO ACCESS THE WEBSITES THEY
WANT TO VISIT.
THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ENJOY
THE SERVICES THEY WANT TO ENJOY.
AND WILL STILL BE COPPS ON THE
BEAT REGARDING A FREE AND OPEN
INTERNET.
THE WAY THINGS WERE PRIOR TO
2015, THIS IS THE WAY THEY WILL
BE ONCE AGAIN.
NOW OUR DECISION TODAY WILL ALSO
RETURN REGULATORY PARITY TO THE
INTERNET ECONOMY.
SOME SILICON VALLEY PLATFORM
GIANTS FAVOR IMPOSING
HEAVY-HANDED REGULATIONS ON
OTHER PARTS OF THE INTERNET
ECOSYSTEM.
BUT ALL TOO OFTEN THEY DON’T
PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.
EDGE PROVIDERS REGULARLY BLOCK
CONTENT THEY DON’T LIKE.
WHEN YOU GO ONLINE, DO YOU
DECIDE WHAT NEWS SEARCH RESULTS
AND PRODUCTS YOU SEE?
PERHAPS NOT.
THEY REGULARLY DECIDE WHAT YOU
SEE AND PERHAPS MORE
IMPORTANTLY, WHAT YOU DON’T.
AND MANY THRIVE ON THE BUSINESS
MODEL OF CHARGING TO PLACE
CONTENT IN FRONT OF EYEBALLS.
WHAT ELSE IS ACCELERATED MOBILE
PAGES OR PROMOTED TWEETS BUT
PRIORITIZATION?
WHAT IS WORSE, THERE IS NO
TRANSPARENCY INTO HOW DECISIONS
THAT APPEAR INCONSISTENT WITH AN
OPEN INTERNET ARE MADE.
HOW DOES A COMPANY DECIDE TO
RESTRICT SOMEONE’S ACCOUNT OR
BLOCK THEIR TWEETS BECAUSE IT
THINKS THEIR VIEWS ARE
INFLAMMATORY OR WRONG.
HOW DOES THE COMPANY DECIDE TO
DE- MONETIZE VIDEOS FROM
POLITICAL ADVOCATES WITHOUT ANY
NOTICE OR ASK HOW DOES A COMPANY
EXPRESSLY BLOCK ACCESS TO
WEBSITES ON RIVAL DEVICES OR
PREVENT DISSIDENT CONTENT FROM
APPEARING ON ITS PLATFORM?
HOW DOES A COMPANY DECIDE TO
BLOCK FROM ITS APP STORE A CIGAR
AFICIONADO AT BECAUSE THE
COMPANY BELIEVES THE APP
PROMOTES TOBACCO USE.
YOU DON’T HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO
ANY OF THESE DECISIONS AND
NEITHER DO I.
YET THESE ARE VERY REAL ACTUAL
THREATS TO AN OPEN INTERNET.
IRONIC COMING FROM THE VERY
ENTITIES THAT CLAIM TO SUPPORT,
IRONIC THAT SO-CALLED NET
NEUTRALITY ADVOCATES MOST
VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED TO OUR
REFORMS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
ABOUT THESE THREATS.
THESE ARE OMISSIONS, THESE ARE
THREATS THAT A GROWING NUMBER OF
OFFICIALS DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, HOUSE AND SENATE
ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE NOTICE OF.
NOW LOOK, PERHAPS CERTAIN
COMPANIES SUPPORT SETTLING BROAD
HAND – BROADBAND PROVIDERS WITH
REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY WORK
FOR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.
I DON’T BLAME THEM FOR TAKING
THAT POSITION AND I AM NOT
SAYING THIS SAME ROLES SHOULD BE
SLAPPED ON THEM.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IT IS
NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE
INTERNET ECONOMY.
WE SHOULD HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD AND LET CONSUMERS DECIDE
TO PREVAIL.
MANY WORDS HAVE BEEN SPOKEN THE
DURING THE DEBATE AND THE TIME
HAS COME FOR ACTION.
THE TIME FOR THE INTERNET ONCE
AGAIN, TO BE DRIVEN BY
ENGINEERS, ENTREPRENEURS AND
CONSUMERS, RATHER THAN LAWYERS,
ACCOUNTANTS AND BUREAUCRATS.
TIME FOR US TO BRING FASTER
BETTER AND CHEAPER AND INTERNET
ACCESS TO ALL AMERICANS.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO RETURN TO
THE BIPARTISAN REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH THE
INTERNET FLOURISHED PRIOR TO
IT IS TIME FOR US TO RESTORE
INTERNET FREEDOM.
I WANT TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST
GRATITUDE TO STAFF WHO HAVE
WORKED SO MANY LONG HOURS ON
THIS ITEM FROM THE WIRELINE
COMPETITION BUREAU, JOE, MEGAN,
PAULA, NATHAN, MADELEINE, DOUG,
DAN, GAIL, SUSAN, KEN, KRIS
MONTEITH, ERIC, DEBORAH, JANE
TAYLOR.
FROM THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL ASHLEY, JIM, CHRISTINE,
TOM JOHNSON, DOUG KLEIN, MARCUS,
SCOTT, LINDA, AND BILL
RICHARDSON.
FROM THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU STACY,
BETSY, JIMMY, RON, PETER AND
OTHERS.
FROM THE OFFICE OF POLICY
ANALYSIS ERIC, JERRY, FROM THE
CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS BUREAU, FROM THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
BEAR AND THE MEDIA BUREAU TRACY.
WITH THAT WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL THE
CHAIR VOTES I.
ITEM IS ADOPTED.
THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR YOUR
COLLECTIVE WORK ON THIS ITEM.
MADAM SECRETARY COULD YOU PLEASE
ANNOUNCE THE NEXT ITEM ON
TODAY’S AGENDA.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER’S THE NEXT ITEM
WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU ENTITLED AMENDMENT TO
HARMONIZE AND STREAMLINE PART 20
OF THE COMMISSION’S RULES
CONCERNING REQUIREMENT FOR
LICENSEES TO OVERCOME A CMRS
PRESUMPTION.
DONALD STOCKDALE CHIEF OF THE
BUREAU WILL GIVE THE
INTRODUCTION.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY.
MR. STOCKDALE, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:
MR. CHAIRMAN CAN I INTERRUPT?
I WANT TO KNOW IF HIS PHONE IS
OFF.I DID TURN IT OFF.
[LAUGHING]MR. CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS
I’M PLEASED TO PRESENT YOU THE
CMRS PRESUMPTION REPORT AND
ORDER.
I’M JOINED AT THE TABLE TODAY BY
SUSAN, ROGER NOEL, KATHY HARRIS,
TOM REED AND
JESSICA GREFFENIUS.
IN ADDITION TO STAFF AT THE
TABLE I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
STAFF LISTED ON THE SLIDE FOR
THEIR INPUT.
TOM REED WILL NOW PRESENT THE
ITEM.GOOD AFTERNOON MR. CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONERS.
WE PRESENT TO YOU TODAY A REPORT
AND ORDER THAT UPDATES AND
HARMONIZES REGULATIONS REGARDING
CLASSIFICATIONS OF COMMERCIAL
MOBILE RADIO SERVICES PRIMARILY
BY ELIMINATING SECTION 20.7 AND
20.9 OF THE COMMISSION’S RULES.
THESE RULES CLASSIFY OR PRESUME
CERTAIN SERVICES FOR COMMERCIAL
MOBILE RADIO SERVICES OR CMRS OR
PRIVATE MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
BASED ON BAND USED TO PROVIDE
SERVICE RATHER THAN ON THE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE SERVICE
PROVIDER.
THAT APPROACH IS PREMISED ON
PARADIGMS DEVELOPED MORE THAN 20
YEARS AGO WHEN THE RULES
CONTEMPLATED DISTINCT WIRELESS
TO SERVICES IN EACH BAND.
INCONSISTENT HOWEVER, WITH THE
COMMISSION’S CURRENT FLEXIBLE
APPROACH TO LICENSING WHICH
GENERALLY PERMITS A LICENSEE TO
PROVIDE SERVICES SUBJECT TO
TECHNICAL RULES FOR THAT BAND.
THIS REPORT AND ORDER WILL
REMOVE PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER MOBILE SERVICES ARE
REGULATED AS COMMERCIAL OR
PRIVATE AND ALLOWED LICENSEES TO
RELY ON THE STATUTORY
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS TO IDENTIFY
THE NATURE AND REGULATORY
TREATMENT OF MOBILE SERVICES
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE
SERVICE RULES.
ELIMINATING 24/7 AND 20.9 WILL
REDUCE DISPARATE REGULATORY
TREATMENT OF SIMILAR SERVICES
AND FREQUENCY BANDS AND ALLOWED
LICENSEES TO OFFER A VARIETY OF
SERVICES RAPIDLY IN RESPONSE TO
CONSUMER DEMAND AND COMPETITIVE
FORCES AND HELP BRING BENEFICIAL
SERVICES TO BUSINESSES AND STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY WHILE
REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
AND PROCESSING DELAYS THAT
CERTAIN PROVIDERS CURRENTLY
FACE.
THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF
THIS ITEM AND REQUEST EDITORIAL
PRIVILEGES TO MAKE TECHNICAL OR
CONFORMING EDITS.
THANK YOU.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU FOR
THAT COMPELLING PRESENTATION.
COMMENTS FROM THE BENCH
BEGINNING WITH COMMISSIONER
CLYBURN.COMMISSIONER CLYBURN: WHAT
I’M ABOUT TO SAY IS REINFORCING
THE LOOK.
IT’S THE TOPIC OF PART 20 OF THE
COMMISSION RULES WERE INTRODUCED
AT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DINNER
TABLE IT MIGHT GO OVER AS WELL
AS SERVING OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN
OYSTERS.
NEITHER WOULD BE WARMLY RECEIVED
AT MY HOME.CHAIRMAN PAI: THAT’S JUST
WRONG.
[LAUGHING]
EVEN WE HAVE LIMITS HERE
COMMISSIONER.
[LAUGHING]COMMISSIONER CLYBURN: OKAY.
THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THIS
ORDER COUPLED WITH THE
MAJORITY’S DISMANTLING OF THE
OPEN INTERNET HAVE MANY UNSAVORY
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF
COMPETITION POLICY.
HE WONDERED HOW I WOULD TIE THAT
IN RIDE.
AND I MADE CLEAR IN MY
STATEMENTS AND PROCESSING THE
ROLLBACK OF OUR OPEN INTERNET
RULES I BELIEVE THE PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 332 OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS THAT
MOBILE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
A COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO
SERVICE OR CMRS, NOT A PRIVATE
MOBILE RADIO SERVICE.
ELIMINATING OUR CURRENT PART 20
RULES MEANS WE WILL REMOVE
PRECEDENTS AND PROCEDURES THAT
COULD HELP PARTIES DEMONSTRATE
THAT A WIRELESS COMPANY’S MOBILE
BROADBAND SERVICE SHOULD BE
CLASSIFIED AS CMRS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME MAY SEE
THIS AS A MERE STREAMLINING OF
COMMISSION RULES, BUT IN MY
OPINION THIS ORDER REMOVES
IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
SUCH AS REQUIRING THE COMMISSION
TO PUT CERTAIN APPLICATIONS OUT
ON PUBLIC NOTICE WHICH CAN HELP
INFORM PARTIES WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN CHALLENGING A
COMPANY CLAIM THAT IT’S MOBILE
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICES SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
A PRIVATE MOBILE RADIO SERVICE.
SINCE THAT RESULT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH MY VIEW OF
PROPER CLASSIFICATION FOR MOBILE
BROADBAND SERVICES, I
RESPECTFULLY DISSENT FROM THE
ORDER AND WILL ADMIT MY FIRST
EXAMPLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE
EDGY.
[LAUGHING]
THANK YOU.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY: THANK
YOU FOR THE STUFF OF THEIR WORK.
NO STATEMENT.CHAIRMAN PAI: COMMISSIONER
CARR.COMMISSIONER CARR: THE FCC’S
DECISION TO EMBRACE A FLEXIBLE
USE SPECTRUM MANDATE – CHOKED
UP ON THIS ONE.
INSTEAD OF MANDATING THAT A
PARTICULAR SECTOR BAND BE USED
WITH A SPECIFIC TYPE OF WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OR SERVICE WOULD
GENERALLY LEAVE THAT CHOICE OF
HIGH SECTOR, WHICH HAS A MUCH
BETTER SENSE OF CONSUMER DEMAND.
THIS APPROACH ENABLED WIRELESS
NETWORKS IN THE U.S. TO EVOLVE
WITH TECHNOLOGY AND DO SO MUCH
MORE QUICKLY THAN IF OPERATORS
HAD TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT SIDE
OFF EACH STEP OF THE WAY PICARD
LEADERSHIP IN 4G IS ONE EXAMPLE
OF HOW THIS POLICY HAS WORKED
FOR CONSUMERS.
TODAY WE CARRY THAT APPROACH
FORWARD BY ELIMINATING
20-YEAR-OLD RULES THAT REFLECT A
DIFFERENT APPROACH TO SPECTRUM.
ONE THAT REQUIRED PROVIDERS
OPERATING PARTICULAR BANDS TO
OBTAIN FCC PERMISSION BEFORE
INNOVATING OR BRINGING CERTAIN
SERVICES TO THE MARKET.
THIS CHANGE WILL NOT ONLY HELP
LEVEL THE REGULATORY PLAYING
FIELD FOR WIRELESS PROVIDERS,
BUT ALSO RESULT IN MORE TIMELY
AND EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM.
THE FLEXIBILITY WE PROVIDE TODAY
WILL BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
AS WE EXTEND OUR GLOBAL
LEADERSHIP IN WIRELESS AS 5G AND
INTERNET OF THINGS OFFERINGS
CONTINUE TO COME ONLINE.
I SUPPORT THE ORDER AND HOPE WE
CAN CONTINUE THE AGENCY EFFORTS
TO IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE
OUTDATED UNNECESSARY REGULATORY
BURDENS.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL: IN
THE INTEREST OF MOVING THIS
ALONG I WILL SAY I SUPPORT
TODAY’S DECISION.
IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF CMRS OR
PMRS NOR DOES IT AFFECT THE
UNDERLYING REGULATORY
REGULATIONS ASSOCIATE WITH THE
SERVICE THAT’S LIGHT HAS MY FULL
SUPPORT.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
I TO SUPPORT THE ITEM.
THIS IS AS COMMON SENSE AND GOOD
GOVERNMENT MEASURE AS YOU WILL
FIND AND FINALIZES THE PROPOSALS
WE INANIMATE SLEEP CONDUCTED
LAST YEAR.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK TO HELP US MODERNIZE
THESE RULES TO GET TO THIS POINT
IN PARTICULAR JEFF, KATHY
HARRIS, ROGER, TOM REED,
JENNIFER, PETER FROM THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU, JENNIFER AND CARL FROM
THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU, JIM
BRADSHAW FROM THE MEDIA BUREAU,
CHRISTINE FROM THE W WIRELINE
COMPETITION BUREAU.
THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND DAVID
HORWITZ FROM THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL.
WE PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE ITEM.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER CARR.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
CHAIR VOTES I AS WELL.
ITEM ADOPTED AND EDITORIAL
PRIVILEGE GRANTED.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE TAKE US
TO THE NEXT ITEM.THE SIXTH ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA
WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE MEDIA
BUREAU ENTITLED ELECTRONIC
DELIVERY OF CABLE AND SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS.
MODERNIZATION OF MEDIA
REGULATION INITIATIVES.
MICHELLE CAREY, CHIEF OF THE
BARREL WILL GIVE THE
INTRODUCTION.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
WHENEVER YOUR TEAM IS READY, GO
FOR IT.GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER’S.
AS PART OF OUR MODERNIZATION AND
MEDIA RELATE ACTION INITIATIVES
WE PRESENT A PROPOSED RULEMAKING
THAT ADDRESSES WAYS TO MODERNIZE
THE RULES WHICH REQUIRE
MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING
DISTRIBUTORS TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION TO SUBSCRIBERS.
AS WELL AS RULES THAT REQUIRE
BROADCAST TELEVISION STATIONS TO
BE CERTIFIED MAIL.
JOINING METHOD PAID OUR MARTHA
HELLER AND MARIA MULLARKEY.
MARTHA WILL PRESENT THE ITEM.I’M PLEASED TO PRESENT THIS
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
THAT PROPOSES TO MODERNIZE RULES
THAT REQUIRE MULTI CHANNEL VIDEO
PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTORS TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THEIR
SUBSCRIBERS ABOUT TOPICS AND
WAYS THAT WOULD BETTER COMPORT
WITH TODAY’S TECHNOLOGY AND
WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR
SUBSCRIBERS AND LESS BURDENSOME
FOR SUCH ENTITIES.
THE NOTICE PROPOSES TO ADOPT A
RULE THAT WOULD ALLOW CABLE
OPERATORS TO DELIVER VARIOUS
TYPES OF GENERAL WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS TO SUBSCRIBERS BY
E-MAIL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS.
THEY NOTICE TENTATIVELY
CONCLUDES CABLE OPERATORS MUST
HAVE VERIFIED E-MAIL CONTACT
INFORMATION IF THEY CHOOSE TO
DELIVER THE NOTIFICATION TO
SUBSCRIBERS VIA E-MAIL.
FOR CERTAIN NOTICES THE
TENTATIVELY CONCLUDE THAT CABLE
OPERATORS MUST PROVIDE A
RECOGNIZE HIM FOR SUBSCRIBERS TO
OPT OUT OF E-MAIL DELIVERY
CONTINUE TO RECEIVE PAPER
NOTICES.
FOR NOTICES PERTAINING TO RATE
AND SERVICE CHANGES AMONG OTHER
THINGS THEY NOTICE SEEKS COMMENT
ON WHETHER SUBSCRIBERS SHOULD
HAVE TO OPT IN OR OPT OUT TO
RECEIVE SUCH NOTICES
ELECTRONICALLY.
THE NOTICE ALSO PROPOSES TO
ADOPT A RULE SPECIFYING THAT THE
PRIVACY NOTIFICATIONS THAT
CABLE, SATELLITE AND OPEN VIDEO
SYSTEM PROVIDERS ARE STATUTORILY
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TO
SUBSCRIBERS MAY BE DELIVERED VIA
E-MAIL SUBJECT TO CONSUMER
SAFEGUARDS.
THE NOTICE ALSO SEEKS COMMENT ON
WHETHER CABLE OPERATORS SHOULD
BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
ANNUAL SUBSCRIBER NOTICES AND
INFORMATION ON BASIC
AVAILABILITY BY POSTING WRITTEN
MATERIAL ON THE CABLE OPERATOR
WEBSITE.
IN ADDITION, THE NOTICE PROPOSES
TO ALLOW CABLE OPERATORS TO
RESPOND TO CONSUMER REQUESTS OR
BILLING TO LATE – DISPUTES IF
THEY MAKE THE COMPLAINT OR IF
THE CONSUMER SPECIFIES HIS
E-MAIL AS THE PREFERRED DELIVERY
METHOD IN THE REQUEST OR
COMPLAINT.
THEY NOTICE SEEKS COMMENT ON
OTHER PROPOSALS TO UPDATE
SECTION 76.1621 AND 76.1622 OF
THE RULES WHICH REQUIRE NOTICE
OF EQUIPMENT COMPATIBILITY
ISSUES IN LIGHT OF TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANTAGES AND MARKET CHANGES TO
THE CABLE INDUSTRY.
FINALLY, THE NOTICE SEEKS
COMMENT ON HOW TO UPDATE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT BROADCAST
TELEVISION STATIONS CARRIAGE
ELECTION NOTICES VIA CERTIFIED
MAIL EVERY THREE YEARS TO EACH
CABLE SYSTEM OUR SATELLITE
CARRIER SERVING THE MARKET.
IT ASKED WHAT ALTERNATIVE MEANS
OF SERVING ELECTION NOTICES
WOULD MEET THE NEED OF
BROADCASTERS AND MVPD SUCH AS
EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE OR
E-MAIL.
THE NPRM SEEKS COMMENT ON
WHETHER TO REPLACE THE
REQUIREMENT TO SEND ELECTION
NOTICES BY CERTIFIED MAIL WITH A
MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING CARRIAGE
ELECTION ONLINE.
THE MEDIA BUREAU RECOMMENDS THE
COMMISSION ADOPT THE NOTICE OF
PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND REQUEST
EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES TO MAKE ANY
NECESSARY TECHNICAL OR
CONFORMING EDITS.
THANK YOU.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU FOR
THE PRESENTATION.
COMMENTS FROM THE BENCH.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.COMMISSIONER CLYBURN: HAVE
YOU EVER FELT YOU NEED TO GET A
AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO COME CLOSE
TO INTERPRETING YOUR MONTHLY
CABLE BILL?
BETWEEN ANNUAL PRICE HIKES,
LINEUP CHANGES AND MYSTERIOUSLY
LABELED FEES, REST ASSURED YOU
ARE NOT ALONE IN YOUR
FRUSTRATION.
ACCORDING TO ONE ANALYST,
BETWEEN 2011-14, THE AVERAGE
CABLE BILL INCREASED NEARLY
EIGHT TIMES THE RATE OF
INFLATION.
COMPOUNDING THIS IS THE
INCREASING USE OF BELOW THE LINE
FEES, A STRATEGY THAT THE FCC
18TH ANNUAL VIDEO COMPETITION
REPORT DESCRIBED AS RAISING
MONTHLY BILLS WHILE TYPICALLY
LEAVING THE ADVERTISED PRICES
FOR VIDEO PACKAGES UNCHANGED.
LET’S BE HONEST, THERE ARE SOME
PROVIDERS THAT STAND TO BENEFIT
FROM A STATE OF CONFUSION, WHICH
IS WHY THE COMMISSION’S RULES
REQUIRE THEM TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS
IN WRITING OF SPECIFIC
INFORMATION INCLUDING RATE AND
SERVICE CHANGES, CHANGES FOR
CUSTOMER – CHARGES FOR CUSTOMER
SERVICE CHANGES AND BASIC PEER
AVAILABILITY.
IN A WORLD IN WHICH MANY
CONSUMERS PREFER TO RECEIVE
THEIR MONTHLY BILL
ELECTRONICALLY, IT IS REASONABLE
FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER OUR
RULES SHOULD BE MODERNIZE TO
ALLOW THE USE CURRENTLY REQUIRED
WRITTEN NOTIFICATIONS TO BE
DELIVERED IN THE SAME MANNER IN
WHICH THE BILL IS RECEIVED BY
THE CUSTOMER.
WHAT I FEAR HOWEVER, IS THAT IF
PROVIDERS ARE ALLOWED TO SWITCH
THE MODE BY WHICH THIS
INFORMATION IS DELIVERED WITHOUT
THE CONSUMER’S CONSENT, IT WOULD
GIVE THE PROVIDER ANOTHER WAY TO
MASK PRICE INCREASES AND SERVICE
CHANGES.
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT CONSUMERS,
NOT THE COMPANIES PROVIDING THE
SERVICE THAT THE CONSUMERS ARE
EMPOWERED WITH THE CHOICE OF HOW
TO MAKE THESE – A CHOICE OF HOW
THESE NOTIFICATIONS ARE
DELIVERED PARTICULARLY WHEN IT
COMES TO HOW MUCH THEY WILL PAY
FOR MONTHLY SERVICE.
AS ORIGINALLY CIRCULATED, THE
CHAIRMAN’S PROPOSALS WOULD HAVE
ALLOWED COMPANIES TO SLOWLY MAKE
THIS DECISION ON BEHALF OF THEIR
CUSTOMERS.
AND I FOUND THAT TROUBLING.
SO I AM PLEASED MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE AGREED TO SCALE THIS
SECTION BACK BY SEEKING COMMENT
ON WHETHER THE MOVE TO
ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION SHOULD
BE DONE ON AN OPT IN BASIS BY
THE CONSUMER.
AS WE SEEK TO MODERNIZE THE
DELIVERY OF CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, WE MUST ENSURE
THAT IT IS DONE IN A WAY THAT
PUTS CONSUMERS FIRST.
MY THANKS TO MY COLLEAGUES AND
THE MEDIA BUREAU STAFF FOR YOUR
WORK ON THIS ITEM.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER LEBRON.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY: THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IT’S TIME THE RULES REFLECT THAT
DESIRE FOR INFORMATION IS
DIGITAL.
THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN
E-MAILING A CONSUMER IS MORE
APPROPRIATE AND REFLECTIVE OF
HOW THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATES THEN
USING ANTIQUATED POSTAL SERVICE.
THIS ITEM CONCLUDES THAT VARIOUS
REQUIREMENTS ON CABLE OPERATORS
TO PROVIDE GENERIC WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS TO SUBSCRIBERS
CAN BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE
ELECTRONIC DELIVERY.
WHEN IT COMES TO ANNUAL NOTICES
RATHER THAN HAVING THE OPTION OF
DELIVERING BY MAIL OR ELECTRONIC
MEANS I SUPPORT ALLOWING
COMPANIES TO POST THE LINKS ON
THEIR WEBSITE FOR THE CONSUMER
WHO WANTS THE INFORMATION, THIS
IS THE LOGICAL PLACE TO FIND IT.
FOR THE CONSUMER THAT DOES NOT
WHY CLUTTER THERE E-MAIL BOX OR
INBOX.
THIS CONSIDERS WHAT STEPS WILL
BE NEEDED TO PERMIT ELECTRONIC
DELIVERY OF ANNUAL NOTICES VIA
OTHER MEANS REASONABLY TESTED TO
REACH THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER.
I HOPE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE FINAL ORDER THE APPROACH
WILL BE PERMITTED.
FINALLY, I WAS PLEASED TO SEE
THE COMMISSION CONSIDER REVISING
RULES ON BROADCAST CARRIAGE
ELECTION NOTIFICATION.
I TEEING FOR CHAIR FOR ACCEPTING
MY EDIT TO BOLSTER THE SECTION
AND HOPE WE CAN QUICKLY MOVE TO
FINAL ORDER ON THE TOPIC AS
WELL.
THE TREE – RETRANSMISSION
PROCESS IS CONTENTIOUS ENOUGH
WITHOUT FIGHTING OVER WHETHER
DOCUMENTS WERE APPROPRIATELY
MAILED.
FOR THESE REASONS I SUPPORT
TODAY’S ITEM.
NEXT YEAR I TRUST WE CAN MOVE TO
FINAL ORDERS ON THE TOPICS TEED
UP AND CONTINUE CLEARING OUT THE
UNDERBRUSH AND ALSO EAGER TO
BEGIN LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE
SUBSTANTIVE IDEAS PROPOSED IN
THE RECORD.
OVER ALL THE MEAT OF
MODERNIZATION PROCEEDING SHED
LIGHT ON A NUMBER OF BURDENS
THAT HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR
USEFULNESS AND I.T. INC. THE
CHAIRMAN FOR HIS ATTENTION TO
THE TOPIC.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER CARR.COMMISSIONER CARR: THIS YEAR
THE FCC HAS MADE STRIDE IN
REDUCING UNNECESSARY PAPERWORK
BURDENS.
THIS EFFORT HAS BEEN
PARTICULARLY WELCOME WHEN IT
COMES TO THE FCC MEDIA
REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE
LANGUISHED WITHOUT UPDATES FOR
FAR TOO LONG.
THE FCC’S PART 76 RULES FOR
INSTANCE, WHICH WE TEE UP IN
TODAY’S NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING.
THESE RULES REGULATE CABLE
OPERATORS COMMUNICATIONS WITH
SUBSCRIBERS BUT THOSE ROLES WERE
STUCK IN THE SNAIL MAIL ERA
REQUIRE PROVIDERS TO SEND
WRITTEN NOTICES TO CONSUMERS
EVEN WHEN E-MAIL IS MORE
EFFICIENT AND COST-EFFECTIVE
MEANS AND ONE CONSUMERS PREFER.
ALLOWING CABLE OPERATORS TO
COMMUNICATE WITH SUBSCRIBERS
ELECTRONICALLY IS LONG OVERDUE
SO I SUPPORT TODAY’S NOTICE.
IT CONTAINS COMMONSENSE
PROPOSALS TO DECREASE PAPERWORK
BURDEN ESPECIALLY FOR SMALLER
PROVIDERS WHILE ENSURING
CONSUMERS RECEIVE INFORMATION IN
A WAY THEY FIND MOST HELPFUL.
I WANT TO TEE INC. THE MEDIA
BUREAU FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
ITEM.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL: ON
THIS I HAVE A BIAS.
I HAVE PAPER BILLS ALL THE TIME
SO THE PROSPECT TO MAKE THEM
AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY IS IN
TIME THING.
THIS ITEM HAS MY FULL SUPPORT
BOTH PERSONALLY AND
PROFESSIONALLY.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
IN THE DIGITAL AGE MANY OF US
REMAIN TOO FAMILIAR WITH PAPER.
ONE EXAMPLE THE EXTRA SHEETS OF
PAPER THAT ARE STUCK IN THE
ENVELOPE WITH THE BILLS FOR
PARTICULAR SERVICE.
OTHER THAN THOSE WHO STRUGGLE TO
DECIPHER THEM MOST CONSUMERS
IGNORE THEM.
AND THESE DAYS WE TEND TO PREFER
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
THE FCC SHARES THAT PREFERENCE.
WE ARE WORKING TO REDUCE OUR OWN
USE OF PAPER AND AIMING TO
MODERNIZE RULES THAT
UNNECESSARILY REQUIRE PRIVATE
SECTOR TO STUFF PAPER IN YOUR
MAILBOX.
THIS NOTICE IS ANOTHER STEP DOWN
THAT PATH.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO TAKE THE
CONSUMER FRIENDLY STEP TWO ALLOW
NOTICES TO SUBSCRIBERS TO BE
SENT ELECTRONICALLY.
IF IT’S FINALIZED THE PROPOSAL
COULD ALLOW CONSUMERS TO MORE
READILY ACCESS INFORMATION ABOUT
SERVICES IN A FORM THEY FIND
CONVENIENT.
AND IT WOULD GET RID OF A LOT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE AND REDUCE
COSTS.
THERE’S A SIMILAR ISSUE LURKING
ABOUT IN ONE OF OUR RULES AND WE
SEEK PUBLIC INPUT ON THAT.
TODAY BROADCAST TELEVISION
STATIONS HAVE TO SEND MVPD
NOTICES SAYING IF THEY ARE
OPTING FOR MUST-CARRY OR
RETRANSMISSION CONSENT IT’S A
SEPARATE ELECTION NOTICE FOR
EACH CABLE SYSTEM OUR SATELLITE
CARRIER INDIVIDUAL BY CERTIFIED
MAIL.
THIS DOESN’T SEEM TO BE AS
EFFICIENT OR NECESSARY AS IT
COULD BE SO WE ARE LOOKING HOW
TO STREAMLINE THIS NOTICE
REQUIREMENT WHILE STILL ENSURING
THAT MVPD GET THE INFORMATION
THEY NEED.
I ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES WOULD
LIKE TO THANK STEVE COME UP
MICHELI, KATE, MARTHA, MARIA,
AND MARY BETH OF THE MEDIA
BUREAU AND SUSAN AND DAVID FROM
THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
FOR THEIR EFFORTS ON THIS.
WE PROCEED TO A VOTE ON THIS
ITEM.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER CARR.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
THE CHAIR VOTES AYE AS WELL.
THE ITEM PASSES.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE ANNOUNCE
THE NEXT ITEM.MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER
OF THE FINAL ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA
TODAY WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE
MEDIA BUREAU.
IT’S ENTITLED AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 73.355E OF THE
COMMISSION REAL NATIONAL
TELEVISION MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP
RULE AND ONCE AGAIN, MICHELLE
CAREY WILL GIVE THE
INTRODUCTION.WHENEVER YOU’RE READY FEEL
FREE TO GO AHEAD.THE NEXT AND LAST ITEM THE
MEDIA BUREAU PRESENTS AS A
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
THAT UNDERTAKES A COMPREHENSIVE
REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AUDIENCE
REACH CAP AND THE UHF DISCOUNT
BY BROADCASTERS TO CALCULATE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CAP.
THIS REVIEW MARKS THE FIRST TIME
IN WELL OVER A DECADE THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS EXAMINED THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION MULTIPLE
OWNERSHIP RULE.
JOINING ME AT THE TABLE ARE
BRENDAN HOLLAND,
TY BREAM,
JULIE SAULNIER,OF THE MEDIA BUREAU.
JULIE WILL PRESENT THE ITEM.MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER
WE PRESENT THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSED RULEMAKING WHICH SEEKS
TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION AUDIENCE AND
UHF CAP.
AS BACKGROUND, THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH CAP LIMITS
ENMITIES FROM OWNING OR
CONTROLLING TELEVISION STATIONS
THAT IN THE AGGREGATE REACH MORE
THAN 39 PERCENT OF TELEVISION
HOUSEHOLDS IN THE COUNTRY.
EARLIER THIS YEAR THE COMMISSION
REINSTATED A COMPONENT OF THE
RULES, UHF DISCOUNT WHICH
PROVIDES THAT WHEN CALCULATED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH CAP STATIONS
BROADCASTING IN THE UHF SPECTRUM
ARE ATTRIBUTED WITH ONLY
50 PERCENT OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN
THEIR DESIGNATED MARKET AREA AS
OPPOSED TO 100 PERCENT OF THE
HOUSEHOLDS ATTRIBUTED TO VHF
STATIONS.
IN REINSTATING THE UHF DISCOUNT
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE 39 PERCENT CAP DISCOUNT ARE
INEXTRICABLY LINKED AND THAT
ELIMINATING THE DISCOUNT
EFFECTIVELY TIGHTENS THE CAP
WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH
TIGHTENING WAS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION
COMMITTED TO UNDERTAKING THIS
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF BOTH THE
CAP AND DISCOUNT.
FIRST, THE NOTICE TAKES A FRESH
LOOK AT THE COMMISSION’S PRIOR
CONCLUSION THAT IT HAS THE LEGAL
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR ELIMINATE
THE NATIONAL CAP DISCOUNT.
SECOND THE NOTICE ASKS WHETHER
THE CAP END DISCOUNT SHOULD BE
MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED IN LIGHT
OF INCREASED VIDEO PROGRAMMING
OPTIONS TO CONSIDER
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE
THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE
CURRENT CAPITAL OR OTHER
FACTORS.
IF THE UHF DISCOUNT IS
ELIMINATED, THE NOTICE ASKS
WHETHER THEY CAP SHOULD BE
SIMULTANEOUSLY RAISED AND IF SO,
BY HOW MUCH.
ADDITIONALLY THE NOTICE SEEKS
COMMENT ON THE BENEFITS AND
COSTS OF LOWERING THE CAP.
THE NOTICE NEXT ASKS WHETHER
THEY NATIONAL CAP CONTINUES TO
SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IF
SO, WHAT PUBLIC INTEREST GOALS
SUCH AS LOCALISM CONTINUES TO
JUSTIFY THE CAP.
THE NOTICE ALSO ASKS WHETHER
RETAINING THE CAP HARMS THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN ANY WAY.
THE NOTICE ALSO SEEKS COMMENT ON
HOW TO CALCULATE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH CAP
IF ONE IS RETAINED.
THE ORIGINAL TECHNICAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCOUNTS
AND ANALOG UAS JEFF SIGNALS
PROVIDE LESS COVERAGE THEN VHF
SIGNALS DISAPPEARED WITH THE
TRANSITION TO DIGITAL
BROADCASTING.
THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ASKS
WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER REASONS
TO CONTAIN THIS OR IF SOME OTHER
WEIGHTING METHOD OR DISCOUNT
SHOULD BE USED TO CALCULATE
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY REMAINING
OWNERSHIP.
FINALLY TO THE EXTENT ANY CHANGE
THE COMMISSION ADOPTS CAUSES
BROADCAST STATION GROUPS TO
BECOME OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
OWNERSHIP LIMITS, THEY NOTICE
ASKS WHETHER SUCH NONCOMPLIANCE
STATION GROUPS SHOULD BE
GRANDFATHERED AND WHETHER SUCH
STATION GROUPS SHOULD
SUBSEQUENTLY BE ALLOWED TO BE
TRANSFERRED WITHOUT DIVESTITURE.
THE MEDIA BUREAU RECOMMENDS THAT
THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE NOTICE
OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND
REQUEST EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES TO
MAKE ANY NECESSARY TECHNICAL OR
CONFORMING EDITS.
THANK YOU.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
WE PROCEED TO COMMENTS FROM THE
BENCH.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:
TELEVISION LIKE NEWSPAPERS AND
LIKE RADIO WORKS BEST WHEN IT
SPEAKS WITH MANY VOICES AND AS
THESE COMPANIES SWALLOW ONE
ANOTHER UP, THERE IS A
FRIGHTENING POSSIBILITY OF IT
ALL SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE.
I DIDN’T DO THAT JUSTICE.
TELEVISION LIKE NEWSPAPERS AND
LIKE RADIO WORKS BEST WHEN IT
SPEAKS WITH MANY VOICES AND AS
THESE COMPANIES SWALLOW ONE
ANOTHER UP, THERE IS THE
FRIGHTENING POSSIBILITY OF IT
ALL SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE.
THOSE WORDS DELIVERED BY
BROADCAST JOURNALIST LINDER
ELLERBE IN 2000 BRING RING TRUE
TODAY.
AND ANY OTHER MARK A PROPOSAL
BRINGING MASSIVE MEDIA COMPANIES
THE CHANCE TO HAVE AN EVEN
GREATER SHARE OF THE LOCAL
PROGRAMMING MARKET WOULD
GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION
AND WIDE SPREAD PUBLIC CONCERN.
WHILE ADMITTEDLY THIS IS NOT
YOUR TYPICAL MONTH AT THE FCC,
THE REALITY IS THAT SUCH A
PROPOSAL IS BEFORE US FOR
CONSIDERATION AND IT IS A BIG
DEAL WITH SUBSTANTIAL
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF
LOCALISM, DIVERSITY AND
COMPETITION.
BROADCASTERS ARE INEXTRICABLY –
YOU KNOW WHAT, I MEAN.
BROADCASTERS ARE INTRICATELY
WOVEN IN THE FABRIC OF OUR
COMMUNITY AND COVER LOCAL
OFFICIALS SOMEONE AT THEIR BEST
HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE WHILE
CABLE NEWS OR ONLINE PLATFORMS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO PAINT BROAD
STROKES, LOCAL BROADCASTERS
DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES THROUGH
THEIR ABILITY TO FILL IN THE
FINE LINES.
LOCAL BROADCASTERS OFTEN GO TO
GREAT LENGTHS TO STAY ON THE AIR
DURING THE NATURAL OR MAN-MADE
CRISIS PROVIDING ON THE GROUND
COVERAGE WHEN NEWS BREAKS
INCLUDING THE DELIVERY OF
EMERGENCY INFORMATION THAT NO
DOUBT HAS SAVED COUNTLESS LIVES.
IN 2004, CONGRESS PASSED AND
PRESIDENT W GEORGE BUSH SIGNED
INTO LAW A PROVISION THAT NO
SINGLE BROADCASTER THROUGH ITS
COMBINATION OF LOCAL STATIONS,
OWNED, COLLECTIVELY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO REACH MORE THAN
39 PERCENT OF THE U.S.
TELEVISION HOUSEHOLDS.
WHILE I CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN
THAT THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY
THE LATE WILLIAM SAFIRE
REFLECTED THE LEGISLATIVE MOVE
– MOOD OF THE DAY IT’S STRIKING
THAT 14 YEARS AGO HE WAS
MOTIVATED TO WRITE TO A NEW YORK
TIMES OP-ED, "THE EFFECT OF THE
MEDIA AMALGAMATION OF AMERICA’S
FREEDOM OF VOICE IS TO WORRY IF
SOME TO BE LEFT TO THREE
UNELECTED COMMISSIONERS.
SOON AFTER CONGRESS THROUGH
SECTION 6 291 – SECTION ONE –
SUBSECTION ONE OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2004
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED THE
39 PERCENT CAP ON NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH FROM REVIEWS.
THIS WAS EVIDENTLY THE
PREVAILING VIEW BECAUSE IN 2004,
NAB PRESIDENT SAID WE ARE
PLEASED THE NATIONAL TELEVISION
OWNERSHIP CAP ISSUE APPEARS TO
BE RESOLVED BY THE PASSAGE OF
THIS LEGISLATION.
PRESS ACCOUNTS AT THAT TIME
INCLUDING A JANUARY 2004 STORY
AND BROADCASTING AND CABLE
AFFIRMED THAT ONE OF THE FEW
FEATURES OF THE LAW WAS THAT,
"ONLY CONGRESS, NOT THE FCC, CAN
CHANGE THE 39 PERCENT LIMIT."
FACING A CHALLENGE FROM
BROADCASTERS WHO SOUGHT TO
MAINTAIN A 45 PERCENT NATIONAL
OWNERSHIP CAP, THE THIRD CIRCUIT
ISSUED ITS OPINION IN JUNE
OF 2004.
IN THE COURTS DECISION IT WROTE,
“BECAUSE THE COMMISSION IS UNDER
A STATUTORY DIRECTIVE TO MODIFY
THE NATIONAL TELEVISION
OWNERSHIP CAP OF 39 PERCENT,
CHALLENGES TO THE COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO RAISE THE CAP TWO 45 PERCENT ARE MUTE.
THIS DECISION SHOULD ONCE AND
FOR ALL PUT TO REST ANY QUESTION
THAT THE FCC COULD INDEPENDENTLY
INCREASE THE CAP” BUT KNOW THE
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IN ITS
QUEST TO GREENLIGHT EVEN GREATER
MEDIA CONSOLIDATION HAS FOUND A
WAY TO REWRITE HISTORY AND
IGNORE THIS CIRCUIT DECISION.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, OVER MY VERSE
THERE MY VOCIFEROUS OBJECTION,
THE FCC MAJORITY REINSTATED THAT
UHF DISCOUNT GIVING THE BEST –
BLESSING FOR A COMPANY TO REACH
OVER 70 PERCENT OF U.S.
HOUSEHOLDS WHILE CLAIMING TO BE
COMPLIANT WITH THE 39 PERCENT
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP CAP.
IN 2004, WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED
THE CAP, THE DCB TRANSITION WAS
STILL FIVE YEARS AWAY, BUT
THANKS TO THE TRANSITION TO
DIGITAL TELEVISION, UHF STATIONS
ARE NO LONGER INFERIOR TO VHF
STATIONS.
THIS CAN BE NOTHING ELSE, BUT
THAT BROADCASTERS WITH THE
BLESSING OF THE FCC MAJORITY ARE
USING THIS ARBITRARY LOOPHOLE TO
EXPAND THEIR REACH FAR BEYOND
WHAT CONGRESS EVER ENVISIONED.
HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?
HEARKEN BACK TO JUNE OF 20 –
2003 WHERE THE FCC VOTED ALONG
PARTY LINES TO INCREASE THE
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP CAP FROM
35-45 PERCENT.
THIS DECISION WAS NOT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT CONTROVERSY.
EVEN THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION AT THE TIME CAME OUT
IN OPPOSITION.
ARGUING THAT LOOSENING OF THE
FCC MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES SHOULD
BE REJECTED AND I QUOTE, "FOR
THE SAKE OF OUR DEMOCRACY."
LEADING INTO THE FALL OF THAT
SAME YEAR CONGRESS CONTINUED TO
DEBATE THE ISSUE AND THERE WERE
A BIPARTISAN HOUSE AND SENATE
RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED THAT
DISAPPROVED OF THE FCC IS
DEREGULATION OF THE MEDIA
OWNERSHIP RULES.
THERE WERE ALSO MULTIPLE
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS THAT
YEAR.
SENATOR TRENT LOT IN DESCRIBING
HIS OPPOSITION TO RAISING THE
CAP SAID AND I QUOTE, "THAT THE
NATION IS IN DANGER OF LOSING
THE LOCALISM AND DIVERSITY OF
VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE OFFERED
UNDER THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP CAP
STRUCTURE IF THE CURRENT CAP IS
GREAT AND QUOTE STRONG WORDS
FROM THE FORMER SENATE LEADER
AND HE WAS NOT ALONE.
A DEEPLY FOUGHT BATTLE
ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN A
COMPROMISE BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
THAT NOVEMBER AN AGREEMENT WAS
REACHED THAT 839 PERCENT
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP CAP WAS
ESTABLISHED THAT WILL BE PUT
INTO LAW JUST TWO MONTHS LATER.
WHILE MANY REMAIN UNHAPPY THE
PURPOSE WAS TO PUT THIS DEBATE
TO REST OR SO THEY THOUGHT.
FAST-FORWARD TO LAST MONTH WHEN
DEMOCRATIC LEADER PELOSI ALONG
WITH REPRESENTATIVE ALONE AND
DOYLE WROTE IN A LETTER TO THE
COMMISSION THAT BY EXPLICITLY
EXCLUDING REVIEW OF THE CAP FROM
THE QUADRENNIAL REVIEW OF
BROADCAST OWNERSHIP RULES WE
MADE CLEAR THAT THE FCC IS NOT
PERMITTED TO CHANGE OR EBAY THE
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP CAP.
I AGREE.
LOCALISM.
DIVERSITY.
AND COMPETITION ARE BEDROCK
PRINCIPLES OF OUR NATIONAL MEDIA
PRINCIPAL AND INDEED OUR
DEMOCRACY.
GIVING A SINGLE BROADCASTER
THEME MEANS TO BUY ENOUGH LOCAL
STATIONS TO EXCEED THE
39 PERCENT CAP IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE STATUTE AND SHOULD BE
REJECTED.
FCC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL POWELL ONCE
SAID THAT THE FCC IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY BOUND TO
COMPLY, WILLINGLY OR NOT COME UP
WITH CONGRESS DIRECTION AS
EXPRESSED BY THE TEXT OF THE
STATUTE.
MAYBE TODAY WILL BE THE DAY THE
MAJORITY IT WILL HEED THOSE
WORDS AND JOIN ME IN OPPOSING
TODAY’S PROPOSAL BECAUSE IF
NOTHING ELSE IS CLEAR WHEN IT
COMES TO THIS ITEM, IT IS THAT
THEY, WE, THE FCC, HAS
ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO ACT.
I JUST SENT.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY: THANK
YOU.
I SUPPORT TODAY’S ITEM WAS
INITIATES A DEFINED PROCESS TO
REVIEW THE NATIONAL TELEVISION
OWNERSHIP RULE COMMONLY REFERRED
TO AS THE NATIONAL AUDIENCE
REACH CAP.
THIS IS A TOPIC SPENT TOO MUCH
TIME OVER THE YEARS WORK AND SO
I’D LIKE TO CLEAR UP MANY
MISCONCEPTIONS AROUND TO GET.
FIRST, I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR ON MY POSITION ON THE
MATTER.
AS I’VE STATED PREVIOUSLY I DO
NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE
NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH CAP
WHICH EXTENDS TO ELIMINATING UHF
DISCOUNT.
WHILE THE DISCOUNT MAY NO LONGER
BE TECHNOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED
IT’S UP TO CONGRESS TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION, NOT THE
COMMISSION.
THIS WAS THE CLEAR INTENT OF
CONGRESS WHEN IT PARTIALLY
ROLLED BACK THE FCC OPPOSED TO
CAP INCREASE 45 PERCENT IN 2004.
WHILE MANY LAWYERS HAD THEIR OWN
INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
I WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE
HISTORY.
AFTER EXTENSIVE DEBATE AND TOO
MANY MEETINGS TO COUNT CONGRESS
ENACTED THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF
THE CAA.
THE LANGUAGE CANNOT BE ANY
CLEARER.
IT STATUTORY SETS NATIONAL
OWNERSHIP LIMIT AND
CORRESPONDINGLY MOVES IT FROM
THE QUAD AND REAL REVIEW UNDER
SECTION 202 OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
SOME INCLUDING THE THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ARGUED
CONGRESS ONLY MEANT TO REMOVE
CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH CAP FROM THE
BIENNIAL REVIEW NOT TO PROHIBIT
FROM BEING CHANGED AS ANY OTHER
EFFORT.
FOR SUCH A READING IS POST
PROSPEROUS PREPOSTEROUS AS IT
CREATES A BACKDOOR IN THE
HISTORY OF LEGISLATING.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE VIEW
IGNORES THE DEAL THAT WAS STRUCK
IN THOSE BITTERLY HEATED
MEETINGS AND HUDDLES IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE HARD CAP, THOSE WHO
SUPPORTED FORMER CHAIRMAN
POWELL’S WORK OBTAINED AND
OWNERSHIP LEVEL THAT PREVENTED
ANY STATION GROUP FROM BEING
FORCED TO SELL OFF ANY STATION.
AND A COMMITMENT THAT THE UHF
DISCOUNT WOULD STILL APPLY GOING
FORWARD.
I REALIZE THAT SOME PEOPLE DON’T
HAVE A HIGH OPINION OF
CONGRESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, BUT I
WILL FOREVER HAVE ETCHED IN MY
MIND FORMER TED STEVENS
SCREAMING THAT IF SOME STATION
GROUP WANTED TO GO ABOVE
39 PERCENT THEY COULD COME TO
CONGRESS AND TRYING GET THE CAP
AMENDED.
THAT WAS A DIFFERENT DAY AND A
DIFFERENT CONGRESS AND MAYBE
RELIED ON SENATOR STEVENS
SERVING FOREVER, BUT IT SHOULD
COUNT FOR SOMETHING.
IT CERTAINLY DOES TO ME EVEN IF
I INTELLECTUALLY AGREE THAT BOTH
HE CAP AND DISCOUNT ARE ARCHAIC
IN NEED OF REFORM.
DESPITE MY FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE
THERE IS BROAD DISAGREEMENT
AMONG INTERESTED PARTIES OVER
THE COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY IN
THIS SPACE.
DURING THE PRIOR COMMISSION
PROCEEDING TO ELIMINATE UHF
DISCOUNT, NAB AND FREE PRESS
ARGUED THE COMMISSION HAD THE
ABILITY TO ELIMINATE THE UHF
DISCOUNT AND MODIFY THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH CAP.
THE COMMISSION ULTIMATELY AGREED
WITH THE SUPPORT OF A COUPLE OF
MY COLLEAGUES HERE TODAY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, FOX,
SINCLAIR, ION AND TRINITY
BROADCAST ALL CHALLENGE THE
COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY.
THEY APPRECIATE THE IRONY THAT
MY VIEWS ARE ALIGNED WITH THOSE
PREVIOUSLY FILED BY SINCLAIR WHO
OUTSIDE CRITICS MISTAKENLY
BELIEVE I’M CURRENTLY IN CAHOOTS
WITH THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
DEVOID OF AUTHORITY TO TAKE
ACTION AND WOULD HELP SINCLAIR
TODAY.
SPECIFICALLY SINCLAIR STATED IN
2013 THE FCC DOES NOT HAVE
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ANY ASPECT
OF A NATIONAL TELEVISION
OWNERSHIP CAP INCLUDING UHF
DISCOUNT IN ESTABLISHING THE
39 PERCENT LIMIT FOR THE
OWNERSHIP CAP IN 2004 CONGRESS
SAID A PRECISE LIMIT AND THEN
TOOK THE EXTRA STEP OF REMOVING
THIS LIMIT IN FROM THE FCC
REVIEW OF OWNERSHIP RULES.
NO ACTION BY CONGRESS HAS CHANGE
THESE FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY THE
FCC SHOULD TERMINATE THIS
PROCEEDING AND HALT EFFORTS TO
ELIMINATE THE UHF DISCOUNT.
IN A MORE CURIOUS TWIST IT
APPEARS THAT MY COLLEAGUES THAT
PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED CHANGES IN
2016 ALSO NOT QUESTION THE
COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY.
FOR THESE REASONS I BELIEVE IT’S
TIME FOR THE COURTS TO OPINE ON
THIS MATTER.
WE NEED CERTAINTY IN A WAY THAT
ONLY THE COURTS ARE CONGRESS CAN
PROVIDE AS TO WHERE THE
COMMISSION AUTHORITY BEGINS AND
ENDS.
SINCE IT DOESN’T APPEAR
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS
FORTHCOMING I LOOK FORWARD TO
REVIEWING THE RECORD THAT WILL
RESULT FROM THIS PROCEEDING.
IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES AFTER
SUCH REVIEW IT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO MODIFY THE CAP I WILL HAPPILY
SUPPORT THAT ITEM.
THAT’S NOT TO SUGGEST MY
POSITION HAS CHANGED, BUT ONLY
THAT I BELIEVE IN GETTING
FINALITY AND WILLING TO CAST A
VOTE TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO
TAKE THE STEPS TO GET THIS TO
COURT REVIEW.
OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY QUESTION I
THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO PUT THIS
ORDER IN CONTEXT.
THE TRUTH IS THE LAST FIGHT OVER
THE NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH CAP
GENERALLY OCCURRED NOT BECAUSE
OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON
CONSUMERS, BUT RATHER TO
SAFEGUARD IMPORTANT BALANCE
BETWEEN A BIG FOUR BROADCAST
NETWORKS ON LOCAL AFFILIATES.
PRIOR TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION OF 2000 FOR THE
COMMISSION FOUND THESE RULES DID
NOT PROMOTE COMPETITION OR
DIVERSITY FOR THESE REASONS THE
COMMISSION INCREASE THE CURRENT
CAP FROM 35 PERCENT WEEP
45 PERCENT TO ALLOW BROADCAST
NETWORKS TO ACHIEVE GREATER
ECONOMIES OF SCALE WITHOUT
SURPASSING THE AUDIENCE REACH OF
THEIR COLLECTIVE AFFILIATES.
CONGRESS LATER SCALED BACK THE
39 PERCENT WITH THE SAME FOCUS
IN MIND MAINTAINING THE
APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
NETWORKS AND THEIR AFFILIATES.
IT’S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT EVEN
IF THE NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH
CAP IS INCREASED OR ELIMINATED,
PRACTICAL EFFECTS WILL LIKELY BE
LIMITED ASSUMING THE COMMISSION
COMPLIES WITH DIRECT
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION ON THE
DISC ON.
TODAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TOP
TEN TELEVISION STATIONS DO NOT
EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE CAP.
FOR INSTANCE, CBS CORPORATION,
WHICH RANKS FIFTH ONLY HAS A
NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH OF
25.5 PERCENT.
HERTZ CORPORATION HAS AN
AUDIENCE REACH OF 13.3 PERCENT.
ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY I SUPPORT
ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ULTIMATELY
RESOLVE THIS ISSUE OF THE
COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY ON THE
MATTER, WHETHER WE MAINTAIN OR
ALTER THE CAP IS LIKELY TO HAVE
LITTLE REAL-WORLD IMPACT IN THE
NEAR FUTURE.
INT INC. THE CHAIRMAN FOR TEEING
UP THIS ITEM AND ASKING THE
BROAD RANGE OF QUESTION.
I APPROVE.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER CARR.COMMISSIONER CARR: THE FCC
HAS LIMIT ON THE BOOKS THAT
LIMIT AN ENTITY THAT CAN OWN THE
STATION.
AS THE LANDSCAPE EVOLVE THE
COMMISSION REVISITED THESE ROLES
TO ACCOUNT FOR NEW COMPETITORS
AND ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY.
THOSE CHANGES HAVE ONLY
ACCELERATED IN RECENT YEARS WITH
THE ADVENT OF ONLINE OFFERINGS.
BROADCASTERS NOW COMPETE FOR
EYEBALLS WITH YOUTUBE STARS,
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AND
STREAMING SERVICES LIKE HULU AND
NETFLIX NOT TO MENTION
TRADITIONAL CABLE AND SATELLITE
OFFERINGS.
IN LIGHT OF THESE CHANGES THAT
WERE LAUNCHED IN THIS
PROCEEDING, WHICH WILL EXAMINE
WHETHER WE CAN AND SHOULD MODIFY
OUR RULES THAT LIMIT
BROADCASTERS, BUT NOT OTHERS IN
THE VIDEO MARKETPLACE FROM
REACHING MORE THAN 39 PERCENT OF
TELEVISION HOUSEHOLDS IN THE
COUNTRY.
ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS WILL
HELP ENSURE OUR MEDIA OWNERSHIP
RULES ARE NEITHER OUTDATED NOR
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
AT THE SAME TIME, I’M SURPRISED
THAT THE ISSUE OF THE
COMMISSION’S LEGAL AUTHORITY IN
THIS AREA HAS GENERATED SO MUCH
CONTROVERSY.
AFTER ALL THE FCC DETERMINED IN
2016 THAT, "THE COMMISSION HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE
NATIONAL AUDIENCE REACH CAP
COCOA NO STATUTE CHARTS THE
COMMISSION FROM REVISITING THE
CAP.
CONGRESS HAS NOT ACCORDING TO
THE FCC IMPOSED A STATUTORY
NATIONAL AUDIENCE FOR THE CAP
WORK FOR HIM AT THE COMMISSION
FROM EVALUATING THE ELEMENTS OF
THIS RULE.
ALL THREE DEMOCRATS ON THE
COMMISSION INCLUDING TWO OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE TODAY VOTED FOR
THAT ORDER.
NO ONE IN THE MAJORITY
CONCURRED.
OR OTHERWISE QUALIFIED THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE FCC 2016
DETERMINATIONS.
AND WHILE SEVERAL SEATS HAVE
CHANGED SINCE THEN, THE LAW HAS
NOT.
SO THE SUGGESTION BY SOME THAT
THE FCC NOW LACKS AUTHORITY TO
DO EXACTLY WHAT MY COLLEAGUE
SAID THE COMMISSION COULD DO IN
2016 IS CURIOUS TO SAY THE
LEAST.
TODAY’S NOTICE ASKS SIMPLY
WHETHER MY COLLEAGUES GOT IT
RIGHT IN 2016 WHEN THEY
DETERMINED THAT THE FCC HAS
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CAPS.
SO FAR I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING
THAT CONVINCES ME THEY GOT IT
WRONG.
I LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
RECORD DEVELOPED IN THIS
PROCEEDING.
THANKS.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL: FOR
DECADES THE FCC HAS BUILT ITS
MEDIA POLICIES AROUND THE IDEAS
THAT LOCALISM, DIVERSITY AND
COMPETITION MATTER.
THESE VALUES HAVE THEIR ORIGIN
IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
THEY MAY NOT BE TRENDY, BUT THEY
HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.
THEY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
JOURNALISM AND JOBS.
THEY PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN
HELPING ADVANCE THE MIX WE ALL
NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT OUR
LIVES, OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR
COUNTRY.
TODAY THE FCC SEEKS TO DISMANTLE
THESE VALUES AT A TIME WHEN REAL
FACTS GET CASUALLY DERIDED IN
FAKE NEWEST, ALGORITHMS ARE
OFFENDED AND WHAT IS VIRAL IS
OFTEN NOT VERIFIABLE.
THIS IS NEITHER PRUDENT NOR
WISE.
IT IS ALSO UNLAWFUL.
AT THE DIRECTION OF CONGRESS AND
THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS
ACT OF 2004, THE FCC IS
STATUTORILY PROHIBITED FROM
ALLOWING A SINGLE COMPANY FROM
ACQUIRING STATIONS THAT REACH
MORE THAN 39 PERCENT OF THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION AUDIENCE.
THE FCC LACKS AUTHORITY TO
CHANGE THIS LAW.
DOING SO IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PROVINCE OF CONGRESS.
BUT SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, WE HAVE
THIS RULEMAKING ANYWAY.
AND SOMEHOW WE ARE STILL TALKING
ABOUT THE UHF DISCOUNT, A
CONCEPT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
RETIRED NEARLY A DECADE AGO WITH
THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL
TELEVISION, WHICH RENDERED IT
TECHNICALLY OUTDATED AND
SCIENTIFICALLY OBSOLETE.
MOREOVER THIS CONCEPT IS NOWHERE
MENTIONED IN THE CONSOLIDATED
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2004.
STILL, HERE WE ARE.
IN THIS EFFORT ON THE HEELS OF
THIS AGENCY’S REPEAL OF THE MAIN
STUDIO RULE, ELIMINATION OF THE
EIGHT VOICES TESTING GIVING
GREEN LIGHT FOR WAIVERS OF
COMMON OWNERSHIP OF THE TOP FOUR
STATIONS IN A MARKET IS
ULTIMATELY DESTRUCTIVE.
WE ARE DESTROYING OUR MOST BASIC
VALUES AND TEARING APART THE
RULES THAT HAVE HELPED TO KEEP
OUR MEDIA MARKETS LOCAL,
DIVERSE, AND COMPETITIVE.
I DISSENT.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
THE NATIONAL TELEVISION
OWNERSHIP CAP AND UHF DISCOUNT
ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED.
ANY REVIEW OF ONE MUST INCLUDE A
REVIEW OF THE OTHER.
WHAT IS THE FCC’S AUTHORITY TO
ADDRESS THIS CAP AND ASSUMING WE
HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, HOW SHOULD
WE ADJUST IT?
SHOULD WE ELIMINATE THE UHF
DISCOUNT?
THOSE ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS WE
ARE ASKING IN THIS NOTICE.
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVE
CONCLUSIONS WHATSOEVER.
WE ARE JUST ASKING.
IT IS AMUSING THEN TO HEAR SUCH
VOCIFEROUS OBJECTIONS FROM THE
BENCH INCLUDING AT THE LAST FEW
MINUTES, “WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO
AUTHORITY TO ACT” AND I QUOTE,
"THE FCC LACKS AUTHORITY TO
CHANGE THIS LAW."
SUCH OBJECTIONS ASKED WHETHER WE
HAVE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE SAME
COMMISSIONERS PREVIOUSLY
INSERTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
IN 2013 THE FCC ADOPTED THE UHF
DISCOUNT NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING WHICH STATED AND I
QUOTE, "WE BELIEVE THE
COMMISSION RETAINS THE AUTHORITY
TO MODIFY BOTH THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH RESTRICTIONS AND
THE UHF DISCOUNT PROVIDED SUCH
ACTION IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING SEPARATE
FROM THE COMMISSION’S
QUADRENNIAL REVIEW OF THE
BROADCAST OWNERSHIP RULES."
TODAY’S MINORITY EXPRESSED –
EXPRESSED DOUBTS ABOUT THAT BACK
THEN AND JUST THIS LAST YEAR
2016, THE FCC CONVERTED THAT
BELIEF INTO BEDROCK.
IT DEFINITIVELY AND I QUOTE,
"INCLUDED THAT IT HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE NATIONAL
AUDIENCE REACH CAP INCLUDING THE
AUTHORITY TO REVISE OR ELIMINATE
THE UHF DISCOUNT."
AND IT WENT EVEN FURTHER SAYING
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT DOES AND
I QUOTE, "WOULD NOT IMPOSE A
STATUTORY NATIONAL AUDIENCE
REACH CAP OR PROHIBIT THE
COMMISSION FROM EVALUATING THE
ELEMENTS OF THIS RULE."
YET AGAIN THE CURRENT MINORITY
VOTED WHOLEHEARTEDLY FOR THAT
PROPOSITION.
NOW LOOK, I UNDERSTAND LITERARY
APPEAL OSCAR WILDE THAT
CONSISTENCY IS THE LAST REFUGE
OF THE UNIMAGINATIVE, BUT OUR
WORK TYPICALLY DEMANDS A MODICUM
OF CONSISTENCY, BORING THOUGH IT
MAY BE.
IT’S ALSO AMUSING THAT THOSE WHO
HAVE REPEATEDLY VOICED THEIR
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE DISC ON
A RECENT MONTHS ARE NOW VOTING
AGAINST SEEKING COMMENTS ON
GETTING RID OF IT.
MAKE NO MISTAKE A VOTE AGAINST
THIS NOTICE IS EFFECTIVELY A
VOTE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE UHS
DISCOUNT IN PLACE.
GETTING BACK TO THE SUBSTANCE WE
NEED TO TAKE A HOLISTIC LOOK AT
THE NATIONAL CAPITAL INCLUDING
UHF DISCOUNT.
MARKETPLACE HAS CHANGED
CONSIDERABLY DUE TO THE
EXPLOSION OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING
OPTIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES THAT HAVE OCCURRED
SINCE THE CAP WAS LAST
CONSIDERED IN 2004.
SO WE NEED TO EXAMINE WHETHER
OUR RULES SHOULD CHANGE
ACCORDINGLY.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION
THAT WILL BE INFORMED BY THE
FACTS AND THE RECORD, NOT
ANYTHING ELSE.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
DEDICATED STAFF THAT WORKED ON
THIS NOTICE, HIGH, MICHELLE,
MARYBETH, JULIE FROM THE MEDIA
BUREAU AND DAVE, MEL, AND THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.
WE WILL PROCEED TO A VOTE.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER CARR.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
THE CHAIR VOTES I’VE.
THE ITEM IS ADOPTED WITH
EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES GRANTED.
THANKS FOR THE HARD WORK.
WITH ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES LIKE
TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT.COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:AS
QUICKLY AS IT UNDER FOUR HOURS?CHAIRMAN PAI: 30 OR 40
MINUTES.
TAKE YOUR TIME.
[LAUGHING]COMMISSIONER CLYBURN: BASED
ON LAST MONTH, I CAN SAY ONE
WORD A MINUTE.
SO I AM DELIGHTED TO ANNOUNCE
THAT APRIL JONES HAS JOINED MY
OFFICE AS A POLICY ANALYST AND
SPECIAL ASSISTANT.
IF SHE IS STILL IN THE ROOM, IF
YOU WOULD STAND.
SHE HAS A DIVERSE BACKGROUND AND
IS ALREADY A TREMENDOUS ASSET IN
OUR CONTINUAL WORK TO PUT
CONSUMERS FIRST AND UPHOLD OUR
PRINCIPALS.
SHE CAME TO US FROM THE OFFICE
OF HOUSE FELT, A GLOBAL
ANTITRUST FIRM PREVIOUSLY SHE
WORKED AT THE OFFICE OF THE U.S.
TRADE REPRESENTATIVE WHICH
PRIMARILY WORKED ON E-COMMERCE
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
THEY WERE IN HER PORTFOLIO.
SHE RECEIVED HER JD FROM THE
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW WHERE SHE
COMPLETED AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW PROGRAM AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD AND
RECEIVED HER UNDERGRADUATE
DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
WELCOME.CHAIRMAN PAI: WELCOME ABOARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
EVAN HE IS JOINING MY OFFICE AS
AN ADVISOR ON MEDIA REGULATION.
YOU HAVE TO STAND UP.
IT’S TRADITION AROUND HERE.
PART OF THE GRILLING.
HE STARTED WITH US TWO WEEKS AGO
SO HAS FOUND THE PACE AROUND THE
COMMISSION TO BE A LITTLE SLOW
AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN OUR
WORK A BIT UNDERWHELMING.
I TOLD HIM JUST WAIT UNTIL WE
TAKE UP POLE ATTACHMENTS AGAIN.
THAT’S THE THING THAT’S
INTERESTING AROUND HERE THEY
BRING IN C-SPAN TO HELP COVER
IT.
BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS I’M
DELIGHTED HE JOINED THE OFFICE
AND HAS A KEEN INSTINCT FOR
COMMUNICATION POLICY WORKING AT
TECH FREEDOM ON A BROAD RANGE OF
TELECOM ISSUES FROM BROADCASTING
AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO RELYING ON HIS
EXPERTISE AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND
RECEIVE THE REGULATORY
BACKWATERS.
WITH THE NEW ADDITION THAT MEANS
MY OFFICE NO LONGER GETS THE
CHANCE TO BENEFIT FROM THE GOOD
WORK OF KEVIN HOLMES WAS SPENT
SERVING AS AN ACTING LEGAL
ADVISOR IN MY OFFICE SINCE
AUGUST.
HE’S BEEN AN INVALUABLE MEMBER
OF MY TEAM AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR
HIS CONTRIBUTIONS INCLUDING MANY
WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS
WE’VE TAKEN OUT.
I’M GLAD THE COMMISSION WILL
CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM HIS
PUBLIC SERVICE.CHAIRMAN PAI: THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL: I
WANT TO WELCOME JESSICA MARTINEZ
TO MY STAFF AT THE FCC AND TO
THIS FIRST MEETING.
SHE COMES TO MY OFFICE FROM THE
U.S. HOUSE ENERGY COMMERCE
COMMITTEE DEMOCRATIC STAFF WHERE
SHE SERVED AS OUTREACH AND
MEMBER SERVICES COORDINATOR.
SHE HAS ALSO SERVED THAT’S THE
COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR FOR THE
HISPANIC STAFF ASSOCIATION.
BEFORE HER TIME ON CAPITOL HILL
SHE SERVED AS AN ASSOCIATE WITH
THE STRATEGIC FIRM WHICH FOCUSED
ON HEALTH CARE POLICY AND HER
PRIOR EXPERIENCE ALSO INCLUDES
TIME AS A FELLOW WITH THE
PROGRESS OF CAUCUS AN INTERNSHIP
WITH THE DEMOCRATIC STEERING AND
OUTREACH COMMITTEE AND AS THE
LATINO OUTREACH COORDINATOR FOR
THE UTAH STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF MEXICAN
IMMIGRANTS AND PUT HERSELF IN
THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AS A
WAITRESS AND A FORKLIFT DRIVER.
THE WE’VE GOT DOUBLE THE
JESSICA’S IN THE OFFICE AND
SOMEONE WHO WORKS WITH A FORK
WITH DRIVER AND LAST MONTH WE
INTRODUCED YOU TO SOMEONE WHO
WORKED AS A FIREFIGHTER AND THE
MONTH BEFORE IT WAS KATE WHO IS
PUBLISHING A BOOK ENTITLED BAD
ASS WOMEN.
SO THE NET OF THAT IS MESS WITH
US AT YOUR PERIL.
[LAUGHING]
WELCOME, JESSICA.COMMISSIONER O’RIELLY: DOUBLE
THAT JESSICA.
I HAD THE CHANCE TO MEET THE
STAFF AND HAPPEN TO KNOW I’VE
WORKED WITH THEM IN THE PAST AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THEM IT’S A PLEASURE IN MY STAFF
WORKS – LOOKS FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THEM.CHAIRMAN PAI: I’VE A FEW
ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST PAT CARNEY, I
DON’T KNOW IF HE IS HERE.
SO PAT IS WELL KNOWN TO
EVERYBODY HERE AT THE COMMISSION
IF YOU’VE EVER HAD AN ETHICAL
ISSUE, PAT IS THE KEY GUY.
HE IS THE HEAD OF THE ETHICS
TEAM AND OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL.
HE JOINED THE ETHICS TEAM IN
1995 AFTER SPENDING TWO DECADES
IN THE NAVY.
HE SERVED AS AN OFFICER.
OBTAINING THE RANK OF CAPTAIN
AND SERVES THE COMMISSION AS
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR
ETHICS SINCE 2002.
HE EARNED THE FCC SILVER MEDAL
FOR MERITORIOUS SERVICE, THE
PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD AND THE FCC
OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT SERVICE
AWARD.
PAT’S STEWARDSHIP OF THE ETHICS
PROGRAM HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE.
HE’S ONE OF THOSE GUYS THAT IF
YOU DON’T APPRECIATE THE JOB HE
DOES BECAUSE HE DOESN’T
CONSISTENTLY SELL WELL AND IF HE
DIDN’T DO IT YOU WOULD NOTICE
IT.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, HE IS A GEM OF
A HUMAN BEING.
I’VE HAD THE CHANCE TO WORK WITH
HIM AT THE GENERAL COUNSEL NOW
IN MY CURRENT ROLE AND HE ALWAYS
HAS AND EVEN TEMPERAMENT, A
SMILE ON HIS FACE AND A
GENUINELY GOOD HARD SO WHEREVER
YOU ARE, GODSPEED, THANK YOU TO
YOUR SERVICE WE ARE GRATEFUL TO
CALL YOU A COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND.
NEXT JANE JACKSON.
I DON’T KNOW IF JANE IS HERE.
PROBABLY BOTH HARD AT WORK.
SO JANE ALSO IS DEPARTING THE
COMMISSION.
SHE BEGAN HER CAREER HERE IN
1976 IN THE FCC’S FIRST
CABLE-TELEVISION BUREAU.
AFTER SERVING AS AN ATTORNEY AT
PBS AND AS A LAW PROFESSOR SHE
RETURNED TO THE FCC IN 1980 TO
SERVE AS THE IMPLEMENTATION TASK
FORCE.
THAT’S A THROWBACK FOR YOU.
THE NEXT YEAR SHE JOINED THE
ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT DIVISION
WHERE SHE SERVED AS
Copyright © 2017 Show/Hide Header
Sorry, havent been keeping up on this. Too busy at work at the moment.
So are we boned or are we okay?
Tomorrow, net neutrality will be gone in the US, from my understanding.
Boned.
Found this
Looks like it may have actually been a bomb threat
Only time will tell that…
that said…
title 2 has been reversed.
lol!
Amazing. As in, im shocked lol
there was a bomb threat
SO how many months do you guys give it before data type price package segmentation starts going on?
im gonna guess 3
Doubt itll be months. Mobile data first if not already. then over the new 5 years theyll introduce internet tiers for low income families as a “good thing” for the people. then theyll restrict normal internet after that.
I’m more curious as to how much longer it takes for people to push the government to break up the collusion.
They have been programming sheep for so long that I would be surprised if it happens anytime soon. Economy collapses ? We have a whole different story. Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
I realise that not being american, I have no real say in what your country does but…
Why does it seem like every good thing that happened on obama’s watch is being torn down?
p.s, sorry if that is too political
Well, there is a thing called inequality scale where a 0 is no inequality and 1 is absolute where a single entity has all the wealth. Most of this world is already past 0.5, but the US is the most unequal at a staggering 0.81 and that number is going to grow.
When it get’s too close to 1, Anarchy happens, because what good is a government that doesn’t serve it’s people? The repeal of Net Neutrality is only there to create more imbalance in this regard as @Eden mentioned, it will create segmentation between “poor” Internet and “rich” Internet when before we just had Internet.
Internet can not be poor nor rich. Do you mean Internet for poor folks and internet for rich folks?
Does this mean that sony’s and nvidia’s game streaming services are essentially screwed?
Yes this is what I meant to say.