Speech

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

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

Before I returned to the Commission, the agency inexplicably resurrected an outdated and scientifically inaccurate system for tallying station ownership, known as the UHF discount.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to be here with my fellow regulators to discuss the amazing benefits and challenges presented by the new digital age. My goal today is to provide a picture of how this complex subject is being considered within the United States and what that may mean for my international counterparts.
Please forgive me for having the task of reminding everyone that I do not speak for the Trump Administration or the Federal Communications Commission as a whole. My views are just my own.

The FCC’s regulatory speed – and I am sure this isn’t a US specific issue – quite candidly cannot keep up with technological change or the demands of consumers. Simply put, our rather drawn-out pace is not well suited for the dynamic digital age. For this reason, I maintain that we must be very hesitant to regulate new, disruptive technologies. Instead, the presence of these innovative technologies should lead to reduced regulation of our traditional, more heavily regulated sectors.

Global Harmonization & US Leadership in Wireless Technologies. While some in this country may eschew global harmonization, and I understand that our market position means we have the option of going it alone or in coordination with a handful of other countries, offering commercial services on the same frequencies around the world has many benefits for US consumers and providers. On the consumer side, there is the ability to use your devices and have the same wireless experience at home and abroad. At the same time, the economies of scale created by marketing products internationally enables research, development, and manufacturing costs to be widely dispersed, promoting investment and innovation while reducing the cost of devices and services for Americans.

Allow me to quickly reiterate my call for five policies I believe can help move the needle when it comes to digital inclusion. We have seen how the phenomenal success of low-power FM (LPFM) is playing out in local communities across this country. The first call I wish to make, is for us to find ways, in which to replicate and enhance this success story for more underrepresented groups – that are largely minority and women – who are seeking to be a part of the broadcast landscape. Second, in recent years, I have called for the establishment of a pilot incubator program, aimed at increasing the number of women and minority owners in the broadcast space. Third, when divestitures are required during merger transactions, we should urge parties to strongly consider offers from women and minority business owners. Fourth, the time to act on the Commission’s independent programming NPRM is now. With a robust record of more than 36,000 filings, I believe we have enough data to move to a final order, targeting two of the worst offending practices facing many independent video programmers: “unconditional” most favored nation clauses, and unreasonable alternative distribution method provisions. And lastly, with the help of Congress, we can and should reinstate a tax certificate program, focused on promoting opportunities for new entrants.

We recruited you to put you to work. As members of the Committee, your mission is to offer guidance so that the agency can take important steps toward increasing diversity throughout the communications industry and bringing digital opportunity to all Americans.

One of your tasks will be to identify issues that might not already be on the Federal Communications Commission’s radar. Another will be to advise us about issues that we’ve already identified. Another task we’ll assign you is to examine is how we can make sure that disadvantaged communities have access to next-generation networks. Broadband can be a great equalizer when it comes to jobs, health care, education, and civic engagement. But if we don’t bridge the digital divide, communities on the wrong side of that divide will fall further behind in each of these areas. Our goal should be ubiquitous, high-speed networks that bring together all Americans—and I do mean all Americans. Last but not least, we’ll ask you to take a hard look at diversity in Silicon Valley. I look forward to working with you to increase diversity throughout the communications industry and to bring digital opportunity to all Americans.

There’s no question that high-speed Internet is a game-changer for rural Americans. It’s improving standards of living more than any new technology since the rural electrification effort in the early 20th century. That is—so long as you have access. And that’s the big challenge.

Rural Americans too often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. In rural America, 28% of households lack access to high-speed, fixed service. In urban areas, only 2% go without. Rural Americans are missing out on opportunities for jobs, health care, education, and more, and there’s a significant cost to those lost opportunities. But I worry that we’re losing something even greater if rural communities remain stuck in the analog age. That’s the slow fade of rural communities themselves. To be clear, I’m not saying that the digital divide is the reason why rural communities are shrinking. This trend started before the commercial Internet even existed. What I am saying is that how we deal with the digital divide will affect the destiny of towns like Parsons and Ulysses and Beloit and Hiawatha. It’ll help determine if this population loss gets faster, slows down, or is potentially reversed. Broadband-enabled opportunities for jobs, education, health care, and agriculture can be a great equalizer for rural America. But so long as some rural communities don’t have broadband, they’ll fall further and further behind.

To spur network deployment in sparsely populated areas where the economic incentives for private investment don’t exist, the FCC is providing direct funding that leverages—not displaces—private capital expenditures. But we also want to modernize our regulations to give companies a stronger business case to build and expand high-speed networks. The plain truth is that bureaucratic red tape at all levels of government can slow the pace and increase the cost of network deployment.