Federal Communications Commission

The Spectrum Act establishes a $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund to be used for reimbursement of eligible relocation costs. In the Broadcast Television Incentive Auction notice of public rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on the types of costs broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) are likely to incur and how to determine whether such costs are “reasonable” for purposes of reimbursement under the statute.

Comments in response to the NPRM suggested that the Commission establish cost estimates for categories of reimbursable expenses. The Commission engaged Widelity to aid the Commission in understanding the process and costs associated with the post-incentive auction transition. Widelity has produced a report, “Response to the Federal Communications Commission for the Broadcaster Transition Study Solicitation” along with a “Catalog of Potential Expenses and Estimated Costs” (Appendix B to the Report).

The Widelity Report recognizes that the post-auction repacking process will be complex and that the complexity will vary from station to station. Nevertheless, the Report concludes that, despite the significant challenges that the industry will face, “[w]ith cooperation as well as patience, creative problem solving, and guidance from the FCC and industry groups such as the National Association of Broadcasters, Association of Public Television Stations, and state broadcast associations, the transition can be achieved with the desired outcomes.”

We seek additional input from interested parties on the report and particularly on the Catalog of Potential Expenses and Estimated Costs. We now seek additional comment from industry participants on these suggested prices, as well as any comments on the report and any further comments on the categories of costs included. A final Catalog of Eligible Expenses and Estimated Costs will be released prior to the auction, and we believe the Catalog will provide useful guidance to broadcasters and MVPDs as they navigate the post-auction transition.

On March 31, the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on a proposal to restrict television broadcasters’ use of joint sales agreements (JSAs).

But the FCC currently doesn’t have the basic facts about JSAs. For example, the Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai (Office) asked how many JSAs there are in the United States among television stations and how many television stations owned by women and minorities participate in JSAs. Today, we still don’t have the answers to either of these fundamental questions. To partially fill this gap, the Office investigated whether there is a link between joint sales agreements and ownership diversity. Using publicly available sources, we estimate that:

• 43% of female-owned full-power commercial television stations currently are parties to JSAs.
• 75% of African-American-owned full-power commercial television stations currently are parties to JSAs.

“These findings raise serious questions,” Commissioner Pai said. “Why is the FCC targeting pro-competitive sharing arrangements that appear to disproportionately benefit female and African- American broadcasters? If the Commission forces broadcasters to terminate JSAs, how will that affect diversity? Why is the FCC rushing to a vote rather than taking the time to gather basic facts and study the effect of its proposal on ownership diversity? The Commission should not accelerate the troubling trend of declining minority ownership.”

The April Open Meeting of the Federal Communications Commission has been rescheduled from Thursday, April 24, 2014 to Wednesday, April 23, 2014.

No one really disputes that the Communications Act no longer accurately reflects current realities. But the statute’s core values remain as relevant today as they were decades ago: 1) competition, 2) consumer protection, 3) universal service, and 4) public safety.

The Technology Transitions Order the FCC adopted in January is a prime example of an agency looking for solutions to provide robust broadband in unserved or underserved areas. I hope you join in my excitement about these experiments because these trials could unleash opportunities for solutions from rural areas for rural areas. To date, nearly 1000 proposals from mostly local, community-based entities have been filed at the FCC showing a significant demand for robust broadband. They include innovative ideas and proposals from electric coops leveraging their existing network to provide fiber-to-the-home; to community- based initiatives wishing to construct broadband sometimes in partnership with other entities; to cable providers, research and development networks, wireless Internet service providers, wireless providers -- and we even got proposals involving TV whitespaces.

While I understand the instinct for many is to push for a deregulatory framework, there are potential dangers and consequences, in a regulatory free zone.

I want to emphasize the importance of establishing a reinvigorated Tribal consultation process to address three primary goals:

• Goal number one: broadband infrastructure expansion. Getting high-speed broadband connections to every home, every business, every school and library, every healthcare provider, and every 911 center, in all corners of the country, is a top priority for the Commission. Nowhere could meeting this objective be more impactful than on Tribal lands.
• Goal number two is to free up more spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, on Tribal lands. Increasingly, when we talk about broadband connectivity, we’re talking about wireless. We will be bringing more spectrum capacity to market, including on Tribal lands.
• Goal number three is to ensure that the diversity of broadcast voices in Indian Country better reflects the diversity of human voices in Indian Country. The groundbreaking Tribal Priority in the Commission’s radio broadcast licensing rules make a critically important, affordable, long-adopted technology a wide open opportunity for Tribal Nations.

I am happy to announce that the Commission will release a Public Notice seeking nominees from your governments to seat a reinvigorated second Task Force in the summer. The Task Force has important work, including acting as a sounding board for FCC proposals and developing additional recommendations for broadband deployment and adoption. We hope and expect that many members will recommit, but we also need more regional representation from across Indian Country, and the inclusion of more subject matter experts from new areas of Tribal government institutions. When I look at for the kind of results that are possible, a number of goals are top of mind.

There comes a time in every woman’s life, when she is faced with a series of choices and challenges.

Though the years and the passage of key legislation have made our nation a better place to live, it often seems like we have even more choices to make and additional challenges to overcome. For those of you who run households, your decisions may actually be more complicated by the convenience of technology.

If you have children, you face an entire galaxy of decisions. When do you give your child a mobile phone? Do you allow them to join Facebook? And if you find yourself giving in to their constant demands, for the latest technology and gadgets, do you monitor their uses and practices? Do you snoop on their Twitter account, like one of my friends? Or do you trust them to be “responsible” on their own? These are tough choices, indeed.

The current multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance has been a tremendous success. Any proposal to change that model therefore demands rigorous scrutiny, including close congressional oversight.

In particular, those advocating change must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their proposals would not increase the influence of repressive foreign governments over the Internet. If I am not convinced that a different governance structure would preserve Internet freedom, I will strongly oppose it.

Point One: E-Rate modernization is a BIG deal. Everyone agrees education technology can better prepare young Americans to succeed in the global, digital economy. That’s why we need to get America’s biggest education technology program right. That’s why President Barack Obama has set a goal of leveraging E-Rate to connect 99 percent of all students to high-speed broadband within 5 years.

Point Two: Technology has changed; the needs of schools have changed; the E-Rate program must reflect this change. The nature of educational connectivity has changed dramatically over the life of E-Rate. How E-Rate funds are distributed, however, has not. We are in the midst of a rulemaking to address and correct that reality.

Point Three: While the details of E-Rate modernization remain in flux, the goals are clear. For E-Rate modernization to be successful, the updated program must be focused on delivering faster-speeds to schools and libraries and Wi-Fi throughout; funded and future-proofed; fiscally responsible and fact-based; and friendly to use.

Within the FCC I will soon be announcing a special strike force for the entire Universal Service Fund (of which E-Rate is a part) to make certain there is adherence to the rules and the People’s money is wisely spent. And, in order to get that new $2 billion to work for high-speed broadband, the Universal Service Administrative Corporation (USAC) is instituting a process to accelerate the speed in which all applications are processed. Beyond management, we must address how to increase the efficiency with which the funds are spent. This is a key component of the recent public notice and a priority as we head towards a late spring decision by the Commission.

I believe that once we have addressed efficiency issues -- coupled with the ongoing experience to determine costs -- we will be in a position to identify just how much is required to achieve our goals. Should the evidence substantiate a need to increase the permanent funding levels for the E-Rate program, we will do what is appropriate.

The Federal Communication Commission Wireline Competition Bureau authorizes $16,713,875 in additional Phase I second round incremental support in response to the modified elections of two carriers, AT&T and Windstream Communications.

The Bureau authorizes $5,248,300 in additional Phase I incremental support for AT&T in exchange for AT&T’s commitment to deploy broadband-capable infrastructure to 6,772 additional locations. The Bureau also authorizes $11,465,575 in additional Phase I incremental support for Windstream in exchange for Windstream’s commitment to deploy to an additional 13,273 locations.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announces a workshop on “Public Safety Imperatives for All-IP Networks.”

The half-day workshop will be held on April 17 and April 18, 2014. The workshop will bring together representatives from public safety agencies and organizations, service providers, technology vendors, and other stakeholders to explore the impact of the technology transition on key public safety, emergency response, and national security functions. The workshop will seek to identify the conditions, rebuttable presumptions, and relevant factors that are needed to ensure that core public safety values are supported in the transition to an all IP-based infrastructure.

The workshop will be comprised of four sessions that will focus on current public safety, emergency response and national security dependencies on legacy switched telecommunications infrastructure and challenges in four categories: (1) day-to- day public safety operations in an all-IP world; (2) disaster preparation and responses in an all-IP world; (3) additional risk factors from cyber exploits on commercial, public and government networks; and (4) the impact of technology transitions on national security and federal government systems. Participants will share their real world expertise and contribute their individual views and analysis as to how an all-IP-based infrastructure can support a range of public safety mission requirements. Participants will also discuss the public safety criteria that should be applied to the technology transitions.